APCH040000822007 1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),
MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (A.P.)
Present: - Sri N. Sirish
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Madanapalle
Thursday, the Thirtieth (30 th ) day of April , 2026
Original Suit No. 173 of 2007 Between:
1. Palla Pratap Veeramallu, aged about 30 years,
2. Palla Rajasekhar, aged about 28 years,
Both are sons of Palla Eswaraiah, Hindu, Balija by caste, R/at D.No.14/230,
East- Kothapeta, Madanapalle Mandal.
…. Plaintiffs.
And
1. Palla Eswaraiah, s/o Chalamaiah, (Died. per LRs plaintiffs and defendant
No.4).
2. Sree Gurram Vijaya Bhaskar, S/o Subbaiah (Died. per LRs defendant
Nos.5 to 7)
3.B. Vasundara Devi, MBBS, W/o Ram Bablu, aged about 56 years, Hindu,
R/at Reddeppa Naidu Colony, Madanapalle.
4. Palla Saraswathamma, W/o Eswaraiah, aged about 62 years, Hindu,
Housewife, R/at D.No.14/230 East Kothapeta, Madanapalle Town, Post and
Mandal, Chittoor District.
(Defendant No.4 is one of the LRs of deceased defendant No.1, and she
was added as per orders in IA No. 143/2020, dated, 04.04.2024).
5. Gurram Vasantha, aged about 56 years, W/o Late G. Vijaya Bhaskar, Hindu,
Housewife,
APCH040000822007 2
6. Gurram Sreelakshmi, aged about 35 years, D/o Late G. Vijaya Bhaskar,
Hindu, Housewife,
7. Gurram Krishna, aged about 30 years, S/o Late G.Vijaya Bhaskar, Hindu,
Cultivation,
Defendants No.5 to 7 are R/at D.No.14-229, East– Kothapeta, Madanapalle
Town (PO) and Mandal, Chittoor District.
(Defendants No.5 to 7 are added as per orders in IA No. 140/2021, dated
04.04.2024) …. Defendants.
This suit is coming on 16.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Sarasa Subramanyam, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri
N.S.N.Prasad, Advocate for the defendant No. 3, and the defendants No. 4 and 5 have remained ex parte and the suit is dismissed for default against defendants No.6 and 7 and upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following–
J U D G M E N T
1.The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for partition of the suit schedule properties into three equal shares and to allot two such shares to the plaintiffs.
2. The brief material facts of the plaint are as follows-
i) The 1st item of the plaint schedule property was purchased by the plaintiffs’ grandmother, Palla Mangamma, under a registered sale deed dated 15-03-1916. The 2nd item of the plaint schedule property was also purchased by Palla Mangamma in the year 1912.
ii) From the date of purchase, Palla Mangamma was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties with absolute rights. After her death, her son Venkata Chalamaiah succeeded to the properties and
APCH040000822007 3 remained in possession and enjoyment thereof. After him, the 1st defendant
Eswaraiah and the plaintiffs have been jointly enjoying the plaint schedule properties.
iii) The plaint schedule properties are ancestral and coparcenary properties. The plaintiffs together are entitled to 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties and the 1st defendant is entitled to the remaining 1/3rd share. The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are co-owners, co-sharers and are in joint possession of the plaint schedule properties.
iv) The 1st defendant Eswaraiah has, for more than 20 years, been neglecting the family and the family properties and has been associating with undesirable persons. Taking advantage of his conduct, defendants 2 and 3 are said to have obtained certain documents from him affecting even the 2/3rd share of the plaintiffs.
v) Saraswathamma, the mother of the plaintiffs, has been maintaining the family, taking care of the plaint schedule properties and bringing up the plaintiffs. She got the plaintiffs educated. She let out the suit house from the beginning and derived rental income therefrom. She also cultivated the 2nd item of the plaint schedule property and carried on milk vending until the plaintiffs attained majority.
vi) There was no legal necessity for the 1st defendant to alienate any portion of the plaint schedule properties in favour of defendants 2 and 3.
Therefore, any documents executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are not binding on the plaintiffs’ 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties.
vii) The plaintiffs submit that defendants 2 and 3 have been claiming that they obtained certain documents from the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs contend
APCH040000822007 4 that such documents, if any, are void and cannot affect their lawful share in the plaint schedule properties.
viii) About a week prior to the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs requested the 1st defendant to give up his bad habits, lead a proper life and agree for partition of the plaint schedule properties. However, defendants 2 and 3 allegedly influenced the 1st defendant not to agree for partition.
ix) The plaintiffs submit that there is no safety in continuing joint possession of their 2/3rd share along with the 1st defendant. Therefore, partition and separate possession is the only remedy available to them.
x) The defendants 2 and 3 have been impleaded as necessary parties since they are claiming rights under certain alleged documents said to have been executed by the 1st defendant. Their presence is necessary for effective adjudication and for passing a proper and workable decree. Hence, the suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties into three equal shares and for allotment of two such shares to the plaintiffs.
3. The defendant No. 2 (since died) and defendant No. 3 have filed a common written statement. The brief material facts of it are as follows:
i) The defendants admit that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of the 1st defendant, who is the son of Palla Chalamaiah and grandson of Palla
Mangamma. The 3rd defendant is the elder sister of the 2nd defendant and executed a Registered General Power of Attorney dated 12.02.1986 in his favour.
ii) The defendants admit that item No. 1 originally belonged to Palla
Mangamma but contend that the southern boundary shown in the plaint is incorrect and that there is a joint lane on the southern side. They claim that the lane is jointly used by the family of the defendants through R. Lakshmamma, maternal grandmother of defendants 2 and 3.
