Page No. 1 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR
Present : Sri N. Santhosh Kumar, IV Additional District & Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar
Dated, this the 26 th day of April, 2024
OS. No.399 of 2013
Between:
1. P. Manemma, W/o late Sathi Reddy, Aged 58 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o: H.No.2-10, Seetharampet Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2. E. Vanamma, W/o Sudhakar Reddy, Aged 37 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: Turkaguda Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,Ranga Reddy District.
3. R. Shyamala, W/o R. Subhash Reddy, Aged 34 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: Almasguda Village, Saroornagar, Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
4. P. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Late Sathi Reddy, Aged 27 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 2-10, Seetharampet Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, RR District.
...Plaintiffs
And
1. P. Yadi Reddy, S/o P. Achi Reddy, Aged about 71 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Venkataramana Colony, Seetharampet Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2. P. Ram Reddy, S/o late P. Achi Reddy, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Pushpanjali Nurseries Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Chairman - S.M.Murali Krishna, S/o Rama Raju,
Page No. 2 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
4. Peddolla Prabhakar Reddy, S/o Laxma Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Venkata Ramana Colony, Seetharampet Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
5. Peddolla Yetta Reddy, S/o Janga Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Seetharampet Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
6. Adhikamela Rama Linga Swamy, S/o Suryanarayana, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o. Hyderabad.
...Defendants
This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 18-04-2024 in the presence of Sri A.H.Chakravarthy, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and of Sri D. Jagan,
Counsel for the Defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 5 and of Sri P. Ramulu, Counsel for
Defendant No.6; and the Defendant No.3 remained ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The present suit is filed for the relief of Preliminary decree for partition and separte possession in respect of the Agricultural lands in Sy. No.304 admeasuring
Ac.5-13 guntas, Sy No.305 admeasuring Ac.2-01 guntas, Sy. No.306 admeasuring
Ac.6-09 guntas, Sy No.307 admeasuring Ac.3-24 guntas and Sy No.308 admeasuirng Ac. 4-19, totally admeasuring Ac.21-26 guntas, situated at
Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Schedule-A property’) andagricultural land in Sy. No. 293 admeasuring Ac.2-20 guntas, situated at Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa village,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit
Page No. 3 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 schedule-B property’) into three equal shares with metes and bounds with reference to good and bad qualities and for allotment and separate possession of 1/3rd share to the Plaintiffs and 1/3rd share each to defendants No.1 and 2; to cancel the registered document bearing No.150/1992 dated 28-01-1992 and registered document bearing No.152 / 1992 dated 28-01-1992 to exent of plaintiff’s share in the
Suit Schedule B property; to cancel the registered document bearing No.456/1991
dated 18-03-1991, registered document bearing No.713/1991 dated 02-05-1991 and
registered document bearing No.717/1991 dated 03-05-1991 to extent of the share of the plaintiffs; and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for division and allotments of shares over the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties as per their entitlement; and to award costs of the suit.
2(i).The brief case of the Plaintiffs as disclosed in the Plaint is that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants No.1 and 2 constitutes a Joint Hindu Family and that their ancestor Late. Peddolla Achaiah @ Achi Reddy had three daughters namely
Jangamma, Lakshmamma and Parvathamma, who got married long back and are staying in the house of their in-laws and at the time of their marriages, their father spent huge amounts for performing their marriages and also gave sufficient amounts to them towards their share and that they are not claiming any rights over the joint family properties.
2(ii).The Plaintiffs further submitted that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants No.1 and 2 are possessing Suit Schedule ‘A’ property and that originally, their common ancestor namely Late Peddolla Achaiah @ Achi Reddy was the joint pattedar of Suit
Schedule ‘A’ property along with K. Jangaiah and Gundalabavi Janga Reddy and
Page No. 4 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 having 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule ‘A’ property and that the said common ancestor Late Peddolla Achaiah @ Achi Reddy was died intestate long back, leaving behind his three sons namely P. Yadi Reddy (Defendant No.1), P. Sathi Reddy (husband of Plaintiff No.1) and P. Ram Reddy (Defendant No.2), among them P.
Sathi Reddy was died in the year 1986, leaving behing the Plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 herein as his legal heirs to succeed his 1/3rd share in the suit schedule ‘A’ property.
2(iii). The Plaintiffs further submitted that Late P. Sathi Reddy, during his lifetime, along with his brothers/ Defendants No.1 and 2, jointly possessing agricultural land in Sy No.293 admeasuring Ac.9-24 guntas, situated at Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa
Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in which he is having 1/3rd share which comes to Ac.3-08 guntas and that after death of the said Sathi Reddy, the Plaintiff No.1 sold away the land to an extent of Ac.0-27 guntas out of their extent of Ac.3-08 guntas, in favour of K. Jagadish and for the remaining extent, succession was granted in favour of Plaintiff No.1.
2(iv). The Plaintiffs further submitted that they recently came to know that two alleged registered sale deeds were brought into existence by forging and impersonating the Thumb impression of Plaintiff No.1 viz Registered sale deed bearing document No.152/1992 dated 28-01-1992 alleged to be executed in favour of Defendant No.6 for the land to an extent of Ac.2-00 forming part of survey No.293 and another registered sale deed bearing document No.150/1992 dated 28-01-1992 alleged to be executed by plaintiff No.1 along with defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.4. The Plaintiffs further submitted that the above said documents were not executed by the Plaintiff No.1 and that the said documents were brought into
Page No. 5 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 existence by forgery and impersonation, which are bad in law, non est in the eye of law and liable to be cancelled.
2(v).The Plaintiffs further submitted that after the death of P.Sathi Reddy, the
Plaintiffs are staying at Seetharampet village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District for their livelihood and that the Defendants No.1 and 2 are managing the suit schedule properties on their behalf and that very recently, the Plaintiffs demanded the Defendants No.1 and 2 for partition of the Suit Schedule ‘A’ property, but in vain and that in the last week of December 2012, when the Plaintiffs visited the Suit
Schedule Properties, they came to know that the Defendants No.3 to 6 have purchased the Suit Schedule A and B properties through registered documents as stated above even though no such document alleged to be executed by the Plaintiff
No.1 at any point of time, therefore the Plaintiffs have obtained Certified copies of alleged sale deeds which are to be declared as null and void and not binding on the
Plaintiffs; and finally prayed the Court to decree the suit with costs.
