1
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE ::
VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA
PRESENT: Sri P. Kesavacharyulu, XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka. (FAC) VIII Add. District & Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka
TUESDAY, THIS THE 1st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
O.S.Nos.86/2009 AND 70/2011
Between : (O.S. No.86/2009)
Noonela Kuncha Rao, S/o late Ganganna, Hindu, aged 58 years, retired from Hindustan Shipyard Limited, resident of Door No.24-89-10/1, Prasanth Nagar, Kanithi Road, Gonthinavanipalem, Old Gajuwaka, isakhapatnam-26.
..Plaintiff
And :
Noonela Ganga Raju, S/o late Ganganna, Hindu, aged 50 years, Employee, Hindustan Shipyard Limited, resident of Door No.24-89-10/1, Prasanth Nagar, Kanithi Road, Gonthinavanipalem, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 26.
..Defendant
A N D
Between : (O.S. No.70/2011)
Noonela Ganga Raju, S/o late Ganganna, Hindu, 42 years, residing at Door No.24-89-6/1, Prasanthi Nagar, Kaniti Road, Gajuwaka. … Plaintiff
And
1. Noonela Kuncha Rao, S/o late Ganganna, Hindu, aged 52 years, residing at Door No.24-89-10/1, Prasanti Nagar, Kaniti Road, Gajuwaka.
2. Noonela Tatarao, S/o late Ganganna, Hindu, aged 50 years, residing at Door No.24-89-9/1, Prasanti Nagar, Kaniti Road, Gajuwaka.
3. Smt. Palla Bangaramma, W/o Apparao, Hindu, aged 38 years, resident of Door No.55-3-75, Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. … Defendants
Both the suits coming before me on 20.09.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.V.S.N. Raju and Ch.V.S.N. Murthy, learned advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri Vydyula Ravindra Prasad, learned advocate for the defendant, in O.S. No.86/2009 and of Sri Vydyula Ravindra Prasad, learned advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri D.V.S.N. Raju and Ch.V.S.N. Murthy, learned advocates for the defendants, in O.S. No.70/2011 and upon hearing their arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:- 2
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
O.S. No.86/2009
1.This is a suit for declaration of title to plaint A and B schedule properties, for eviction of the defendant therefrom, delivery of vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff, and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties, for costs and other reliefs.
2.Plaint averments are as follows. Plaintiff and defendant are sons of Chellayyamma. She purchased 400 sq. yards of vacant site with a thatched shed on it out of her stridhana amount from one Sandrana Guruvulu under a registered sale deed. With her personal funds, she developed the vacant site and constructed an RCC building with three portions. The property was assessed to tax. Old door number is 2-9 and new door number is 24-89-10/1. Old assessment number is 46616 and new assessment number is 1088029216. During the lifetime of Chellayamma, defendant filed O.S.
316/2003 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, for partition of 480 sq. yards including the plaint schedule properties and the building door No.24-89-10/1. Plaintiff in the present suit was D1 in that suit, but
Chellayyamma was not added as a party in that suit. The suit was dismissed on 21.04.2005. Subsequently, defendant issued a paper publication on 11.04.2006 that the plaintiff was making an attempt to alienate the plaint schedule property. In reply, Chellayyamma issued a paper publication dated 25.04.2006 that she had right over the property and the defendant had no right over it and that her children were in permissive possession. She executed a Will dated 02.03.2006 in a sound and disposing state of mind 3
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK bequeathing the entire plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff and some other property to her daughter Bangaramma. Defendant was not given any property under the said Will. Chellayyamma lived in the plaint schedule property till her demise on 15.02.2007. Thereafter, plaintiff became the absolute owner in possession. His name was mutated in the municipal records. He has been paying municipal taxes regularly for both plaint A and
B schedule properties. Plaint B schedule property is abutting the plaint A schedule property on the western side. Plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate the plaint B schedule property and hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff, by issuance of a notice dated 06.12.2007. Defendant issued a reply on 17.12.2007 with false allegations. Hence, the suit has been filed as aforesaid.
3.Defendant filed his written statement wherein he admitted the relationship between the parties, while denying the other plaint averments.
Defendant admitted to have filed O.S. 316/2003. It is alleged that since the property therein was purchased by the father of the parties by name
Ganganna, and the defendant as well, Chellayyamma was not made a party in that suit. Ganganna constructed three portions and gave the same to his three sons and the vacant space on the south to his daughter Bangaramma.
A portion of the site on the northern side in a triangle shape was kept common. A CMA was filed against the dismissal of the petition for restoration of O.S. No.316/2003 which was dismissed for default. Another brother of the parties Tatarao and their sister Bangaramma are necessary parties to the suit. The paper publication was issued as if Chellayyamma made it, but she was an illiterate and did not know how to give a publication. Chellyyamma did not execute the alleged Will. Plaintiff is in occupation of only one portion on the western side. Tatarao is in occupation of the middle portion.
4
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
Southern portion was given to Bangaramma towards her pasupu kumkuma during the lifetime of Ganganna. Hence, plaintiff cannot claim right over the entire plaint A schedule property. The Will set up by the plaintiff shows another Will dated 12.01.2004 which was cancelled and one more Will dated 12.06.2002. All the Wills were created by the plaintiff. Plaint B schedule property was given to the defendant by his father. After the retirement of
Ganganna from the Shipyard, defendant was given that job. Plaintiff got the job in the name of another person Appalakonda by suppressing the real facts.
When a complaint was given, plaintiff took voluntary retirement. Plaintiff is thus a litigant. Hence, the suit has to be dismissed.
4.Following issues were framed for trial on the basis of the pleadings.
1. Whether the Will dated 02.03.2006 executed by Noonela Cheyyallamma is true, valid and binding on defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of plaint A schedule property with lawful right and whether he is entitled for permanent injunction against defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his title over the plaint A and B schedule properties?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of possession of plaint B schedule property?
