59APVZ000010192018
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST
WOMEN-CUM- V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ::
VIZIANAGARAM
Present:- Smt. N.Padmavathi, Spl.Judge for trial of offences against women-cum- V Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram
Friday, this the 24th day of April, 2026
APPEAL SUIT NO. 113/2018 and 116/2018
A.S.113/2018
Between:-
J.Raghavendra Rao, S/o. Late Venkatarao, aged 71 years, Hindu, retired employee, R/o. Plot No.S-4 Ramalakshmi Estate, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam
.. APPELLANT
A n d :-
1.J.Balatripurasundari, W/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 55 years, Hindu, housewife, r/o. D.No.8-15-17 Balajinagar, Vizianagaram.
2.Jammi Sudha Pramila, D/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 23 years, Hindu, student rest do.
3.Jammi Manisankara Kartheek, S/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 21 years, rest do.
4.Jammi Thimmaji Rao (died)
5.Jammi Rama Devi, W/o. Murali, aged 60 years, Hindu, housewife, residing at D.No.43-34-3, Sri Kanya Theatre Backsidem, 3rd line, Railway new colony, Vizag.
2
6.Jammi Kamala since married Mahipathi Kamala, W/o. Vamsi Krishna, Hindu, aged 43 years, Flat No.A.203, Markaz Maryada Apartments, Opp; Hanuman Temple, Adikmet, Hyderabad.
7.Jammi Srinivasarao, S/o. Late Murali, Hindu, aged 29 years, residing at D.No.43-34-3, Sri Kanya Theatre Backside, 3rd line, Railway new colony, Vizag.
8.Chilukuri Anasuya, W/o. Hanumantharao, Hindu, aged 75 years, r/o. Uday Nivas, Gururbasa, Prakash Nagar, RTELCO, Jamshedpur, Jharkand State. (died)
9.Jammi Ratna Kumari (died)
10. Jammi Kalyana Chakravarthi, S/o. Late Thimmajirao, Hindu, aged 39 years, C/o. Hindu, H.No.8-1-248/OUR/29/A, 3rd floor, O.U.Colony near Preetham Hospital, Sheikpet, Hyderabad.
11. Jammi Haritha since married Bennuri Haritha, W/o. Narayanarao, Hindu, aged 36 years, housewife, # 206, Balaji Enclave, Gokul Cross, Yelana Halli, Begur Kopparoad, Banguluru.
12. Jammi Raghavendra Praveen, S/o. late Thimmajirao, Hindu, H.No.8-1-248/OUR/29/A, 3rdfloor, O.U.Colony near Preetham Hospital, Sheikpet, Hyderabad.
13. Chilukuri Venkat Hari Gopal, S/o. Late Hanumantharao, Hindu, aged 59 years, R/o. Uday Nivas, Gururbasa, Prakash Nagar, RTELCO, Jamshedpur, Jharkand State.
14. Chilukuri Venkatesh, S/o. Late Hanumantharao, aged 58 years, rest do.
15Chilukuri Udaya Bhaskar, S/o. Late Hanumantharao, aged 56 years, rest do.
Respondents 13 to 15 are added as L.Rs of deceased 8th respondent as per orders in I.A.395/2023 dated 27.11.2024)
.. RESPONDENTS
On appeal against the decree and common judgment in O.S.87/2008 dated 3.10.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram:- 3
Between:-
1.J.Balatripurasundari, W/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 55 years, Hindu, housewife, r/o. D.No.8-15-17 Balajinagar, Vizianagaram.
2.Jammi Sudha Pramila, D/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 23 years, Hindu, student rest do.
3.Jammi Manisankara Kartheek, S/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 21 years, rest do.
.. PLAINTIFFS
A n d :-
1.J.Raghavendra Rao, S/o. Late Venkatarao, aged 71 years, Hindu, retired employee, R/o. Plot No.S-4 Ramalakshmi Estate, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam
2.Jammi Thimmaji Rao (died)
3.Jammi Rama Devi, W/o. Murali, aged 60 years, Hindu, housewife, residing at D.No.43-34-3, Sri Kanya Theatre Backsidem, 3rd line, Railway new colony, Vizag.
4.Jammi Kamala since married Mahipathi Kamala, W/o. Vamsi Krishna, Hindu, aged 43 years, Flat No.A.203, Markaz Maryada Apartments, Opp; Hanuman Temple, Adikmet, Hyderabad.
5.Jammi Srinivasarao, S/o. Late Murali, Hindu, aged 29 years, residing at D.No.43-34-3, Sri Kanya Theatre Backside, 3rd line, Railway new colony, Vizag.
6.Chilukuri Anasuya, W/o. Hanumantharao, Hindu, aged 75 years, r/o. Uday Nivas, Gururbasa, Prakash Nagar, RTELCO, Jamshedpur, Jharkand State. (died)
7.Jammi Ratna Kumari (died)
8.Jammi Kalyana Chakravarthi, S/o. Late Thimmajirao, Hindu, aged 39 years, C/o. Hindu, H.No.8-1-248/OUR/29/A, 3rd floor, O.U.Colony near Preetham Hospital, Sheikpet, Hyderabad.
9.Jammi Haritha since married Bennuri Haritha, W/o.
4
Narayanarao, Hindu, aged 36 years, housewife, # 206, Balaji Enclave, Gokul Cross, Yelana Halli, Begur Kopparoad, Banguluru.
10. Jammi Raghavendra Praveen, S/o. late Thimmajirao, Hindu, H.No.8-1-248/OUR/29/A, 3rdfloor, O.U.Colony near Preetham Hospital, Sheikpet, Hyderabad.
.. DEFENDANTS
A.S.No.116/2018
Between:-
J.Raghavendra Rao, S/o. Late Venkatarao, aged 71 years, Hindu, retired employee, R/o. Plot No.S-4 Ramalakshmi Estate, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam
.. APPELLANT
A n d :-
1.J.Balatripurasundari, W/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 55 years, Hindu, housewife, r/o. D.No.8-15-17 Balajinagar, Vizianagaram.
2.Jammi Sudha Pramila, D/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 23 years, Hindu, student rest do.
3.Jammi Manisankara Kartheek, S/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 21 years, rest do.
4.Jammi Thimmaji Rao (died)
.. RESPONDENTS
On appeal against the decree and common judgment in O.S.59/2011
dated 3.10.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram:-
Between:-
J.Raghavendra Rao, S/o. Late Venkatarao, aged 71 years, Hindu, retired employee, R/o. Plot No.S-4 Ramalakshmi Estate, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam
.. PLAINTIFF
5
A n d :-
1.J.Balatripurasundari, W/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 55 years, Hindu, housewife, r/o. D.No.8-15-17 Balajinagar, Vizianagaram.
2.Jammi Sudha Pramila, D/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 23 years, Hindu, student rest do.
3.Jammi Manisankara Kartheek, S/o. Late Bindumadhavarao, aged 21 years, rest do.
4.Jammi Thimmaji Rao (died)
.. DEFENDANTS
These appeals are coming on 24.4.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Srinivas Kumar, Advocate for the appellant in both the appeals; Sri J.Bheemasenarao, Advocate for the the respondents 1 to 3, 10, 12 in AS 113/2018 and for the respondents 1 to 3 in AS 116/2018; the respondents 4, 5 and 8 in A.S.113/2018 died so also R.4 in A.S.116/2018; Sri
N.Madhusudhanarao, Advocate for the respondents 6 and 7 in AS 113/2018; the respondents 9 and 11 in AS 113/2018 remained exparte; Sri M.J.V.S.N.Tadiraju,
Advocate for the respondents 13 to 15 in AS 113/2018; after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
1.(i)The plaintiffs in O.S.87/2008 filed the suit against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties. Whereas the 1st defendant in OS 87/2008 filed another suit O.S.59/2011 seeking for the relief of 6 eviction of the defendants therein and for recovery of possession. Since the parties to both the suits and the plaint schedule properties are one and the same, the trial court clubbed O.S.87/2008 and O.S.59/2011 and pronounced a common judgment on 3.10.2018.
(ii)Aggrieved by the said common judgment and decree, these appeals viz., A.S.113/2018 and A.S.116/2018 preferred by the appellant/1st defendant in OS 87/2008 who is the plaintiff in OS 59/2011, under
Or.XL Rule 1 CPC, seeking for the relief of setting aside the decree and common judgment passed in O.S.No.87/2008 and OS 59/2011 dated 3.10.20189 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, and consequently, to allow the appeals, as prayed for.
2.(i) The contention of the appellant/1st defendant as per the grounds of appeal in A.S.113/2018 is that, the decree and common judgment passed by the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence, facts and probabilities involved therein. The trial court erred in passing preliminary decree by including the property of the appellant which is his self acquired property, which fact was abundantly proved with the positive documentary evidence and should have declared Ex.B.1 as his self acquired property, while passing the preliminary decree in respect of Ex.A.1 property, which is the only joint family property. The trial court grossly erred in passing a preliminary 7 decree in respect of Ex.B.1 property, along with Ex.A.1 property when the law is very clear that there is no legal presumption that the property standing in the name of one of the coparceners would acquire the nature or character of joint family property, unless the same is proved by the other family members to be joint family property with positive and clinching evidence. The burden of which has not been discharged by the respondents and therefore, should not have passed a preliminary decree in respect of Ex.B.1 property which is the absolute and self acquired property of the appellant.