3(i).The Defendant No.1 filed written statement on his behalf opposing the suit claim of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants No.2, 4 and 5 have filed a memo adopting the
Written Statement filed by the Defendant No.1 and the same was recorded. The
Defendant No.6 filed a seperate Written Statement opposing the suit claim of the
Plaintiffs.
3(ii).The brief case of the Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 as per the Written
Statement of Defendant No.1 is that they have admitted about the the relationship of the parties, but denied that the plaintiffs and defendants are possessing the suit schedule properties in joint. These Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 also denied the other allegations levelled in Paragraph Nos. 3 to 7 of the Plaint.
Page No. 6 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 3(iii). The Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 further submitted that the Defendant No.1 has alienated the land bearing Sy. No. 307 admeasuring Ac.0-14 guntas and Sy.No.
308 admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas, situated at Khalsa, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, RR
District, in favour of Tekula Malla Reddy through Registered Sale deed bearing
Document No. 451 of 2002 dated 18-02-2002 and that the Defendant No.1 has also alienated the land bearing Sy.No. 307 admeasuring Ac.0-16 guntas of Khalsa,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, RR District in favour of Tekula Ram Reddy through a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 612 of 2002 dated 07-03-2002 and that the Defendants No.1 and 2 have also alienated the land bearing Sy.No. 307 admeasuring Ac.0-23 guntas and Sy.No. 308 admeasuring Ac.1-32 guntas, situated at Khalsa, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in favour of Vallamala Chandra Shekhar Reddy and Vallamala Naga Raja Kumar through a registered sale deed bearing document
No.344 of 2003 dated 01-02-2003 and thus, the Plaintiffs No.1 and Defendants No.1 and 2 have alienated the Suit Schedule ‘A’ property in favour of third parties as mentioned above and therefore, the question of partition does not arise and that the
Plaintiffs have supressed the real facts and failed to include the necessary parties and registered holders pertains to the Suit schedule ‘A’ property, therefore the present suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
3(iv). The Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 further submitted that as per their understanding, the Plaintiff No.1 has executed a Registered Gift Settlement deed bearing document No. 152 of 1992 dated 28-01-1992 in favour of Defendant No.5 in respect of the land in Sy.No. 293 admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas, situated at Khalsa,
Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal, RR District with due knowledge and consent of
Plaintiff No.1 and accordingly the name of the Defendant No.5 has been mutated in
Page No. 7 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 the revenue records and accordingly the Defendant No.5 has developed the said land with huge amount and thereafter, alienated the land bearing Sy.No.293 to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas through registered sale deed bearing document No. 5519 of 2013 dated 30-03-2013 in favour of P. Geeta and P. Prameela, since then, the said purchasers are in possession of their purchased land, whereas, the Defendant No.5 has been in possession of remaining part of his purchased land; and finally prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
4(i).The defendant No.6 filed seperate written statement in which, it is alleged that the Plaintiffs supressed the real facts and that the Plaintiff No.1 has alienated the property long back and not questioned the said transaction in time, therefore the suit claim is barred by law of limitation.
4(ii).The Defendant No.6 further submitted that the Plaintiffs or the alleged co- owners were not in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of filing of suit and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot seek any relief under Section 34(2) of the
APCF and SV Act, but valued the suit under Section 24(a) of the Court Fee and Suit
Valuation Act, therefore, the suit has to be dismissed for under valuation.
4(iii). The Defendant No.6 further submitted that as a purchaser of the property, he sold out the land in favour of Smt. Gollapudi Pushpanjali under the registered sale deed bearing document No.2345/2008 dated 27-03-2008 and that there are other sale deeds executed by several persons in favour of several other persons and that the name of Defendant No.6 has been mutated in all the revenue records in respect of his purchsed property and that the Plaintiffs were never in possession of the Suit
Schedule properties beyond the statutory period and that the Suit Schedule A and B properties are not available for partition, therefore, the Plaintiffs are not entitled for
Page No. 8 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 the relief claimed and that the Plaintiffs falsely pleaded that they are in joint possession of the Suit Schedule Properties and that there was no cause of action for the Plaintiffs to file the suit.
4(iv). The Defendant No.6 further submitted that the Plaintiffs are aware about the execution of registered document bearing No.456 of 1991 dated 18-03-1991 executed by M. Gopalakishan Rao and 8 others in favour of Defendant No.6 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.6-20 guntas and the property mentioned thereunder and that Plaintiffs also are aware about registered documents being executed by the Defendant No.6 in favour of Pushpanjali Nurseries Pvt.Ltd and other registered documents and that several purchasers are in possession and enjoyment of their purchased properties through their respective sale deeds and that unless the
Plaintiff takes appropriate steps by adding the said purchasers, the issues involved in the Suit cannot be decided.
4(v).The Defendant No.6 further submitted that one Chadrasekhar Reddy and
Madhavi are in possession of land in Sy.No. 307 and that Orkedia Trust represented by Sridhar and others are in possession of the land in Sy.No. 293 which has been made into nearly about 1000 plots and that the individual purchasers are in possession of their respective purchased plots by constructing the houses, but the persons in possession of lands in Sy.No. 307 and 293 are also not made as parties to decide the matter; and finally prayed to dismiss the suit.
5.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the Court framed the following issues on 10-03-2015:-
1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for Partition of Suit Schedule
Properties as prayed ?
Page No. 9 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of documents bearing Nos. 150/92 and 152/92 in respect of Plaintiff’s share in ‘B’
Schedule property?
3. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of documents bearing Nos. 456/91, 713/91 and 717/91 in respect of the Plaintiff’s share in ‘A’ Schedule property?
4. Whether the Suit claim is barred by limitation?
5. To what relief?
After framing of the afore said issues, on 27-06-2016, the following four additional issues were framed by this Court:
i. Whether the persons in possession of Sy.No. 307 and 293 are
necessary parties to decide the suit as contended by Defendant No.6?
ii. Whether the cause of action is created for the purpose of the Suit?
iii. Whether the court fee paid is incorrect?
iv. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit?