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
6. Whether this suit is barred in view of pendency of suit O.S. No.316/2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka?
7. To what relief?
O.S. No.70/2011
5.Defendant in O.S. No.86/2009 is the plaintiff in O.S. 70/2011.
Plaintiff in that suit is D1 and their brother and sister are D2 and D3 in this suit. Suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal 5
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants mainly D1 from alienating the plaint schedule property, for costs and other reliefs.
6.Plaint averments are as follows. Plaint schedule 480 sq. yards was purchased by the father of the parties in the name of their mother
Chellayyamma. She divided the property tentatively and gave a house site bearing Door No.24-89-6/1 constructed by the plaintiff. But it is only 70 sq.
yards. Major shares were given to D3 Bangaramma and also D1 Kuncharao.
Open site was also given to D1 Kuncharao. Thus, the partition is unequal. It has to be divided into four equal shares. Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid house. He laid a bore-well on the north-east corner. If the property is divided equally, plaintiff will get 120 sq. yards. D1 is trying to alienate a part of the vacant site to third parties. Hence, suit has been filed for partition as aforesaid.
7.Defendants filed common written statement, wherein they admitted the relationship but denied the other averments. It is alleged as follows. Plaint schedule property is the self-acquired property of
Chellayyamma and it is not joint family property. Plaintiff was a minor at the time of purchase of the property by Chellayyamma. She did not divide the property into shares. After purchase, she got the thatched house demolished and constructed three portions. She allowed plaintiff to reside in the eastern portion, D1 in the western portion, and D2 and Chellayyamma used to reside in the middle portion, subject to condition of payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- each by plaintiff and D1. For three years, plaintiff failed to pay maintenance. Therefore, D1 looked after the welfare of
Chellayyamma. Grama Panchayat assessed the tax in the name of
Chellayyamma. Subsequently, electricity connections were also allotted in 6
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK her name for all the three portions. Separate door numbers 24-89-10/1, 24- 89-10/1(1) and 24-89-10/1(2), but not 24-89-6/1, were allotted by the
Municipality. In the place of pathway, plaintiff dug a bore-well on the north- east corner and constructed a bath room in the south west corner.
Chellayyamma questioned the illegal activities of plaintiff. Plaintiff gave a threat. Therefore, Chellayyamma gave a police report on 06.12.2003. But police advised to proceed in a Civil Court. All these facts have been suppressed by the plaintiff. Therefore, suit be dismissed.
8.D1 and D3 subsequently filed additional written statement, wherein it is alleged that the present suit was dismissed for default and restored latter on 04.06.2010. Chellayyamma executed a registered Will giving property as stated in O.S. 86/2009. Hence, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed.
9.Following issues were framed for trial on the basis of the pleadings.
1. Whether the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint schedule property and entitled for one of the shares as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
10.Following additional issues were framed for trial on the basis of
additional pleadings.
4. Whether Smt. Chellayyamma executed a registered Will
dated 02.03.2006 and bequeathed the suit property in favour
of D1 and D3 to the exclusion of plaintiff. If so, is the Will deed is acted upon?
5. Whether the payment of court fee is not correct?
7
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
11.By the docket order dated 05.10.2012 in O.S. 86/2009, both the suits were clubbed and joint trial was directed to be conducted and evidence to be recorded in O.S. 86/2009. Accordingly, evidence for both the suits was recorded in O.S. 86/2009.
12.P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.16 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. D.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.14 were marked on the side of defendants.
13.Written arguments have been filed on both sides and reply arguments have also been filed for the plaintiff in O.S. No.86/2009.
14.Plaintiff in O.S. 86/2009 is Kuncharao and he is D1 in O.S.
70/2011. Defendant in O.S. 86/2009 is Ganga Raju and he is plaintiff in O.S.
70/2011. D2 and D3 in O.S. 70/2011 are Tatarao and Bangaramma respectively. In order to avoid any sort of confusion and for convenience, parties are referred to by their names.
15.Following facts are not in dispute. Chellayyamma and Ganganna are parents of the parties. Kuncharao asserted that Chellayyamma purchased vacant site with thatched shed in her name and she constructed three portions building with her own sources of income. Ganga Raju alleged that his father Ganganna purchased the vacant site in the name of his wife
Chellayyamma and constructed three portions building with his own sources of income. While Kuncharao set up a Will, Ganga Raju denied it. In the light of these facts, issue No.1 in O.S. No.70/2011 is required to be answered first.
It is, accordingly, being answered.
ISSUE No.1 IN O.S. 70/2011 8
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
Whether the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiff?
16.Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed dated 27.05.1974 in the name of Chellayyamma. There is no dispute to this extent between the parties.
Since it is a registered document of 1974, i.e., of more than 30 years old document, burden is upon Ganga Raju to prove his allegation that his father
Ganganna purchased the property covered by Ex.A.1 in the name of
Chellayyamma.
17.In para No.III(a) of the plaint in O.S. 70/2011, Ganga Raju pleaded that 480 sq. yards of site was purchased by Ganganna in the name of
Chellayyamma. But in para No.4 of chief affidavit of Ganga Raju (D.W.1), he stated that Ganganna and Ganga Raju purchased the property in the name of
Chellayyamma. Thus, as rightly contended in the written arguments on behalf of Kuncha Rao (P.W.1), there is contradiction in this respect. Except merely saying that Ganganna purchased the property, no other details are forthcoming, such as, avocation of Ganganna, his income, whether there were any special reasons to obtain Ex.A1 in the name of Chellayyamma.