APCH040000822007 5 iii) R. Lakshmamma executed a registered Will in 1968 in favour of her daughter G. Subhadradevi with vested remainder to the 2nd defendant and his brother Amarendra. After the death of G. Subhadradevi in 2004, the 2nd defendant and Amarendra became entitled to the properties and continued using the lane.
iv) The defendants deny that item No. 1 is ancestral or coparcenary property. According to them, after the death of Palla Mangamma, her son Palla
Chalamaiah inherited item No. 1 as her separate property and later gifted it to his wife Palla Lakshmamma under a registered gift deed.
v) Palla Lakshmamma executed a registered Will dated 14.07.1983 in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of item No. 1. After her death, the 1st defendant became the exclusive owner of item No. 1.
vi) The defendants state that the 1st defendant borrowed amounts from the 2nd defendant and, on 12.08.1996, borrowed Rs. 25,000/- and executed a
Registered Simple Mortgage Deed over item No. 1. As the amount was not repaid, the 2nd defendant issued notice dated 25.01.2003 and received a reply
dated 13.02.2003.
vii) The 2nd defendant thereafter filed O.S. No. 46 of 2003 before the
Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle for recovery of Rs. 2,73,537/-. By judgment
dated 27.03.2006, a preliminary decree was passed directing the 1st
defendant to pay Rs. 2,77,379/- with interest at 6% per annum. A.S. No. 97 of 2006 filed by the 1st defendant was dismissed on 13.08.2007. I.A. No. 794 of 2006 for final decree was pending.
viii) The defendants No.2 and 3 contend that the present suit has been filed in collusion with the 1st defendant to avoid sale of item No. 1 in execution of the mortgage decree. The defendants deny that item No. 2 is ancestral or joint family property and contend that the plaintiffs have no right, title or
APCH040000822007 6 possession over it. The defendants deny the allegations regarding bad habits of the 1st defendant and state that he is carrying on business, running a tailoring shop and managing the family. The defendants state that the 1st defendant became entitled to Ac.0.86 cents in Survey No. 85/2 and Ac.0.25 cents in Survey No. 1029/3 of Basinikonda Revenue Village through family arrangement and obtained layout approval from Basinikonda Gram Panchayat on 03.08.1983. The defendants state that the 1st defendant sold Plot No. 1 to
Kanchi Kuppachari on 04.08.1984 for Rs. 3,500/- and that Kanchi Kuppachari sold it to the 3rd defendant on 30.08.1984 for Rs. 16,500/-.
ix) The 1st defendant sold Plots Nos. 2 and 3 to the 3rd defendant on 04.06.1987 for Rs. 20,200/-, part of Plots Nos. 7 and 8 on 09.09.1983 for
Rs.5,300/-, the remaining parts of Plots Nos. 7 and 8 on 04.02.1984 for
Rs.1,500/-, Plots Nos. 13 and 14 on 22.08.1988 for Rs. 38,000/- and Plots
Nos. 15 and 16 on 21.11.1988 for Rs. 38,000/-. The defendants further state that Plot No. 4 was sold to G. Vijaya Lakshmamma on 04.02.1984 for
Rs.3,700/-, Plot No. 5 and part of Plot No. 6 to V. Subbarathnamma on 04.02.1984 for Rs. 5,600/-, the remaining part of Plot No. 6 to V.Sanjeevamma on 04.02.1984 for Rs. 2,000/- and Plots Nos. 10 to 12 to K. Thippachari and
Eswaramma on 11.02.1985 for Rs. 3,700/-.
x) The defendants contend that all the above sale deeds were executed for family necessity and are binding on the plaintiffs. The 3rd defendant claims exclusive ownership and possession over Plots Nos. 1 to 3, 7, 8 and 13 to 16.
The defendants state that acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of
Survey No. 85/2 by Gazette Notification dated 23.01.1985. W.P. No. 5868 of 1985 filed by the 3rd defendant was allowed on 26.03.1986 and W.P. No. 2626 of 1985 filed by the 1st defendant was allowed on 13.06.1986, resulting in quashing of the acquisition proceedings.
APCH040000822007 7 xi) The defendants contend that the plaintiffs became majors long ago and never challenged the sale deeds executed between 1983 and 1988. They further contend that the Will dated 14.07.1983, the decree in O.S. No. 46 of 2003 and the sale deeds executed in favour of the 3rd defendant and others are binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants contend that the suit is not properly valued, is bad for non-joinder of purchasers of Plots Nos. 4 to 6 and 10 to 12, is barred by limitation and has been filed only to harass defendants 2 and 3. The defendants therefore pray that the suit be dismissed with costs.
4. Basing on the pleadings and material documents filed, the then
Presiding Officer has settled the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties as prayed for?
2) Whether the sale deeds pleaded by the defendants in the written statement are binding on the plaintiffs?
3) Whether the judgment and decree in OS.No.46/2003 is binding on the plaintiffs?
4) Whether the court fee paid under Section 34 (2) of A.P.C.F. Act is correct?
5) To what relief?
5. During the pendency of the suit the defendant No.1 had died and the plaintiffs along with the wife of deceased defendant No.1 (defendant No.4) were recognized as the LRs of deceased defendant No.1, and defendant No.4 wasadded as per orders in IA No. 143/2020, dated, 04.04.2024. Defendant
No.2 also died, and his wife and children were impleaded as defendants No.5 to 9 as per orders in IA No. 140/2021, dated 04.04.2024
APCH040000822007 8
6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW. 1 is examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants No. 2 and 3, DW.1 is examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B14 are marked.
7. Heard both sides. Considered the written arguments filed on both sides.
8. Issue No.1:
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties as prayed for?
The case of the plaintiffs is that item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by their grandmother Palla Mangamma under a registered sale deed dated 15.03.1916 and that item No. 2 was purchased by her in the year 1912. According to them, after the death of Palla Mangamma, the properties devolved upon her son Venkata Chalamaiah and thereafter upon the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs. They contend that the suit properties are ancestral and coparcenary properties in which they together have 2/3rd share.