(ii)The trial court should have seen that the appellant has placed all the documentary evidence ie., Exs.B.1 to B.22 to show and prove that he has been financially potential enough as on the date of execution of Ex.B.1 as he was an employee in SBI and drawing salary and was bachelor by the date of execution of Ex.B.1 and should therefore, have declared that the property purchased by the appellant under Ex.B.1 is his absolute and self acquired property. The trial court failed to see that even after purchase of Ex.B.1 property by the appellant, he had paid the property tax by way of demand drafts to the Municipality with covering letters in respect of the house property, as can be seen from the documents marked as Exs.B.12 to B.14 for the period from 1990 to 2009 which were admitted by the respondents and the said fact clearly proves that the respondents are not even in a position to pay the 8 property taxes and consequently should have held that Ex.B.1 property is the absolute and self acquired property. The trial court failed to consider that the appellant sent money orders 26 times to the husband of the 1st respondent under Ex.B.9 which he and his family is in pressing need for money from 1997 to 2000 which facts also clinchingly show and prove that the respondents are so financially crippled that they do not even have amounts to meet the expenditure and consequently should have held that Ex.B.1 property is the absolute and self acquired property of the appellant.
(iii)The trial court failed to observe that the plaint schedule property consists of property purchased by late Venkatarao under
Ex.A.1 and property purchased by the appellant under Ex.B.1 and both the properties were merged and shown as items 1 and 2 and got illegally and wrongfully constructed the building partly on Ex.B.1 and partly on Ex.A.1, though plan was approved for construction on Ex.A.1 property only, taking advantage of the absence of the appellant. The trial court failed to observe that the plan for construction was obtained on Ex.A.1 and major part of the construction was made on Ex.B.1 unauthorisedly and minor part on Ex.A.1 property, with an evil motive to grab the self acquired property of the appellant.
The trial court failed to see that mere permission to allow the father to reside in the constructed part of Ex.B.1 property does not ipso facto become the joint 9 family property and the same would not acquire the character of joint family property unless the respondents take the plea of ouster. The trial court erred in holding that the appellant has not filed any document to show that he is in exclusive possession of Ex.B.1 property having admitted that the appellant has purchased the same with his own earnings.
(iv)The trial court ought to have seen that the respondents have totally failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that all the brothers of the appellant along with father and this appellant contributed in purchase of Ex.B.1 and consequently should have held that Ex.B.1 property is the absolute and self acquired property of the appellant herein. The trial court erred in holding that when no notional partition took place between the joint family during the life time of the father of the appellant and his brothers and father, the entire undivided joint family property of Venkatarao is liable for partition by wrongly including the self acquired property of the appellant ie.,
Ex.B.1. Hence, the appeal.
3.(i) The contention of the appellant/plaintiff as per the grounds of appeal in A.S.116/2018 is almost in the similar lines of grounds raised in AS 113/2018 and further contended that the decree and common judgment passed by the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence, facts and probabilities involved therein. The trial court grossly erred in holding that 10 the appellant did not obtain any permission from his bank intimating that he has Rs.2,000/- cash from out of his earnings and that he was inclined to purchase the property at Vizianagaram with his earnings when in fact it is not the case of the respondents nor any suggestion was put to the appellant in the cross-examination, thereby the trial court imported itself a new theory by putting burden which the appellant is not legally bound to discharge.
(ii) The trial court should have seen that it is the specific pleading of the appellant that the father was given with only permissive possession to live and off and on, some of the brothers and sister were permitted to live at the consent of the appellant and that is how the father of the appellant was in permissive possession of the part of the house property.
The trial court should have seen that the evidence of P.W.2, who is the third party is only a hearsay evidence and that too he is born after completion of construction over the sites covered by Ex.A.1 and B.1. His testimony is surprisingly not at all discussed in the judgment. The trial court should have seen that the evidence of P.W.3 who is another third party, is only a plumber and none of the family members of Jammi Venkatarao have discussed about the property issues and he has no personal knowledge and his testimony is in fact supporting the version of the appellant, but, surprisingly, his testimony does not find place in the entire judgment of the trial court. The trial court 11 misconstrued the facts and misinterpreted the law on the subject. Hence, the appeal.
4.(i)After receipt of the notices, the respondents in both the appeals, made their appearance through their counsel. During pendency of
A.S.113/2018, the 8th respondent therein died and her L.Rs were brought on
record as respondents 13 to 15 as per orders in I.A.395/2023 dated 27.11.2024.
(ii)As the appellant in both the appeals is no other than the 1st defendant before the trial court in Os 87/2008, the status of the parties will be hereafter referred to as per their status before the trial court in the original suit ie., OS 87/2008.
5.(i) The plaintiffs in O.S.87/2008 filed the suit against the defendants directing them to partition the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and to allot one such separate with such separate possession of 1/4th share to the plaintiffs; and for costs of the suit.
(ii)The case of the plaintiffs is that, Jammi late
Venkatarao of Balajinagar, Thotapalem, Vizianagaram has got one daughter viz., 6th defendant by name Chilukuri Anasuya and sons ie., defendants 1 and 2 and husband of 1st plaintiff late Bindu Madhavarao and husband of 3rd defendant and late Ramana and late Venkataramana. His wife Anumayama died in the year 1984 ie., prior to the death of late Venkatarao. Original ancestor 12
Venkatarao died on 27.7.1993 intestate, leaving behind himself, the plaintiffs and defendants to succeed his estate including plaint schedule properties.
During the life time of the said Venkatarao, he worked as Station Master in
Indian Railways by receiving lucrative income towards his salary. During his life time, Venkatarao, his wife, his sons are the joint family members, constituting
Hindu Mitakshar's joint family. The said Venkatarao got educated his sons and daughters and performed their marriages. Out of six sons, two sons i.e., his third son Ramana and sixth son Venkataramana died at their very young age of 9 years. Venkatarao being the Manager of joint family used to manage and maintain the entire family and brought them up and got employment to defendants 1 and 2, by spending huge amounts.
(iii) It is further averred that during course of maintaining joint family, the said Jammi Venkatarao purchased a vacant site to an extent of
Ac.0.05 cents under a registered sale deed dated 14.3.1974 from Mudunuru
Satyanarayanaraju. He also purchased an extent of Ac.0.07 cents under a registered sale deed dated 14.3.1974 out of his earnings and also the earnings defendants 1 and 2, husbands of 1st plaintiff and 3rd defendant. But, the document was executed in the name of 1st defendant, only for name sake, for the purpose of obtaining loan from the bank, since by that time, 1st defendant happened to be employee in State Bank of India. Thus, the property purchased 13 in the name of 1st defendant is acquired by Venkatarao out of joint family earnings and funds. By the date of purchase, the salary of 1st defendant is about
Rs.300/- and his salary is not at all sufficient even to maintain himself and his family as he worked in Danbad of Bihar state. The said Venkatarao got executed the sale deed in the name of 1st defendant for the purpose of securing loan for construction of house in the property purchased by him, without any hurdle.
Even by 14.3.1974, the 1st defendant is not in a financial position to purchase any property with his own earnings. Moreover, by that time the 1st defendant is also one of the joint family members of Venkatarao and the defendants shown in the plaint. As such, the 1st defendant has no exclusive right over the plaint schedule property.
(iv) During the life time of Venkatarao, he constructed a
RCC slabbed building in part of the property covered under the said two sale deeds i.e., on 426 sq. yards of site keeping 150 sq. Yards as vacant site in his name and paying house taxes also in his name relating to the said property described as item No.1 of the plaint schedule. The said Venkatarao constructed the plaint schedule item No.1 house with his own earnings and also with the earnings of defendants 1 and 2 and husbands of 1st plaintiff and 3rd defendant.
Thus, the plaint schedule item No.1 is the joint family property of plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 10.
14
(v) After retirement the said Venkatarao gave considerable gold worth about ten tulas and also cash to his daughter/6th defendant, considering her share in the plaint schedule property. Hence, 6th defendant has no share in the plaint schedule property. The said Venkatarao also performed marriages of defendants 1 and 2 and husbands of 1st plaintiff and 3rd defendant. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the 2nd defendant/Jammi
Thimmajirao died leaving behind him, his wife and children, shown as defendants 7 to 10 to succeed his estate, properties, including his share in the plaint schedule property. As such, defendants 7 to 10 together, will have get 1/4th share. The husband of 1st plaintiff by name Bindu Madhavaraosaid Jammi
Venkatarao died on 23.6.2006 intestate in a joint status with defendants, leaving behind him the plaintiffs herein being wife and sons to succeed his estate and his 1/4th share over the plaint schedule property.
