IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (FTC) VIJAYAWADA
PRESENT: SRI P.BHASKARA RAO, B.Sc., LLM.,
I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC : IV ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)
Monday, this 2nd day of April, 2012.
O.S.No.400/2008
Between:
Tanneru Naga Malleswara Rao. …Plaintiff.
And
1.Tanneru Srinivasa Rao.
2.Polasi Samrajyam.
…Defendants.
This suit is coming on 07.02.2012 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Satyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff, and Sri
B.Gopala Krishna, and Sri B.Nagabhushana Rao, Advocates for 1st defendant, and Sri P.Paul, Advocate for 2nd defendant, and same is having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :
JUDGEMENT
1. Plaintiff filed this suit against defendants 1 & 2 for partition of plaint schedule property into six equal shares and allot three such shares to the plaintiff with separate possession.
The brief averments of the plaint are that :
2 OS.400/08(2.4.12)
Plaintiff is brother of defendants 1 & 2, one Mahadev Desai and one Venkata Rama Rao. All of them are children of Tanneru Subba
Rao. Plaintiff’s father died T.Subba Rao died intestate. Plaint schedule property is ancestral property of Subba Rao who succeeded the same from his father, under law. Subsequently Mahadev Desai and Venkata
Rama Rao executed Registered Relinquishment Deeds on 07.06.1986 by relinquishing their rights of plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff and 1st defendant respectively. The mother of plaintiff and defendants by name Ranganayakamma gave her share in the property to the plaintiff by way of Registered Relinquishment Deed dt.07.06.2007, hence, plaintiff is entitled three shares. 1st defendant is entitled two shares, and 2nd defendant is entitled one share. In spite of repeated requests and demands by plaintiff for partition of plaint schedule property, defendants did not come forward and postponed the same on one pretext or other. 1st defendant also tried to sell away the plaint schedule property detrimental to the rights of plaintiff, hence, plaintiff got issued legal notice on 04.02.2008 and demanded the defendant to come for amicable partition. 1st defendant received notice and gave reply with false allegations, hence, plaintiff constrained to file this suit.
2. 1st defendant filed written statement admitting the relationship denied the allegations that Subba Rao died intestate. He contends that late Subba Rao during his lifetime along with his four sons partitioned the plaint schedule property in the year 1983 and have executed partition deed on 25.02.1986. Subba Rao was given 108 sq.yds., with specific boundaries with a condition that the said property allotted to 3 OS.400/08(2.4.12)
Subba Rao has to be enjoyed for his life and after his lifetime his wife
Ranganayakamma, and after her life it has to be shared by plaintiff and this defendant in equal shares, hence, Subba Rao and
Ranganayakamma have no right to alienate 108 sq.yds., fell to the share of Subba Rao in the said partition. The said partition was acted upon even in the Relinquishment Deed executed by Mahadev Desai and Venkata Rama Rao also there is reference with regard to the said partition and settlement deed dt.19.06.1986. Suppressing the said factum of partition plaintiff filed this suit, hence, Ranganayakamma has no right to execute Gift Deed dt.07.06.2007 in favour of plaintiff and same is not binding. This defendant also came to know when plaintiff obtained Relinquishment Deed from the old lady by playing fraud on her without the knowledge of other defendants in view of previous partition the suit for partition is again not maintainable.
2nd defendant was unnecessarily impleaded in this suit to confuse the issue and created disputes between the sister and brothers. In fact, the 2nd defendant never claimed any share in the schedule property.
After partition, plaintiff and this defendant constructed their respective buildings in their respective sites as per the partition deed and have enjoying the same separately up to time with specific boundaries and paying taxes to the concerned department. The question of encroaching site of defendant does not arise and this defendant never tried to alienate the share of plaintiff in view of construction of buildings with existing compound walls. It is further contended that fixed Court fee paid by plaintiff is not correct. Plaintiff has to pay the
Court fee under S.34 (1) of APCF Act or the market value of the 4 OS.400/08(2.4.12) property by calculating the existing structures thereon, hence, this suit is not maintainable and has to be dismissed with costs.
3. 2nd defendant filed separate written statement admitting the relationship contended that she never colluded with plaintiff and she has no objection to pass decree for partition in favour of plaintiff.
4. Basing on the pleadings the learned predecessor of this Court framed the following issues :
1.Whether the plaint schedule property is to be divided into six equal shares and allot 3/6th share to the plaintiff, 1/6th share to the 2nd defendant, 2/6th share to the 1st defendant are valid or not?