9. Per contra, the case of defendants No. 2 and 3 is that item No. 1 was the separate property of Palla Mangamma and, after her death, devolved upon her son Palla Chalamaiah, who subsequently gifted the same to his wife Palla
Lakshmamma under a registered gift deed. It is their further case that Palla
Lakshmamma executed a registered Will dated 14.07.1983 in favour of the 1st defendant, where under he became the exclusive owner of item No. 1. In respect of item No. 2, it is their case that the 1st defendant formed house plots and sold them under various registered sale deeds in favour of the 3rd defendant and others between the years 1983 and 1988.
10. The second plaintiff is examined as PW. 1 on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The second plaintiff has filed two chief affidavits, the first one was filed on 23.11.2009 and second one is filed on 03.01.2020. The said two chief
APCH040000822007 9 affidavits filed in lieu of his chief-examination were received in evidence(by the then Presiding Officer).
In the first chief affidavit (dated 23.11.2009), the plaintiff No. 2 has reiterated the averments of the plaint. It is further stated that the paternal great grandmother of the plaintiffs had purchased item No.1 of the suit schedule properties under a registered sale deed dated 15.03.1916 and item No. 2 of the suit schedule properties under a registered sale deed dated 12.12.1912, who enjoyed the same till her demise. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ father and their paternal uncle have succeeded the suit schedule properties; subsequently, after the death of their paternal uncle, the plaintiffs’ father had succeeded the suit schedule properties and ever since then the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. In the second chief affidavit filed in lieu of his chief- examination (dated 03.01.2020), it is stated that the suit schedule properties were originally purchased by the plaintiffs’ paternal great grandmother P.
Mangamma (according to the plaint and the first chief affidavit, the said P.
Mangamma was stated to be the plaintiffs’ great grandmother). It is also stated that the defendant No. 3 got issued legal notice dated 17.08.2015 to the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 with false and baseless allegations for which the plaintiffs got issued a reply notice dated 12.09.2015 with true and correct facts. Thereafter, the defendant No.3 had filed a false suit as
OS.No.350/2015 against the plaintiffs and others on 06.10.2015 for the relief
of permanent injunction, on the file of First Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Madanapalle. The plaintiffs got marked the following documents-
Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 13.03.1916 vide document
No.289/1916 executed by K. Abdul Kareem Sab in favour of
i) A. Nammalwaraiah, ii) Natesham and iii) Palla Mangamma (plaintiffs’
APCH040000822007 10 paternal great grandmother). As per the schedule of Ex.A1 land to an extent of Ac.0-15 cents situated in S.No. 85 of Basinikonda Revenue Village was sold under it (part of item No.2 in S.No.85/2 of the suit schedule properties). But according to the plaintiffs’ plaint averments as well as chief affidavits of PW.1,
P. Mangamma (plaintiffs’ paternal great grandmother) alone was the purchaser, and that the entire item No.2 (i.e., Ac.0-50 cents in S.No.85/2 of
Basinikonda Revenue Village) was purchased under this sale deed.
Ex.A2: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 12.12.1912 vide document
No.1386/1912, executed by S. Sreenivasulu in favour of P. Mangamma.
Under this document, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that, item No.1 of the suit schedule properties was purchased by their paternal great grandmother.
Ex.A3: Legal notice dated 17.08.2015 got issued by defendant No. 3 to the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 and four others.
Ex.A4: Reply notice dated 12.09.2015 got issued by the plaintiffs to the notice under Ex.A3.
Ex.A5: Served postal acknowledgment dated 14.09.2015 of the notice under
Ex.A4 upon the Advocate of defendant No.3 through whom the notice under
Ex.A3 was issued.
Ex.A6: Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.350/2015 on the file of First Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, filed by defendant No.3 against the defendant No.1, plaintiffs herein and Kondamarripalle Gramapanchayat. The said suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from changing the physical features and reducing width of the road situated in S.No.85/2 (survey number of item No.2 of the present suit schedule properties).
Ex.A7: Certified copy of written statement of defendants No. 2 and 3 (plaintiffs herein) in the said OS.No.350/2015.
APCH040000822007 11
Ex.A8: Paper publication dated 13.09.2015, in Enadu Telugu Daily News
Paper, Chitttoor District Edition informing the general public about the pendency of the present suit and that item No.2 of the suit schedule properties belong to the plaintiffs and not to enter into any transactions with defendants
No.2 and 3, who are trying to create registered documents.
Ex.A9: Paper publication dated 15.09.2015, in Enadu Telugu Daily News
Paper, Chitttoor District Edition by the defendants No.2 and 3 in reply to the publication under Ex.A8, stating that the plaintiffs are no way related to the item No.2 of the suit schedule properties and that the same belonged to defendant No.1 who had laid plots and subsequently sold away all the plots to several persons under various registered sale deeds.
The following material facts were elicited by defendant No.3 in the cross- examination of plaintiff No. 2,
i) His paternal great grandmother P. Mangamma had originally purchased item No.1 of the suit schedule properties under the original of Ex.A2, and that the said P. Mangamma had gifted away the said item No.1 to her daughter-in-law (plaintiffs’ paternal grandmother) Lakshmamma under a registered gift deed.
ii) His paternal grandmother Lakshmamma had bequeathed item
No.1 of the suit schedule properties to defendant No.1 under a registered Will dated 14.07.1983.
iii) The defendant No.2 had filed a suit as OS.No.46/2003 against the defendant No. 1 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle for recovery of a mortgage debt, executed in respect of item No.1 of the present suit schedule properties. The said OS.No.46/2003 was decreed, and that the first appeal and second appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 were dismissed.
