IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: BHIMAVARAM
Present: Smt.M.Sudha Rani
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhimavaram,
Monday, the 15th day of September, 2025
O.S.No.243/2016
Between:
1. Bandela Hemalatha, W/o.Nathaniyulu, Aged 70 years, Female, Door No.10-95(3) Janaki Nagar, Ajjamuru Garuvu, Akividu, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.
2. Bandela Jacob Raju, W/o.Nathaniyulu, Aged 51 years, male, Door No.10-95(3) Janaki Nagar, Ajjamuru Garuvu, Akividu, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.
3. Bandela Willam Carry, S/o.Nathaniyulu, Aged 49 years, Female, Door No.10-95(3) Janaki Nagar, Ajjamuru Garuvu, Akividu, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.
4. Daram Varahala Kumari, D/o.Nathaniyulu, W/o.John, Aged 46 years, Female, Door No.64-7-33/A, Ram Nagar,Srirampuram,MalkapuramRoad, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. … Plaintiffs
and
1. Bandela Samuelu (died) (The word died is added as per the orders passed in I.A.No.558/2022, dated 03-01-2023)
2. Yerram Denni, S/o.Lazarus, Aged 55 years, Male, Door No.Merka, Klla Mandal, West Godavari District.
3. Maddirala Vijaya Kumari, W/o.Chitti Babu, Aged 53 years, female, Shank Subham Buildings, Near Railway Station, Akividu, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.
4. Bandela Vijayamma, W/o.Samuel (late), Aged years, female, resident of Prathalla Meraka village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District.
5. Bandela Daniel, S/o.Samuel (late), Aged years, Male, resident of Prathalla Meraka village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District.
6. Kayala Suvarnamma, W/o.David Raju, D/o.Samuel, Aged years, female, R/o.Rajam palem, hamlet of Dondapudi, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavar District.
7. Garikumukkala Varahalu, W/o.Suvarna Raju, D/o.B.Samuel, Aged years, female, R/o.D.No.5-28, Kapu veedhi, Akulapea village, Jonnada post, Denkada Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. … Defendants (The defendants 4 to 7 are added as per the orders passed in I.A.No.558/2022, dated 03-01-2023)
This suit has come on 15-07-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri
Sri S.B.V.Kumar, Sri N.Deva Raju, Sri S.ambedkar and Sri N.Balu Manohar,
Advocates for the plaintiffs and of Sri B.Srinivasa Rao, advocate for the defendants 4 to 7, defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte and the 1st defendant died and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day,t delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiffs filed this suit to declare them and 3rd defendant as absolute owners of the plaint schedule property; to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to put the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property after vacate the possession of the same and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs.
.2. The brief averments of the plaint are that :
(a) Originally the plaint schedule property was purchased by Bandela
Yacobu, father of late Bandela Nathaniyulu of Prathallameraka by way of registered sale deed dated 28-03-1948 vide Doc.No.1128/1948 as he purchased the same from K.Subbaraju and from that date he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. The 1st plaintiff is wife of Bandela Nathaniyulu, plaintiffs 2 and 3 are their sons, 4th plaintiff and 3rd defendant are their daughters. After demise of Bandela Yacobu on 25-12- 1957, his son succeeded the plaint schedule property as his sole legal heir and he also passed away on 01-12-1986 intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and 3rd defendant as his legal heirs. The 1st plaintiff has worked as a
Teacher in several places and finally retired in Undi. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 3rd defendant used to reside with their mother while Bandela Nathaniyulu.
Used to reside at his native village Prathallameraka by cultivating the schedule property personally.
(b)One year prior to the death of Bandela Nathaniyulu death on 05- 10-1986, he gave the plaint schedule property to the defendants 1 and 2 by digging fish tank and let out the same to the defendants 1 and 2 at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- per annum and it is an oral lease. After the demise of Bandela
Nathaniyulu, the defendants 1 and 2 requested the plaintiffs to accept them to continue the lease of the plaint schedule property, accordingly, they used to pay lease amount to the 1st plaintiff upto the period of 2013-2014 and the lease amount was gradually enhanced with the consent of the plaintiffs and it became Rs.25,000/- p.a to be paid within 31st October, every year.