6.To substantiate the suit claim, the Plaintiff No.1/ Smt. P. Manemma examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A12 on behalf of Plaintiffs. In order to disprove the suit claim of the Plaintiffs, the Defendant No. 1/ Sri. P. Yadi Reddy examined himself as DW1 and got marked Exs. B1 to B18 on his behalf. The
Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have examined Sri. Thurpu Janardhan Reddy as DW2 in support of their case.
7.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and perused the record. The learned counsel for Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have submitted written arguments in addition to submission of oral arguments.
Inspite of passing conditional order, the arguments on behalf of Defendant No.6 have
Page No. 10 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 not been advanced, therefore, the arguments on behalf of Defendant No.6 is treated as heard.
8.The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the ancestor of the
Plaintiffs namely Sri. P. Sathi Reddy was having 1/3rd share in the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and that Exs. A8 and A9 registered documents have been brought into existence by forging the signatures and thumb impressions of Plaintiff No.1 and by impersonating the Plaintiff No.1 and that the documents filed by the Plaintiffs proves that the Suit Schedule properties are the properties of the ancestors of the
Plaintiffs and that the documents filed by the Defendants are created documents, therefore, the suit of the Plaintiffs for partition of the Suit schedule properties may be decreed with costs and that the alleged documents brought into existence in respect of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties may be cancelled, as prayed for.
9.On the other hand, the learned counsel for Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 submitted that the Plaintiffs did not prove that there was a partition between the three joint pattedars and also failed to mention the mode of partition between them and that even after the Plaintiffs sold the Suit Schedule property for valid consideration, they falsely filed the suit for partition and seperate possession which is not tenable and that when the Plaintiffs came to know about execution of Exs. A8 and A9, the
Plaintiffs have filed a private complaint which was registered as Ex.B12 FIR vide crime No. 475 of 2015 of PS Ibrahimpatnam in which, the Police have enquired the matter and sent Exs.A8 and A9 along with specimen thumb impressions of Plaintiff
No.1 to the Fingerprint Expert and accordingly the said Fingerprint Expert has analysed Exs. A8 and A9 documents and gave his report under Ex.B13 by stating that the specimen thumb mark impressions of Plaintiff No.1 and thumb impressions
Page No. 11 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 on Exs. A8 and A9 are the same and that this would clearly disprove the version of the Plaintiffs that the thumb mark impressions of Plaintiff No.1 on Exs. A8 and A9 have been forged and that the Plaintiff No.1 was impersonated.
10.The learned counsel for Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 further submitted that the Suit schedule properties were sold long back and that the Plaintiffs were out of possession on the date of filing of suit and that the suit of the Plaintiffs is also barred by law of limitation and that there are several innocent and bonafide purchasers of lands in Sy. No. 307 and 293 who have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective purchased properties/plots, but they have not been arrayed as parties to the suit which would result in dismissal of suit for non-joinder several parties in possession of those parties and that the Plaintiffs have filed the suit without any casue of action and that the suit schedule properties are not available for parties, therefore, they are not liable for partition; and that the Plaintiffs are not entitled for cancellation of any registered instruments as prayed for and further submitted that the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit to create false litigation to get money from the innocent and bonafide purchasers by blackmailing them; and finally prayed to dismiss the Suit with exemplory cost.
11.ISSUE No. 1: Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for Partition of Suit
Schedule Properties as prayed ?
And
Additional ISSUE No.1: Whether the persons in possession of Sy.No. 307
and 293 are necessary parties to decide the suit as contended by Defendant No.6?
Page No. 12 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
The undisputed facts of the present case on hand are that one Peddolla
Achaiah @ Achi Reddy was the owner and possessor of the Suit schedule properties and that he was died leaving behind the husband of Plaintiff No.1 namely Late. P.
Sathi Reddy and the Defendants No.1 and 2. It is also not in dispute that Plaintiffs
No.2 to 4 are the children of Plaintiff No.1 and the said Late. P. Sathi Reddy. It is also not in dispute that the Suit Schedule Properties were the joint family properties of
Plaintiffs and Defendants No. 1 and 2 at one point of time.
12.PW1/ Smt. P. Manemma testified that the Plaintiffs and Defendants No.1 and 2 are possessing the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and that after the death of her husband, she sold away the land to an extent of Ac.0-27 guntas out of Ac.3-08 guntas which fell to the share of her husband, infavour of K. Jagadeesh and remaining extent was succeeded by her, but she came to know that Exs.A8 and A9 alleged to have been executed in favour of Defendant No.4 and Defendant No.6 respectively by forging her thumb impression and by impersonating her, therefore,
Exs. A8 and A9 are liable to be cancelled and prayed for partition.
13.Exs.A1 to A3 are the Certified copies of Pahanies for the years 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1989-90 respectively showing that Peddolla Achaiah @ Achi Reddy along with 2 others, are shown as pattedars and possessors of Agricultural lands in
Sy. No. 304 totally admeasuring Ac.15-39 guntas, in Sy.No. 305 an extent of Ac.6-02 guntas, in Sy.No. 306 an extent of Ac.18-25 guntas and in Sy.No. 307 an extent of
Ac.10-34 guntas. Exs.A4 to A6 are the Certified copies of Pahanis for the years 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1989-90 respectively showing that P. Sathi Reddy along with 4 others are shown as pattedars and possessors of Agricultural lands in Sy. No. 293 admeasuring Ac.9-24 guntas and in Sy.No. 294 an extent of Ac.11-01 guntas. Ex.A7
Page No. 13 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 456/1991 dated 18-03-1991 showing that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 along with 7 others have sold the land in Sy.No. 308 admeasuirng Ac.6-20 guntas in favour of Defendant No.6.