APCH040000822007 12 iv) The defendant No. 1 had discharged the mortgage debt in the above said OS.No.46/2003, during the pendency of final decree proceedings, to defendant No. 2.
v) One Venkataramana, Narayana and Ramachandra are the brothers of defendant No. 1.
vi) The above said Narayana, one of the brothers of defendant No.1, had died without marriage as a bachelor.
vii) The above said Venkatramana, one of the brothers of defendant
No. 1 had died about 40 years ago leaving behind him his wife
Narayanamma and daughter Savithri.
viii) The above Ramachandra, one of the brothers of defendant No. 1 had died about 20 years ago leaving behind him his wife and children.
ix) Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties was originally purchased by paternal great grandmother P.Mangamma under the original of Ex.A1.
x) Defendant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-86 cents in S.No.85/2 (survey number of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties).
xi) Only land to an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in S.No.85/2 of
Basinikonda Village is shown as item No.2 of the suit schedule properties although the defendant No. 1 was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-86 cents. He does not know what happened to remaining Ac.0.36 cents in the said S.No.85/2 and why the same has not been included in item No.2 of the suit schedule properties.
APCH040000822007 13 xii) The suit schedule properties belonged to defendant No. 1 and that he or plaintiff No. 1 were not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties.
xiii) He had obtained an Encumbrance Certificate in respect of suit schedule properties before filing of the present suit.
xiv) He has admitted that the defendant No.1 had sold away 16 plots situated in S.No.85/2 of Basinikonda Revenue Village (survey number of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties) as follows – Plot No.1 to one Kanchi Kuppachari under a registered sale deed dated 04.08.1984 by delivering its possession on the same day. In turn the said K.Kuppachari sold away the said plot No.1 to defendant No. 3 under a registered sale deed
dated 30.08.1993 by delivering its possession.
Plots No.2 and 3 to defendant No. 3 under a registered sale deed dated 24.06.1987 by delivering possession on the same day.
Part of plots No.7 and 8 to defendant No. 3 under a registered sale deed dated 09.09.1983 by delivering possession on the same day.
The remaining portion of plots No.7 and 8 to defendant No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 by delivering possession on the same day.
Plots No.13 and 14 to defendant No. 3 under a registered sale deed dated 22.08.1988 by delivering possession on the same day.
APCH040000822007 14 Plots No.15 and 16 to defendant No. 3 under a registered sale deed dated 21.11.1988 by delivering possession on the same day.
Plot No.4 to one Vijayalakshmamma under a registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 by delivering possession on the same day.
Plot No.5 and part of plot No.6 to one Subbarathnamma,
D/o Ramaswamy under a registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 by delivering possession on the same day.
The remaining plot No.6 to one Sanjeevamma, D/o
Ramaswamy under a registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 by delivering possession on the same day.
Plots No.9 to 12 under a registered sale deed dated 11.02.1985.
xv) The defendant No. 1 had sold away the entire extent of land entitled by him in S.No.85/2 (survey number of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties) and he did not retain any extent of land in the said S.No.85/2 of Basinikonda Revenue Village.
In his cross-examination, the plaintiff No. 2 has categorically denied the suggestion that under Ex.A1, only Ac.0-15 cents was purchased. He had further categorically denied the suggestion that the defendant No.1 was never addicted to vices. He has also categorically denied the suggestion that he or plaintiff No. 1 never had any right or title over the suit schedule properties and that the defendant No.1 got filed the present suit through him and plaintiff
No.1 only as a counterblast to the above said mortgage suit in OS.No.46/2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
APCH040000822007 15
11. On the other hand, the defendant No. 3 was examined on behalf of her and deceased defendant No. 2 as DW. 1. In the chief affidavit filed in lieu of her chief examination, she has reiterated the averments of her written statement, stated above. She got marked the following documents: –
Ex.B1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.08.1984 vide document
No.4260/1984, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of K. Kuppachari.
Ex.B2: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30.08.1993 vide document
No.4719/1993, executed by K. Kuppachari in favour of defendant No. 3.
Ex.B3: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 24.06.1987 vide document
No.2961/1987, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 3.
Ex.B4: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 09.09.1983 vide document
No.3224/1983, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 3.
Ex.B5: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 vide document
No.591/1984, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.3.
Ex.B6: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 22.08.1988 vide document
No.3500/1988, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.3.
Ex.B7: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 21.11.1988 vide document
No.4797/1988, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3.
Ex.B8: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 vide document
No.588/1984, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of G.Vijayalakshmamma.
Ex.B9: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 vide document
No.589/1984, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of V.Subbarathnamma.
Ex.B10: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 vide document No.590/1984, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of
V.Sanjeevamma.
APCH040000822007 16
Ex.B11: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 11.02.1985 vide document No.616/1985, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of
K.Thippachari and his wife Eswaramma.
Ex.B12: Encumbrance Certificate in respect of land situated in S.No.85/2 of
Basinikonda Revenue Village (i.e., land situated in survey number of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties) for the period from 01.01.1983 to 06.04.2025.
It shows the above transactions under Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 and several other transactions.
Ex.B13: Certified copy of registered General Power of Attorney dated 12.02.1986, executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2. It shows that the defendant No. 3 had authorised defendant No. 2, who is her brother, to manage all her properties including the power to alienate her properties, and also to file suit etc., on her behalf.
Ex.B14: Certified copy of deposition of P. Eswaraiah, (defendant No. 1 herein) the above said OS.No.46/2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
Ex. B14 is filed to show that the defendant No. 1 had sold the above said plots to the defendant No.3.
12. Since the plaintiff No.2 (PW. 1) had clearly admitted about the execution of sale deeds under Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 in the course of his cross- examination, no further appreciation of Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 is required. However, it has to be seen whether the defendant No. 1 had exclusive right over the property sold by him under the said registered sale deeds under Ex.B1 to
Ex.B11.