(vi) During the lifetime of Venkatarao, plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 5 have been residing in the plaint schedule house as joint family and after demise of Venkatarao and husband of 1st plaintiff, the plaintiffs have been residing in the plaint schedule property. None of the defendants, or, plaintiffs have exclusive right, title, interest, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The defendants 1 and 2 colluded together with a view to harass the plaintiffs and also intending to sell away the property to deprive 15 the rights of the plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs got issued a legal notice to the 2nd defendant, calling upon him for not to harass them further. The 1st defendant made a publication in Eenadu Telugu daily on 6.5.2008 that he is going to alienate the plaint schedule property asking the persons who wants the property to contact him. In the above circumstances, the plaintiffs felt that it is not safe to keep the property joint and hence, they filed the suit for partition and for costs of the suit.
6. (i)The 1st defendant filed written statement denying all the plaint averments and contended that, the husband of the 1st plaintiff got only 1/5th share as devolution of right after the intestate dying of late
Venkatarao but not 1/4th share. Likewise, the husband of 3rd defendant i.e.,
Murali has got 1/5th share as devolution, after death of his father late
Venkatarao. The plaintiffs never resided in the house of plot No.28 of Balaji colony, Thotapalem even during the life time of Venkatarao, or after his demise.
The husband of 1st plaintiff was a vagabond and not cared to look after the plaintiffs. As such, the plaintiffs shifted to the parents' house of 1st plaintiff at
Jarajapupeta village and used to live there, even prior to filing of dowry harassment case against her husband, defendants 1 and 2 herein. Further, it reflects that the 1st plaintiff did not lead marital life with her husband, never lived in the plaint schedule property even during life time of her husband or 16 after his death. Lateron, the 1st plaintiff developed evil intention and made several attempts to get the property of Venkatarao wrongfully.
(ii) The plaintiffs filed the schedule with wrong boundaries and measurements. In fact, plaintiffs showed plot No.27 also as if the same is the property of late Venkatarao (plot No.28) which is not correct.
The 1st defendant has got exclusive rights over the said plot No.27 purchased by him on 14.3.1974 with his own earnings and it is not a joint family property. The plaintiffs, or, the other defendants have no right to seek partition of the same.
The plaintiffs as well as the defendants are entitled to partition of plot No.28 of
Balajinagar, Thotapalem, Vizianagaram since it was purchased by his late father
Venkatarao, with his own earnings.
(iii) It is further contended that his father Venkatarao never obtained loan from any bank as he was self sufficient and there is no scope during those days for getting loans from banks. Because individual staff housing loan schedule was introduced only in the year 1984. Hence, the averment that with a view to get bank loan, the property was purchased in the name of 1st defendant is totally false. The court fee paid by the plaintiffs claiming joint possession is not correct and admittedly they are not in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, it is prayed to partition plot
No.28 of Balajinagar. Thotapalem, which is only a part of plaint schedule 17 property by way of partitioning the same into 5 equal shares and allot one such share to plaintiffs, but not the property covered under plot No.27 which is subject matter of sale deed dated 14.3.1974 (Ex.B.1).
7. The 3rd defendant filed written statement, denying the plaint averments and contended that, during the life time of Venkatarao, the husband of 1st plaintiff, husband of this defendant and all the plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 5 have been residing in the plaint schedule house as joint family which was acquired with the joint earnings. Even after death of Venkatarao and husband of 1st plaintiff and this defendant also, the plaint schedule property has been in joint peaceful, legal possession of all. Now the plaintiffs have been residing in the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant has no exclusive right, title, interest, possession, or, enjoyment over any part of the plaint schedule property. So also none of the parties to the suit have any exclusive right, title, interest, possession, or, enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. All the plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 5 have got equal right over the same. The 1st defendant has no financial capacity to purchase any property with his own earnings. The property purchased under the cover of two registered sale deeds are from out of the funds of joint family members. This defendant admits that the plaintiffs demanded defendants 1 and 2 by way of registered notice dated 18 10.5.2008 for partition of the suit schedule property. Finally, the 3rd defendant prayed to decree the suit, sailing with the case of the plaintiffs.
8. The 6th defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the 1st plaintiff never lived together with her husband due to disputes between her and her husband and she always used to stay in her parents’ house at Jarajapupeta. She also filed a criminal case against her husband and others in the year 2001. The husband of the 1st plaintiff lived for three months prior to his death in the house of this defendant at Tatanagar,
The 1st plaintiff along with plaintiffs 2 and 3 having only 1/5th so also the other co-sharers to the plot No.28 of Balajinagar, since it is self acquired property of their father late Venkatarao, who died intestate. Hence, it is prayed by this defendant to partition the property of Venkatarao ie., plot No.28 of Balajinagar into five equal shares and allot one such share to plaintiffs and the rest of four share to the remaining defendants.
9. Basing on the rival contentions of both parties, the trial court has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the sale teed dated 14.3.1974 is nominal and the property covered by such deed is the property held by late
M.Satyanarayana Raju ?
19
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek partition of property, if so what property and what is the quantum of share she is entitled to ?
3. To what relief?
10. The plaintiff in 0.5.59/2011, who is the 1st defendant in OS 87/2008, filed the suit against the defendants therein, praying to pass decree by evicting them from the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and for costs of the suit, by contending that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as he purchased the same by way of sale deed dated 14.3.1974 out of his earnings. The plaintiff is a retired bank employee. The father of plaintiff was retired Government employee having no ancestral property. His father purchased a plot adjacent to plaint schedule property, i.e.. plot No.28, which is his self acquired property. Subsequently, a house in his plot was constructed bearing door No.8-15-17 situated in Thotapalern of Vizianagaram municipality.
The father of plaintiff and his brothers and sisters are permitted to live with the consent of the plaintiff and thus his father during his life time was in permissive possession of the said house. Now the defendants are claiming right in respect of self acquired property by way of legal notice dated 3.5.2008. The defendants also filed suit in O.S.87/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, 20
Vizianagaram, for partition. During pendency of the above partition suit, the defendants herein approached the plaintiff for an amicable settlement. The plaintiff agreed for partition of the property of his father i.e., plot No.28, but the defendants demanded for partition of self acquired property of the plaintiff (plot No.27), which is unreasonable and unlawful. The plaintiff was separated from his father long back even prior to purchase of their respective sites. With the permission of plaintiff, his father was in possession of the property belonging to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and the defendants are liable to be evicted. With the above averments, the present suit is filed for eviction.
11. (i) The 1st defendant in OS 59/2011, who is the 1st plaintiff in OS 87/2008 filed written statement, which is adopted by the defendants 2 and 3 therein, by filing a memo to that effect. The defendants denied the plaint averments and contended that, the plaintiff filed the suit by suppressing real and true facts. Jammi late Venkatarao of Balajinagar,
Thotapalem, Vizianagaram has got one daughter viz., by name Chilukuri
Anasuya and sons ie., plaintiff, late Thimmajirao and husband of this defendant by name Bindu Madhavarao. His wife Anumayamma died in the year 1984 prior to late Venkatarao. During the life time of the said Venkatarao, he worked as
Station Master in Indian Railways by receiving lucrative income towards his 21 salary. During his life time, Venkatarao, his wife are lived together as members of Hindu Mitakshara joint family. The said Venkatarao got educated his sons and daughters and performed their marriages. Out of six sons two sons i.e., his third son Ramana and sixth son Venkataramana died at their very young age.
Venkatarao being the Manager of joint family used to manage and maintain the entire family and brought them up and got employment to plaintiff and
Thimmajirao by spending huge amounts.
(ii) During course of maintaining joint family, Venkatarao purchased a vacant site to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents under a registered sale deed dated 14.3.1974 from Mudunuru Satyanarayanaraju (Ex.A.1). The said
Venkatarao also purchased an extent of Ac.0.07 cents under a registered sale deed dated 14.3.1974 (Ex.B.1) out of his earnings and also the earnings of plaintiff and Thimmajirao, but got executed a sale deed in the name of plaintiff, only for name sake, for the purpose of obtaining loan from the bank, since by that time, plaintiff happened to be employee in State Bank of India. Thus, the property purchased in the name of plaintiff, is acquired by Venkatarao out of joint family earnings and funds. The said Venkatarao got executed the sale deed in the name of plaintiff for the purpose of securing loan for construction of house in the property purchased by him. Thus, the property purchased in the name of plaintiff covered under the sale deed dated 14.3.1974 is also the joint 22 family property of plaintiff, defendants, Venkatarao and all his sons and daughter as the sale price was borne out from their joint earnings.
(iii) It is further contended that the husband of this defendant by name Bindu Madhavarao died on 23.6.2006 intestate, in a joint status with plaintiff, his brothers and other legal heirs to succeed the plaint schedule property and also the property purchased in the name of Venkatarao.