2.Whether the Registered Partition Deed dt.17.02.1953 is valid or not?
3.Whether the Unregistered Partition Deed dt.25.02.1986 in between the father of plaintiff, plaintiff, 1st defendant,
Mahadev Desai, Venkata Rama Rao and 2nd defendant Polasi
Samrajyam is equally valid or not?
4.Whether the Relinquishment Deed dt.07.06.2007 executed by
Taneeru Ranganayakamma in favour of plaintiff is valid or not?
5.Whether the plaintiff, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant are legal heirs of the late Tanneru Subba Rao or not?
5 OS.400/08(2.4.12)
5. During course of trial, plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 in her evidence Exs.A1 to A6 are marked. V.Leela Srikanth who is residing nearer to the house of defendants was examined as PW2. He stated that schedule property is ancestral property and in view of execution of Settlement deeds by brother of plaintiff and execution of
Registered Relinquishment Deed by mother of plaintiff is entitled three shares in the schedule property. T.Srikanth son of plaintiff was examined as PW3. He corroborated the evidence of his father PW1. On the other hand, 1st defendant himself was examined as DW1 in his evidence Exs.B1 to B22 are marked. T.Mahadev Desai brother of plaintiff and defendants was examined as DW2. He stated about previous partition to place during lifetime of his father on 25.02.1986 and execution of Registered Sale Deed in respect of his share in favour of plaintiff and 1st defendant. Later both parties constructed their buildings in their respective shares and paying taxes in their respective buildings. After twenty-two years plaintiff filed the present suit claiming little vacant site and filed this suit.
6. Heard arguments on either side. Both parties filed written arguments.
7. Issue No.1 & 3 : -
It is an admitted fact that plaint schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiff’s father Tanneru Subba Rao and got the same in the family partition. T.Subba Rao had wife Ranganayakamma, and four sons namely Tanneru Naga Malleswara Rao (plaintiff), Tanneru 6 OS.400/08(2.4.12)
Srinivasa Rao (1st defendant), Tanneru Mahadev Desai and Tanneru
Venkata Rama Rao, and also one daughter Polasi Samrajyam (2nd defendant) who are the members of joint family headed by
Tanneru Subba Rao. Plaint schedule property is a building admeasuring 540 sq.yds.
8. It appears that the partition took place between T.Subba Rao and his family members ie., in between T.Subbarao and his four sons and one daughter. In fact partition deed was also executed among the sharers, however, it is not registered and not properly stamped, hence, same could not be marked. Taking advantage of the same plaintiff suppressed the earlier partition and filed this suit as if there is no partition in the joint family alleging that subsequently elder son
T.Mahadev Desai and 3rd son T.Venkata Rama Rao executed settlement deeds in respect of their shares to the plaintiff and 1stdefendant, and mother of plaintiff and defendants
Ranganayakamma relinquished her share to the plaintiff under
Relinquishment Deed dt.07.06.2007, thereby, plaintiff is entitled three shares out of six shares. 1st defendant is entitled two shares out of six shares. 2nd defendant is entitled remaining such share out of six shares, and filed this suit as if there is no partition at all. 1st defendant strongly resisted this suit mainly on the ground that partition already took place in the year 1983 and they executed partition deed on 25.02.1986 and other sharers relinquished their shares ie., to plaintiff and himself (1st defendant), therefore, suit for partition is again not maintainable.