Ex.A8 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 150/1992
dated 28-01-1992 showing that the Plaintiff No.1/P. Manemma and Defendant No.2/
Peddolla Ram Reddy together have sold the land in Sy.No.293 admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in favour of Defendant No.4/Peddolla Prabhakar Reddy. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of registered Gift settlement deed bearing document No. 152/1992 dated 28- 01-1992 showing that the Plaintiff No.1/P. Manemma has gifted the land in
Sy.No.293 admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas in favour of Defendant No.5/Peddolla Yetta
Reddy. Ex.A10 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.
713/1991 dated 02-05-1991 showing that the Plaintiff No.1/P. Manemma and 12 others have sold the land in Sy.No.304 admeasuring Ac.13-15 guntas (part) and Sy.
No.305 admeasuring Ac.6-02 guntas (full), totally admeasuring Ac.19-17 guntas in favour of Defendant No.3/Pushpanjali Nurseries. Ex.A11 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 717/1991 dated 03-05-1991 showing that the Plaintiff No.1/P. Manemma and 19 others have sold the land in Sy.No.306 admeasuring Ac.18-25 guntas in favour of Defendant No.3/Pushpanjali Nurseries.
Ex.A12 is the mutation proceedings bearing No. 2917 of 1991 dated 11-01-1991 issued by MRO, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, effecting the mutation of the name of
Plaintiff No.1 in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos. 289, 293 and 294.
Page No. 14 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
14.In the cross-examination of PW1, it is elicited that the suit schedule property belongs to Seetarampet village and that she has been residing at Seetarampet village since the last 40 years. In the cross-examination of PW1, it is also elicited that her father-in-law (Peddolla Achaiah @ Achi Reddy) had 3 sons and 3 daughters; and that her husband, the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of the said Peddolla Achi
Reddy, whereas Laxmamma, Parvatamma and Jangamma were the 3 daughters of the said Peddolla Achi Reddy. PW1, in her cross-examination admitted that she did not file any document to show that her 3 sisters-in-law have received any amount from her father-in-law/ P. Achi Reddy towards their share. In this regard, PW1 was suggested by the learned counsel for Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 that the Plaintiffs have not made the aforesaid 3 daugthers of P. Achi Reddy as parties to the suit, who are the necessary parties, but the said suggestion has been denied by her.
15.The Plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that the 3 daugthers of P. Achaiah @ Achi
Reddy have got married long ago and that at the time of their marriages, they were given sufficient amounts towards their share and spent huge amounts for performing their marriages, as such, the said 3 daughters of P.Achi Reddy are not claming any rights over the joint family properties, hence they are not shown as parties to the suit.
It is clearly elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that there is no document evidencing the proof that at the time of marriages of 3 daugthers of P.Achi Reddy, they were given sufficient amount in lieu of their share in the joint family properties.
Page No. 15 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
16.The very claim of the Plaintiffs is that Late P. Achi Reddy had 3 sons and 3 daughters, but admittedly, the said 3 daugthers have not been arrayed as parties to the suit and that though the Plaintiffs have pleaded that sufficient amounts have been paid to them at the time of their respective marriages, but the admission of
PW1 in her cross-examination, would crystal clear that no such document has been filed to substantiate the said contention of Plaintiffs. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, the contention of the Plaintiffs that the said P. Achi Reddy gave sufficient amounts to his 3 daugthers at the time of their respective marriages cannot be believable.
17.Once the Plaintiffs are claiming their 1/3rd share through the husband of
Plaintiff No.1/P. Sathi Reddy, who is the son of P. Achi Reddy, the above said 3 daughters of P. Achi Reddy have not been arrayed as parties to the suit. In a suit for partition, all coparceners are the just and necessary parties for proper adjudication and that in their absence, the suit cannot be adjudicated.
18.In the cross-examination, PW1 deposed that the suit lands are abutting to her residence, but in the same cross-examination, PW1 deposed that she does not know who are in possession of the Suit Schedule ‘A’ property. This admission as elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 gives rise to suspicion as to who are in possession of the suit schedule properties on the date of filing of Suit. In this regard, PW1 was suggested that she along with 11 others have sold the land in Sy.No. 304 admeasuring Ac.13-15 guntas and another land in Sy.No. 305 admeasuring Ac.19-17
Page No. 16 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 guntas at Khalsa, Ibrahimpatnam in favour of Defendant No.3 by executing original of Ex.A10, but the said suggestion has been denied.
19.In the cross-examination, PW1 pleaded her ignorance as to whether the
Defendant No.1 has alienated the land in Sy.No. 307 admeasuring Ac.0-14 guntas and the land in Sy.No. 308 admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas at Khasla, Ibrahimpatnam in favour of Sri. Tekula Malla Reddy through original of Ex.B9, but however, PW1 admitted that she knows about the Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have filed their
Written statement before this Court. PW1 also admitted in her cross-examination that the above said Tekula Malla Reddy is in possession in respect of the aforesaid land in Sy.Nos. 307 and 308. This admission as elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 is crystal clear that the said Tekula Malla Reddy was in possession of his purchased extent of land in Sy.Nos. 307 and 308 since the year 2002, but admiteddly the said
Tekula Malla Reddy has not been arrayed as party to this suit which appears to be fatal to the case of Plaintiffs.
20.The Defendant No. 1 namely Sri. P. Yadi Reddy who is examined as DW1 testified that the Plaintiff No.1 along with others have alienated the total land to an extent of Ac.19-17 guntas in Sy.Nos. 304 and 305 in favour of Defendant No.3 by executing the original of Ex.A10 (= Ex.B1) for valid consideration and that Plaintiff
No.1 and others have also alienated the land in Sy.No.306 admeasuring Ac.18-25 guntas in favour of Defendant No.3 by executing the original of Ex.A11 (= Ex.B2) for valid consideration.
Page No. 17 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
21.DW1 further deposed that later, he alienated the land bearing Sy.No.307 admeasuring Ac.0-14 guntas and land bearing Sy.No. 308 admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas in favour of Tekula Malla Reddy through original of Ex.B9 and that since the date of purchase, the purchaser Tekula Malla Reddy has been in continuous possession of his purchased land. DW1 also deposed that he also alienated the land in Sy.No.307 admeasuring Ac.0-16 guntas in favour of Tekula Malla Reddy through original of Ex.B10 and that himself and Defendant No.2 have alienated the land bearing Sy.No.307 admeasuring Ac.0-23 guntas and the land bearing Sy.No.308 admeasuring Ac.1-32 guntas in favour of Vallamala Chandrasekhar Reddy and
Vallamala Naga Rajakumari through original of Ex.B11.