During the life time of Venkatarao, plaintiff, husband of this defendant along with other defendants used to reside in the plaint schedule property. By the date of purchase,the salary of plaintiff is about Rs. 300/- and his salary is not at all sufficient even to maintain himself and his family as he worked in Danbad of
Bihar state. After purchase of above property, the said Venkatarao constructed a RCC slabbed building in part of the property covered under the said two sale deeds i.e., on 426 sq. yards of site by keeping 150 sq. Yards as vacant site in his name and paying house taxes also in his name relating to the said property.
Venkatarao constructed the said house with his own earnings and also with the earnings of plaintiff herein and Thammajirao. Thus, the plaint schedule property is joint family property of plaintiff and defendants and other legal heirs of Venkatarao.
(iv) It is further contended that the property covered under the said sale deed stood in the name of plaintiff, was merged with 23 property covered under the sale deed stood in the name of plaintiff's father
Venkatarao and as such, there is no exclusive property of plaintiff as stated in the plaint. The defendants filed O.S.87/2011 on the file of this court against the plaintiff herein and other co-heirs, for partition and separate possession of respective sharers. The plaintiff quite contrary to his written statement averments in the said OS 87/2008 falsely stated in the plaint that Venkatarao was in permissive possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. But, the plaintiff never permitted his father to reside in the plaint schedule property since the said Venkatarão constructed house property on the property covered by two sale deeds. As such, all the legal heirs of Venkatarao have got equal right and share over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff and Thimmajirao with their respective families used to visit the house of Venkatarao off and on for holidays and thus, they are in joint possession of the plaint schedule property.
Further, the plaintiff no where mentioned in the plaint as to how and when the defendants came into possession of the plaint schedule property. This defendant, since the date of her marriage, has been residing in the plaint schedule property to the knowledge of one and all in the locality, including the plaintiff and other co-heirs. The plaintiff never made any demand, nor claimed any exclusive right over the plaint schedule property and never objected this defendant in her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and 24 as such, the suit is barred by limitation. The suit is not maintainable for non joinder and misjoinder of parties. The measurements and boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule is not correct. Finally, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
12. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court has settled the following issues for trial:- i. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 14.3.1974 ?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession after evicting the defendants from the schedule property ?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?
iv. To what relief?
13. As seen from the trial court record, on 8.7.2016 the counsel for the 1st defendant in 0.S.87/2008 filed memo to club O.S.59/2011 and record evidence in one suit. Accordingly, the said petition was allowed with a direction to the plaintiffs and 1st defendant in O.S.87/2008 to adduce evidence in the said suit in respect of both suits with reference to item No.1 and the evidence in the present suit with reference to item No.1 be treated as evidence in O.S.59/2011.
Accordingly, evidence is recorded in 0.S.87/2008.
25
14.(i) During the course of trial before the trial court, on behalf of plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff in O.S.87/2008 was examined as P.W.1 and also got examined two third party witnesses as P.Ws 2 and 3 and got marked
Exs.A.1 to A.10.
(ii)On behalf of defendants, the 1st defendant in
O.S.87/2008 got himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.22.
The 3rd defendant got herself examined as D.W.2 but no documents are marked on her behalf.
15.After hearing arguments of both the counsel and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties, the trial court by way of pronouncing common judgment, preliminary decreed the suit vide O.S.87/2008, directing partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and alloting 1/4th share to the branch of plaintiffs with metes and bounds; and dismissed the suit O.S.59/2011. Aggrieved by the said findings in the common judgment of the trial court, the appellant/1st defendant in Os 87/2008 and plaintiff in OS 59/2011, preferred the present appeals ie.,
A.S.113/2018 and A.S.116/2018.
16.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.
17.Now the points that arise for consideration are, 26
(i) Whether the property covered by Ex.B.1/sale deed
dated 14.3.1974 is the absolute and exclusive property of the
1 st defendant or it forms part of joint family property as contended by the plaintiffs ?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for partition of the property, if so, in respect of which property and to want extent they are entitled to ?
(iii) Whether the 1 st defendant is entitled for vacant possession after evicting the defendants from the schedule property as prayed by him in O.S.59/2011 ?
(iv) Whether the 1 st defendant is entitled for permanent injunction as a consequential relief, as prayed for ?
(v) Whether interference with the findings recorded by the trial court in respect of the issues framed in both the suits is warranting, if so, to what extent ?
(vi) To what relief ?
18. POINT NO.1:- According to the case of the plaintiffs one
Jammi late Venkatarao blessed with one daughter ie., 6th defendant and six sons ie., defendants 1 and 2, husband of 1st plaintiff viz., Bindu Madhavarao, husband of 3rd defendant viz., late Murali and one Ramana and Venkataramana, who died at a very young age. Whereas the husband of the 1st plaintiff and 3rd defendant died few years prior to filing of the suit and the 2nd defendant died after filing of then suit, whose L.Rs were brought on record as defendants 7 to
10. During the life time of the said Venkatarao, who worked as Station Master 27 in Indian Railways, he along with his wife and children constitute as members of
Hindu undivided joint family, for which he used to act as Manager/Kartha of the family.
19. It is the said Venkatarao, who purchased the vacant site to an extent of 5½ cents covered under the original of Ex.A.1/sale deed dated 14.3.1974 from one M.Satyanarayana and on the same day he also purchased land to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents covered by Ex.B.1/ registered sale deed dated 14.3.1974 from out of his earnings and also from the earnings of his sons ie., defendants 1 and 2 and husbands of 1st plaintiff and 3rd defendant, however, got executed such document in the name of the 1st defendant for the sake of obtaining loan facility from the bank, as by then he happened to be the employee of SBI. Thus, the said property purchased in the name of D.1 under
Ex.B.1 forms part of joint family property as the same was acquired by late
Venkatarao out of joint family earnings and funds. Subsequently, the said
Venkatarao constructed RCC slabbed building in the site covered by both the schedule properties under Ex.A.1 and B.1, with built up area of 426 sq. yards of the total extent of the site covered by both the said sale deeds, by keeping vacant site to an extent of 150 sq. yards on the Eastern side of such house constructed by him, which was shown and described as item No.2 of plaint 28 schedule in O.S.87/2008, by referring the said house property as item No.1 of the plaint schedule in O.S.87/2008.
20.Further, according to the contention of the plaintiffs, the said house was constructed by late Venkatarao from out of his own earnings and also with earnings of defendants 1 and 2 as well as husband of 1st plaintiff and husband of the 3rd defendant. Thus, the said entire property ie., items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule in O.S.87/2008 is the joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 10. However, by contending that after retirement the said
Venkatarao, by giving considerable gold weighing around 10 tulas as well as cash to his daughter ie., 6th defendant, has settled her share in the plaint schedule property. As such, the plaintiffs, who are the L.Rs of the branch of late Bindumadhava Rao, are entitled for 1/4th share in the entire extent of item
Nos 1 and 2 of plaint schedule property in OS 87/2008, whereas the 1st defendant and the branch of the 2nd defendant ie., Defendants 7 to 10 and the branch of another deceased son of Venkatarao viz., late Murali ie., defendants 3 to 5 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the said property. The defendants 3 to 5 are sailing with such contention putforth by the plaintiffs.
21. Whereas the 1st defendant contended that in fact the schedule property purchased under Ex.B.1 is the self acquired and absolute property of the 1st defendant, as the same was purchased out of his earnings as 29 he happened to be working as clerk in SBI from 1972 onwards and it is he, out of relationship with his father and other siblings did not raise any objection, when his father late Venkatarao constructed house covering major part of the extent in the schedule property of Ex.B.1. So, he denied the fact asserted by the plaintiffs that even the schedule property covered by Ex.B.1 was purchased by
Venkatarao, however, got executed sale deed in the name of the 1st defendant and that it forms part of their joint family property. According to the contention of the 1st defendant, the property purchased under Ex.A.1 is the self acquisition of late Venkatarao, whereas the property purchased under Ex.B.1 vacant site is the self acquired property of the 1st defendant. But, because of his relation with his father, he did not raise any objection when late Venkatarao obtained building approval in his name by showing plot No.28 purchased under Ex.A.1, though in fact on ground, he constructed the said house over major part of site covered by Ex.B.1, which is part of plot No.27 purchased by the 1st defendant under Ex.B.1. Even after the death of late Venkatarao in 1987, the husband of the 1st plaintiff along with his wife and children happened to be residing in the same house of his father consisting of three rooms (a portion of house consisting 3 portions), he did not raise any objection in view of his cordial/blood relationship with them, however, sent money orders for payment of property tax in respect of such house property. But, after demise of husband of the 1st 30 plaintiff, as the plaintiffs herein claiming share in the entire extent of property covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1, subsequent to filing of O.S.87/2008, he filed
O.S.59/2011 seeking for eviction and recovery of possession of his property
covered by Ex.B.1. As such, according to him, himself, 6th defendant and the branches of his remaining three brothers ie., 2nd defendant, husband of 1st plaintiff and husband of 3rd defendant are entitled for equal share in the property of late Venaktarao covered by Ex.A.1 ie., to the extent of 1/5th share each. Whereas he is the absolute owner and entitled for recovery of possession of property covered by Ex.B.1. The 6th defendant ie., sister of 1st defendant sailing with him, whereas the branch of 2nd defendant ie., defendants 7 to 10 remained exparte.