7 OS.400/08(2.4.12)
9. As can be seen from the notarised copy of partition deed in para
No.3 it is specifically stated that in the year 1983 itself they divided the schedule property and enjoying the same separately and as evidence of earlier partition they executed memorandum of partition deed on 25.02.1986, so, this is only a memorandum of earlier partition since 1st defendant is not in possession of the original document he could not produce the same before Court, however, he could elicit the truth in the cross-examination of plaintiff and his witnesses and even in the documents filed by the plaintiff also there is recital that already partition was taken place, therefore, it is better to go through the document at first to know whether there is already partition before suit or not. Ex.A1 is Notarised copy of Registered Settlement Deed dt.19.06.1986 executed by Tanneru Mahadev Desai in favour of plaintiff and 1st defendant. In this document it is specifically mentioned that originally schedule property got by plaintiff’s father
Tanneru Subba Rao in a family partition under registered document
No.237/1953 of Kankipadu, Sub-Registrar Office. Subsequently,
T.Subba Rao and his children partitioned the schedule property and his share of 108 sq.yds. got by him in the partition deed was settled and given to the plaintiff and 1st defendant. It is better to extract the verbatim of the recitals in Ex.A1 here for better understanding :
“����� ���� ��������������������� �������������� ������������� ������������� ���� ��������������������� �������������� ������������� ������������� ���� ��������������������� �������������� ������������� ������������� ���� ��������������������� �������������� ������������� �������� �������� !"������������������#$%� ����&�����������������'(����)���"����*&����������� !"������������������#$%� ����&������������ !"������������������#$%� ����&������������ !"������������������#$%� ����&�����������������'(����)���"����*&����������������'(����)���"����*&����������������'(����)���"����*&��� +�,-.�/���)���01�!"� �2�2340�5�� �"���� ���6�������37�89�:� �20�5��+�,-.�/���)���01�!"� �2�2340�5�� �"���� ���6�������37�89�:� �20�5��+�,-.�/���)���01�!"� �2�2340�5�� �"���� ���6�������37�89�:� �20�5��+�,-.�/���)���01�!"� �2�2340�5�� �"���� ���6�������37�89�:� �20�5�� ������;����������;������;������;��������<�=�����������<�=�����������<�=�����������<�=���#2;%-> ����#2;%-> ����#2;%-> ����#2;%-> �����?@@@0�5�A�����?@@@0�5�A�?@@@0�5�A�?@@@0�5�A 8 OS.400/08(2.4.12) ,-.��0�5*���������������:6�������37�89�:� �����1�B�C���� +9��0�5�� D��������,-.��0�5*���������������:6�������37�89�:� �����1�B�C���� +9��0�5�� D��������,-.��0�5*���������������:6�������37�89�:� �����1�B�C���� +9��0�5�� D��������,-.��0�5*���������������:6�������37�89�:� �����1�B�C���� +9��0�5�� D�������� %� E�&���������F��#2;%-> ���������)��6�%� E�&��%� E�&��%� E�&���������F��#2;%-> ���������)��6�GGGGD�D�D�D������%� H�������F��#2;%-> ���������)��6��������F��#2;%-> ���������)��6������%� H” �����%� H�����%� H
10. Ex.A2 is another Notarised copy of Registered Settlement Deed dt.19.06.1986 executed by Tanneru Venkata Rama Rao in favour of plaintiff and 1st defendant. In this document also there is recital about earlier partition. The verbatim of the recital is that :
“����� ���� ��������������������� �������������� ������������� ������������� ���� ��������������������� �������������� ������������� ������������� ���� ��������������������� �������������� ������������� ������������� ���� ��������������������� �������������� ������������� �������� �������� !"������������������#$%� ����&�����������������'(����)���"����*&����������� !"������������������#$%� ����&�����������������'(����)���"����*&����������� !"������������������#$%� ����&�����������������'(����)���"����*&����������� !"������������������#$%� ����&�����������������'(����)���"����*&��� +�,-.�/���)���01�!"� �2�2340�5�� �"���� ���6�������37�89�:� �20�5��+�,-.�/���)���01�!"� �2�2340�5�� �"���� ���6�������37�89�:� �20�5��+�,-.�/���)���01�!"� �2�2340�5�� �"���� ���6�������37�89�:� �20�5��+�,-.