22.DW1 further deposed that the Plaintiff No.1 has executed the original of Ex.B5 (=Ex.A9) in favour of Defendant No.5 in respect of the land in Sy.No.293 admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas and that basing on the said Ex.B5, the Defendant No.5 herein got mutated his name and also developed his purchased land and out of the said purchased land, he sold the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 in favour of P.Geetha and P. Prameela through original of Ex.B7 and since then, they have been in possession of the aforesaid lands purchased by them. DW1 further deposed that the
Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.2 together have executed original of Ex.A8 (=
Ex.B4) in favour of Defendant No.4 for valid consideration and that basing on the aforesaid registered sale deed, the name of the Defendant No.4 has been mutated in the revenue records in respect of his purchased land and thus, DW1 testified that knowing well about the aforesaid transactions, the Plaintiffs filed the Suit which is liable to be dismissed.
Page No. 18 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
23.Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.
713/1991 dated 02-05-1991 showing that the Plaintiff No.1/P. Manemma and 12 others have sold the land in Sy.No.304 admeasuring Ac.13-15 guntas (part) and Sy.
No.305 admeasuring Ac.6-02 guntas (full), totally admeasuring Ac.19-17 guntas in favour of Defendant No.3/Pushpanjali Nurseries. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 717/1991 dated 03-05-1991 showing that the Plaintiff No.1/P. Manemma and 19 others have sold the land in Sy.No.306 admeasuring Ac.18-25 guntas in favour of Defendant No.3/Pushpanjali Nurseries.
Ex.B3 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 2234/1991
dated 07-12-1991 showing that the Defendant No.1/P. Yadagiri Reddy and 7 others
have sold the land in Sy.No.304 admeasuring Ac.2-24 guntas in favour of Defendant
No.3/Pushpanjali Nurseries. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 150/1992 dated 28-01-1992 showing that the Plaintiff No.1/P.
Manemma and Defendant No.2/ Peddolla Ram Reddy together have sold the land in
Sy.No.293 admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in favour of Defendant No.4/Peddolla
Prabhakar Reddy. Ex.B5 is the certified copy of registered Gift settlement deed bearing document No. 152/1992 dated 28-01-1992 showing that the Plaintiff No.1/P.
Manemma had gifted the land in Sy.No.293 admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas in favour of
Defendant No.5/Peddolla Yetta Reddy. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 681/1993 dated 26-04-1993 showing that the wife of
Defendant No.1/P. Sukkamma had sold the land in Sy.No.293 admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas in favour of Defendant No.4/Peddolla Prabhakar Reddy. Ex.B7 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 5519/2013 dated 30-03-2013 showing that the Defendant No.5/ Peddolla Yetta Reddy had sold the land in
Page No. 19 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
Sy.No.293 admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in favour of Palakondla Geeta and Smt.
Padamati Prameela. Ex.B8 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 1475/2001 dated 31-03-2001 showing that the Plaintiff No.1/P.
Manemma had sold the land in Sy.No.293 admeasuring Ac.0-27 guntas, Sy. No. 294 admeasuring Ac.1-34 guntas in favour of K. Jagadeesh. Ex.B9 is the is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 451/2002 dated 18-02-2002 showing that the Defendant No.1/Peddolla Yadi Reddy had sold the land in
Sy.No.307 admeasuring Ac.0-14 guntas, Sy.No. 308 admeasuring Ac.0-19 guntas in favour of Tekula Malla Reddy. Ex.B10 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 612/2002 dated 07-03-2002 showing that the Defendant No.1/
Peddolla Yadi Reddy had sold the land in Sy.No.307 admeasuring Ac.0-16 guntas,
Sy.No.308 admeasuring Ac.0-03 guntas in favour of Tekula Ram Reddy. Ex.B11 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 344/2003 dated 01- 02-2003 showing that the Defendant No.1/ Peddolla Yadi Reddy, Defendant No.2/
Peddolla Ram Reddy and 3 others have sold the land in Sy.No.308/AA admeasuring
Ac.0-25 guntas in favour of Vallamala Chadra Sekhar Reddy and Vallamla Naga
Raja Kumari. Ex.B12 is the Certified copy of the FIR along with report in crime No.
475 of 2015 of PS Ibrahimpatnam lodged by Plaintiff No.1/P. Manemma against
Defendant No.1/Peddolla Yadi Reddy, Defendant No.2/Peddolla Ram Reddy,
Defendant No.4/ P. Prabhakar Reddy, Defendant No.5/ P. Yetta Reddy and another by name S.M. Murali Krishna alleging that they have fabricated the originals of Exs.
B4 and B5 by forging the thumb impressions of the Plaintiff No.1. Ex.B13 is the
Certified copy of report of Finger Print Expert vide file No. C.No.
37/U4/FPB-CID/TS/2016 dated 12-04-2016 in Crime No. 475 of 2015 issued by
Page No. 20 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
Fingerprint Expert stating on examination and comparision of disputed documents viz. Originals of Exs. B4 and B5 with the admitted specimen left and right thumb impressions of Plaintiff No.1, which were obtained in the open court on 04-02-2016, the said report was issued opining that the disputed thumb mark impressions of the
Plaintiff No.1 marked as ‘Q1a’ and ‘Q5b’ in the said report are identical with the specimen left thumb impression of Plaintiff No.1 marked as ‘S4’. Ex. B14 is the certified copy of computerised Pahani for the Fasli year 1423 showing the name of
Defendant No.4/Peddolla Prabhakar Reddy in the column of pattedar and possessor of land in Sy.No. 293/ru to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas. Ex.B15 consists of certified copies of two Pahanies for the Fasli year 1424 showing the name of Defendant
No.5/Peddolla Yetta Reddy in the column of pattedar and possessor of land in Sy.No.