22.In the light of this sort of pleadings pleaded by the parties, as vehemently argued and submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant that when it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule property in OS 87/2008 is the joint family property which includes property purchased under Ex.B.1/sale deed dated 14.3.1974 in the name of the 1st defendant, certainly, the burden lies on them to establish that both items of plaint schedule in OS 87/2008 are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants.
31
23.In this regard, when the evidence let in by the parties is carefully gone into to ascertain about establishment of existence of any joint family and acquisition of any such joint family property by late Venkatarao, by the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff, who got herself examined as P.W.1 reiterated the same facts as mentioned in the plaint by deposing that Ex.A.1 schedule property was purchased by late Venkatarao with his own earnings, whereas the schedule property covered by Ex.B.1 was purchased by him from out of his earnings and also from the earnings of defendants 1 and 2 and husbands of 1st plaintiff and 3rd defendant. Whereas in her cross-examination, she made a statement that her husband studied upto Matriculation, he did real estate business, used to reside along with his father in the house bearing door No.8- 15-17 and it is on 23.6.2006 he died. Though she deposed that her husband contributed for construction of building and its development, admittedly she did not file any document disclosing that her husband has incurred any such expenditure at the time of construction of the said house by late Venkatarao.
Adding to it, though it is the evidence of P.W.1 that even after demise of her husband, she continued in the same house of late Venkatarao which is item
No.1 of the plaint schedule in OS 87/2008, admittedly, she is not in possession of original sale deed dated 14.3.1974 under which late Venkatarao purchased plot No.28 vide document No.1168/74, so also the adjacent and adjoining 32 vacant site purchased in the name of the 1st defendant under Ex.B.1 ie., plot
No.27. It is the 1st defendant, who is in possession of such sale deed vide Ex.B.1 which was executed in the name of the 1st defendant. Adding to it, in her cross- examination P.W.1 admitted the fact that original of Ex.A.1 lying with 1st defendant and the house was constructed by her father-in-law covering the site purchased by her father-in-law and 1st defendant. Which statement otherwise goes to show and establish that the property covered by Ex.A.1 and the vacant site purchased by the 1st defendant under Ex.B.1 are their respective self acquisitions, but not acquired with any such joint family funds or joint family nucleus. Because, it is not the case of the plaintiffs as well as evidence of P.W.1 that there exists any joint family nucleus or joint family property from the earnings of which late Venkatarao purchased property under Ex.A.1 and another vacant site under Ex.B.1 in the name of the 1st defendant. According to the evidence of P.W.1, late Venkatarao retired as Station Master in 1970 and she claimed ignorance of the fact that the 1st defendant entered into service by 1972.
24.But, the evidence given by D.W.1 coupled with information revealed under Ex.B.11 disclosed the fact that he entered into service in the year 1972 and retired from service in 2006 as contended by him. Further, the evidence given by P.W.1 is that construction of house was commenced in the 33 year 1974 and was concluded by March or April 1975, whereas she was married with her husband on 11.11.1984. Which means by the date of construction of house vide item No.1 of plaint schedule in OS 87/2008, she did not enter into the family of late Venkatarao, so as to claim personal knowledge about mode and manner in which the vacant sites covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1 were purchased/acquired by late Venkatarao and the 1st defendant.
25.As stated supra, the plaint averments as well as evidence of
P.W.1 is very much silent about existence of any such joint family property, giving income on such property to late Venkatarao, so as to contend that it is from out of such joint family funds or the income derived from such joint family property, late Venkatarao acquired the properties covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1 in the name of himself and 1st defendant respectively as contended by the plaintiffs. At the same time, to disprove the contention putforth by the plaintiffs that it is on account of the fact that by then 1st defendant working as employee in SBI, only for the purpose of securing house loan the vacant site covered by
Ex.B.1 was purchased by late Venkatarao in the name of the 1st defendant, apart from specifically pleading the fact that there exists no such practice by the year 1974 to provide housing loan facility to the employees of SBI and that such practice came into vogue from 1979 onwards, he got marked Exs.B.15 to B.22 ie., information obtained from the concerned under RTI Act, by enclosing 34 various circulars disclosing the factum that it is by virtue of circular instructions given by RBI on 31st May 1979 only, the scheme of providing housing loans to the employees/staff of the bank came into existence.
26.No doubt, to prove the contents of Exs.B.13 to 22/circulars, the issuing authority of such documents was not examined by the 1st defendant, but the fact remains that such information disclosed to have been obtained by the 1st defendant under RTI Act. Adding to it, it is not the case of the plaintiffs that by availing any such housing loan facility in the name of the 1st defendant from SBI, late Venkatarao has constructed the said house covering the extent of site of the schedule properties under Exs.A.1 and B.1. So, whatever the contention putforth by the 1st plaintiff in the plaint for which certainly she may not have personal knowledge as she entered into the life of her husband as well as into the family of late Venkatarao in 1984 only, that it is for the sake of availing housing loan facility easily, late Venkatarao purchased the property covered by Ex.B.1 in the name of the 1st defendant is proved to be false.
27.Whereas the contents of Ex.B.1 document ie., original sale deed dated 14.3.1974 disclosed to have been executed in the name of the 1st defendant by one J.Suryanarayana ie., brother of executant of Ex.A.1 in favour of the father of the 1st defendant viz., late Venkatarao, clearly revealing the 35 factum that the consideration thereunder was received by the executant of the document from the 1st defendant only, by describing the property covered by
Ex.A.1 as the Eastern boundary for the schedule property covered by Ex.B.1, which clearly indicates the intention of the parties to the registered sale deed that it is the self acquisition of the 1st defendant but not otherwise. So also in respect of the schedule property ie., vacant site purchased under Ex.A.1 that it is the self acquisition of late Venkatarao. When the contents of Ex.B.1 document as well as evidence let in by plaintiffs does not establish that any such contribution was made by the husband of the 1st plaintiff, husband of the 3rd defendant and 2nd defendant so also late Venkatarao for purchase of vacant site covered by Ex.B.1 in the name of the 1st defendant, whatever the contention putforth by the plaintiffs that the vacant site covered by Ex.B.1 was purchased by late Venkatarao for which the 1st defendant is just a name lender and as such it forms part of the joint family property of late Venkatarao cannot believed to be true. The evidence given by P.W.1 also clear that her husband did not acquire any property and she do not know whether the other brothers of the 1st defendant acquired any such properties or not. Which means to her knowledge absolutely there exists no other property which is claimed to be joint family property of late Venkatarao except the said house property bearing door No.8- 36 15-17 shown and described as item No.1 of plaint schedule in Os 87/2008 which stood in the name of late Venkatarao.
28.Further, it is an undisputed and admitted fact that it is the said late Venkatarao, who constructed item No.1 of plaint schedule house property in OS 87/2008 and the property tax as well as electricity charges pertaining to the said house property being paid in his name till his death and subsequently also. In this regard the specific contention of the 1st defendant is that in fact late Venkatarao obtained building plan approval in his name by showing as if he has constructed the said house in the vacant site purchased under Ex.A.1 ie., plot No.28. But, in fact, he constructed the said three portioned house in the sites covered by both the schedule properties under
Exs.A.1 and B.1, especially by occupying major portion of the vacant site covered by Ex.B.1 and leaving 15 feet width site vide item No.2 of the plaint schedule in OS 87/2008 covered by Ex.A.1/sale deed which is disclosed to be situated on the immediate Eastern side of the schedule property covered by
Ex.B.1. Such fact was admitted by P.W.1 also that in fact the house was constructed by late Venkatarao covering vacant site of both the schedule properties covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1.
29. Though the plaintiffs got examined two independent witnesses of the locality where the plaint schedule in OS 87/2008 is situated as 37
P.Ws 2 and 3 to substantiate the contention putforth by her that in fact late
Venkatarao purchased the said vacant site under Ex.B.1 on 14.3.1974 in the name of the 1st defendant, but, in fact, the consideration thereunder was paid by late Venkatarao only, during the cross-examination of P.W.2, he categorically made a statement that in fact he do not have personal acquaintance with the said sale transactions and his knowledge is to the extent that the entire house property belong to late Venkatarao and after death of late Venkatarao, plaintiffs have been residing in the house property. So, it is clear that he do not have any personal knowledge about the sale transactions covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1 so as to strengthen the case of the plaintiffs that even the vacant site purchased under Ex.B.1 by late Venkatarao only, with the earnings of himself and his sons as contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
30. P.W.3 in his cross-examination categorically deposed that he cannot say the extent, boundaries of the suit schedule property, though during the life time of late Venkatarao for about 15 times he went to the house property. Adding to it, he categorically deposed that in fact late Venkatarao never discussed with him about the property. Further, his evidence goes to show that Jammi Venkatarao paid sale consideration to his vendor pertaining to the schedule property covered by Ex.A.1 in his presence, and 1st defendant also purchased some property on the same day itself, however, claimed 38 ignorance as to whether such sale transaction was registered or not. So, his evidence is noway helpful to substantiate the contention putforth by the plaintiffs that the consideration pertaining to Ex.B.1 schedule property was in fact meted out from out of the earnings of late Venkatarao, defendants 1 and 2, husbands of 1st plaintiff and 3rd defendant as contended by them. Adding to it,
P.W.3 contradicted the evidence of P.W.1 that he retired from service in 1970, by stating that even as on the date of purchase of property covered under
Ex.A.1 of 1974, Jammi Venkatarao used to work as Station Master, Vizianagaram on the monthly salary of Rs.900/-.