When there is a document of 1974 in the name of the woman Chellayyamma, unless there is sufficient evidence to prove that Ganganna purchased the property in the name of Chellayyamma, no finding can be rendered contrary to Ex.A1 sale deed in the name of Chellayyamma. No such evidence has been produced by Ganga Raju. Nothing has been elicited from the evidence of any of the witnesses to prove that the source of income for obtaining
Ex.A1 sale deed emanated from Ganganna. Hence, it can be said that Ganga
Raju failed to prove that the property purchased under Ex.A1 is the ancestral property. It has consequently to be and is held that the property was the 9
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK self-acquired property of Chellayyamma. Issue No.1 in O.S. 70/2011 is accordingly answered against Ganga Raju.
ISSUE No.1 IN O.S. 86/2009
Whether the Will dated 02.03.2006 executed by Noonela Cheyyallamma is true, valid and binding on defendant?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.4 IN O.S. No.70/2011
Whether Smt. Chellayamma executed a registered Will deed dt. 2.3.2006 and bequeathed the suit property in favour of D1 and D3 to the exclusion of plaintiff? If so, the Will deed is acted upon?
18.Ex.A4 is the registered Will marked in the evidence of Kuncha
Rao (P.W.1) which was executed by Chellayyamma revoking the previous registered Will dated 12.01.2004, certified copy of which is Ex.A15. In
Ex.A15, it is stated that she was revoking the earlier registered Will dated 12.06.2002, certified copy of which is marked as Ex.A14. Thus, there are three registered Wills, certified copies of which were got marked by Kuncha
Rao through Sub-Registrar P.W.5 (Exs.A14 to A16).
19. In the written arguments of learned counsel for Kuncha Rao, referring to the oral evidence of witnesses including P.W.5, it is contended that Ex.A4 Will is proved by Kuncha Rao. In the written arguments of Ganga
Raju, it is contended that the Will Ex.A4 is shrouded with suspicious circumstances including that the propounder Kuncha Rao is the major beneficiary, and even the bachelor and leprosy affected Tatarao is excluded from the bequest.
20.P.Ws.2 and 4 are the attestors and P.W.3 is the scribe of Ex.A4
Will whose evidence has been relied on in the written arguments for Kuncha
Rao to contend that the Will is proved. Accepting this contention for a 10
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK moment, whether the Will is free from suspicious circumstances or not, has to be found out.
Non-disclosure and Custody of the Will dated 02.3.2006
21.Kuncharao (P.W.1) deposed in his cross-examination that after the death of Chellayyamma, he came to know of Ex.A4 Will in the house of
Tatarao while performing her obsequies, that she never revealed about the
Will and he does not know whether she told her other two sons about the
Will. He further deposed in his cross-examination that when discussion in regard to Ex.A4 went on among his brothers and sister in that house, although the other brothers and sister went through the contents in Ex.A4
Will, they did not express any opinion thereon. It may be noted that it is his specific evidence in his cross-examination that he does not remember whether Dattu (P.W.2 - one of the attestors) was present when the discussion had taken place. He also deposed that Chellayyamma also never revealed that she executed the Will and his brothers and sister never informed him about the execution of the Will by Chellayyamma.
22.From the above evidence of Kuncharao, it can be seen that he seems to have chanced upon the Will Ex.A4 when he was performing the obsequies of Chellayyamma. How he got the original Will Ex.A4 in the house has not been explained by him. It is not the evidence of Kuncharao that his mother Chellayyamma handed over the original Will Ex.A4 to him to be kept in his custody. As would be discussed infra, Chellayyamma was residing with
Tatarao in another portion and not in the same portion in which Kuncharao was living with his family members. Evidence of Kuncharao in his cross- examination is required to be extracted in his own words for better appreciation.
11
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK “While performing the obsequies of my mother, I came across Ex.A4”.
23.The above evidence of Kuncharao would leave an impression that it is not that Chellayyamma gave the original Will to him to be kept with him.
By the usage of the expression ‘I came across Ex.A4’, Kuncharao can be understood to have stumbled upon the original Will Ex.A4, as observed above, when he was performing the obsequies of Chellayyamma. What was the necessity for Chellayyamma to suppress the execution of Ex.A4 from her sons and the daughter is not comprehensible. The daughter seems to have had no disputes with her mother Chellayyamma during the lifetime of the latter, which fact rules out any necessity for the latter to keep the Will surreptitious even from her only daughter.
24. The aforesaid Dattu is P.W.2. With respect to the non-disclosure and custody of Ex.A4 Will, he deposed in his cross-examination that it was at the behest of Chellayamma that he did not reveal the execution of the Will to her sons and daughter. He also deposed that he does not know the reason for Chellayyamma to keep the Will secret.
25. Having said so, P.W.2 Dattu deposed in his cross-examination that on the 11th day ceremony of Chellayyamma, he informed about her last
Will. Thus, evidence of this witness indicates that the reason for not informing anyone including Kuncharao about the Will was the request of
Chellayyamma. Hence, it seems that only on the 11th day ceremony, all the sons and the daughter of Chellayyamma came to know through P.W.2 Dattu about Ex.A4 Will. Until then, none of the sons and the daughter must have had knowledge of the Will. When this is so, evidence of Kuncharao that he came across Ex.A4 Will while performing the obsequies of Chellayyamma is skeptical.
12
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
26.P.W.2 Dattu deposed in para No.6 of his cross-examination that he subscribed his signature on the chief affidavit in the presence of the daughter of Kuncharao by name Anu Bharathi. Then, he stated that he does not know who attested his signature on his chief affidavit and he did not go to the office of lawyer and the said Bharathi brought his chief-affidavit. In para No.7 of his cross-examination he deposed that he informed to the said lady about the execution of the Will by Chellayyamma but he did not inform to her lawyer. When he informed to Bharathi has not been specified by P.W.2
Dattu. When he informed her about execution of the Will by Chellayyamma, there seems to be no reason for not communicating the same to her lawyer.
These are the factors that have to be kept in view while assessing the evidence of P.W.2 Dattu.