293/e to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas, whereas the second pahani also shows the
Defendant No.4/Peddolla Prabhakar Reddy in the column of pattedar and possessor of land in Sy.No. 293/ru to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas. Exs. B16 to B18 are the
Certified copies of Pahanies for the Fasli years 1425 to 1427 respectively showing the name of Defendant No.4/Peddolla Prabhakar Reddy in the column of pattedar and possessor of land in Sy.No. 293/ru to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas.
24.In the cross-examination, DW1 was suggested that the Plaintiff No.1 never sold any property and never executed originals of Exs. B1 and B2 in favour of
Defendant No.3, but the said suggestion has been denied by him. It is elicited in the cross-examination of DW1 that he alienated the land in Sy.No.307 admeasuring
Ac.0-14 guntas and land in Sy.No. 308 admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas in favour of
Tekula Malla Reddy in the year 2002. DW1 also denied the suggestion placed on
Page No. 21 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 behalf of Plaintiffs that the Plaintiff No.1 did not execute Ex.B10 in favour of Tekula
Malla Reddy and that the Plaintiff No.1 did not execute original of Ex.B11 in favour of
Vallamala Chandrasekhar Reddy and another, but the said suggestion has been denied. DW1 also denied the suggestion placed by the learned counsel for Plaintiffs that Plaintiff No.1 never executed original of Ex.B5.
25.DW2/ Sri.P. Janardhan Reddy filed the affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination in which, he reiterated almost all same chief-examination of DW1 and therefore, the same is not reproduced.
26.In the cross-examination, DW2 was suggested that the Plaintiff No.1 along with others have not sold and not executed originals of Exs.B1 and B2 in favour of
Defendant No.3, but the said suggestion was denied. DW2 also denied the suggestions that Plaintiff No.1 did not execute the originals of Exs. B4 and B5.
27.It is the specific contention of the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiff No.1 did not execute Exs. B1, B2, B4 and B5 and that they are created by forging her thumb mark impressions. It is pertinent to note that Exs. B4 and B5 are the certified copies of registered sale deed and gift settlement deed respectively under which the Plaintiff
No.1 conveyed right, title and possession in favour of purchaser/donee in respect of the lands covered therein and subsequently the Plaintiffs disputed about execution of
Exs. B4 and B5 and accordingly presented a complaint before the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, basing on which, Ex.B12 FIR has been registered. It is pertinent to note that during the course of investigation of the said crime, on the
Page No. 22 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 letter addressed by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, the Director, Fingerprint bureau, DGP Office Complex, Hyderabad (Fingerprint Expert) examined the disputed thumb mark impressions of Plaintiff No.1 on originals of Ex.B4 and B5 and admitted specimen thumb mark impressions of Plaintiff No.1 which were obtained in the open court on 04-02-2016 and on examination and comparision of both admitted and disputed thumb impressions, Ex.B13 report was given opining that the disputed thumb mark impressions of the Plaintiff No.1 marked as ‘Q1a’ and ‘Q5b’ in the said report are identical with the specimen left thumb impression of Plaintiff No.1 marked as ‘S4’.
28.It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for Plaintiffs that the Ex.B13 report given in a criminal case cannot be taken into consideration to prove that the thumb mark impressions on the originals of Exs. B4 and B5 belongs to Plaintiff No.1.
The learned counsel for Plaintiffs further submitted that the Expert who issued
Ex.B13 has not been examined before the Court, therefore, the Ex.B13 cannot be considered. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Defendants submitted that
Ex.B13 report is given by the Fingerprint Expert in discharge of his duties basing on the letter addressed by the Court during the course of investigation of Crime No. 475 of 2015 and that when the Plaintiffs are disputing about Ex.B13, the Plaintiffs admittedly did not take any steps to send originals of Exs.B4 and B5 to any other
Expert for comparision and opinion with the admitted signatures of Plaintiff No.1, therefore, Ex.B13 can be taken into consideration to prove that there is no forgery of thumb mark impressions of Plaintiff No.1 on the originals of Exs.B4 and B5.
Page No. 23 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
29.As could be seen from the contentions of both parties, the Defendants specifically contended that the Plaintiff No.1 had only executed the originals of Exs.
B1, B2, B4 and B5. These 4 documents reveals that the Plaintiff No.1 is shown as an executant of those documents and those documents were registered before the public office and those documents were executed more than 20 years prior to filing of suit and in those circumstances, particularly in a case where Ex.B13 report has been given by a Government Fingerprint Expert, the Plaintiffs failed to take any steps to send the disputed documents viz Exs. B1, B2, B4 and B5 to any other Expert to prove that the thumb mark impressions thereon were not belongs to Plaintiff No.1.
30.The Defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 5 specifically pleaded in their Written statement that certain portions of the Suit schedule properties were sold in favor of
Tekula Malla Reddy, Vallamala Chadrasekhar Reddy, Vallamala Naga Rajakumari,
P.Geetha, P. Prameela and Gollapudi Pushpanjali, who alleged to have purchased their respective lands in pursuance of the registered sale deeds. Even though the
Defendants have pleaded in their Written statement that the aforesaid 6 persons have purchased their respective extents of lands in the suit Survey Numbers, they have not been arrayed as parties to the suit for the reasons best known to the
Plaintiffs. Threfore, non-joining of the aforesaid 6 persons as parties to the suit is fatal to the case of the Plaintiffs.
31.The Plaintiffs pleaded that Exs. B1, B2, B4 and B5 have not been executed by the Plaintiff No.1 along with others in favour of different Defendants and in that regard, Ex.B13 Report of Fingerprint Expert is crystal clear that the thumb mark
Page No. 24 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 impressions of the executant of Exs. B4 and B5 (= Exs. A8 and A9) are the same thumb mark impressions of the Plaintiff No.1 which were obtained in the open Court and that the Plaintiffs did not place any evidence to rebut Ex.B13 Report. Even otherwise, when the case of Defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 5 is that the Plaintiff No.1 has executed Exs. B1, B2, B4 and B5 in favour of the respective purchasers, the
Plaintiffs failed to take any positive steps to get those documents examined by any other Fingerprint Expert. Exs. B1, B2, B4 and B5 are the registered documents executed and registered before a public office and that delivery of possession of the
Schedule of Property covered under those documents was already given to those purchasers and in those circumstances, particularly after lapse of 20 years, the
Plaintiffs filing this case alleging that the thumb mark impression of Plaintiff No.1 was fabricated on those documents by impersonating her cannot be believable.
32.Since the evidence on record shows that the schedule of property has been alienated through several registered documents and that admittedly, the prospective purchasers have been in possession of their respective purchased properties. This is evident that on the date of filing of suit, the suit schedule properties are not in the joint possession of the Plaintiffs or Defendants No.1 and 2. When it has been proved that the schedule of properties are not existing in its form as claimed by the Plaintiffs, the claim of the Plaintiffs for partition and seperate possession cannot be considered.
Page No. 25 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
33.With regard to additional issue No.1, there is ample evidence on record that the Plaintiff No.1 has executed Exs. B1, B2, B4 and B5 in favour of respective purchasers therein and that PW1 also admitted in her cross-examination that several persons have purchased different extents of the suit schedule properties including the lands in Sy.Nos. 307 and 293 as contended by the Defendant No.6. Since the
Plaintiffs are claiming for partition and seperate possession in respect of Suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties which are existing in different survey numbers including Sy.Nos. 307 and 293 and that the persons who came in possession of the lands in Sy.Nos. 307 and 293 have not been arrayed as parties to suit. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the purchasers in possession of lands in Sy.Nos. 307 and 293 are just and necessary parties for proper adjudication. Accordingly, Issue
No.1 and Additional Issue No.1 are answered against the Plaintiffs.
34.ISSUE No. 2: Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of documents bearing Nos. 150/92 and 152/92 in respect of Plaintiff’s share in ‘B’ Schedule property?
AND
ISSUE No.3: Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of
documents bearing Nos. 456/91, 713/91 and 717/91 in respect of the Plaintiff’s share in ‘A’ Schedule property?
Page No. 26 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
In the presesnt case on hand, the Plaintiffs contended that very recently prior to filing of the suit, they came to know that Ex. A8 has been brought into existence which is alleged to be executed by the Plaintiff No.1 along with Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.4 and that Ex.A9 registered gift settlement deed alleged to have been executed by the Plaintiff No.1 in favour of Defendant No.6, by forging and impersonating the thumb impressions of Plaintiff No.1 in those documents. The evidence on record shows that a private complaint was filed and accordingly a case in Crime No. 475 of 2015 was registered by the Police, Ibrahimpatnam and that during the course of investigation of the said crime, both the admitted and disputed thumb mark impressions of the Plaintiff No.1 were obtained and sent to the
Fingerprint Expert who issued Ex.B13 which proves that the admitted and disputed thumb mark impressions belongs to the Plaintiff No.1.
35.Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act provides that any person against whom, a written instrument is void or voidable and the same may cause him serious injury, he may seek for cancellation of such registered instrument. The Indian
Contract Act specifies the circumstances under which a document is void or voidable; and that fraud, coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, mistake or capacity of the person to enter into a contract etc., are some of the instances where a written instrument is to be declared as void or voidable. When it is proved that the thumb mark impressions on Exs. A8 and A9 are belongs to the Plaintiff No.1 which is evident from Ex.B13 report, the plea of the Plaintiffs for the cancellation of Exs. A8 and A9 cannot be considered, particularly in a case where it is proved that the
Plaintiff No.1 has executed the same voluntarily for a valid consideration for family
Page No. 27 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 necessities. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Plaintiffs are not entitled for cancellation of Exs. A8 and A9.
36.The Plaintiffs also pleaded that they are entitled for cancellation of Ex.A7/
Registered Sale deed bearing document No. 456/1991 dated 18-03-1991 showing that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 along with 7 others have sold the land in Sy.No. 308 admeasuring Ac.6-20 guntas in favour of Defendant No.6, Ex.A10/ Registered Sale deed bearing Document No.713/1991 dated 02-05-1991 showing that Plaintiff No.1 and 12 others have sold the land Sy.No. 304 admeasuring Ac.13-15 guntas (part) and Sy.No. 305 admeasuring Ac.6-02 guntas (full), totally admeasuring Ac.19-17 guntas in favour of Defendant No.3 and Ex.A11/Registered Sale deed bearing
Document No. 717 /1991 dated 03-05-1991 showing that the Plaintiff No.1 and 19 others sold land in Sy.No. 306 admeasuring Ac.18-25 guntas in favour of Defendant
No.3. In this regard, the aforementioned three documents have been executed in the year 1991, but the Plaintiffs have filed the suit in the year 2013 i.e. after a lapse of 22 years without giving any cogent and convincing reasons that too after lapse of period of limitation.
37.The elaborate discussion in Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.1 shows that the Plaintiffs have failed to make out their case for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties and in view of the same, this Court holds that the Plaintiffs are not entitled for cancellation of documents bearing Nos. 150/92 and 152/92 in
respect of share of Plaintiffs in respect of Suit Schedule B property and that
the Plaintiffs are also not entitled for cancellation of documents bearing Nos. 456/91,
Page No. 28 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 713/91 and 717/91 in respect of share of Plaintiffs in respect of the Suit Schedule A property. Accordingly Issues No. 2 and 3 are answered against the Plaintiffs.
38.ISSUE No. 4: Whether the Suit claim is barred by limitation?
The evidence on record shows that the Plaintiff No.1 for family necessities sold suit schedule properties in favour of Defendants in the year 1991 and 1992 and subsequently several alienations have been affected and that when Exs.A8 and A9 were executed in the year 1992 and that Exs.A7, A10 and A13 were executed in the year 1991, the plea of the Plaintiffs for cancellation of Exs.A7 to A10 and A13 which were executed as long as in the years 1991 and 1992 and subsequently filing of the present suit for its cancellation in the year 2013 is barred by law of limitation. Hence
Issue No.4 is answered against the Plaintiffs.
39.Additional ISSUE No. 2 : Whether the cause of action is created for the
purpose of the Suit?