31.So, whatever the evidence given by P.W.1 that Jami
Venkatarao was retired from service in the year 1970 cannot believed to be true. If that be the case, as observed supra, the properties purchased under
Exs.A.1 and B.1 are the self acquisitions of late Jammi Venkatarao and 1st defendant respectively and absolutely there is no cogent, convincing and reliable evidence on record except the vague statement made by P.W.1 in her evidence as well as averments made in the plaint that consideration for purchasing schedule property under Ex.B.1 was meted out from out of the earnings of Jami Venkatarao, defendants 1 and 2, and the husbands of 1st plaintiff and 3rd defendant respectively.
39
32.Whereas the evidence of the 1st defendant in this regard, who got himself examined as D.W.1 is that from 1972 onwards he has been working in SBI. Further as on the date of purchase of property under Ex.B.1, he was a bachelor and was not married and by then he was working at Dhanbad of
Bihar State and subsequently on 9.5.1979 he was married, as such by the date of purchase of property under Ex.B.1 he had sufficient means to purchase the said property and accordingly paid sale consideration to his vendor as is evident from Ex.B.1. To substantiate such a contention, he also got marked Ex.B.3 ie.,
Marriage Invitation card of the 1st defendant disclosing the date of his marriage
as 9.5.1979 and that by then he was working as employee in SBI,
Visakhapatnam. Further, he also got marked the original link document pertaining to Ex.B.1 ie., sale deed of his vendor Jujjuru Suryanarayana Raju
dated 29.8.1970 as Ex.B.2, to show and establish that it is the self acquired
property of the 1st defendant and as such only, the original sale deed as well as its link document are in the possession of the 1st defendant, but not retained with the possession of late Jami Venkatarao or in the said alleged joint family house property ie., item No.1 of OS 87/2008.
33.Adding to it, to show and establish that at no point of time the 1st defendant had any such intention to consider or treat the vacant site purchased under Ex.B.1 by him, as part of their joint family property, he even 40 got marked Exs.B.4 and B.5 ie., notice dated 21.9.1977 issued by Inams
Tahsildar in favour of the 1st defendant calling upon him to attend for the enquiry regarding claim for ryotwari patta pertaining to the said land in
S.No.69/1. Whereas Ex.B.5/ryowtari patta dated 25.4.1979 issued in the name of 1st defendant by Spl. Dy.Tahsildar, Inams, Vizianagaram Division revealing the fact that in respect of plot No.27 covered by Ex.B.1 to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in Old S.No.88/A corresponding to new S.No.69/1, it is the 1st defendant, who obtained ryotwari patta in his name which fact otherwise goes to show that at no point of time, he had any such intention to blend his property covered by
Ex.B.1 with the properties of alleged joint family property of late Jammi
Venkatarao.
34.Further, it is the evidence of D.W.1 that his father retired from service by working in Indian Railways in 1975 and has purchased the schedule property under Ex.A.1 with his earnings in 1974, however, constructed the house bearing door No.8-15-17 by obtaining building plan approval in respect of Plot No.28 and constructed the house overlapping the site covered by both the said sale deeds. As by then he was working elsewhere and in view of his relationship with his father which was cordial till death of his father, at that time he did not raise any objection. To substantiate such a plea putforth by the 1st defendant, he got marked Ex.B.6 building plan approval issued in the 41 name of Jami Venkatarao in respect of plot No.28 issued by the Sarpanch of
Thotapalem on 1.6.1974. It is revealing the measurement of the proposed building for which Jami Venkatarao applied for plan approval thereunder ie., the plinth area is 50 x 40 feet over the entire site with measurements of 86 feet from East to West on both sides and 75 feet from North to South on East and 59 feet on its Western side which measurements as disclosed under Ex.B.6 clearly matching and tallying with the combined measurements of the schedule properties covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1, if both the said bits of vacant site are taken as a single bit of land as both the said bits of vacant sites disclosed to be situated adjoining to each other as is evident from the boundaries given to the schedule properties covered by Exs.B.1 and A.1.
35.So, it is clear that while applying for approval of building plan late Jami Venkatarao has furnished the measurements of the said building by combining the extent of sites covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1. Further, the property tax demand notice and property tax payment receipts including the electricity bills and bill payment receipts in respect of item no.1 of plaint schedule in OS 87/2008 got marked by the plaintiffs under Exs.A.7 to A.10 respectively, coupled with the property tax demand notice and payment receipts got marked by the 1st defendant vide Exs.B.12 and B.13 made it clear that right from the beginning of construction of the said house property to till 42 death of late Venkatarao and thereafter, the said house property stood in the name of late Venkatarao alone and it is being considered and treated as the property of late Venkatarao for which none have raised objection.
36. Though plaintiffs contended that for construction of the said house the amounts were contributed by late Jami Venkatarao, defendants 1 and 2 and the husbands of 1st plaintiff and 3rd defendant respectively, to prove and establish the said fact, except the uncorroborated testimony given by P.W.1 to that effect, there is no other cogent, convincing and reliable evidence available on record. On the other hand, P.W.3 in his cross-examination made a statement that till death of husband of P.W.1 he had no income at all. Which statement belies such a contention putforth by the plaintiffs that even the husband of the 1st plaintiff contributed some amount for construction of the said house property by late J.Venkatarao, so as to construe such house property as property of all the family members of late Venkatarao.
37.Further, in the evidence of P.W.1, she also deposed that in fact the said house property was got repaired by her father in law, however, added that even her husband joined in attending such repairing works. But, the contents of letters addressed by 1st plaintiff to the 1st defendant vide Ex.B.7 as well as contents of letters addressed by the husband of the 1st plaintiff to the 1st defendant vide Ex.B.8 revealing the pathetic and poor financial condition of 43 husband of 1st plaintiff during the years 1993-94 which constrained him to address letters to the 1st defendant with a request to send money through money order for payment of property tax pertaining to the said house property, subsequent to the death of late Jami Venkatarao and even to attend the repair expenses of house by the 1st defendant only. The genuineness of such letters addressed by the 1st plaintiff and her husband to the 1st defendant during the relevant period was never specifically denied, disputed or challenged by the plaintiffs, as could be seen from the questions posed during the cross- examination of D.W.1. Though the plaintiffs contended as if the plaint schedule house property is the joint family property, in her evidence P.W.1 categorically admitted that the documents pertaining to the said vacant sites upon which the said house property was constructed are with her elder brother in law ie., 1st defendant only. She also admitted the fact that the said house was constructed on the sites purchased by her father in law as well as the 1st defendant ie., vacant sites covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1 respectively.
38.With regard to the contribution of amounts for construction of the said house as stated supra, the evidence given by P.W.3, coupled with the contents of Exs.B.7 and B.8 made it clear that the contribution of any such amount by the husband of 1st plaintiff during the relevant period is not established. Further, P.W.1 deposed that D.2 worked as Kalasi in Port and used 44 to reside in Visakhapatnam Port quarters. Whereas, D.3 who got examined herself D.W.2, who is sailing with the plaintiffs contention deposed that her marriage with late Murali took place on 14.2.1985. Whereas her husband was born on 27.2.1956 which means by 1974 ie., by the date of purchase of vacant sites covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1, her husband was just 18 years and by the date of construction of the said house property of late Jammi Venkatarao in 1974-75 as deposed by P.W.1 and as is evident from Ex.B.6, he was just aged about 18- 19 years. According to her evidence her husband died on 2.2.2005 and he joined in Indian Railways in fitting section and posted at Visakhapatnam as such in view of employment of her husband, they have moved to several places including Kantabanji of Odisha state and it is about 4 years back they stated in the disputed property and subsequently her husband took voluntary treatment on medical grounds. Further, she categorically deposed that as on the date of purchase of property under Ex.A.1 by her father-in-law, the marriages of his children ie., defendants 1 and 2, husband of 1st plaintiff and herself so also 6th defendant are not performed. Adding to it, she also made a categorical admission that they do not reside in the house constructed under Ex.A.1 and made a categorical admission that it is D.W.1, who purchased the property adjacent to Ex.A.1 under Ex.B.1. She categorically made an admission that by the date of her marriage with her husband, construction of the house was 45 already completed. Further, in her evidence she also deposed that it it her mother in law, who alone paid house taxes and they did not share such amount at any point of time. She also deposed that her father in law ie., late Jami
Venkatarao died on 15.10.1987 in the plaint schedule house property, by then she along with her husband was residing at Visakhapatnam. Whereas the 2nd defendant died on 20.11.2008 and he worked as Kalasi in Port. Above all, D.W.2 made a categorical statement in her evidence that by the date of purchase of property covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1 except D.W.1 ie., D.1, the other sons of her father-in-law have no financial potentiality and also admitted the fact that during the life time of her husband, they do not acquire any property, so also the other brothers of D.W.1 and also admitted the fact that she has no proof to show that her husband also shared/contributed the expenditure in respect of the plaint schedule property.