In his cross-examination by the plaintiffs the following material facts were elicited-
APCH040000822007 17
i) She is not having any right or interest in item No.1 of the suit schedule properties and that the documents filed by her pertain only to item
No.2 of the suit schedule properties.
ii) Defendant No. 1, plaintiffs and their family members have been residing jointly in one house as on the date of demise of defendant No. 1.
iii) The plaintiff No. 1 was born in the year 1971.
iv) The plaintiff No. 2 was born in the year 1973.
In her cross-examination, defendant No. 3 has categorically denied the suggestion that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of defendant No. 1 and they are not self-acquired properties of defendant No. 1.
She has further categorically denied the suggestion that the defendant No.1 was addicted to vices and by taking undue advantage of the same, she and defendant No. 2 have colluded together and obtained registered sale deeds from defendant No. 1. She has further categorically denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs are each entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and they are entitled for partition of the same.
13. A careful scrutiny of the oral evidence of PW.1 and the recitals of
Exs.A1 and A2 discloses serious infirmities striking at the very root of the plaintiffs’ case.
Firstly, though the plaintiffs pleaded that Palla Mangamma was their paternal grandmother, PW.1 in his later chief affidavit and in cross-examination admitted that she was in fact their paternal great grandmother. This inconsistency itself shows want of clarity regarding the genealogy and source of title pleaded by the plaintiffs.
Secondly, and more importantly, Ex.A1 does not support the plaint version at all. Under Ex.A1 dated 15.03.1916, Palla Mangamma was not the sole purchaser. The certified copy clearly discloses that she purchased the property
APCH040000822007 18 jointly with A. Nammalwaraiah and Natesham. Further, under Ex.A1 only
Ac.0.15 cents was conveyed, whereas the plaintiffs have shown item No.2 of the suit schedule property as Ac.0.50 cents in S.No.85/2 and pleaded as if the entire said extent was purchased by Palla Mangamma alone under Ex.A1.
There is absolutely no pleading and no evidence as to how the shares of the other two joint purchasers got extinguished or how Palla Mangamma became the exclusive owner. Thus, the foundational document Ex.A1 itself belies the plaint averments.
Thirdly, even according to the plaintiffs’ own pleading, both Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are purchases made by Palla Mangamma in her own individual name and from her own source. Therefore, the root of title to both items of the suit schedule properties traces not to any male ancestor inheriting by survivorship, but to a female Hindu owner acquiring the properties in her own right. This aspect assumes great legal significance.
14. Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after commencement of the Act, shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner. Therefore, the properties covered under Exs.A1 and A2 constituted the absolute and separate estate of Palla Mangamma. Upon her death, succession to such separate estate of a female Hindu is governed by
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which prescribes the statutory order of heirs. Thus, whatever devolved upon her son Venkata Chalamaiah was by succession to the separate estate of his mother and not by survivorship in any coparcenary. Thereafter, even assuming Venkata
Chalamaiah died intestate, succession to his separate estate would be governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under which his son
APCH040000822007 19 defendant No.1 would inherit in his individual capacity. Such devolution under
Section 8 does not revive the old concept of unobstructed ancestral heritage.
15. In this context, the learned counsel for defendant No.3 relied upon the decision in Padala Prasad and others Vs. Padala Anand Rao and others (2011 (5) ALT 448) of our Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it was held that property devolving under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is taken by the heir as his separate property and not as ancestral coparcenary property. The said proposition squarely applies to the present facts. Apart from the said authority, the settled statutory scheme under Sections 8, 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act itself makes it abundantly clear that separate property inherited through statutory succession does not automatically assume coparcenary character in the hands of the successor.
16. The plaintiffs, however, attempted to rely upon Shri Suggala Veera
Raghaviah and others Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad (1969 (2) APLJ 312), The Hyderabad Stock Exchange Limited Vs.
Messrs. Rangnath Rathi and Company, a partnership firm of Stock and Share
Brokers (through its proprietors) (1957 (2) AnWR 10) of our Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and Binod Bihari Lal and others Vs. Rameshwar Prasad
Sinha and others (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1201) of the Hon’ble Apex Court, to contend that even self-acquired or separate property may be impressed with joint family character by throwing the same into common hotchpotch or by blending, and for such blending there is no procedure or formalities or ceremonies.
There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition laid down in the above decisions. However, the essential requirement for application of the said principle is the existence of pleading and proof that the person concerned
APCH040000822007 20 consciously intended to abandon his separate rights and treated the property as belonging to the joint family. In the present case, there is absolutely no pleading in the plaint that defendant No.1 at any point of time threw the suit schedule properties into any alleged common family hotchpotch. There is equally no pleading as to what constituted the joint family nucleus, what other properties formed part of such alleged joint family estate, or in what manner defendant No.1 demonstrated any intention to blend his separate estate with such nucleus. More importantly, plaintiff No.2, examined as PW.1, did not state even in either of his chief-examination affidavits that the suit schedule properties were ever treated by defendant No.1 as joint family properties. In the absence of even the minimum factual foundation, the above precedents dealing with the doctrine of blending remain wholly inapplicable and they are of no assistance to the plaintiffs.
17. Likewise, the plaintiffs relied upon Indranarayan Vs. Roop Narayan and another (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1962) of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the proposition that the presumption of jointness is stronger between father and sons. But in the present case, the dispute is not whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 constituted a Hindu joint family in residence or mess. The real issue is whether the suit schedule properties possessed the legal character of coparcenary property. Mere jointness in family status does not by itself convert separate property into joint family property. Therefore, the said decision is also of no avail to the plaintiffs.
18. In the cross-examination of PW.1, several admissions were elicited by defendant No.3 which materially demolish the plaintiffs’ case. PW.1 categorically admitted that his paternal great grandmother Palla Mangamma had gifted item No.1 of the suit schedule property to her daughter-in-law
Lakshmamma under a registered gift deed. He further admitted that said
APCH040000822007 21
Lakshmamma had executed a registered Will dated 14.07.1983 bequeathing item No.1 in favour of defendant No.1. These admissions clearly probabilise the defence version that item No.1 had passed through successive independent transfers and was being dealt with as the separate property of defendant No.1. PW.1 further admitted that defendant No.2 had filed
O.S.No.46 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, against
defendant No.1 for recovery of mortgage debt in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property; that the said suit was decreed; that the appeals preferred by defendant No.1 were dismissed; and that defendant No.1 ultimately discharged the mortgage debt during final decree proceedings. This conduct clearly shows that defendant No.1 was exclusively dealing with item
No.1 as an exclusive owner in his individual capacity, and not as manager of any coparcenary on behalf of the plaintiffs.
19. PW.1 also admitted that defendant No.1 had three brothers, namely
Venkataramana, Narayana and Ramachandra; that Narayana died unmarried; that Venkataramana died leaving behind wife Narayanamma and daughter
Savithri; and that Ramachandra died leaving behind wife and children. This admission assumes significance because, if really the plaintiffs’ theory of ancestral succession from Venkata Chalamaiah were to be accepted, then all sons of Venkata Chalamaiah or their legal heirs would necessarily be sharers.
The plaintiffs, however, have not impleaded the legal heirs of deceased
Venkataramana and Ramachandra. Therefore, even on their own theory, the suit is bad non-joinder of necessary parties.
20. Coming to item No.2, PW.1 made far more damaging admissions. He admitted that defendant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.86 cents in Survey No.85/2 of Basinikonda Village; that only Ac.0.50 cents has been shown in the plaint schedule; that he does not know what happened to
APCH040000822007 22 the remaining Ac.0.36 cents and why the same was not included; and that defendant No.1 had sold away 16 plots in Survey No.85/2 under various registered sale deeds. Most importantly, he admitted that defendant No.1 sold away the entire land to which he was entitled in Survey No.85/2 and did not retain any land therein. Thus, from the mouth of PW.1 himself, it stands established that item No.2 was neither in the possession of the plaintiffs nor retained by defendant No.1 as on the date of suit.
21. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended, by placing reliance upon Namburu Bulli Veera Bhadra Prasad and others Vs. Vegi
Venkata Satyanarayana and others (1998 (1) ALD 501) of the Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh; U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas ((2013) SCCR 166) and
Jagmail Singh and another Vs. Karamjit Singh and others ((2020) SCCR 562) of the Hon’ble Apex Court, that Exs.B1 to B11 being only certified copies are secondary evidence and cannot be looked into in the absence of foundation for adducing secondary evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for defendant No.3 is relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court in M.
Balvanth Reddy Vs. M. Digambar Reddy and others (2024 (1) ALD 245 (TS)) of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana held that certified copies of registered sale deeds and gift deeds are admissible as secondary evidence under
Section 65(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Here, it is also apposite to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @
Thangapandi (Civil Appeal No.14630 of 2015 dated 20.09.2023) (2023 INSC 835), after considering Sections 65, 74, 77 and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908, authoritatively held that certified copies of registered sale deeds, being copies of public records maintained by the registering authority, are admissible in evidence even without laying further foundation for secondary evidence. Therefore, the
APCH040000822007 23 objection raised by the plaintiffs to the reception of Exs.B1 to B11 is unsustainable.
22. The plaintiffs further relied upon two decisions the Hon’ble Apex Court in L.I.C. of India and another Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010 SAR (Civil) 293) and Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam and others (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1865) to contend that mere marking of a document does not dispense with proof of execution. There can be no dispute regarding the said proposition. However, in the case on hand, PW.1 in unequivocal terms admitted in his cross-examination that defendant No.1 executed the original sale deeds under Exs.B1 to B11 and sold away the plots thereunder. Once the execution and transactions under those documents stand admitted by the plaintiffs’ own witness, formal proof by examining attestors or scribes becomes completely unnecessary. Admission is substantive evidence.
23. In this context, the learned counsel for defendant No.3 rightly relied upon Thatha Venkata Balaji Vs. Gudela Ranga Mani (2024 (1) ALT 783 (AP)) and Balaji Cotton Ginning Pressing Milles, Guntur, represented by Managing
Partner, C. Srinivasa Rao and others Vs. M/s. Sri Rajeswari Cotton Traders represented by its Proprietor K. Sreenivasa Rao, Guntur (2024 (1) ALT 55 (AP)) of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it was reiterated that admission is the best evidence against the maker, and though not conclusive, it is decisive unless successfully withdrawn or shown to be erroneous. Hence, Exs.B1 to B11 stand sufficiently proved by categorical admissions of PW.1.
24. The plaintiffs then relied upon Radhakrishnadas and another Vs.
Kaluram (dead) by LRs and others (AIR 1967 Supreme Court 574) and
Balmukand Vs. Kamla Wati and others (AIR 1954 Supreme Court 1385) of the
Hon’ble Apex Court to contend that the burden lies upon the alienee to prove
APCH040000822007 24 legal necessity when joint family property is alienated by the karta. Similarly, they relied upon Ganesh Babu Minor and another Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others (AIR 1969 Madras 416) of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras;
Sallammal and another Vs. Natarajan and others ((2001) 1 MLJ 561) of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras; and M.V.S. Manikayala Rao Vs. M.
Narasimhaswami and others (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 470) of the Hon’ble
Apex Court, to contend that defendant No.3, being only a purchaser from one coparcener, cannot claim exclusive possession and can only work out equities in partition.