27.P.W.3 is one Krishna Rao who deposed in his chief-evidence that on the request of Chellayyamma, he prepared the Will and got the Will registered in the Registrar’s office. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 Krishna
Rao deposed that he knew Chellayyamma only prior to the execution of the
Will and he had seen Trinadh (P.W.4) another attestor of the Will only one time, i.e., on the date of the execution of the Will but he knew Dattu P.W.2.
According to him, one week prior to the execution of the Will, Chellayyamma alone came to him and she was not introduced by anybody to him. As deposed by P.W.3 Krishna Rao, there were about 15 to 20 document writers in and around his office.
28.From the above evidence of P.W.3 Krishna Rao, it can be seen that there was no previous acquaintance except for one week prior to Ex.A4, but Chellayyamma alone came to his office for the purpose of getting the Will prepared by him notwithstanding that there were 10 to 15 document writers 13
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK around his office. When this evidence is read with his further evidence that he had known Kuncharao for 1½ years prior to the Will, it can be understood that it must have been through Kuncharao that Chellayyamma came to know of the scribe P.W.3 Krishna Rao. When seen in isolation, there appears to be nothing unnatural about it. But when considered with the fact that there were two more Wills as already stated above, both of which were scribed by
P.W.3 Krishna Rao himself and which were executed by Chellayyamma, this fact plays an important role.
29.It has also to be borne in mind that P.W.3 Krishna Rao deposed in his cross-examination that he does not remember whether he had known
Chellayyamma even prior to 2004. Another Will in 2002 was executed by
Chellayyamma of which the scribe was none other than P.W.3 Krishna Rao.
So, it appears that instead of saying that he had known Chellayyamma even prior to 2004, he appears to have avoided to disclose the truth, because apparently there were three Wills out of which two were cancelled as per
Ex.A.4 and the Will of 2004.
30. Apart from the above, P.W.3 Krishna Rao, having said that he had known Kuncharao for 1½ years prior to Ex.A4, deposed inconsistently therewith that except Chellayyamma he does not know her three sons and the daughter. From what has been discussed, it can be seen that as already observed above, it must have been Kuncharao who should have played entire role in getting all the three Wills including Ex.A4 scribed and registered by
P.W.3 Krishna Rao. This fact has to be considered along with the other circumstances.
31. P.W.4 is Trinadh who is another attestor of Ex.A4 Will. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not inform to the sons of 14
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
Chellayyamma about the drafting and execution of the Will. On the 11th day ceremony of Chellayyamma, according to him, nobody asked him about the
Will, and he did not inform anything about the Will to anybody. So, this is not the witness through whom Kuncharao came to know of execution of Ex.A4
Will and the custody thereof.
32.From what has been discussed above, it can be said that neither
Chellayyamma nor Kuncharao informed anyone about the execution of the
Will until during the period of performance of her obsequies or 11th day ceremony. How Kuncharao came to the custody of the original Will Ex.A4 remained a mystery. It appears that all the persons concerned kept close to their chest. Reasons are unknown but not far to seek.
Exclusion of own kith and kin
33.There cannot be dispute that except Kuncharao and his sister
Bangaramma (D.W.5), the other two sons were kept out of the bequest. As can be seen from the recitals in Ex.A4 Will, it is stated in page No.2 that the second son Tatarao was handicapped and was in no position to do any work and therefore Chellayyamma and Tatarao were living with Kuncha Rao who was rendering many a service to both of them and was taking their care.
34.Thus, Chellayyamma was quite aware that her second son
Tatarao was handicapped with no capacity to earn anything. In fact, according to her, Kuncharao was rendering services even to Tatarao. When that was the state of Tatarao, it is absolutely natural and prudent of his mother to have bequeathed property at least equally if not more to Tatarao than to the other two sons and her only daughter. Had Ex.A4 Will given property to Tatarao in such a way, Chellayamma could be said to have valid 15
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK reasons for giving property to Tatarao. But, she gave nothing to Tatarao under Ex.A4. According to the contents in Ex.A4, Tatarao had no property at all including even a small portion of the house to live in. When as per Ex.A4,
Tatarao and Chellayyamma were living with Kuncharao, how she expected
Tatarao to continue to live with Kuncharao, even after her demise, does not stand to reason for any ordinary prudent man. Had Chellayyamma imposed a caveat in Ex.A4 that Kuncharao would acquire the legacy subject only to maintenance of Tatarao till the death of the latter, it would have been a different matter. Now, the fact remains that Tatarao had no property at all if
Ex.A4 is to be gone by. What would be the fate of the bachelor and physically impaired Tatarao in case Kuncharao desires in future to evict Tatarao from the middle portion, would and should have been the concern of his mother
Chellayamma before executing Ex.A4 Will. This concern and contingency have not been addressed by the Will Ex.A4.
35.When it comes to the only daughter Bangaramma, she was given under Ex.A4 Will 80 sq. yards of site with a thatched house which is situated towards the southern side of the three portions building which was bequeathed in entirety to Kuncharao with absolute rights. So, if the bequest
Ex.A4 is to be believed, then, the sole reason for giving the entire three portions house to Kuncharao is that he was rendering services to
Chellayyamma and Tatarao. There is no other reason assigned in Ex.A4 Will for such bequest. Ganga Raju is given nothing at all and not even a single penny. No reasons are at all stated in Ex.A4 for excluding Ganga Raju from that bequest. It may be noted that it is not stated in Ex.A4 that there were any disputes between Chellayyamma and Gangaraju or some property was given to Gangaraju to oust the latter from the purview of the Will.