39. So, these statements made by D.W.2 in her cross- examination coupled with the statements made by P.Ws 1, 3 and D.W.1 in their evidence made it clear that as on the date of purchase of properties covered by
Exs.A.1 and B.1, except late Jammi Venkatarao and the 1st defendant, no other member in their family has financial potentiality to contribute any such amount for the purchase of such house sites so also to contribute any amount for 46 construction of such house by and in the name of Jammi Venkatarao, which is shown and described as item No.1 of plaint schedule in OS 87/2008.
40.Even with regard to the existence of of joint family, the law is well settled that mere residence of a male person along with his wife and unmarried children does not amount to existence of any such joint family, unless and until it is being established that even after the marriages of such children of Manager of the family/such male person, they continued their residence or the management of funds and properties of such family jointly, though residing elsewhere and separately, it cannot be held that there exists any joint family consisting of late Jammi Venkatarao, his wife and their children along with their respective families as is projected and portrayed by the plaintiffs while claiming for the share of the husband of 1st plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties in OS 87/2008.
41. Thereby, in these circumstances, the existence and continuation of any such joint family of late Jammi Venkatarao along with his children as contended by the plaintiffs could not be established, leave apart the existence of any such joint family property belonged to such family. Further, as discussed supra, absolutely there is no iota of evidence that there exists any such joint family funds or joint family nucleus, so as to contend that it is from out of such income of the joint family property/funds/nucleus, the said house 47 property was constructed by late Jammi Venkatarao covering the vacant sites of
Exs.A.1 and B.1.
42.In this regard the learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant relied upon a decision reported in 2003 Supreme (SC) 818 between
D.S.LAKSHMAIAH AND ANOTHER VS. L.BALASUBRAMANYAM AND ANOTHER, wherein their Lordships at para No.9 observed that “Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property is joint to establish the fact”. It has also observed at para No.19 that “the law on the aspect of blending is well settled that property separate or self- acquired of a member of joint Hindu family may be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by the owner into the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim therein but to establish such abandonment a clear intention to waive separate rights must be established. From the mere fact that other members of the family were allowed to use the property jointly with himself, or that the income of the separate property was utilized out of generosity to support persons whom the holder was not bound to support, or from the failure to maintain separate accounts, abandonment cannot be inferred, for an act of generosity or kindness will not ordinarily be regarded as an admission of a legal obligation”.
48
43.Here, in this case, from the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that the existence of joint family subsequent to the marriages of children of late Jammi Venkatarao could not be established by the plaintiffs. Adding to it, by virtue of ratio laid down in the aforementioned reported decision, it is clear that the burden rests upon the plaintiffs, who asserted the fact that even the vacant site purchased under Ex.B.1 forming part of joint family property.
But to prove the said fact, no cogent, reliable, convincing evidence could be adduced by the plaintiffs either for contributing towards sale consideration for purchase of property under Ex.B.1 by the members of alleged joint family of late Jammi Venkatarao or for construction of the said house by late Venkatarao.
On the other hand, by virtue of got marking Exs.B.1 and B.2 as well as Exs.B.4 and B.5 coupled with the letters addressed by the 1st defendant to the concerned, while making payment of property tax pertaining to item No.1 of the plaint schedule in O.S.87/2008, subsequent to the death of Jammi
Venkatarao ie., in the year 2007, which means subsequent to the death of his brother late Bindu Madhavarao ie., husband of 1st plaintiff, made it clear that by reporting to the concerned that the said house property was in dilapidated condition, not fit for human dwelling and was left vacant since 2000, it is the 1st defendant, who made a request for waiving the property tax in respect of the said house property, as he knew very well that the said house was constructed 49 overlapping the vacant site purchased by him under Ex.B.1 and unless and until the said house property is being dismantled, now he cannot exercise his absolute and exclusive rights over the property covered by Ex.B.1. The occupation, use and enjoyment of which was allowed by him to his father and subsequent to his death in 1979, to his brother and his family ie., plaintiffs, out of his relationship with them and generosity and kindness as can be culled out from the letters addressed by the 1st plaintiff and her husband to the 1st defendant as is evident from Exs.B.7 and B.8.
44.Further, unless and until the plaintiffs and husband of 1st plaintiff, recognised the absolute right of the 1st defendant over the property covered by Ex.B.1, consequently the major portion of the house property constructed by Jammi Venkatarao by overlapping into the site covered by
Ex.B.1, they would not nave made a request with the 1st defendant alone to meet expenditure pertaining to payment of property tax in respect of the said house, without seeking for such help from other brothers of the 1st defendant, as is evident from the material placed on record by the parties to the suit.
45.In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant also relied on other decisions reported in 2010 Supreme (AP) 1040 between B.NADAMUNI CHETTY VS., P.KRISHNA REDDY AND OTHERS and
2025 Supreme (kar) 1685 between MALLESHAPPA S/O. LATE SANNEGOWDA
50
VS. PUTTAMMA, D/O. LATE RANGAPPA. The dicta laid down in the said decisions, was is in the similar lines as laid down in D.S.LAKSHMAIAH AND
ANOTHER VS. L.BALASUBRAMANYAM AND ANOTHER, referred supra.
46.Even the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2017 SC 4465 between ADIVEPPA VS.
BHIMAPPA, wherein his Lordship at para No.19 observed that “the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleading and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof” and observed at para No.20 that “In order to prove that the suit properties described in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ were their self-acquired properties, the plaintiffs could have adduced the best evidence in the form of a sale-deed showing their names as purchasers of the said properties and also could have adduced evidence of payment of sale consideration made by them to the vendee. It was, however, not done”, and observed at para No.22 that “It is a settled principle of Hindu law that there lies a legal presumption that every
Hindu family is joint in food, worship and estate and in the absence of any proof of division, such legal presumption continues to operate in the family. The burden, therefore, lies upon the member who after admitting the existence of jointness in the family properties asserts his claim that some properties out of entire lot of ancestral properties are his self-acquired property”.
51
47.Here, in this case, admittedly at no point of time, the 1st defendant admitted the existence of jointness in the family members as asserted by plaintiffs and absolutely it is not the case of the plaintiffs that there exists any such ancestral properties or the joint family nucleus, from out of which the schedule properties covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1 were acquired. In the absence of the same, owing to the documentary evidence let in by the 1st defendant vide Exs.B.1 to B.5 coupled with the demanding/requesting payment of property tax by the 1st defendant, subsequent to the death of late venkatarao as is evident from Exs.B.7 and B.8 amply establishes that the property under
Ex.B.1 is the self acquisition of the 1st defendant, but does not forms part of joint family property of late Venkatarao as contended by the plaintiffs.
48.The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs also relied upon another decision between KATTA VENKATA LAKSHMI VS. KATTA
SUBBARAO AND 3 OTHERS. The facts and circumstances of the said decision are not identical to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, with due respects I hold that the said decision has no application to the present case on hand. So also another decision relied upon by him betweenSURAJMAL
VS. MOTIRAM AND OTHERS. Further, even in the said second reported decision relied on by the counsel for the respondents/defendants, it was observed at para No.5 that the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to show that joint family 52 nucleus exists as a source for joint family property, which is lacking in the present case on hand.
49.The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs relied on another decision reported in2017(1) Civ.C.R. 126 (Kant) between
GANGADHAR AND OTHERS VS. SOMASEKHAR AND ANOTHER, wherein their
Lordships at para No.9 observed that “ A joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. Possession of joint family property is not a necessary requisite for the constitution of a joint Hindu family. Joint family property is only an adjunct of the joint family. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family.
It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property. These are the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being. In other words, the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent”.
50.Here, in this case, by virtue of clear pleadings that the property covered by Ex.A.1 purchased by late Venkatarao from his own earnings and that the property covered by Ex.B.1 purchased with the funds contributed by late Venkatarao and his sons, it is clear that the entire said property is neither ancestral property nor a coparcenary property or atleast a joint family property. Even to show and establish that it is the property 53 acquired jointly by the members of the family of late Jammi Venkatarao, absolutely there exists no cogent evidence. Further, in the same reported decision at para No.9, by taking aid of ratio laid down in number of reported decisions on this aspect, it was observed that "Under Hindu law , when a property stands in the name of a member of a joint family it is incumbent upon those asserting that it is a joint family property to establish it. When it is proved or admitted that a family possessed sufficient nucleus with the aid of which the member might have made the acquisition, the law raises a presumption that it is a joint family property and the onus is shifted to the individual member to establish that the property was acquired by him without the aid of the said nucleus. This is a well settled proposition of law".