�/���)���01�!"� �2�2340�5�� �"���� ���6�������37�89�:� �20�5�� ������;�������;�������;�������;���������<�=�����������<�=�����������<�=�����������<�=���#2;%-> ����#2;%-> ���#2;%-> ���#2;%-> �������?@@@0�5�A��?@@@0�5�A��?@@@0�5�A��?@@@0�5�A� ,-.��0�5*���������������:6�������37�89�:� �����1�B�C���� +9��0�5�� D��������,-.��0�5*���������������:6�������37�89�:� �����1�B�C���� +9��0�5�� D��������,-.��0�5*���������������:6�������37�89�:� �����1�B�C���� +9��0�5�� D��������,-.��0�5*���������������:6�������37�89�:� �����1�B�C���� +9��0�5�� D�������� %� E�&���������F��#2;%-> ���������)��6�%� E�&��%� E�&��%� E�&���������F��#2;%-> ���������)��6�GGGGD������%� H�������F��#2;%-> ���������)��6��������F��#2;%-> ���������)��6�D������%� H” D������%� HD������%� H 11. In Ex.A3 Notarised copy of Registered Relinquishment Deed dt.07.06.2007 executed by plaintiff’s mother Ranganayakamma in favour of plaintiff; wherein also there is recital that her husband
Tanneru Subba Rao got the schedule property in his family partition in the year 1953. The verbatim of the recital is that :
“%� HIJHKIH����� L���%> ���� �2� ,-.����*!"��������:M� 89��%� HIJHKIH����� L���%> ���� �2� ,-.����*!"��������:M� 89����N���N���N���N�%� HIJHKIH����� L���%> ���� �2� ,-.����*!"��������:M� 89��%� HIJHKIH����� L���%> ���� �2� ,-.����*!"��������:M� 89�� ������������GGGGO!��"&��� 0�5&����� +�,-4!�������&��� P)������0�5�8�� ��2����0�5����:�O!��"&��� 0�5&����� +�,-4!�������&��� P)������0�5�8�� ��2����0�5����:�O!��"&��� 0�5&����� +�,-4!�������&��� P)������0�5�8�� ��2����0�5����:�O!��"&��� 0�5&����� +�,-4!�������&��� P)������0�5�8�� ��2����0�5����:� �234&�� B4Q��2� �>��2R� �2� ,-.����*!"���� �2340�5���234&�� B4Q��2� �>��2R� �2� ,-.����*!"���� �2340�5���234&�� B4Q��2� �>��2R� �2� ,-.����*!"���� �2340�5���234&�� B4Q��2� �>��2R� �2� ,-.����*!"���� �2340�5�� 9 OS.400/08(2.4.12) �"���� ���6�������37�89�:��2�����������;���������<�=����?@@@0�5�A&��1���"���� ���6�������37�89�:��2�����������;���������<�=����?@@@0�5�A&��1���"���� ���6�������37�89�:��2�����������;���������<�=����?@@@0�5�A&��1���"���� ���6�������37�89�:��2�����������;���������<�=����?@@@0�5�A&��1��
S����,-.�+���)���)���� �������T7U��)��!"� �2���� �������T4��������������S����,-.�+���)���)���� �������T7U��)��!"� �2���� �������T4���������S����,-.�+���)���)���� �������T7U��)��!"� �2���� �������T4���������S����,-.�+���)���)���� �������T7U��)��!"� �2���� �������T4������������������������ �2���� �2�������&�GGGGD������M� 89�0�5�M� �20�5�M� �������� ����2���� �2�������&��2���� �2�������&��2���� �2�������&�D������M� 89�0�5�M� �20�5�M� �������� ���GGGGO!��"&�0�5��D������M� 89�0�5�M� �20�5�M� �������� ���D������M� 89�0�5�M� �20�5�M� �������� ���O!��"&�0�5��O!��"&�0�5��O!��"&�0�5��
B4V� ���6��!"� ������0�5+����)������ ���6�������37�89�:� ���%2%� �B4V� ���6��!"� ������0�5+����)������ ���6�������37�89�:� ���%2%� �B4V� ���6��!"� ������0�5+����)������ ���6�������37�89�:� ���%2%� �B4V� ���6��!"� ������0�5+����)������ ���6�������37�89�:� ���%2%� � ���%� �����W���*8��D���37�������0�5���������������B4������6��!"�������;����%� �����W���*8��D���37�������0�5���������������B4������6��!"�������;����%� �����W���*8��D���37�������0�5���������������B4������6��!"�������;����%� �����W���*8��D���37�������0�5���������������B4������6��!"�������;� ��������<�=����?@@@0�5�A&��1��S����,-.�+���)���)���V� ���2:�����H��������<�=����?@@@0�5�A&��1��S����,-.�+���)�����������<�=����?@@@0�5�A&��1��S����,-.�+���)�����������<�=����?@@@0�5�A&��1��S����,-.�+���)���)���V� ���2:�����H” )���V� ���2:�����H)���V� ���2:�����H
So, in all the documents filed by the plaintiff that there are recitals about the earlier partition and relinquishment of shares by other sharers in favour of plaintiff and 1st defendant, however, execution of Relinquishment Deed by plaintiff’s mother as sole legal heir though not valid, since Tanneru Subba Rao died intestate wife and all the children are entitled equal share, but the recital in Ex.A3 also speaks about the earlier partition, so, how can plaintiff again maintain the suit for partition?