16
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
36.It is at this stage that Ex.A15, which is certified copy of the registered Will dated 12.01.2004 executed by the very same Chellayyamma, is required to be taken into consideration. By the bequest dated 12.01.2004, the entire property which Chellayyamma acquired through the registered sale deed dated 27.05.1974 (Ex.A1) was given to Kuncharao with absolute rights. The remaining two sons and the only daughter Bangaramma were given nothing under this Will. This is the Will which was revoked by
Chellayyamma under Ex.A4 as stated in Ex.A4.
37.Previous to those two Wills, another Will (Ex.A14) was executed by Chellayyamma on 12.06.2002 (Ex.B1 and Ex.A14 are one and the same
Will), wherein all the three sons and the daughter of Chellayyamma were given some property or the other, the details of which are not necessary to be discussed here, for the reason that this Will was revoked by the Will of 2004.
38.Thus, it can be seen that while in 2002, Chellayyamma preferred to give property to all her children, when it came to 2004 Will, she decided to give everything to Kuncharao and not to give anything to her other two sons and the daughter. Then, in 2006, she gave 80 sq. yards of site with thatched house to her daughter and the three portions building was given to
Kuncharao. As already stated above, no reasons were given by
Chellayyamma for changing her mind from time to time. It is true that an executant of a Will has a free choice to change her/his mind before her/his death and execute any number of Wills. But in the evaluation of genuineness of a Will, reasons for changing the Will have to be assessed. On such assessment, in the instant case, it can be said that there are absolutely no reasons for eliminating the two sons particularly the handicapped son
Tatarao from the Will Ex.A4.
17
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
Omission of important facts in Ex.A4 Will
39.Ex.A4 Will is silent regarding the execution of 2002 Will. It only speaks of execution of 2004 Will. When by 2004 Will, the Will of 2002 was revoked, it might appear, in the first blush, that there was no necessity to make a mention of the Will of 2002 in the Will of 2004. But, as already noted above, initially in 2002 Chellayyamma gave properties to all her children, then in 2004 she omitted her two sons and the daughter and gave everything to Kuncharao alone, and in 2006 she included her daughter Bangaramma in
Ex.A4. These are the reasons why she must have referred to both the previous Wills in Ex.A4.
40.According to Kuncharao himself, Chellayyamma permitted Ganga
Raju to live in the eastern portion and Kuncharao to live in the western portion, subject to payment of maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to her.
This is how according to Kuncharao the three portions have been in possession of the sons of Chellayyamma. But, this important fact has not been mentioned in Ex.A4 Will. Ex.A4 shows as though the entire three portions house was in her possession by then, which is factually incorrect even according to Kuncharao.
41.As already stated above, the property purchased under Ex.A1 by 1974 was vacant site with two rooms thatched house. Subsequently, three portions house was constructed. Who made the construction is a big question in dispute. According to Kuncharao, it was Chellayyamma herself who constructed the building out of her own personal funds, whereas Ganga
Raju said that it was his father Ganganna with whose funds the building was constructed. When the property purchased in 1974 was vacant site with two 18
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK rooms thatched house, in Ex.A4 Will Chellayyamma should have stated the sources which flowed for the construction of the house consisting of as many as three portions. This important factor is conspicuous by its absence in
Ex.A4 Will.
Illiteracy of Chellayyamma
42.Ex.A4 itself shows that Chellayyamma subscribed her thumb impressions thereon which per se indicates that she was an illiterate and marks woman. The scribe P.W.3 Krishna Rao deposed in his chief-evidence that Chellayyamma furnished all the particulars to him. He admitted that she was an illiterate and hence the contents in the Will were read over to her. It is she who conveyed the facts to be mentioned in the Will and accordingly he prepared the Will. As deposed by P.W.3 Krishna Rao, she alone came to him for the preparation of the Will. A perusal of Ex.A4 shows that the measurements, survey numbers, old and new patta number, registered sale deed number, dates, door numbers, assessment number etc., have been mentioned in detail. An illiterate woman like Chellayyamma cannot be expected to have communicated such details with such precision to the scribe P.W.3 without the assistance of any other person. Even to assume that some of the details were taken note of from the previous Will, nobody knew about the previous two Wills, except Chellayyamma and hence even for those two Wills, Chellayyamma could not have been expected to give all the details to the scribe P.W.3. This is one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration particularly when the bequest Ex.A4 excluded her own two sons including Tatarao and only a tiny amount of property was given to her daughter Bangaramma.
19
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
Kuncha Rao’s employment and his prevailing over
Chellayamma in getting the Will executed
43.Ganga Raju filed Exs.B4 to B13 relating to securing employment by Kuncha Rao. Kuncha Rao admitted in his cross-examination that in his employment particulars, name of his father is shown as Appanna and mother’s name as Chellayyamma. He clearly admitted that he himself got his father’s name recorded as Appanna in the employment records. He admitted that he does not know who is Appanna and what is the name of the wife of Appanna. His father Ganganna informed him that Appanna had no issues as admitted by Kuncharao in his cross-examination. He stated that he secured the job in HSL (Hindustan Shipyard Limited) as legal heir of Appanna.
He denied the suggestion that a complaint was sent to his employer to punish for impersonation and in order to escape from criminal action, he deposed that his natural father himself got the name of the father of
Kuncharao recorded as Appanna. The above said documents pertain to the correspondence with HSL, which show that the name of the father of Kuncha
Rao was recorded as Appanna in the employment records. When under the
RTI Act what action in that respect had been taken was sought to be known, it was informed by HSL under Ex.B9 that since there was no clear cut evidence on record that Kuncha Rao had secured the employment on compassionate grounds in the vacancy which arose on account of the death of Appanna or medical unfitness of his alleged father Appanna, no further action was initiated against him. Subsequently, by Ex.B6, it was informed that HSL did not have any right or obligation to take action against Kuncha
Rao since he had taken voluntary retirement and he was no longer in the employment of HSL. From the above correspondence, it appears that Kuncha
Rao secured employment by showing his father’s name as Appanna on compassionate grounds. The contention of Ganga Raju that sensing criminal 20
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK action Kuncha Rao took voluntary retirement is to be taken note of at this juncture. This seems to be the dubitable mode of securing employment of
Kuncha Rao. It is with him that Chellayyamma was living at the relevant point of time, namely, the date of execution of Ex.A4 Will. So, there can be no surprise that he must have prevailed over her to get the Will substantially in his favour. This is another circumstance to be considered with respect to the genuineness of the Will Ex.A4.
Three separate portions with separate electricity connections
44.In the cross-examination of Ganga Raju, it is elicited that he is in possession of plaint B schedule property. There is a power connection separately for all the three portions but they are in the name of
Chellayyamma. He admitted that Chellayyamma permitted all the three sons to reside in the three portions separately.
45. D.W.2 is the wife of Ganga Raju from whose cross-examination also it is elicited by Kuncharao that plaint B schedule property is in the possession of Ganga Raju and the name of Chellayyamma was mutated in the municipal records. There is a power connection separately for all the three portions in the name of Chellayyamma as deposed by D.W.2. She too deposed that Chellayyamma permitted all the three sons to reside in the three portions separately. Both these witnesses deposed that Ganga Raju accorded such permission. Both have been suggested that the same is false.
46. D.W.3 is the neighbour in whose evidence Ex.X1, which is copy of sale deed unconnected with the plaint schedule property, has been brought in to show that Chellayyamma was not in the habit of coming out of the house to execute the Will.
21
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
47.Tatarao is D.W.4 who is brother of the parties and he too has stated that his mother had no knowledge to execute a document like Will or gift deed. He deposed that his mother used to reside with him in his portion.
D.W.5 is Bangaramma who is the sister of the parties, who is also examined to show that Chellayyamma never executed any Will. D.W.6 is another neighbour who is examined to speak to the same fact as done by D.W.5.
D.W.7 is another neighbour examined in the same lines of D.W.6 who is the house owner of D.W.6.
48. From the above, it can be seen that there are three separate portions and electricity connections have also been obtained separately but all the three are in the name of Chellayyamma. In this respect, Exs.A7 to A9 which is the correspondence for the electricity connections have been filed.
In this connection, there is an important piece of document in Kuncharao who deposed in para No.2 of his cross-examination that he does not know with what intention three portions are constructed but they are constructed just like that. There must be a purpose for three separate portions. The purpose is obvious. Chellayyamma has three sons and three portions are constructed.
The daughter has been given a site with a thatched house in the extent of 80 sq. yards on the southern side of the three portions. Daughter is married, for which amount must have been spent, which should have been taken into consideration in giving only 80 sq. yards to Bangaramma. Ex.A6 proceeding of GVMC mutating the name of Kuncharao in the the records is on the basis of the Will Ex.A4 as seen from Ex.A6 itself. Exchange of notices by way of paper publications under Exs.A2 and A3 and lawyer notices under Exs.A10 and A11 are of no particular help to any parties in the light of the discussion of evidence on record. Similarly, tax receipts Ex.A12 are also of no help. In these circumstances, the above documents are not of aid to Kuncharao in the 22
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK proof of the genuineness of the Will Ex.A4 or that the Will has been acted upon.
49.Although Ganga Raju contended that Chellayyamma was not hale and healthy, and the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff excluding P.W.5 were cross-examined by Gangaraju in this respect, nothing has been elicited from their cross-examination to prove that contention. Not even a single piece of document in the form of medical prescription has been filed by
Ganga Raju to show that Chellayyamma was not in a disposing state of mind to execute the Will. The plea of ill-health of Chellayyamma seems to have been taken by Ganga Raju only to create a doubt on the Will.
50. In the written arguments of Ganga Raju, P.Nityananda Reddy v. P.Sivarama Reddy (2014 (5) ALT 138), Anantharaju Venkata
Seshamma v. Rajupalem Seshavaram(2014 (5) ALT 232),
Balathandayutham v. Ezhilarasan (2010 (4) ALD 124}, Smt. Sushila Bai
Vasudev Rao Bodhanker v. Govind Rao Bodhankar (CCCA No.335 of 2004, dated 21.1.2016), Kunchakurthy Veera Sangaiah v. G.Sakunthala (AS No.242 of 2008, dated 10.8.2018),and Kavita Kanwar v. Mrs. Pamela
Mehta (2020 (4) ALD 82) are relied on in support of the contentions that exclusion of own children of the executant is one of the suspicious circumstances, the feeble mind of the executant is another circumstance, and major share being given to the propounder is one more suspicious circumstance. It is contended that the suspicious circumstances are stated in detail and the burden to dispel is upon Kuncharao which could not discharged and therefore the Will should be held to have not been proved to be beyond suspicious circumstances.
23
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
51.Learned counsel for Kuncharao relied upon the decision Naram
Bhoomi Reddy v. Naram Venkata Reddy (2014 (6) ALD 63) to contend that probate of Will is not required in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This contention has force.
52.Another decision relied on is Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v.
Panchaman Banerjee (AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1684) to contend that where the Will is registered and proved by the attestor, as has been done in the present case, the Will should be held to have been proved. To the similar effect are the decisions in Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram {2020 (3) ALD 129 (SC)} and H.V. Nirmala v. R.Sharmila {2018 (2) ALD 55 (SC)}. In support of this contention, evidence of the attestors and the scribe and also the Sub-
Registrar has been referred to in the written arguments and the reply written arguments. These aspect have already been discussed above.
53.It is argued for Kuncharao that since Ganga Raju filed O.S.
316/2003 (new No.70/2011) for partition notwithstanding that the property exclusively belonged to Chellayyamma, she executed the second Will in 2004 by revoking the first Will of 2002. But, this contention has no force, for this fact has not been mentioned in Ex.A4. It is contended in the written arguments that the third Will was executed since Kuncha Rao was taking care and welfare and needs of Chellayyamma and Tatarao. This aspect has already been discussed above. Hence, this contention has no force. There are contentions on both sides with regard to the suspicious circumstances.
The discussion made above shows that the Will is not beyond suspicion and the Will is replete with dubious circumstances. Hence, it has only to be and is held that the Will is suspicious. When so, evidence that the Will has been acted upon cannot be of avail to Kuncharao. Issue No.1 in O.S. 86/2009 24
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
and additional issue No.4 in O.S. No.70/2011 are accordingly
answered.
ISSUE No.2 IN O.S. 86/2009
Whether the plaintiff is in possession of plaint A schedule property with lawful right and whether he is entitled for permanent injunction against defendant?
54.Kuncharao since claimed his right on the strength of the Will which is held to have not been proved in accordance with law, it can be said that Kuncharao is not in the possession of plaint A schedule property with lawful right under the Will and therefore he is not entitled for permanent injunction. Issue No.2 in O.S. 86/2009 is accordingly answered.
ISSUE No.3 IN O.S. 86/2009
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his title over the plaint A and B schedule properties?
55.Since Kuncharao set up the Will to claim title to plaint A and B schedule properties, and in view of the answer in respect of the Will, this issue has to be answered and it is answered against Kuncharao. Issue No.3 in O.S. 86/2009 is accordingly answered against Kuncharao.
ISSUE No.4 IN O.S. 86/2009
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of possession of plaint B schedule property?
56. In view of the answer to the above issues in O.S. 86/2009, this issue is answered in the negative. Issue No.4 in O.S. 86/2009 is accordingly answered.
ISSUE No.5 IN O.S. 86/2009 25
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
57.Chellayyamma and Tatarao and Bangaramma might not have been parties to O.S. 86/2009, but it cannot be said that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, for in their absence too, the suit can be effectively disposed of. Issue No.5 in O.S. 86/2009 is accordingly answered.
ISSUE No.6 IN O.S. 86/2009
Whether this suit is barred in view of pendency of suit O.S. No.316/2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka?
58.O.S. 316/2003 initially filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Gajuwaka, was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as O.S. 70/2011 and tried with O.S. 86/2009 and common evidence was recorded in O.S.
86/2009 and both the suits are being disposed of by a common judgment.
Hence, O.S. 316/2003 (new No.70/2011) is not a bar to O.S. No.86/2009.
Issue No.6 in O.S. 86/2009 is accordingly answered.
ISSUE No.2 IN O.S. 70/2011
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint schedule property and entitled for one of the shares as prayed for?
59.Since Ex.A4 Will is held to have not been proved, there remained only two Wills, certified copies of which have been marked as Exs.A15 and
A14. Exs.B2 and B1 are certified copies of the same Wills. P.W.5 Sub-
Registrar deposed with respect to these two Wills.
60.By revocation of the Will dated 12.01.2004 under Ex.A4 Will,
Chellayyamma could be deemed to have admitted the execution of the Will
dated 12.01.2004. P.W.3 Krishna Rao who is the scribe, and P.W.2 Dattu who
26
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK is the attestor of the three Wills, deposed that the Will dated 12.01.2004 was executed by Chellayyamma. But on these grounds, neither of the Wills dated 12.01.2004 and 02.03.2006 should be regarded to have been been proved in accordance with law. For the reasons, firstly, none of the two original Wills has been produced. Secondly, there are no pleadings from both sides in regard to those two Wills to constitute an issue. Thirdly, no issue has been framed as regards those two Wills. Fourthly, parties might have had no opportunity or necessity and no evidence might consequently have been adduced especially on those two Wills. Fifthly, in the absence of pleas and issues, no findings can be rendered on those two Wills. The result is that this issue has to be decided sans those two Wills.
61.It is true that Chellayyamma is not a party to O.S. 70/2011, but since subsequently she died, it does not affect any party. When Ex.A4 Will is excluded from consideration, the fact remains that the entire plaint schedule property in O.S. 70/2011 remained to be the property of Chellayyamma and on her intestate death, all her three sons and the daughter who are parties to
O.S. 70/2011 are entitled to an equal share in it. Issue No.2 in O.S.
70/2011 is thus answered.
Additional issue No.5 in O.S. 70/2011
62.As stated above, three sons have been in the possession of three portions and O.S. 70/2011 is for inter alia partition of the own property of the mother of the parties Chellayyamma. Hence, fixed court fee paid by
Gangaraju cannot be said to be incorrect. Additional issue No.5 in O.S.
70/2011 is thus answered.
27
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
63.Property in O.S. 70/2011 as shown in the schedule therein is 480 sq. yds., with three constructed terraced houses, whereas the total extent of plaint A and B schedule properties in O.S. 86/2009 is 400 sq. yds (267 + 133), which indicates that the 80 sq. yds., (allegedly bequeathed to
Bangaramma under Ex.A4 Will) on the southern side to the three portions building is not included in O.S. 86/2009. Property shown in the schedule in
O.S. 70/2011, namely, 480 sq. yds., has to be partitioned into four shares
and one such share shall have to be allotted to Ganga Raju, Kuncharao, Tata
Rao and Bangaramma (parties in O.S. 70/2011), in the light of the answer to the above issues.
64.However, since Gangaraju, Tatarao and Kuncharao have been in possession of the eastern portion, middle portion and western portion respectively, the same portions shall be allotted to them in the final decree as stated below. Since Bangaramma is already married and living with her own family, the southern side vacant site with thatched hut shall be allotted to her. Equities may be worked out relating to the shares in the final decree proceedings. Partition in this way shall be pragmatic and reasonable so that the three brothers shall continue to be in possession of their respective portions and their sister shall get the vacant site on the southern side as aforesaid and adjustment of value by way of equities.