51.Here, in this case, as observed supra, absolutely it is not the case of the plaintiffs that there exists any joint family nucleus. On the other hand, the source of income of late Venkatarao and 1st defendant as deposed by the witnesses examined on either side made it clear that from the income (savings of salaries) of Venkatarao and D.1, they have purchased properties covered by Exs.A.1 and B.1 respectively. With regard to construction of the house thereunder also, absolutely there is no evidence on record that the children of late Venkatarao contributed any such amounts. On the other hand, the property tax and electricity charges being paid in the name Jammi 54
Venkatarao during his life time and subsequent to his death amply establishes that it is Jammi Venkatarao, who alone constructed the said house covering both the sites purchased under Ex.A.1 and B.1. However, the fact remains that at no point of time, the 1st defendant expressed any such clear intention to blend his property purchased under Ex.B.1 either with the property purchased by his father under Ex.A.1 or to throw it in common stock of alleged members of joint family of Jammi Venkatarao. So, just because of the reason that out of generosity and relation with the members of the family, by taking into consideration of the poor financial condition of the husband of the 1st plaintiff, who continued his residence in the same house property even after death of
Jammi Venkatarao, it cannot be held that the property purchased by 1st defendant under Ex.B.1 forming part of joint family properties of late
Venkatarao and as such, it is liable to be partitioned among the legal heirs of late Venkatarao, who admitted to have died intestate. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the appellant/1st defendant and against the respondents/defendants.
52.POINT NO.2:- With regard to point No.2, it is an admitted case of both parties that Jammi Venkatarao died in the year 1987 and his wife predeceased him in the year 1984 and he was blessed with six sons and one daughter ie., D.6, out of whom his third and sixth sons were died at their young 55 age of 9 years and as such, there cannot be any legal heirs for those deceased sons of late Jammi Venkatarao. So, whatever the properties/estate left over by late Jammi Venkatarao as on the date of his death will certainly devolve on his children and on the legal heirs of his demised children if any, in equal shares as provided under Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act. Accordingly, as admitted by the 1st defendant and as submitted by D.6, plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share of the husband of the 1st plaintiff in the property of late Jammi Venkatarao covered by Ex.A.1/sale deed alone, including the construction raised by Jammi
Venkatarao to the extent of vacant site covered by Ex.A.1 alone and the branches of the remaining sons ie., husband of defendant No.3 and the wife and children of deceased defendant No.2 ie., defendants 7 to 10 are entitled for 1/5th share each so also defendants 1 and 6 are entitled for 1/5th share each.
At the same time the children of late Venkatarao are not entitled and permitted under law to seek for partition of the constructed portion of Jammi Venkatarao overlapping into the site of D.1 purchased under Ex.B.1, as the said property is absolute and exclusive property of D.1 alone who allowed his father and plaintiffs to enjoy the same till date on account of his relationship with them.
Because, the material available on record revealing the fact that by obtaining plan approval as if Jammi Venkatarao constructing the house in the property purchased under Ex.A.1 alone, raised such structure by encroaching and 56 overlapping into the vacant site purchased by D.1 under Ex.B.1 for which D.1 did not raise any objection either at the time of construction of the house by his father Venkatarao or subsequent to his death owing to his relationship with his father and brother ie., husband of 1st plaintiff certainly it is nothing but giving permissive possession by D.1 to his family members. When admittedly the said house constructed by Venkatarao is in existence ofcourse in a dilapidated condition as reported by the husband of 1st plaintiff while addressing letters to
D.1 revealed under Ex.B.8, coupled with such information given by D.1 to the concerned authorities as evident from Exs.B.12 and B.13 ie., letters addressed by D.1 to the concerned enclosed with such property tax payment receipts, now it cannot be held that D.1 has abandoned any such rights of him over the property covered by Ex.B.1. So, the question of limitation to claim such absolute and exclusive rights of D.1 over the property covered by Ex.B.1, which is not fatal just on the score that it is much subsequent to filing of a suit for partition by the plaintiffs in the year 2008, D.1 came up with a suit for eviction of plaintiffs from the property ie., only the constructed portion of house covered by vacant site purchased by him under Ex.B.1 would not arise, in this particular case owing to the close and blood relation existing with the family of the plaintiffs to the D.1. Hence, plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share in the property 57 covered by Ex.A.1 by excluding the constructed portion and site covered by
Ex.B.1. Accordingly, this point is answered.
53.POINT NO.3:- Having regard to the discussion made while giving findings to points 1 and 2, undoubtedly D.1 is entitled for vacant possession of the schedule property covered by Ex.B.1 purchased by him. But, the plaint schedule furnished by him in O.S.59/2011 is not the same schedule of property covered by Ex.B.1. He has furnished the plaint schedule in respect of constructed portion of the house covered by Ex.B.1/sale deed only. As per evidence of P.W.1, she has been residing in the extreme Eastern side portion of the three portioned house constructed by late Venkatarao. As seen from the plan enclosed to plaint schedule in O.S.59/2011, by leaving the constructed portion of remaining two portions covered by Ex.B.1, only the constructed portion of extreme Eastern side portion of house, a part of which is overlapping the site covered by Ex.A.1, schedule furnished in O.S.59/2011. However, as it is not the 1st defendant, who inducted the plaintiffs into possession of such portion of house property encroaching into the vacant site covered by Ex.B.1 and before effecting partiton of property covered by Ex.A.1, the 1st defendant is not entitled to seek for eviction and recovery of possession of such part of extreme Eastern portion of the house by plaintiffs. Admittedly, the plaint schedule furnished by D.1 in O.S.59/2011 is not tallying with the measurements, 58 extents and boundaries of the property purchased by him under Ex.B.1 and as there is no authenticity for such measurements of Eastern portion of house encroached into the site covered by Ex.B.1. So, until and unless the property covered by Ex.B.1 is being demarcated from out of the entire house property, with its appurtenant vacant site, shown as item nos 1 and 2 in plaint schedule in
OS 87/2008 in execution of division of shares of the children of Venkatarao,
certainly D.1 is not entitled to seek for eviction of plaintiffs from the plaint schedulem ie., a part of eastern portion of such house as furnished by him in
O.S.59/2011 and as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in negative
against D.1 and answered in favour of the plaintiffs for the time being.
54.POINT NO.4:- With regard to consequential relief of permanent injunction as sought for by D.1 while filing O.S.59/2011, having regard to the claim made by the plaintiffs in respect of the constructed portion of the house overlapping and encroaching into the site purchased by D.1 under
Ex.B.1, despite the fact that such sale deed stands in the name of D.1 alone, I hold that D.1 could establish his legal right as well as constructive possession over the property covered by Ex.B.1 by virtue of residence of plaintiffs in the portion of the said house overlapping into the site covered by Ex.B.1 and as such, having regard to in-amicable relation between D.1 and 1st plaintiff, as earlier she disclosed to have gave report to police not only against her husband 59 but by including defendants 1 and 2 also, which lead the 1st defendant to obtain anticipatory bail as is evident from Ex.B.10/bail order and thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present suit (OS 87/2008) for partition by including the self acquired property of the 1st defendant vide Ex.B.1, I hold that after effecting partition of property covered by Ex.A.1, D.1 is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in O.S.59/2011 ie., plaintiffs in O.S.87/2008 from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of D.1 over such property covered by Ex.B.1. But not in respect of plaint schedule furnished in OS 59/2011 alone, as prayed by the 1st defendant ie., part of schedule covered by
Ex.B.1. Accordingly, this point is answered.
55.POINT NO.5:- Having regard to the findings given to points
No.1 to 4, I hold that whatever the findings recorded by the trial court on all the issues pertaining to both the suits while passing common judgment in respect of O.S.87/2008 and O.S.59/2011 warranting interference by this court and accordingly, I hold that such findings are not in accordance with law.
56.POINT NO.6:- (i) IN THE RESULT, A.S.No.113/2018 is allowed by setting aside and modifying the decree and common judgment passed in O.S.87/2008 and O.S.59/2011 dated 3.10.2018 by the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, and the suit O.S.87/2008 is preliminarily decreed in
part for partition of schedule property covered by Ex.A.1/sale deed from out of 60 item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule furnished in O.S.87/2008, into five equal shares and for allotment of 1/5th share to the plaintiffs herein with metes and bounds.
(ii)Further, the appeal in A.S.116/2018 is dismissed by confirming the decree and common judgment passed in regard to O.S.57/2011
dated 3.10.2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.
(iii)In the circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the appeals.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I (on deputation), transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24 th day of April, 2026.
SD/- N.PADMAVATHI
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES
AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Copy to the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram