APWG070001462020
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::
BHIMAVARAM.
PRESENT: Smt P. Haneesha, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhimavaram. Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026.
Original Suit No.248 of 2020.
Between :
1. Pala Siva, S/o Venkata Durga Rao, Aged 29 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No.10-9-38, Kankara Doddi, 8th Ward, Vissakoderu, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G.Dt, BJCJC.
2. Pala Durga, D/o Venkata Durga Rao, Aged 26, Cultivation, R/o D.No.10-9-38, Kankara Doddi, 8th Ward, Vissakoderu, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G.Dt, BJCJC.
3. Pala Venkata Durga Rao, H/o Late Pala Lakshmi, Aged 52 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No.10-9- 38, Kankara Doddi, 8thWard, Vissakoderu, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G.Dt, BJCJC. …Plaintiff.
and
1. Kadali Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o Late Gani Raju, Aged 61 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No.4-10, Padamatipalem, Tholeru Panchayati, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G.Dt, BJCJC.
2. Kadali Lakshmi Narayana, S/o Late Gani Raju, Aged 52 years, Employee, R/o Chittapur, Chittarpost, Lingusur, Raichur District, Karnataka.
3. Kadali Srinivas, S/o Late Gani Raju, Aged 44 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No.4-15/1, Padamatipalem, Tholeru Panchayati, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G.Dt, BJCJ.
4. Kadali Danamma, W/o Late Sriramulu, Aged 51, Housewife, R/o D.No.4-95, Padamatipalem, Tholeru Panchayati, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G.Dt, BJCJC.
5. Kadali Veeraswamy, S/o Late Sriramulu, Aged 33 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No.4-95, Padamatipalem, Tholeru Panchayati, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G.Dt, BJCJC.
6. Kadali Nagarjuna, S/o Late Sriramulu, Aged 31 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No.4-95, Padamatipalem, Tholeru Panchayati, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G.Dt, BJCJCJ.
7. Seelaboyina Annavaram, W/o Venkateswarulu, …Defendants. Aged 65 years, Housewife, R/o Kodavalli, Near Sivalayam Temple, East Vipparru, W.G.Dt, BJCJC.
O.S.No.248 of 2020
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,
B H I M A V A R A M.
Calender Case No.1262 of 2017
8. Kadali Yedukondalu, S/o Parameswarudu, Aged 32, Cultivation, R/o D.No.4-32, Padamatipalem, Tholeru Panchayati, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G.Dt, BJCJC.
This suit is coming on 15-04-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Benarji Vijay Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiffs and of Sri
K.V.Ramesh, Advocate for Defendant No.1, 2 & 4 to 8 and defendants No. 3 & 7 set exparte and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit filed for partition of plaint schedule properties into 6 equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff No. 1 to 3, one such share to the defendants No.1 to 3, one such share to 7th defendant, one such share to the defendants No.4 to 6 and put them in separate possession of the same and also for past, future profits till the plaintiff were put in their share and for costs of the suit.
2. Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
One Kadali Gani Raju and Patemma are the wife and husband and they have blessed with four sons and two daughters namely Kadali Venkata
Satyanarayana, Kadali Lakshmi Narayana, Kadali Srinivas who are the defendants 1, 2 and 3 and one late Kadali Sri Ramulu who is no other than the husband of 4th defendant and father of 5 & 6 defendants and Seelam
Annavaram who is the 7th defendant and late Pala Lakshmi who is no other then the deceased mother of the plaintiffs 1 & 2 and wife of plaintiff No.3. The said Gani Raju got Ac.0.75 cts of site in RS No.121/1 and also vacant site of 122 Sq yards and 294 Sq yards of vacant site in RS No.125/7 in the village of
Padamatipalem, Tholeru Panchayati, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G.Dt, which is more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The said Gani Raju and his wife Patemma died intestate. After their death, the plaint schedule properties devolved on his sons i.e., 1 to 3 defendants and Kadali Sri Ramulu i.e., husband of 4th defendant and father of 5 & 6 defendants and daughters of
Seelam Annavam i.e., 7th defendant and Pala Lakshmi i.e., mother of plaintiffs
No.1 & 2 and wife of 3rd plaintiff equally and the defendants No. 1 to 3 each have got 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties and the said Kadali
Sriramulu got 1/6th share and the 7th defendant got 1/6th share and the said
Pala Lakshmi got 1/6th share and they have been in joint possession and
O.S.No.248 of 2020
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,
B H I M A V A R A M.