Issue No.3 in O.S. 70/2011 (To what relief?) and
Issue No.7 in O.S. 86/2009 (To what relief?)
65.In the result:
O.S. No.86/2009
a. O.S. No.86/2009 is dismissed and a final decree shall accordingly be passed in O.S. No.86/2009 leaving the parties therein to bear their own costs.
28
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
O.S. No.70/2011
b.Plaint schedule property in O.S. No.70/2011 shall be divided into four equal shares subject to (c) to (f) below, c.Gangaraju, Kuncharao, Tatarao and Bangaramma shall be entitled to one such share each subject to (d) to (f) below, d.Gangaraju, Tatarao and Kuncharao shall be allotted eastern portion, middle portion and western portion of the three portions building respectively, e.Bangaramma shall be allotted the 80 sq. yds., of vacant site with thatched hut situated to the south of the three portions building, and she shall be entitled to equities to be determined in the final decree proceedings,
and
f.equities shall be worked out in the matter of value of the three portions and the share of Bangaramma, vacant site if any besides those three portions and the share of Bangaramma, and all necessary orders shall be passed on all such matters in the final decree proceedings so that the possession of all the three brothers over their respective portions shall not be disturbed.
g.a preliminary decree shall accordingly be passed in O.S.
No.70/2011 in terms of (b) to (f) above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-Itranscribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this 1st day of November, 2022.
Sd/- P. Kesavacharyulu,
XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA.
(FAC) VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA
29
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for
Plaintiff : Defendant:
P.W.1 : N.Kuncha Rao.D.W.1 : N.Ganga Raju. P.W.2 : V.Dattu.D.W.2 : Smt. N.Vijaya. P.W.3 : M.Krishna Rao.D.W.3 : Smt. Y.Varalakshmi. P.W.4 : Allu Trinadh.D.W.4 : N.Tata Rao. P.W.5 : K.Raju, Sub-Registrar. D.W.5 : Smt. Palla Bangarammma. D.W.6 : Smt. Malla Nookaratnam. D.W.7 : Mahanti China Appalanaidu.
Exhibits marked for
Plaintiff :
Ex.A.1 :Original registered sale deed dated 27.05.1974 bearing document No.2390/1974 in favour of Smt. Noonela Chelayyamma.
Ex.A.2 :Public notice in Eenadu city newspaper dated 11.05.2006.
Ex.A.3 :Reply notice got published by Smt.Noonela Chellayyamma in Eenadu newspaper dated 25.04.2006.
Ex.A.4 :Registered Will dated 02.03.2006 bearing document No.38/2006 executed by Smt. Noonela Chellayyamma.
Ex.A.5 :Death certificate dated 09.04.2007 of Smt. N.Chellayyamma.
Ex.A.6 :Letter dated 19.04.2007 from GVMC showing mutation of the plaintiff’s name in Municipal records.
Exs.A.7 toLetters from APEPDCL, Gajuwaka showing mutation of the A.9 :plaintiff’s name in electricity service connections.
Ex.A.10 :Office copy of legal notice dated 06.12.2007 got issued by plaintiff to the defendant.
Ex.A.11 :Original reply lawyer’s notice dated 17.12.2007 got issued by the defendant.
Ex.A.12 :Original tax receipts and electricity bills.
Ex.A.13 :Report dated 06.12.2003 given by Smt. Noonela Chellayyamma against the defendant and his family members.
Ex.A.14 :Certified copy of registered Will dated 12.06.2002 bearing document No.85/2002 executed by Smt. N.Chellayyamma.
Ex.A.15 :Certified copy of registered Will dated 12.01.2004 bearing document No.4/2004 executed by Smt. N.Chellayyamma.
Ex.A.16 :Certified copy of registered Will dated 02.03.2006 bearing document No.38/2006 executed by Smt. N.Chellayyamma.
30
O.S.Nos.86/2009 and 70/2011 VIII ADJC/GWK
Defendant :
Ex.B.1 :Certified copy of registered Will dated 12.06.2002 bearing document No.85/2002 executed by Smt. N.Chellayyamma.
Ex.B.2 :Certified copy of registered Will dated 12.01.2004 bearing document No.4/2004 executed by Smt. N.Chellayyamma.
Ex.B.3 :Certified copy of registered Will dated 02.03.2006 bearing document No.38/2006 executed by Smt. N.Chellayyamma.
Ex.B.4 :Letter dated 24.02.2011 addressed by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited to N.Murali Krishna.
Ex.B.5 :Letter dated 29.01.2011 addressed by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited to N.Murali Krishna.
Ex.B.6 :Letter dated 27.11.2011 addressed by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited to N.Murali Krishna.
Ex.B.7 :Letter dated 18.08.2008 addressed by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited to N.Murali Krishna.
Ex.B.8 :Letter dated 16.06.2010 addressed by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited to N.Murali Krishna.
Ex.B.9 :Letter dated 28.09.2010 addressed by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited to N.Murali Krishna.
Ex.B.10 :Letter dated 27.04.2010 addressed by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited to N.Murali Krishna.
Ex.B.11 :Letter dated 26.08.2010 addressed by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited to N.Murali Krishna.
Ex.B.12 :Letter dated 06.09.2010 addressed by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited to N.Murali Krishna.
Ex.B.13 :Letter dated 24.08.2010 addressed by Central Bureau of Investigation to N.Murali Krishna.
Ex.B.14 :Office copy of legal notice dated 11.03.2006.
No. of documents marked through witnesses :
Ex.X.1 : Copy of registered sale deed dated 06.01.2015.
Sd/- P. Kesavacharyulu,
XIII ADJ/GWK (FAC) VIII ADJ/GWK
KESAVADigitally signed by KESAVA
CHARYULUCHARYULU PEDAPUDI
Date: 2022.11.01 17:41:09
PEDAPUDI
+0000