(c).While matter stood thus, the defendants 1 and 2 are not paying the lease amount for the period from 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs personally and through mediators have demanded the defendants 1 and 2 for the payment of the annual lease amount. The defendants 1 and 2 assured that they will pay two years lease amount at lump sum, as they are in financial crisis and postponing the payment on one pretext or the other, but they are getting huge profits over the plaint schedule property as the pisci culture in West Godavari is in flourishing successfully. Thus, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants 1 and 2 to vacate the schedule property and handover the same, as they intended to cultivate the land personally, but the defendants did not vacate the schedule property and did not handover the lease amounts. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 and 2 are trying to fabricate forged and false documents in their favour, and trying to alienate the schedule property to the 3rd parties illegally and highhandedly taking advantage of the absence of plaintiffs. The defendants 1 and 2 are defaulters of payment of maktha of Rs.25,000/- for 2 years and the plaintiffs reserving their right to file separate suit for recovery of said arrears of amount and that the defendants are also digging the carting earth from the schedule property without permission of the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant is not willing to file the suit against the defendants as she intends to go abroad. Thus, she was added as 3rd defendant. During pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died intestate on 15-07-2021 leaving behind the defendants 4 to7 as his legal heirs. The 4th defendant is the wife, 5th defendant is the son and defendants 6 and 7 are the daughters of deceased 1st defendant. Hence the suit.
3.The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and further contended that he has an extent of 0-65 cents of land in
R.S.No.39/2 Pathallameraka village, out of it, he inherited it an extent of Ac.0- 15 cents through his father Bandela Daniyelu, and got the remaining 0-50 cents by in R.S.No.39/2 from Vantabattina Samuel who died long back. While he was alive, said Samuel executed a registered Will dated 07-09-1953 in favour of his daughter Bandela Kanthamma, W/o.Yacobu resident of
Prathallameraka and his paternal granddaughter Bandela Varahalamma, W/o.
Bandela Nathaniyulu. Thus, both Bandela Kanthamma and Varahalamma acquired 0-50 cents of land under the registered Will deed and both of them are mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. By virtue of the said Will deed, limited right and enjoyment were given to Kanthamma and absolute/vested rights were devolved upon Varahalamma. Thereafter, they sold that property to this defendant for valuable consideration of Rs.4,800/- under possessory agreement of sale which is the adjacent to his ancestral property and handed over the property to this defendant and thereafter executed a sale deed on 03- 09-1979. In the said sale deed, husband of the plaintiff i.e, father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 3rd defendant namely Bandela Nathaniyulu also signed as 1st attestor.
Thus, the defendants has been in possession and enjoyment of 0-50 cents of land in R.S.No.39/2 along with his ancestral property of 0-15 cents as a single bid and cultivating the same with absolute rights and paying revenue tax and water taxes to the concerned authorities. He further contended that the R.S.
number shown in the schedule property is not the R.S. number of this defendant property i.e., 0-65 cents of wetland in R.S.NO.39/2 of
Pathallameraka, Kalla mandal. Hence, the plaintiffs have no right towards the property of this defendant i.e., an extent of Ac.0-65 cents of wetland in
R.S.No.39/2, Patallameraka, Kalla Mandal. The plaintiffs filed the suit in collusion with the 3rd defendant to get unlawful gain and to cause inconvenience to this defendant. Thus, he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.The defendants 4 to 7 adopted memo adopting the written statement of 1st defendant.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession, as prayed for?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for?
(4) To what relief?
6.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked and on behalf of the defendants,
D.W.1 and D.W.2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B41 are marked.