Calender Case No.1262 of 2017 enjoyment of the same. The sons of said Gani Raju used to manage the plaint schedule properties on behalf of all the family members. While so, one of the son of the said Gani Raju by name Kadali Sri Ramulu died intestate leaving behind defendants No. 4 to 6 as his legal heirs. His 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties was devolved on the defendants No. 4 to 6. The daughter of said Gani Raju namely Pala Lakshmi also died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff No.1 to 3 as her legal heirs and her 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties devolved on the plaintiffs No. 1 to 3. After the death of Kadali Sri
Ramulu and Pala Lakshmi, the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The defendants
No. 1 to 3 used to manage the plaint schedule properties on behalf of plaintiffs and on behalf of defendants No. 4 to 7. The defendants No. 1 to 6 taking advantage of the death of the said Pala Lakshmi who is no other than the mother of plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 and wife of 3rd plaintiff with a malafide intention to grab the 1/6th share of the plaintiffs and also 1/6th share of the 7th defendant in the plaint schedule properties got created a regd. partition deed dt.12.12.2019
Doc.No.6941/2019 and partitioned the plaint schedule properties into 4 schedules i.e., A schedule, B schedule, C schedule and D schedule and the A schedule pertaining to item No. 1 & 2 along with asbestos shed or the plaint schedule to the share of 1st defendant and B schedule pertaining to item No.3 of the plaint schedule to the share of 2nd defendant and C schedule pertaining to item No.4 along with RCC building of the plaint schedule to 3rd defendant and D schedule pertaining to item Nos. 5 to 8 along with RCC building of the plaint schedule to defendants No. 4 to 6 got divided the entire plaint schedule properties eliminating the plaintiffs and the 7th defendant and thus grabbed the plaintiffs 1/6th share and the 7th defendant’s 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs and the 7th defendants are not parties to the said partition deed dt.12.12.2019. The plaintiff are having 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties. So, also the 7th defendant also got 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties. The defendants No. 1 to 6 have no right to grab the 1/6th share of the plaintiff as well as the 1/6th share of the 7th defendant in the plaint schedule properties. The plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 7. The plaintiffs also came to know that defendants No. 1 to 6 deliberately sold item No.2 of the plaint schedule in an extent of 122 Sq yard to 8th defendant vide sale deed dt.12.12.2019 as though it is the absolute property. The defendants No.1 to 6
O.S.No.248 of 2020
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,
B H I M A V A R A M.
Calender Case No.1262 of 2017 have no right to sell the same to 8th defendant without partition of the plaint schedule properties with the plaintiffs and the 7th defendant. 8th defendant will not get any rights in the said item No.2 of the plaint schedule and the said sale does not bind on the plaintiffs as far as their share in the said item is concerned. The plaintiffs placed the matter before elders and the elders chastised the defendants No.1 to 6 for their wrongful acts and the defendants
No. 1 to 6 promised before the ledrs that they will get cancelled the regd.
partition deed dt.12.12.2019 and the sale deed dt.12.12.2019 allegedly executed by them and also promised that they will co-operate for partition of the plaint schedule properties with the plaintiff and 7th defendant and allot their legitimate share in the plaint schedule properties but until so far, they did not cancel the regd. partition deed dt.12.12.2019 and the sale deed dt.12.12.2019 and did not come forward for partition of the plaint schedule properties with the plaintiffs and the 7th defendant and are only postponing the same on some pretext or other. The plaintiffs also came to know that the defendants No. 4 to 6 have entered into partition within their family among the defendants No. 4 to 6 with one Tangella Naga Lakshmi who is no other than daughter of 4th defendant and sister of 5 & 6 defendants and partitioned the D schedule property of 12.12.2019 partition deed along with some other property by executing a regd. partition deed dt.30.12.2019. The defendants No.4 to 6 have no right to execute the same without partition of the plaint schedule properties with the plaintiffs and the 7th defendant. The said partition dt.12.12.2019 is invalid and non est in the eye of law. It is clearly manifested that the defendants acted contrary to the interest of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are no longer interested to keep the plaint schedule properties jointly and sent a demand lawyer notice dt.03.02.2020 to the defendants No. 1 to 6 and 8th defendant to co-operate for partition of the plaint schedule properties, the defendants No. 1 to 4 and 6 & 8th defendant having received the said notice and the 5th defendant refused to received the notice neither sent any reply nor come forward for partition of the plaint schedule properties and are postponing the same on some pretext or other and hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds and to have their legitimate share and also for costs.
3. Case of Defendants:
Written statement is filed by 1st defendant. Adopting memo is filed by the
O.S.No.248 of 2020
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,
B H I M A V A R A M.
Calender Case No.1262 of 2017 defendants No.2,4,5,6 & 8. Defendant No.3 was set exparte on 30.08.2022 and defendant No.7 was set exparte on 24.03.2021.
It is contended that the wife of 3rd plaintiff and mother of the plaintiffs No.
1 & 2 is not Lakshmi her name is Sita Maha Lakshmi. The plaintiffs not even mentioned the correct name of their mother and wife of 3rd plaintiff. After the death of Gani Raju, the properties were partitioned orally and later some part of the property which is an extent of 0.25 cts sold to the said Pala Sita Maha
Lakshmi by the defendants along with their mother on 28.05.1988 and the same is executed in to writing as sale letter. The said sale letter was not registered and as per the said sale letter the said Sita Maha Lakshmi obtained physical possession of the same. The said Sita Mahalakshmi after obtaining sale letter for an extent of Ac.0.25 cts in her favour she intrun sold her Ac.0.25 cts of property to her family members i.e., her brothers. All the brothers of said
Sita Maha Lakshmi paid an amount of Rs.24,000/- to the said Sita Maha
Lakshmi and they in turn obtained possession of the Ac.0.25 cts in the year 1990. Since 1990 onwards defendants No,.1, 2 late Sri Ramulu and 3rd defendant are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. After the death of Kadali Sri Ramulu, his children and his wife inherited the said property. The said Seelaboina Annavaram, Pala Sita Maha Lakshmi orally relinquished their right in the properties of Gani Raju and further the said Sita
Maha Lakshmi stated that she got Ac.0.25 cts and the same is alienated to her brothers and assurd that she will not claim any share over the property. During her life time, the said Sita Maha Lakshmi or 7th defendant never demanded any share over the properties of Gani Raju. The said Sita Maha Lakshmi died about 4 years back and all the family members have participated in her death funerals without any demand or question. The plaintiffs suddenly without placing the matter before elders, got issued legal notice demanding partition of the plaint schedule property as per the partition deed executed among the defendants. After receipt of the said legal notice, the defendants No. 1, 2, 4 to 6 placed the matter before elders when mediation is going on with regard to the earlier arrangement the plaintiffs got filed the suit without appearing before elders. If the plaintiffs appear before elders, the fact will be come out and the matter resolved amicably. Without appearing before elders, the plaintiffs got filed the present suit by suppressing the facts. After receipt of suit summons, the matter is placed before elders. The 3rd plaintiff who in turn present before elders and clearly admitted that his wife’s share was given at about so many
O.S.No.248 of 2020
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,
B H I M A V A R A M.
Calender Case No.1262 of 2017 decades back and the same is also sold to the children of Gani Raju but not executed any sale deed in their favour. Since 1990 onwards, the property of
Sita Maha Lakshmi is in possession and enjoyment of her brothers. During her life time she never claimed any right or title over the properties. The Gani Raju and his children performed his marriage and 7th defendant’s marriage in a great manner and also given something to them at the time of marriage. He further assured that he will not press the suit along with other plaintiffs but not did so. The plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 mother and wife of 3rd plaintiff have already received some property from the defendants. Hence, they are not entitled to claim any right, share over the plaint schedule properties. As the plaintiffs are not joint and constructive possession, they will not claim any reliefs as prayed them in the plaint. The plaintiffs are never in joint and constructive possession over the plaint schedule property. Hence, the question of payment of fixed court fee does not arise. Hence, praying the court to dismiss the suit.
4. ISSUES:-
Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the court settled the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3 rd share in each item
of the plaint schedule properties, as prayed for ?
(By mistaken and by oversight, the then presiding officer mentioned 1/3 rd share instead of 1/6 th share. Hence, 1 st issued is reframed as follows)
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/6 th share in each item
of the plaint schedule properties, as prayed for ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for award of past and future profits, as prayed for ?
3. If so, to what relief?
In addition to above framed issues, this court finds it appropriate to determine one more point also, basing on pleadings of both parties.
4. Point:-
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the separate possession of their share as prayed for ?
O.S.No.248 of 2020
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,
B H I M A V A R A M.
Calender Case No.1262 of 2017
5. During the course of trail, PW. 1 is examined on behalf of plaintiffs.
Ex.A1 to A13 are marked. On the other hand, DWs.1 to 4 are examined on behalf of defendants and no documents are marked.
6. Heard the arguments of the plaintiff counsel and defendants counsel.
Perused the material on record.
7. ISSUE No. 1:-
To prove the averments of plaint, the 1st plaintiff is examined as PW1 whose chief examination evidence goes in the lines of plaint. Exhibit A1 to
Exhibit A13 are marked through this witness. Exhibit A1 is certified copy of regd. sale deed dt.19.05.1981 vide Doc. No.1643/1981 executed in favour of
Kadali Gani Raju by Bhupathiraju Satyanarayana Raju and others. Ex.A2 is certified copy of regd. partition deed dt.12.12.2019 Vide Doc.No.6941/2019 executed in between defendants No. 1 to 6. Ex.A3 is certified copy of sale deed dt.12.12.2019 executed in favour of 8th defendant by defendants No.1 to
6. Ex.A4 is certified copy of regd. partition deed dt.30.12.2019 vide
Doc.No.94/2020 executed in between defendants No. 4 to 6 and Tangella
Naga Lakshmi. Ex.A5 is original family member certificate dt.26.10.2018 pertaining to issue by Tahsildar, Bhimavaram. Ex.A6 is office copy of regd.
legal notice dt.03.02.2020 got sent to defendants No.1 to 6 & 8. Ex.A7 is original postal acknowledgment from 1st defendant. Ex.A8 is original postal acknowledgment from 2nd defendant. Ex.A9 is original postal acknowledgment from 3rd defendant. Ex.A10 is original postal acknowledgment from 4th defendant. Ex.A11 is original postal acknowledgment from 6th defendant.
Ex.A12 is original postal acknowledgment from 8th defendant. Ex.A13 is original postal acknowledgment from 5th defendant.
8. During cross examination, PW1 stated that his mother was died in the year 2018 and during lifetime of Gani Raju, all his sons got married except
Srinivas and during lifetime of Gani Raju, the properties were not partitioned.
PW1 further stated that he can’t say without looking into document the extent of the property inherited by the children of Ganiraju and Kakamma and further stated that on 12.12.2019, there was partition among the sons of his grandparents but he does not know whether they are paying taxes in respect
O.S.No.248 of 2020
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,
B H I M A V A R A M.
Calender Case No.1262 of 2017 of their properties got in partition. He categorically denied the suggestion put by counsel for defendant that his mother sold away Ac.0.25 cts to her brothers in 1990. Though he admitted that defendants No. 1 to 3 and said Sriramulu are in possession of the said Ac.0.25 cts as per sale, again he says that they are in possession as per the partition. He also stated that his mother did not ask for partition of the property to her grandparents at any point of time and Gani
Raju performed marriages to his daughters in general manner. He does not remember as to who is in possession of which item of property, but all the four sons of Gani Raju signed in partition deed dt.12.12.2019 and partition deed is silent about presence of his mother and 7th defendant. During further cross examination, PW1 stated that the defendants No.1 to 7 enjoyed the property jointly till 2019 and accordingly, they got executed partition deed in 2019 in respect of their shares and when the defendants got measured the properties, he came to know about the said partition. He also stated that the defendants sold away the property under Ex.A3 to defendant No.8 after getting it measured. And after execution of partition deed, the defendants are enjoying the income derived out of their shares in properties.
9. A perusal of Ex.A2 shows that it does not speak about the daughters of
Gani Raju namely defendant No.7 and Pala Lakshmi who is mother of plaintiffs
No.1 & 2 and wife of plaintiff No.3. Further, Ex.A2 averments categorically show in its 4th page that they (defendants No. 1 to 3, deceased Sri Ramulu) are the only legal heirs of Gani Raju and they do not have other properties to get partition. Thus, Ex.A2 does not speak about D7 and also deceased Pala
Lakshmi. It is the main contention of defendant in his written statement that
Ac.0.25 cts of property was sold away to Pala Sita Maha Lakshmi by the defendants along with their mother on 28.05.1988 and the same is executed inwriting as sale letter and she intrun sold her Ac.0.25 cts to her brothers for
Rs.24,000/- and thus, they inturn obtained possession of Ac.0.25 cts in 1990.
However, the said fact is not mentioned in Ex.A2. Further, the defendants did not file the alleged sale letter dt.28.05.1988 and also the deed alleged to have executed by Sita Maha Lakshmi in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 3, late Sri
Ramulu in 1990. In such a case, such contentions of defendants is not tenable and not maintainable. It is also further pleading of defendants in their written statements that 7th defendant and Pala Sita Maha Lakshmi orally relinquished their rights in the properties of Gani Raju and Sita Maha Lakshmi assumed
O.S.No.248 of 2020
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,
B H I M A V A R A M.
Calender Case No.1262 of 2017 that she will not claim any share over the property. If such version of the defendants is assumed to be true for a while, then what prevented the defendants No. 1 to 3, late Sri Ramulu to mention the said fact in Ex.A2. But
Ex.A2 is silent about the said oral relinquishment of rights in the properties of
Gani Raju by 7th defendant and also deceased Pala Lakshmi who is mother of plaintiffs No. 1 & 2, wife of plaintiff No.3.
10. The defendants examined DWs 2 to 4 to prove that Sita Mahala
Lakshmi sold her Ac.0.25 cts to her brothers who inturn obtained possession of Ac.0.25 cts in 1990. However, during cross examination, DW2 stated that he did not see her name in any document as Sita Maha Lakshmi but he knows her from her childhood and he does not remember the death of Sita Maha
Lakshmi but he knows that it was at about 10 years back and further he stated that at the time of marriage, the property to the extent of Ac.0.25 cts was given but contrary to written statement, DW2 stated that no document was executed at that time and even as on today the said Ac.0.25 cts was being enjoyed by defendants No.1 and his brothers. Thus DW2, contrary to his chief examination evidence and also contrary to written statement, deposed that there is no written sale letter. Further admitted that only the male children of
Gani Raju are enjoying the properties of GaniRaju. Even 3rd defendant in his cross examination deposed surprising to this court that there is no relation to the defendants with the mother of plaintiffs No.1. Though he stated that
Rs.24,000/- was given to mother of plaintiff but he admitted that he did not witness the same and he did not act as witness to the said transaction and he does not know about the names of the mother and father of Gani Raju. Even 3rd defendant does not know where the plaintiffs are presently residing.
Further, he categorically admitted that 7th defendant is not claiming any share in the schedule property as her daughter was given to one of his brother.
Thus, from such cross examination of DW3, it is clear that he just has given evidence at the instance of defendants but he did not witness the alleged sale letter and also he did not act as attesting witness or scribe of it and he does not know the material facts about the said transaction. The defendants also examined DW4 but he does not know even who filed the present suit and he does not know when Sita Maha Lakshmi died. Further contrary to written statement, he stated that there is no document relating to Ac.0.25 cts. Though he stated that he saw giving of amount to the mother of plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 by
O.S.No.248 of 2020
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,
B H I M A V A R A M.
Calender Case No.1262 of 2017 the purchaser D1 but he does not know the denomination of the notes, no photographs were taken at the time of giving of money and no one were present except himself and Satyanarayana give raise doubt as to the alleged sale transaction. Thus, the evidence of DWs 2 to 4 suffer with material lacunae and surprisingly it goes contrary to pleadings of written statement regarding sale letter dt.28.05.1988. Therefore this court holds that the defendants failed to prove execution of sale letter in favour of Pala Sita Maha Lakshmi in respect of Ac.0.25 cts on 28.05.1988 by the defendants along with their mother and inturn the said Maha Lakshmi selling away her Ac.0.25 cts to her brothers for
Rs.24,000/- and about relinquishing her rights in the properties of Gani Raju.
As it is admitted by DWs. 1 to 4 that 7th defendant who is another daughter of
Gani Raju, remained exparte and did not contest the present suit as her daughter was given to one of her brothers only.
11. The 1st defendant is examined as DW1 whose chief examination evidence go in the lines of written statement. During cross examination, though DW1 stated that he already filed document before this court to show the correct name of his sister as Sita Maha Lakshmi but, he did not file the same. He could not remember exact year of death of Sita Maha Lakshmi. He also admitted that his parents meted out marriage expenses of all the children and during lifetime of his parents, they did not settle any property and Ex.A2 is silent about the settling of properties in favour of their sisters. He also categorically admitted that there is no document to show that they have given
Ac.0.25 cts in favour of Sita Maha Lakshmi and though he stated that he filed the alleged sale letter dt.28.05.1988, on record he did not file the said letter.