The Defendants in their Written statement contended that even though the suit schedule properties are not available for partition, but the Plaintiffs have filed the suit by creating the alleged cause of action on false and frivolous grounds. In this regard, the Plaintiffs contended in the plaint that the Defendants No.1 and 2 are managing the suit schedule properties on their behalf and that very recently, the
Plaintiffs demanded the Defendants No.1 and 2 for partition of the Suit Schedule ‘A’ property, but in vain and that in the last week of December 2012, when the Plaintiffs visited the Suit Schedule Properties, they came to know that the Defendants No.3 to
Page No. 29 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013 6 have purchased the Suit Schedule A and B properties through registered documents. The conclusion arrived in the aforesaid issues discussed above and the evidence on record clearly shows that on the date of filing of the Suit, the Suit
Schedule Properties are not available for partition and separate possession.
Therefore, it appears that the Plaintiffs shown the cause of action only for the purpose of the suit even though no such cause of action accures to institute the suit for partition. Therefore, Additional Issue No.2 is answered against the Plaintiffs.
40.Additional ISSUE No. 3 : Whether the court fee paid is incorrect?
As per Section 34 of the TS Court Fees and Suit valuation Act, 1956, in a suit for partition and separate possession of a share of joint family property or of property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who has been excluded from possession of such property, fee shall be computed on the market value of the movable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property included in the plaintiffs share and accordingly Plaintiffs have to pay the ad-volerm court fee. In the present case on hand, it is proved that the Plaintiffs were not in possesion of the Suit
Schedule Properties on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the claim of the
Plaintiffs that they were in joint possession of the suit schedule properties and accordingly valued the suit under section 34 (2) of the Court Fee act and paying a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is not sufficient. Therefore, I hold that the Court Fee paid by the Plaintiffs is incorrect. Accordingly, Additional Issue No.3 is answered against the Plaintiffs.
Page No. 30 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
41.Additional ISSUE No. 4: Whether this court has no jurisdiction to
entertain the Suit?
As seen from the Plaint, the Plaintiffs have valued the total value of the suit schedule properties at Rs.86,24,000/-, in which 1/3rd share of the Plaintiffs comes to
Rs.28,74,667/- and that 3/4th of the market value of the share of the Plaintiffs comes to Rs.21,56,000/-, which is the value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, on the date of filing of suit. Therefore, this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit on the date of filing of suit.
42. As could be seen from the record, both the Suit Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties are situated at Khalsa Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which are lies within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, I am of the view that this Court has got both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and accordingly Additional issue No.4 is answered in favour of the Plaintiffs.
43.ISSUE NO.5: To what relief?
From the foregoing discussion and in view of the material available on record, this court finds that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case for Partition of Suit Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and for cancellation of Exs. A7 to A11. The discussion in Issues Nos.1 to 3 and Additional Issues NO.1 to 4 as above and the conclusion arrived therein shows that the Plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of
Partition and for cancellation of Exs. A7 to A11. In view of the same, the suit of the
Plaintiffs is to be dismissed with costs to the Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6. Accordingly, issue No.5 is answered against the Plaintiffs.
Page No. 31 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
44.In the result, the suit of the Plaintiffs is dismissed with costs to the
Defendants No.1, 2, 4 to 6.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 26 th day of April 2024.
IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS: PW-1: Smt. P. Manemma (Plaintiff).
FOR DEFENDANTS: DW-1: P. Yadi Reddy (Defendant No.1) DW-2: T. Janardhan Reddy (Alienated land in favour Defendant No.3)
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS
Through PW1:
Ex.A1:-CC of Pahani for the year 1985-86.
Ex.A2:-CC of Pahani for the year 1987-88.
Ex.A3:-CC of Pahani for the year 1989-90.
Ex.A4:-CC of Pahani for the year 1985-86.
Ex.A5:-CC of Pahani for the year 1987-88.
Ex.A6:-CC of Pahani for the year 1989-90.
Ex.A7:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 456/1991,
dated 18-03-1991.
Ex.A8:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 150/1992,
dated 28-01-1992.
Ex.A9:-CC of Regd Gift settlement Deed vide Document No. 152/1992,
dated 28-01-1992.
Ex.A10:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 713/1991,
Page No. 32 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
dated 02-05-1991.
Ex.A11:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 717/1991,
dated 03-05-1991.
Ex.A12:-Original Proceedings issued in favour of Plaintiff No.1 Proceedings No. 2917 of1990, dated 11-01-1991.
FOR DEFENDANT:
Through DW1:
Ex.B1:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 713/1991,
dated 02-05-1991.
Ex.B2:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 717/1991,
dated 03-05-1991.
Ex.B3:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 2234/1991,
dated 07-12-1991.
Ex.B4:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 150/1992,
dated 28-01-1992.
Ex.B5:-CC of Regd Gift Settlement deed Document No. 152/1992,
dated 28-01-1992.
Ex.B6:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 681/1993,
dated 26-04-1993.
Ex.B7:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 5519/2013,
dated 30-03-2013.
Ex.B8:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 1475/2001,
dated 31-03-2001.
Ex.B9:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 451/2002,
dated 18-02-2002.
Ex.B10:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 612/2002,
dated 07-03-2002.
Page No. 33 of Total 33 PagesJudgment in OS No. 399 of 2013
Ex.B11:-CC of Regd Sale Deed vide Document No. 344/2003,
dated 01-02-2003.
Ex.B12:-Certified copy of the FIR along with report in crime No. 475 of 2015 of PS Ibrahimpatnam lodged by Plaintiff No.1against Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and another by name S.M. Murali Krishna.
Ex.B13:-CC of Finger print report vide file No.C.No. 37/U4/FPB-CID/TS/2016, dated 12-04-2016 in Cr.No. 475/2015.
Ex.B14:-CC of online Pahani for the Fasli Year 1423.
Ex.B15:-CC of online Pahani for the Fasli Year 1424 (2 sheets).
Ex.B16:-CC of online Pahani for the Fasli Year 1425.
Ex.B17:-CC of online Pahani for the Fasli Year 1426.
Ex.B18:-CC of online Pahani for the Fasli Year 1427.
IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.