12. Now, coming to the oral evidence of plaintiff. In the cross- examination, plaintiff categorically admitted the signatures shown to him in the copy of partition deed belongs to him. He also admitted the signatures of his father and other brothers. He added that without knowledge of the contents of the document and as his younger brother requested him to put his signature in the document cannot be believed. Plaintiff further admitted that shares allotted to T.Mahadev
Deasi and Ranganayakamma as per the partition deed dt.25.02.1986 were subsequently settled in his favour, and in favour of his brother 1st defendant. He further admitted that filing of those documents before 10 OS.400/08(2.4.12)
Court further admitted that he got constructed a house and his brother also constructed building in his share in between two buildings there is a common wall. So, the properties were divided by himself and 1st defendant by metes and bounds. Defendant elicited that subsequently disputes arose between plaintiff and 1st defendant in respect of 100 sq.yds. patta land granted by Government to the plaintiff, therefore, it appears that plaintiff filed this suit with oblique motive. Plaintiff simply expressed his ignorance about reference made with regard to the earlier partition in Ex.A3 Registered Relinquishment
Deed executed by his mother in his favour. He has not dare enough to deny the recitals in the registered document in the earlier partition deed dt.25.02.1986. Plaintiff’s mother was given only life interest but she relinquished her right as if she got vested interest and relinquished entire property as if she is sole and surviving legal heir of
Tanneru Subba Rao. Simply because original document is not available with defendants and same is not filed. Plaintiff cannot seek for partition once again when there is specific admission made by plaintiff with regard to the earlier partition and also there are recitals in the registered document evidencing the earlier partition. Defendants also elicited that plaintiff has not shown the other brothers T.Mahadev
Desai and T.Venkata Rama Rao in the suit for partition and on that score alone suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. If there is no earlier partition plaintiff should necessarily be implead the other brothers also. Why he left the other brothers, since there is earlier partition and they relinquished their shares, as such plaintiff did not implead them, but defendant proved earlier partition by examining other brother DW2-T.Mahadev Desai, he also supported 11 OS.400/08(2.4.12) the defendants’ version about the earlier partition. The partition even may be oral, same is also valid. Evidencing the partition parties can prepare memorandum of partition. In this case also shares were divided as per partition in the year 1983, and subsequently they reduced past partition into writing on 25.02.1986, and it was acted upon. The other sharers also relinquished their shares to the plaintiff and 1st defendant under Exs.A1 and A2, therefore, in my view, suit for partition is again not maintainable. Plaintiff’s remedy is to file suit for recovery of possession, if 1st defendant is found to be in excess extent as contended by plaintiff and can recover the same from the defendant by filing a suit for recovery of possession.
13. PW2 said to have been residing nearer to the plaint schedule property of plaintiff and defendant, but in the cross-examination he stated that he is residing at Penamaluru centre; whereas schedule property is situated in Kankipadu village, therefore, evidence of PW2 is not believable. PW3 is none other than the son of plaintiff who was born in the year 1978 and by the date of said partition he is just 8 years old, therefore, his evidence cannot be relied, since he came to fill up the lacunas crept in the evidence of his father (PW1). 1st defendant was able to prove his exclusive possession and enjoyment for filing numerous documents Exs.B1 to B22 namely certificate issued by panchayat authorities, shop licence, water tax receipts, tax receipts, voters list, electricity bills. All the documents clinchingly establish the separate possession and enjoyment of 1st defendant. 1st defendant in the cross-examination denied the suggestion that he encroached excess extent. If really, it is true what is remedy open for plaintiff? He 12 OS.400/08(2.4.12) has to file suit for recovery of possession, but suit for partition is not maintainable since properties are already partitioned. Shares were divided and allotted, and subsequently some of the sharers relinquished their shares to other sharers. This fact was supported by the one of the sharer T.Mahadev Desai (DW2). Then what more is required for defendant to prove the earlier partition, therefore, plaintiff now cannot seek for partition once again. The frame of the suit is bad and as other sharers were not impleaded this suit is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed, hence, I answer these two issues in favour of 1st defendant against plaintiff.
14. Issue No.2 : -
There is no dispute about the acquisition of property by father of plaintiff and defendants in family partition under Registered Partition
Deed dt.17.02.1953 amongst the plaintiff’s vendors ie., T.Subba Rao and his brothers, however, this issue was appears to be framed by the learned predecessor of this Court unnecessarily, though there is no dispute with regard to the acquisition of property by T.Subba Rao, hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
15. Issue No.4 : -
As perpartition deed dt.25.02.1986 of course same is not marked, but the recitals in the partition deed shows Ranganayakamma has got only life interest, however, after death of her husband Subba
Rao she claimed the entire property as a sole and surviving heir 13 OS.400/08(2.4.12) relinquished the same to plaintiff though T.Subba Rao died intestate.