25. They also relied upon Kamakshi Ammal Vs. Rajalakshmi and others (AIR 1995 Madras 415) of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras to contend that minors need not separately challenge alienations made by their father during minority while filing a suit for partition.
26. All the above authorities proceed on the basic legal assumption that the alienated property is joint family/coparcenary property and that the alienor had only limited representative capacity. But this Court has already found, on the basis of documentary evidence, admissions, statutory succession under
Sections 8, 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and complete absence of proof of blending, that the suit schedule properties are the separate and exclusive properties of defendant No.1. Once that foundational fact is held against the plaintiffs, the entire structure of legal necessity, challenge to alienation, purchaser’s limited rights and minors’ avoidance of alienation falls to the ground. Consequently, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the plaintiffs are wholly distinguishable and are of no assistance.
27. On the other hand, the learned counsel for defendant No.3 placed substantial reliance upon Uma Devi and others Vs. Anand Kumar and others (2025 (3) ALD 295 (SC)) of the Hon’ble Apex Court to contend that a
APCH040000822007 25 registered conveyance operates as constructive notice to the whole world and that any person claiming an adverse right in the property is deemed to have knowledge of the same from the date of registration, except in exceptional cases involving fraud, coercion or legal disability specifically established.
A careful reading of the said judgment shows that the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering a suit for partition instituted after several decades questioning alienations made by one coparcener, held in unmistakable terms that “a registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property,” and on that basis treated the plaintiffs therein as having constructive notice of the alienations from the respective dates of registration. Applying the said principle to the present facts, it is evident that defendant No.1 had alienated the entirety of the land claimed under item No.2 of the suit schedule property under the originals of Ex.B1 and
Ex.B3 to Ex.B11 in favour of defendant No.3 and several other purchasers between the years 1983 and 1988. The earliest among such alienations is
Ex.B4 dated 09.09.1983, while the latest transactions are of the year 1988 under Ex.B6 and Ex.B7. Admittedly, the present suit came to be instituted only on 21.06.2007, that is, nearly two decades after the earliest alienation and long after all the purchasers had entered into possession pursuant thereto.
28. Further, plaintiff No.2 has categorically admitted in his cross- examination that defendant No.1 had sold away all the plots in S.No.85/2 under the said registered sale deeds and that possession was delivered to the respective purchasers on the very dates of execution. Thus, apart from constructive notice in law arising from registration, there is also clear admission of actual knowledge regarding the alienations and the change of possession. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot now be heard to contend that they
APCH040000822007 26 were unaware of Ex.B1 and Ex.B3 to Ex.B11 until shortly before filing of the suit.
29. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the plaintiffs were minors on the dates of alienation, the long cause title of the plaint itself discloses that plaintiff No.1 was aged about 30 years and plaintiff No.2 was aged about 28 years as on the date of presentation of the plaint. Thus, both plaintiffs had admittedly attained majority long prior to institution of the present suit. In such circumstances, if at all the plaintiffs intended to impeach the transfers made by their father during their alleged minority, the governing provision would be
Article 60 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of three years for a suit “to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward,” the period commencing from the date when the ward attains majority. The present suit was not instituted within three years from the date of majority of either plaintiff. Therefore, even on the plaintiffs’ own theory, the challenge is hopelessly barred by limitation.
30. The learned counsel for defendant No.3 also relied upon Tumu Srihari
Vs. Thumu Padmamma and others (2011 (3) ALT 70 (DB)) of the Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh. However, on perusal, the said judgment principally deals with limitation in the context of a declaratory relief. Since the present suit is for partition and separate possession, the said decision does not have any application to the present suit.
31. Similarly, reliance was placed upon Kollipara Tulasi Vara Prasad Vs.
Seelamsetty Alimelu Manga Thayaramma and others (2025 (3) ALD 779 (TS)) of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, wherein an amendment seeking insertion of a prayer to declare an ancient sale deed as null and void was held barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes three years for cancellation or setting aside of an instrument.
APCH040000822007 27
Though the factual matrix of that case is not identical, the underlying principle reinforces that stale challenges to long concluded registered transactions cannot be entertained after expiry of the statutory period. Nevertheless, since the plaintiffs herein have not formally sought cancellation of Ex.B1 and Ex.B3 to Ex.B11, this decision is of no help to the defendant No.3.
32. The main hurdle for the plaintiffs is the admitted state of possession.
As already stated, an admission made by a party is the best substantive evidence available against him and, though not absolutely conclusive, it constitutes decisive proof unless withdrawn or shown to be erroneous. In the case on hand, the admissions of plaintiff No.2 are direct, categorical and unequivocal. He admitted that defendant No.1 sold away all the sites carved out in item No.2 of the suit schedule property under registered sale deeds in favour of defendant No.3 and others; he further admitted that the purchasers thereunder have been in possession and enjoyment ever since their respective purchases; and he also admitted that defendant No.1 did not retain any extent in S.No.85/2 thereafter. These admissions strike at the very root of the plaint averment that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 continued in joint possession of item No.2. Once the entire item No.2 of the suit schedule property stood conveyed to third parties and possession stood delivered to them, neither the plaintiffs nor defendant No.1 retained actual or constructive joint possession over the said item on the date of suit.
33. In such circumstances, a mere suit for partition simpliciter without seeking the consequential relief of declaration that the alienations are not binding and without recovery of possession from the alienees is clearly misconceived. The property which has already passed into the hands of purchasers in possession is not a property presently available in the common pool for effecting partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Thus,
APCH040000822007 28 item No.2 of the suit schedule property was not legally or physically available for partition as on the date of filing of the suit.