7. The plaintiffs filed written arguments and the defendants submitted their arguments. Perused the record.
8. The 2nd plaintiff filed his chief evidence affidavit reiterated the averments of the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. During cross- examination he admitted that they did not mutate their names in revenue records in respect of plaint schedule property after the death of their father and that the death of their father was not entered into register and he admitted that he had no documentary evidence to show that from the year 1948 till today they are paying taxes to the vacant schedule property. He admitted that except important family occasions, his family and family members of 1st defendant never met in any other occasions. P.W.1 deposed that he cannot say the boundaries and survey numbers of the schedule property. He admitted that Bandela Kanthamma is his paternal grandmother and sister of
Vantabattina Samuel and his father married Varahalamma, D/o.Vantabattina
Samuel. He do not know whether his father obtained divorce through Court of law from Varahalamma. He further deposed that Bandela Santhamma is concubine of his father and she begot 7 children through his father. He further deposed that he do not know whether Bandela Kanthamma and Bandela
Varahalamma jointly sold the land of 0-50 cents of land in R.S.No.39/2 to D1 for Rs.4,800/- under agreement of sale and also executed unregistered sale deed dated 03-09-1979 in favour of 1st defendant and that his father Bandela
Nathaniyulu attested as 2nd attestor. He further admitted that 1st defendant is cultivating an extent of 0-65 cents from 1976 onwards. He further admitted that 3rd defendant is his sister and 2nd defendant is his brother-in-law. He further admitted that Ex.A4 is the family member certificate for the legal heirs of Bandela Hemalatha. Bandela Hemalatha is the 2nd wife of Bandela
Nathaniyulu. He again says that his mother is only wife of Bandela
Nathaniyulu. He admitted that his father married Bandela Varahalamma even prior to marriage of his mother. He denied the suggestion that on previous occasion, he deposed that one Bandela Santhamma is concubine of his father and she got seven children through his father. He admitted that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Bandela Nathaniyulu and they did not add the children of Bandela Santhamma through Bandela Nathaniyulu as parties to this suit. He also admitted that he did not file family member certificate of Bandela Nathaniyulu.
9. The 4th plaintiff filed her evidence affidavit as P.W.2 by reiterating the averments of the plaint and during her cross-examination, she deposed that her father got married with one Varahalamma, prior to marriage of his father with his mother Bandela Hemalatha and that there are no issues to her father through his 1st wife Varahalamma. She deposed that the suit schedule property is 0-75 cents covered in three survey numbers i.e., R.S.No.16/2, 16/7 and 16/11, she cannot say the extent in each survey number for the suit schedule property. According to her, her mother worked as Teacher and used to reside at her work place while her father Bandela Nathaniyulu resided in their native place Pathallameraka and during his lifetime, her father leased out the schedule property to D2 and he used to cultivate the same and that her mother informed her that D1 used to pay Rs.2,500/- per year for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. According to her there are some properties including plaint schedule property purchased by her father under registered sale deed dated 28-03-1948 and her mother obtained encumbrance certificate also for those properties. She denied the remaining suggestions regarding the property of the defendants she also admitted that there are no pattadar passbooks and title deed deeds for the schedule property and they did not mutate their names or the name of her mother in the revenue records. She denied the suggestion that either herself or her mother never resided with her father and they did not file the death certificate of her father and that her father lead conjugal life with Bandela Santhamma and blessed with 7 children and that her mother and Bandela Santhamma are not legally wedded wife of her father and they are kept mistress of her father.
10.The 5th defendant filed his chief evidence affidavit as D.W.1 and got marked ExsB1 to B41. During cross-examination, he admitted that he do not have any idea whether he filed any documentary evidence to show that his father inherited an extent of Ac.0-15 cents in R.S.No.39/2 and 0-50 cents and remaining 0-50 cents in R.S.No.39/2 of Prathalameraka village of Kalla Mandal belongs to Vantabathina Samuel. As per para 2 of his evidence affidavit, life interest was given to Bandela Santhamma and vested remainder to Bandela
Varahalamma as per Will dated 07-09-1953 executed by Vantabattina Sauel.
He admitted that he mentioned in his evidence affidavit that Bandela
Kanthamma and Varahalamma jointly executed sale dated 03-09-1979 in favour of D1 and he did not file either possessory agreement of sale or sale deed in favour of D1. He further deposed that he did not state in his written statement that 1st plaintiff is not the wife of Bandela Nathaniyulu and he got three wives.
11.The cousin of 1st defendant filed his evidence affidavit as D.W.2 supported the evidence of defendants. During cross-examination, he deposed that plaintiffs 2 to 4 and D3 are the children of Bandela Nathaniyulu born through the 1st plaintiff and that he saw the unregistered document in the name of Bandela Kanthamma and Varahalamma sold the property to D1. He further deposed that he do not know the land in R.S.No.16/2, 16/7 and 16/11 for an extent of 0-75 cents of Pathallameraka village and it was purchased by father of Bandela Nathaniyulu and it was devolved on Bandela Nathaniyulu and thereafter to the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and D3. He denied the suggestion that he do not know the contents of his evidence affidavit and he do not know the facts of the case and at the instance of D.W.1, he is deposing false.