Even he could not say whether the said sale letter contains the signatures of
Sita Maha Lakshmi or not.
12. In view of discussion held in above paras and also in view of facts and evidence on record, this court holds that plaintiffs are able to prove that the deceased Pala Lakshmi who is mother of plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 and wife of plaintiff No.3 is also having the share in the plaint schedule properties and defendants No. 1 to 3, deceased Sri Ramulu legal heirs got partitioned the properties of Gani Raju under Ex.A2 without adding the said deceased Pala
Lakshmi and 7th defendant who are the daughters of Gani Raju. The reasons for not showing them as parties to Ex.A2 are not mentioned in Ex.A2 itself and
O.S.No.248 of 2020
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,
B H I M A V A R A M.
Calender Case No.1262 of 2017 the reasons as mentioned in written statement for not giving of shares to 7th defendant and deceased Pala Lakshmi, are held to be not proved by the defendants by placing valid and cogent evidence. Thus, the defendants failed to disprove the case of plaintiffs and failed to prove the contentions raised in their written statement. Therefore, this court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled to get 1/6th (1/3rd share is mentioned by over sight and mistake by the then officer while framing issues) share in each item of the plaint schedule properties, as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
13. ISSUE No.2:-
Though plaintiffs pleaded to award past and future profits to the plaintiffs till they are put in separate share, the plaintiffs did not adduce any evidence for the purpose of calculating such profits. Therefore, past and future profits are not granted to the plaintiff at this stage. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered.
14. POINT:-
As issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiffs and as admittedly the said properties were partitioned under Ex.A2 and one property was sold away to D8, thus they are in possession of the defendants. So, the plaintiffs are entitled to be put in separate possession of their share in the plaint schedule properties. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
15. ISSUE No.3:-
As issue No.1 and point are answered in favour of plaintiffs, the suit is liable to decreed.
In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs by dividing the plaint schedule properties into 6 equal shares and by allotting 1/6th share to plaintiffs No. 1 to 3, 1/6th share each to the defendants No. 1 to 3, 1/6th share to defendant No.7 and 1/6th share to defendants No. 4 to 6 and further the plaintiffs are entitled to get separate possession of their share in the plaint schedule properties.
O.S.No.248 of 2020
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s Court,
B H I M A V A R A M.
Calender Case No.1262 of 2017
Typed the dictation directly to the Stenographer Grade III, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28 th day of April, 2026. Sd/- P. Haneesha
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhimavaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF : P.W.1: P. Siva
FOR DEFENDANTS : DW1: K. Venkata Satyanarayana DW2: K. Rama Krishna DW3: K. Satyanarayana DW4: V. Kanaka Rao
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF :
Ex.A1/dt.19.05.1981: Certified copy of regd. sale deed vide Doc. No.1643/1981 executed in favour of Kadali Gani Raju by Bhupathiraju Satyanarayana Raju and others Ex.A2/dt.12.12.2019: Certified copy of regd. partition deed Vide Doc.No.6941/2019 executed in between defendants No. 1 to 6 Ex.A3/dt.12.12.2019: Certified copy of sale deed executed in favour of 8th defendant by defendants No.1 to 6 Ex.A4/dt.30.12.2019: Certified copy of regd. partition deed vide Doc.No.94/2020 executed in between defendants No. 4 to 6 and Tangella Naga Lakshmi Ex.A5/dt.26.10.2018: Original family member certificate pertaining to issue by Tahsildar, Bhimavaram. Ex.A6/dt.03.02.2020: Office copy of regd. legal notice got sent to defendants No.1 to 6 & 8. Ex.A7/dt. : Original postal acknowledgment from 1st defendant. Ex.A8 : Original postal acknowledgment from 2nd defendant. Ex.A9 : Original postal acknowledgment from 3rd defendant. Ex.A10 : Original postal acknowledgment from 4th defendant. Ex.A11 : Original postal acknowledgment from 6th defendant. Ex.A12 : Original postal acknowledgment from 8th defendant. Ex.A13 : Original postal acknowledgment from 5th defendant.
FOR. DEFENDANTS :Nil
Sd/- P. Haneesha
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Bhimavaram.