34. In sum and substance, it is found:
(i) The suit schedule properties originally constituted the self-acquired separate estate of Palla Mangamma, a female Hindu, and by operation of statutory succession did not acquire the character of ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of defendant No.1.
(ii) There is neither pleading nor proof that defendant No.1 ever blended the suit properties with any joint family nucleus so as to convert them into joint family properties.
(iii) The plaintiffs have utterly failed to establish any right by birth, antecedent title, or subsisting coparcenary interest in the suit schedule properties.
(iv) Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties stood alienated under
Ex.B1 and Ex.B3 to Ex.B11 decades prior to the suit, the alienees are in possession, and the plaintiffs’ challenge thereto is hopelessly barred by limitation.
(v) The suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, non-inclusion of the entire alleged family property, absence of prayer for declaration against long standing alienations, and want of possession in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule property.
Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties as prayed for. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant No.3.
35. Issue No. 2:-
APCH040000822007 29
Whether the sale deeds pleaded by the defendants in the written statement are binding on the plaintiffs?
It is already found while answering Issue No.1 that the suit schedule properties are the separate and exclusive properties of defendant No.1.
Therefore, the sale deeds under Exs.B1 to B11, which pertain to item No.2 of the suit schedule properties and which were executed by defendant No.1, are true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs, who had no right or interest over the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant No.3.
36. Issue No. 3:-
Whether the judgment and decree in OS.No.46/2003 is binding on the plaintiffs?
It is the case of defendants No.2 and 3 that defendant No.2 had filed a suit against defendant No.1 in O.S.No.46 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Madanapalle, for recovery of money based on a simple mortgage deed
dated 12.08.1996. It was elicited during the cross-examination of plaintiff No.2
that defendant No.1 had subsequently, during the pendency of the present suit, discharged the said mortgage debt and also obtained a discharge receipt from defendant No.2. In view of the said admission, no further adjudication is required on this issue. Consequently, this issue has become infructuous. This issue is answered accordingly.
37. Issue No. 4:-
Whether the court fee paid under Section 34 (2) of A.P.C.F. Act is correct?
The burden to prove this issue is on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have categorically pleaded in their plaint that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties belonging to them and defendant No.1 and that they have
APCH040000822007 30 been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs have paid court fee under Section 34(2) of the
Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.
It is needless to state that court fee has to be computed on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and not on the basis of the defence taken in the written statement. Since the plaintiffs pleaded joint possession and claimed partition on that basis, the court fee paid by them under Section 34(2) of the
Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 is proper and correct. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No.3.
38. Issue No.5:-
To what relief?
In view of this court’s finding on issue No. 1, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. Further, having regard to the false plea of coparcenary, suppression of material transactions, and the apparent attempt to obstruct the rights of defendant No. 3 under registered instruments, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs are liable to pay compensatory costs under Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
39.In the result, the suit is dismissed, with costs. Further, the plaintiffs are directed to pay compensatory costs of Rs. 3000/- (rupees three thousands only) under Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to defendant No. 3.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade- II, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court this the 30th day of April, 2026.
Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division),
APCH040000822007 31
Madanapalle.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
Plaintiffs Defendant No. 3
PW.1 P. Raja Sekhar DW.1 B. Vasundaradevi
Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 13.03.1916 vide document No. 289/1916 executed by K. Abdul Kareem Sab in favour of i) A. Nammalwaraiah, ii) Natesham and iii) Palla
Mangamma (plaintiffs’ paternal great grandmother).
Ex.A2 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 12.12.1912 vide document No.1386/1912, executed by S. Sreenivasulu in favour of P. Mangamma.
Ex.A3 Legal notice dated 17.08.2015 got issued by defendant No. 3 to the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 and four others.
Ex.A4 Reply notice dated 12.09.1915 got issued by the plaintiffs to the notice under Ex.A3.
Ex.A5 Served postal acknowledgment dated 14.09.2015 of the notice under Ex.A4 upon the Advocate of defendant No.3.
Ex.A6 Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.350/2015 on the file of First
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
Ex.A7 Certified copy of written statement of defendants No. 2 and 3 (plaintiffs herein) in the said OS.No.350/2015.
Ex.A8 Paper publication dated 13.09.2015, in Enadu Telugu Daily News
APCH040000822007 32
Paper, Chitttoor District Edition.
Ex.A9 Paper publication dated 15.09.2015, in Enadu Telugu Daily News
Paper, Chitttoor District Edition.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendant No. 3: -
Ex.B1 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.08.1984 vide document No.4260/1984, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of K. Kuppachari
Ex.B2 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30.08.1993 vide document No.4719/1993, executed by K. Kuppachari in favour of defendant No. 3.
Ex.B3 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 24.06.1987 vide document No.2961/1987, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 3.
Ex.B4 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 09.09.1983 vide document No.3224/1983, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 3.
Ex.B5 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 vide document No.591/1984, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.3.
Ex.B6 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 22.08.1988 vide document No.3500/1988, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.3.
Ex.B7 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 21.11.1988 vide
APCH040000822007 33 document No.4797/1988, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.3.
Ex.B8 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 vide document No.588/1984, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of
G. Vijayalakshmamma.
Ex.B9 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 vide document No.589/1984, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of
V.Subbarathnamma.
Ex.B10 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.02.1984 vide document No.590/1984, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of
V. Sanjeevamma.
Ex.B11 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 11.02.1985 vide document No.616/1985, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of
K. Thippachari and his wife Eswaramma.
Ex.B12 Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.B13 Certified copy of registered General Power of Attorney dated 12.02.1986, executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant
No. 2.
Ex.B14 Certified copy of deposition of P. Eswaraiah (defendant No. 1 herein) in the above said OS.No.46/2003 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Madanapalle.
APCH040000822007 34
Draft/Fair judgment in
O.S.No.173/2007,
Dt.30.04.2026..