12.The counsel for the plaintiff filed his written arguments by briefly narrating the contents of the plaint and written statement and further contended that the evience of P.Ws.1 and 2 asserted that 1st plaintiff is the wife and plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 3rd defendant are the children of late Bandela
Nathaniyulu born through the 1st plaintiff and that they are the absolute owners of the schedule property as successors of Bandela Nathaniyulu and that
P.Ws.1 and 2 are cross-examined at length, but their evidence is not shaken any material particulars and nothing is elicited to discredit their testimonies.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs could scatter the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 and that Bandela Yacobu is the father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff, grandfather of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 3rd defendant. He argued that as per the pleadings of the defendants, Bandela Samuel father of D.W.1 had 0-65 cents of land in
R.S.No.39/2 as he inherited 0-15 cents of land through his father and obtained remaining 0-50 cents by way of sale deed from Bandela Kanthamma and
Varahalamma, but they did not file any documentary evidence to that effect.
However, it is immaterial regarging the said property, because the schedule property is in S.No.16/2, 16/7 and 16/11 in total an extent of Ac.0-75 cents.
But, surprisingly, D.W.1 took a plea in his cross-examination that 1st plaintiff is not the wife of Bandela Nathaniyulu, but she was his concubine and
Varahalamma is the wedded wife of Bandela Nathaniyulu. But in the 7th para of his cross-examination, he admitted that the 1st plaintiff is the wife of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and D3 are the children of Bandela Nathaniyulu. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether Bandela Nathaniyulu leased out the schedule property one year prior to his death to D1 and D2. The word does not know rejection of the suggestions given to D.W.1 and it can be presumed that D.W.1 admitted the said suggestions. Thus, the said admissions supported the plaintiffs version that Varahalamma is not the wife of Bandela Nathaniyulu and schedule property is leased out to 1st defendant by Bandela Nathaniyulu one year prior to his death. He further argued that coming to the contention of the defendants, they did not file the alleged Will deed of Vantabattina Santhamma in favour of Kanthamma and Varahalamma whether the said Kanthamma and
Varahalamma had limited rights or absolute rights over it. Thus, the defendants could not prove that they are absolute owners of Ac.0-65 cents in
R.S.No.39/2. Though the defendants filed documents, i.e., partition deed
dated 02-11-2021, his name is not mutated in revenue records and it is
pertinent to note that the suit is filed in the year 2016 and the temporary injunction is also granted and it is continued and the defendants did not make any effort to vacate the said injunction order. He further argued that out of 41 documents filed by the defendants, Ex.B1 to B38 are not connected to plaint schedule property and in fact they should not marked as exhibits and that the defendants are not trying to establish that the plaint schedule property is in the name of Vegesna Bhimarjau by filing Ex.B39 but he is not party to the suit.
According to Ex.B39, the said Bhimaraju purchased Ac.1-32 cents of land from Gokaraju Venkata Narasamma in R.S.No.16/2 (0-17 cents), R.S.No.16/3 (Ac.0-19 cents), R.S.No.16/4 (Ac.0-23 cents), R.S.No.16/7 (Ac.0-39 cents),
R.S.No.16/9 (Ac.0-27 cents), R.S.No.16/10 (Ac.0-07 cents), whereas plaint schedule property is Ac.0-75 cents of land in R.S.No.16/2 (Ac.0-17 cents,
R.S.No.16/7 (Ac.0-13 cents) and R.S.No.16/11 (Ac.0-45 cents). Except 0-17 cents of land in R.S.No.16/2 other extent of land are not tally. There is no documentary evidence to show that how the vendor of Vegesna Bhimaraju acquired Ac.1-32 cents of land and that the defendants are trying to establish that the schedule property belongs to Bhimaraju purchased it in the year 1981, whereas Bandela Yacobu purchased the schedule property from Subbaraju in the year 1948 under registered sale deed. He argued that total extent in
R.S.No.16/7 is Ac.0-52 cents and as per Ex.B39, Bhimaraju got Ac.0-37 cents in R.S.No.16/7, whereas the schedule property in R.S.NO.16/7 is only Ac.0-13 cents. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the land in R.S.Nos.16/3, 16/4, 16/9 and 16/10 belong to the plaintiffs, whereas Bhimaraju registered Ac.0-17 cents in R.S.No.16/2 on 31-01-1981 and he got registered the other lands in the remaining 16/3, 16/4, 16/7, 16/0 and 16/10 on 04-09-1981 for the reasons not known. This fact arose a genuineity of Ex.B9 for 0-17 cents in R.S.No.16/2 separately. Further, no plea is taken by the defendants either in the written statement or in the evidence affidadvit that schedule property does not belong to the plaintiff or ancestors of the plaintiff, but it belongs to Bhimaraju. He further argued that the Hon’ble Court granted interim injunction in