When Hindu male died intestate not only his wife, sons and daughters are entitled share equally, but Ranganayakamma claimed the entire share of her husband T.Subba rao relinquished the same in favour of plaintiff under Ex.A3 though she got only life interest, hence, same is not valid and plaintiff cannot claim three shares out of six shares since other sharers also have no share. Even in the absence of the partition deed also under Hindu Succession Act wife and children are also entitled the share. It is not the case of plaintiff that T.Subba Rao executed a Will in favour of his wife Ranganayakamma, therefore,
I hold that Ex.A3 Relinquishment Deed dt.07.06.2007 is not valid and not binding on the defendants, hence, this issue is answered in favour of 1st defendant against plaintiff.
16. Issue No.5 : -
It is undisputed fact that plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 are legal representatives of late T.Subba Rao, however the learned predecessor of this Court framed this issue unnecessarily since there is no dispute with regard to the relationship, hence, I answer this issue accordingly.
In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 to 5, this suit for partition is not maintainable, and remedy for plaintiff is only to file recovery of possession, if defendant really found to be in possession of excess extent, but this suit for partition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
14 OS.400/08(2.4.12)
In the result, this suit for partition is dismissed without costs.
Plaintiff is directed to file separate suit against 1st defendant, if 1st defendant is found to be in excess extent than his actual share, as per law.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2012.
I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC : IV ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)
VIJAYAWADA
Appendix of Evidence Witness examined
For plaintiff : For defendants :
PW1: T.Naga Malleswara Rao. DW1: T.Srinivasa Rao. PW2: V.Leela Srikanth. DW2: T.Mahadeva Desai. PW3: T.Srikanth.
Documents marked
For plaintiff:
Ex.A1 19.06.1986 Notarised copy of Registered Settlement Deed executed by T.Mahadeva Desai.
Ex.A2 19.06.1986 Notarised copy of Registered Settlement Deed executed by T.Venkata Rama Rao.
Ex.A3 07.06.2007 Notarised copy of Registered Relinquishment Deed executed by Ranganayakamma.
Ex.A4 04.02.2008 Office of legal notice issued by plaintiff.
Ex.A5 17.02.2008 Reply notice issued by 1st defendant.
Ex.A6 16.04.2008 Market value assistance issued by Sub- Registrar, Kankipadu.
For defendants:
Ex.B1 21.07.2008 Certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, 15 OS.400/08(2.4.12)
Kankipadu.
Ex.B2 14.09.2009 Certificate issued by Sanitary Inspector, Gram Panchayat, Kankipadu.
Ex.B3 21.07.2008 Miscellaneous receipt No.5164 issued by Gram Panchayat, Kankipadu.
Ex.B4 01.03.2008 Licence granted for running sweet meat shop issued by Gram Panchayat, Kankipadu.
Ex.B5 01.03.2008 Licence granted for running sweet meat shop issued by Gram Panchayat, Kankipadu.
Ex.B6 29.07.2009 Water tax receipt No.143 issued by Gram Panchayat, Kankipadu.
Ex.B7 11.02.2008 Property tax receipt No.202339 issued by Gram Panchayat, Kankipadu. Ex.B8 15.10.2009 Certificate issued by APSPDCL, Addl.Asst.Engineer, Kankipadu.
Ex.B9 29.09.2009 APSPDCL receipt.
Ex.B10 29.09.2009 APSPDCL receipt.
Ex.B11 29.09.2009 APSPDCL receipt.
Ex.B12 11.01.2009 Office copy of notice was issued to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kankipadu.
Ex.B13 13.01.2009 Acknowledgement.
Ex.B14 16.01.2009 Acknowledgement.
Ex.B15 25.08.2008 Office copy of notice issued by defendant’s counsel.
Ex.B16 25.08.2008 Postal receipt.
Ex.B17 26.08.2008 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.B18 24.12.2009 Endorsement issued by Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kankipadu.
Ex.B19 17.07.2008 Notice issued by plaintiff.
Ex.B20 25.08.2008 Reply notice issued by defendant.
Ex.B21 26.08.2008 Acknowledgement.
Ex.B22 30.09.2008 Voters list of Kankipadu village.
I ASCJ/VJA FAC: IV ASCJ/VJA