I.A.No.759/2016 till the disposal of the suit and that the defendants fails to make an attempt to vacate the said injunction order. He further argued that they filed Aadhar cards of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and 3rd defendant and family member certificate to show that the 1st plaintiff is the wife and plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 3rd defendant are children of late Bandela Nathaniyulu. Moreover, the defendants are not disputing the relationship between late Bandela
Nathaniyulu, plaintiffs and 3rd defendant. He argued that when the defendant is not a party, he is not entitled to file and entitled to mark Exs.B9 to B41 and that D.W.1 clearly admitted in the cross-examination that Exs.B1 to B38 are no way connected to plaint schedule property. So, the documents are not reliable to establish the defendants version and why D.W.1 filed those documents is a reasonable question. He argued that it is clear D.W.1 is a pet and henchmen of Bhimaraju and he is the brain behind the filing of the said Exs.B39 to B41. It is pertinent to note that the defendants have not taken a plea that the plaint schedule property is not let out to them and it Is not in their possession. Filing of Ex.B39 to B41 lend support to the version of the plaintiffs and that the defendants colluded with Kshatriya persons and are trying to crate fabricated and illegal documents. Thus, plaintiffs prays to decree the suit with costs.
The counsel for the defendants 4 to 7 argued that the suit is basing on the sale deed in favour of the father of the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and D3 daughter. Except ExA1, the plaintiffs did not mark any documents showing their possession and enjoyment so also they leased out the property to D1 and D2. According to the plaintiffs, their property is in 0-75 cents in R.S.Nos.16/2, 16/7 and 16/9, whereas the property of the defendants is S.No.39/2. Moreover, as per Ex.B39, plaint schedule property is in the name of other persons by name V.Bhimaraju. Though, the plaintiffs contended that Bandela Nathaniyulu leased out the schedule property to D1 and D2 and after the death of said Bandela Nathaniyulu, D1 and D2 are continued in possession of the schedule property as cultivating tenants, they did not file any piece of document before the Court to that effect. But, the defendants are not way concerned with the plaint schedule property and that though the plaintiffs are claiming the suit schedule property, even they had no knowledge about the location of plaint schedule property and the same is admitted by PW..1 in the cross-examination on 17-7-2023. The property of the defendants is originally belongs to Varahalamma i.e., the wife of Bandela
Nathaniyulu who executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants over the property in R.S.No.39/1. Thus, prays to dismiss the suit.
Issue No.1:
13.It is not in dispute that Ex.A1 is registered sale deed dated 28-03- 48 is in the name of Bandela Yacobu, S/o.Bandela Samuel for an extent of 0- 75 cents of land i.e, Ac.0-17 cents in R.S.No.16/2, 0-13 cents in R.S.No.16/7 of 0-52 cents and 0-13 cents in R.S.No.16/11 in total Ac.0-75 cents ie., the suit schedule property. As per Ex.A2, the death of Bandela Yacobu is not registered and non-availability certificate issued As per Ex.A3, the death of
Bandela Nathaniyulu, S/o.Yacobu was also not registered and the certificate is issued to that effect. As per Ex.A4, family member certificate of Bandela
Hemalatha, she had two daughters and two sons i..e, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and
D3. Except these documents, no document is filed before the Court that
Ex.A1 property is devolved upon Bandela Nathaniyulu and in turn it devolved upon the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and D3. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it establishes that the plaintiff is wife of Nathaniel and plaintiffs 2 to 4 and D3 are their children, but it has to be established that they are the only legal heirs of
Bandela Nathaniyulu. As per the evidence of P.W.1, his father Bandela
Nathaniyulu married Varahalamma, D/o.Vantabathina Samuel and that one
Bandela Santamma begot seven children through his father. The same is corroborated by P.W.2, D.Ws.1 and 2 through their evidence before the Court.
Initially, the defendants denied that the 1st plaintiff is wife of Bandela
Nathaniyulu and plaintiffs 2 to 4 and D3 are their children. But, during cross- examination, they admitted the same. As per the entire evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and D.W.1 and 2, one Varahalamma is 1st wife of Bandela Nathaniyulu. P.W.1 also admitted that Hemalatha is 2nd wife of Bandela Nathaniyulu. PW.1 also admitted that they did not add the children of Bandela Santhamma through
Bandela Nathaniyulu as parties to the suit and he did not file the family member certificate of Bandela Nathaniyulu. When the plaintiffs are claiming plaint schedule property, as the legal heirs of Bandela Nathaniyulu, they have to file family member certificate of Bandela Nathaniyulu since they themselves admitted that Varahalamma is first wife of Bandena Nathaniyulu and one
Santhamma begot seven children through Bandela Natheniyulu. Moreover, they did not file any document in the name of Bandela Nathaniyulu for the suit schedule property except Ex.A1 in the name of Bandela Yacob father of
Bandela Nathaniyulu dated 28-03-1948. Except Ex.A1 from the year 1948, till today, there is no piece of document in the name of Bandela Nathaniyulu or in the name of plaintiffs and D3 for the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that Bandela Nathaniyulu leased out the schedule property to defendants 1 and 2, by digging fish tank in it during his lifetime for lease amount of Rs.3,000/- per year and after his death on 01-12-1986, the defendants are continued in the schedule property with the permission of the plaintiffs by paying lease amount to them and at present the lease amount is
Rs.25,000/- per year. But, there is no piece of paper to establish that any amount paid by the defendants 1 and 2 to Nathaniyulu or to the plaintiffs towards lease amount even from the year 1986 till the filing of the siut.
Moreover, during his evidence beore the Court, P.W.2 that deposed her mother informed that D1 used to pay Rs.2,500/- for the period 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. Whereas, the contents of plaint and evidence affidavit of P.Ws.1 and 2 D1 and D2 are paying Rs.25,000/- per year towards maktha. Thus, both the versions are contradicting with other other. As per the contention of defendants, they never cultivated the schedule property for lease and they are no way concerned with the schedule property. Even the plaintiffs failed to estbalsh their right and title over the plaint schedule property and they are not entitled for the relief of declaration of title over the suit schedule property.
14. Though plaintiffs contended that interim injunction is granted to the schedule property till disposal of the suit, there is no such order in
I.A.No.759/2016 as stated by the plaintiff. Thus, the question of vacate injunction order by the defendants does not arise. Though there is elaborate cross-examination and Exs.B1 to B38 documents filed by the defendants, they are no way concerned with the suit schedule property and they need not be discussed. Though the defendants filed Exs.B39 to B41 showing that one
Vegesna Bhimaraju was also possession of the schedule property, as rightly contended by the plaintiffs counsel said plea is not taken by the defendants either in the written statement or in the evidence affidavit. Coming to Exs.B1 to B38 also they are no way related to the suit schedule property and they belongs o the property of the defendants and no way helpful to decide the declaration of the title of the plaintiffs over the schedule property.
Issue Nos.2 and 3:
15. As discussed in issue No.1, the plaintiffs filed to establish that D1 and D2 are in possession of the schedule property as tenants by paying lease amounts to Bandela Nathaniyulu upto 1981 and after his death to the plaintiffs.
No piece of document filed to establish D1 and D2 are cultivating the schedule property on lease and they are in possession of the same. Thus, there is no question of recovery of possession of the schedule property from the defendants to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I answered the issue No.2 and 3 as the plaintiffs are not entitled for possession over the plaint schedule property and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction.
Issue No.4:
16.In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 15th day of September, 2025.
CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)
BHIMAVARAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
P.W.1 : Bandela Jacob RajuD.W.1 : Bandela Daniel
P.W.2 : Daram Varahala KumariD.W.2 : Bandela John
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A1/28-03-1948/Original registered sale deed purchased by Bandela Yacobu from Subbaraju vide Doc.No.28-03-1948 Ex.A2/27-09-2016/Attested copy of non-availability of death certificate of late Bandela Yacobu issued by Gram Panchayat, Prathalameraka
Ex.A3/27-09-2016/Attested copy of non-availability of death certificate of late Bandela Natheniyelu issued by Gram Panchayat, Prathalameraka Ex.A4/Family member certificate
FOR THE DEFENDANTS :
Ex.B1/08-02-1960Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B2/10-08-1965Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B3/16-002-1966Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B4/23-04-1966/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B5/25-02-1967/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B6/20-08-1967/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B7/26-03-1968/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B8/18-01-1969/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B9/11-05-1970/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B10/30-07-1970/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel
Ex.B11/03-02-1971/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B12/30-10-1971/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B13/07-06-1972/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B14/14-05-1973/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B15/14-05-1973/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B16/08-02-1973/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B17/23-05-1974/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B18/23-05-1974/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B19/17-02-1975/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of
Bandela Daniel Ex.B20/03-05-1975/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B21/17-07-1975/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B22/21-01-1976/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B23/21-01-1976/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B24/20-06-1976/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel
Ex.B25/16-03-1980/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B26/16-03-1980/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B27/12-06-1980/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B28/27-06-1980/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B29/20-03-1981/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B30/17-01-1972/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B31/02-03-1983/Duplicate copy of tax receipt in the name of Bandela Daniel Ex.B32/07-06-2005/Original water tax receipt in the name of D1 Ex.B33/08-08-2016/Original land revenue tax receipt in the name of D1 Ex.B34/01-03-2017/Original land revenue receipt in the name of D1 Ex.B35/28-03-2018/Original land revenue receipt in the name of D1 Ex.B36/19-06-2019/Original water tax receipt in the name of D1. Ex.B37/02-11-2021/Original partition deed bearing Doc.No.3818/2021 of S.R.O., Akiveedu Ex.B38/21-06-2023/Water tax payment receipt online downloaded copy Ex.B39/31-08-1991/Certified coy of sale deed vide Doc.No.2655/1981 Ex.B40/-Form 1 B (ROR) Ex.B41/-Pattadar adangal/pahani
CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)
BHIMAVARAM
Plaint presented on : 13-10-2016 Plaint registered on : 13-10-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: BHIMAVARAM
Present: Smt.M.Sudha Rani
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhimavaram,
Monday, the 15th day of September, 2025
O.S.No.243/2016
Between:
1. Bandela Hemalatha, W/o.Nathaniyulu, Aged 70 years, Female, Door No.10-95(3) Janaki Nagar, Ajjamuru Garuvu, Akividu, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.
2. Bandela Jacob Raju, W/o.Nathaniyulu, Aged 51 years, male, Door No.10-95(3) Janaki Nagar, Ajjamuru Garuvu, Akividu, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.
3. Bandela Willam Carry, S/o.Nathaniyulu, Aged 49 years, male, Door No.10-95(3) Janaki Nagar, Ajjamuru Garuvu, Akividu, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.
4. Daram Varahala Kumari, D/o.Nathaniyulu, W/o.John, Aged 46 years, Female, Door No.64-7-33/A, Ram Nagar,Srirampuram,MalkapuramRoad, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. … Plaintiffs
and
1. Bandela Samuelu (died) (The word died is added as per the orders passed in I.A.No.558/2022, dated 03-01-2023)
2. Yerram Denni, S/o.Lazarus, Aged 55 years, Male, Door No.Merka, Klla Mandal, West Godavari District.
3. Maddirala Vijaya Kumari, W/o.Chitti Babu, Aged 53 years, female, Shank Subham Buildings, Near Railway Station, Akividu, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.
4. Bandela Vijayamma, W/o.Samuel (late), Aged years, female, resident of Prathalla Meraka village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District.
5. Bandela Daniel, S/o.Samuel (late), Aged years, Male, resident of Prathalla Meraka village, Kalla Mandal, West
Godavari District.
6. Kayala Suvarnamma, W/o.David Raju, D/o.Samuel, Aged years, female, R/o.Rajam palem, hamlet of Dondapudi, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.
7. Garikumukkala Varahalu, W/o.Suvarna Raju, D/o.B.Samuel, Aged years, female, R/o.D.No.5-28, Kapu veedhi, Akulapeta village, Jonnada post, Denkada Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. … Defendants (The defendants 4 to 7 are added as per the orders passed in I.A.No.558/2022, dated 03-01-2023)
The plaintiffs filed this suit to declare them and 3rd defendant as absolute owner of plaint schedule property, to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to put the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property after vacate the possession of the same and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs.
VALUATION:
(1) For declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession by evicting the defendants 1 and 2 from the plaint schedule property is valued.
Market value of the suit schedule property is…Rs.6,00,000-00 3/4th value of the suit schedule property is….Rs.4,50,000-00
A court fee of Rs.6,926/- is paid under Section 24 (a) of A.P.C.F & S.V.
Act (2) For permanent injunction, the suit is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/- and a court fee of Rs.816/- is paid thereon under Section 26(c), Schedule I,
Article 1(b) & (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.
Total court fee of Rs.7,742/- is paid.
Cause of action for the suit arose on 28-03-1948 when the plaint schedule property purchased by Late Bandela Yacobu under a registered sale deed; on 25-12-1957 when Late Bandela Yacobu died intestate leaving behind his sole son Bandela Nathaniyulu who succeeded the plaint schedule property; on 05-10-1985 when Bandela Nathaniyulu leased the plaint schedule property to defendants 1 and 2 on yearly basis by digging the fish tank on lease of
Rs.3,000/- per year under oral lease; on 01-12-1986 when Bandela
Nathaniyulu died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant as his legal heirs who became the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and on request of the defendants 1 and 2, they agreed to continue the lese of the plaint schedule property to the 1st plaintiff upto the period 2013-2014 for a period of 2014-2015; subsequently the defendants 1 and 2 committed default in payment of lease amount of RS.25,000/- each for the period 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 in total Rs.50,000/- and causes act of waste; since for one week, the defendants 1 and 2 are trying to fabricate forged and false documents in their favour and trying to alienate or sell the plaint schedule property to 3rd parties by fabricating forged documents illegally and highhandedly; when plaintiffs placed the matter before elders, the defendants 1 and 2 did not heed the advice of the elders and at Pratallameraka, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari
District where the plaint schedule properties are situated which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
This suit has come on 15-07-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri
Sri S.B.V.Kumar, Sri N.Deva Raju, Sri S.Ambedkar and Sri N.Balu Manohar,
Advocates for the plaintiffs and of Sri B.Srinivasa Rao, advocate for the defendants 4 to 7, defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte and the 1st defendant died and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court
DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:
(1) that the suit of the plaintiff be and is hereby dismissed:
(2) that each party do bear their own costs.
Schedule attached to decree.
Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 15th day of
September, 2025.
CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)
BHIMAVARAM
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:FOR THE DEFENDANTS : (Institutional costs) Stamps on vakalath : 2-00 Stamps on plaint : 7,742-00No memo of costs filed ------------------ 7,744-00 ------------------
CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)
BHIMAVARAM
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: BHIMAVARAM
O.S.No.243/2016
Between:
1. Bandela Hemalatha,
2. Bandela Jacob Raju
3. Bandela Willam Carry.
4. Daram Varahala Kumari… Plaintiffs
and
1. Bandela Samuelu (died) (The word died is added as per the orders passed in I.A.No.558/2022,
dated 03-01-2023)
2. Yerram Denni
3. Maddirala Vijaya Kumari
4. Bandela Vijayamma
5. Bandela Daniel
6. Kayala Suvarnamma
7. Garikumukkala Varahalu (The defendants 4 to 7 are added as per the orders passed in … Defendants I.A.No.558/2022, dated 03-01-2023)
NEAT COPY OF PLAINT SCHEDULE FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS
West Godavari District, Kalla Mandal, Akividu S.R.O., Pratallameraka village, zerayithi wet land in Revision Survey No.16/2 an extent of Ac.0-17 cents in R.S.No.16/7 an extent of 0-52 cents of seed bed from out of it he had Ac.0-13 cents of his share in R.S.No.16/11 an extent of Ac.0-45 cents total extent of Ac.0-75 cents of land at present fish tank: East : Land of Manthena KrishnaVeni etc. South: Land of Vegesna Bhima Raju West : Panta bode North : Puntha Bhimavaram, Dt.24-01-2023Be pleased to consider, Plaintiffs 1 : 2: 3 : 4: The particulars furnished in the above schedule are true to the best of our knowledge, information and belief and are believed to be true. Be pleased to consider, Plaintiffs 1 : 2: 3 : 4: