P. Raju

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: NANDIGAMA

Present:- P. Raju ,

Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama

Friday, the twenty first [ 21st ] day of December, 2018.

O.S. no., 251 of 2013

Between:-

Galam Anjaneyulu, son of late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, age. 420 years, Cultivation, resident of Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna district.

....Plaintiff

AND 1.Galam Udayamma, wife of late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, age. 70 years, Household, resident of Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna district.

2.Galam Hanumantha Rao, son of late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, age. 48 years, Cultivation, resident of Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna district.

3.Galam Sanjeeva Rao, son of late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, age. 38 years, Cultivation, resident of Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna district.

4.Galam Hanumayamma, daughter of late Venkata Narasaiah, Hindu, age. 41 years, Cultivation, resident of Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna district. (Died) 5.GalamVaralakshmi,wifeoflate Venkateswarlu, Hindu, age. 50 years, Household, resident of Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna district.

6.Galam Sydeswara Rao, son of late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, age. 25 years, Cultivation, resident of Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna district.

7.Jangala Anantha Ramulu, son of late Gopaiah, Hindu, age. 64 years, Cultivation, resident of Gundaboinapalem village, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna district.

(defendant no., 7 is added as per Orders in IA no., 352/2017, dated 30-10-2017)

....Defendants

This suit is coming on this the 20-12-2018 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri V.Vijaya Kumar and Sri P.Anji Babu, Advocates for the 2 plaintiff and of Sri D.Arjuna, Sri N.Sriram Murthy and Sri K.S.R.Krishna, Advocates for defendant nos., 1 to 3, Sri Y.Babu Rao, Sri D.V.V.N.S.Chari and Sri B.Venkateswarlu, Advocates for defendant nos., 5 and 6, Sri K.V.SubbaRao and Sri A.V.Ramana Murthy, Advocates for defendant no., 7, and the suit against defendant no., 4 is dismissed as abated, on 17-08-2017, and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following:- / / J U D G M E N T / /

1.(a) This suit is filed by plaintiff against defndant nos., 1 to 7 for grant of a decree declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner and enjoyer of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, followers, relatives and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties, by awarding costs of the suit and consequential reliefs.

(b)The plaint schedule properties are as follows:

Item No.1: Acres 3-00 cents of land out of acres 7-79 cents in RS.no., 17/4 and 17/5 comprising in single plot, situated in Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet mandal and Sub-Registry, Krishna district, being bounded by :

East:Land of Galam Varalakshmi;

South:Land of Galam Hanumantha Rao;

West :Makkapet – Chillakallu road;

North :R.C.M.Church.

Item No.2: Acres 2-00 cents of land out of acres 7-29 cents in RS.no., 244/1B4 and 244/2B comprising in single plot, situated in Bhimavaram village, Vatsavai mandal and Sub-Registry, Krishna district, being bounded by :East:

Temple land;

South:Government donka;

West :Land of Galam Sanjeeva Rao;

North :Land of Karupati Bhushi.

2.The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are that:

(a) The schedule properties are belonging to Galam Subbaiah, who is 3 grandfather of the plaintiff. Galam Subbaiah got two sons, by name Galam

Venkata Narasaiah and Galam Venkateswarlu. The said Galam Subbaiaqh is having plaint schedule properties and other properties, which are his ancestral properties. After demise of Galam Subbaiah, his two sons came into joint possession and enjoyment of the said properties, without any partition.

(b) Galam Venkata Narasaiah got three sons and one daughter, that is,

1) Galam Hanumantha Rao, 2)Galam Anjaneyulu, 3) Galam Sanjeeva Rao and

4) Hanumayamma, who are defendant no., 2, the plaintiff, defendant nos., 3 and 4, respectively. Defendant no., 1 is wife of Galam Venkata Narasaiah.

Galam Venkateswarlu got one son by name Galam Sydeswara Rao, who is defendant no., 6. Defendant no., 5 by name Vara Lakshmi is wife of Galam

Venkateswarlu.

(c) After demise of Galam Venkata Narasaiah and Galam Venkateswarlu, their children- the plaintiff, defendant nos., 1 to 4 and 6 partitioned the joint family properties long back. In the said partition, the plaintiff was allotted with the plaint schedule properties and the remaining properties fell to the share of the defendants. From the date of said partition, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties as absolute owner. Except the plaintiff, no other person has any manner of right or title over the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff applied to the revenue authorities for mutation of his name, in the revenue records, in respect of the plaint schedule properties and for issuance of patta pass book and title deed and the said applications are pending.

(d) Due to family disputes between the plaintiff and defendants, taking advantage of non-mutation of the name of the plaintiff in the revenue record ,over the plaint schedule properties, the defendants colluded together and hatched a plan to alienate the plaint schedule properties to others, by creating false documents. The plaintiff issued notice, dated 22-04-2013, to the

Sub Registrar, Jaggaiahpet not to register any kind of documents in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

4

(e) Since 25-10-2013, the defendants have been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties. The prima-facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for grant of the reliefs against the defendants.

3.(a) Defendant no., 6 filed his written statement, which has been adopted by defendant nos., 1, to 4 and 5, and defendant no., 7 filed his written statement ,separately, denying the averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff and putting the plaintiff to strict proof of the said allegations, except admitting the relationship between the parties to the suit.

(b) (i) It is further submitted by defendant nos., 1 to 6 that Galam

Subbaiah purchased acres 3-39 cents, out of item no., 1 of the schedule property, under registered sale deed, dated 08-01-1951, and item no., 2 of the schedule property, under registered sale deed, dated 31-03-1972. Venkata

Narasaiah and Venkateswarlu purchased acres 3-40 cents, out of item no., 1 of the plaint schedule property, under two registered sale deeds, dated 07-04- 1984 and 09-04-1984 (acres 1-70 cents in each document). Venkata

Narasaiah, Venkateswarlu and their father-Subbaiah were in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties.

(ii) Subbaiah died intestate about 10 years back, leaving behind him his two sons as his Class-I legal heirs. After the death of Subbaiah, his two sons came into possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties, as members of Hindu joint family.

(iii) After the death of Venkateswarlu ,intestate, on 26-05-2006, leaving behind him defendant nos., 5 and 6, as his Class-I legal heirs and after the death of Venkata Narasaiah, intestate, on 01-07-2007, leaving behind him, the plaintiff and defendant nos., 1 to 4, as his legal heirs, the plaintiff and the defendants are enjoying the plaint schedule properties and other joint family properties. Defendant nos., 5 and 6 are entitled to ½ share in the plaint schedule properties and other joint family properties, as legal heirs of Galam 5 Venkateswarlu. The plaintiff and defendant nos., 1 to 4 are entitled ½ share in the plaint schedule properties and other joint family properties, as legal heirs of Galam Venkata Narasaiah, as per Hindu Succession Act.

(c) Since, last one year, defendant nos., 5 and 6 are demanding the plaintiff and defendant nos., 1 to 4 for partition of the plaint schedule properties and other joint family properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to them, by metes and bunds. But, the plaintiff and defendant nos., 1 to 4 are not cooperating for the same, and postponing the same.

(d) Defendant nos., 5 and 6 got issued legal notice, dated 07-05-2013, demanding the plaintiff and defendant nos., 1 to 4 to cooperate for partition of the schedule properties into two equal shares. When the plaintiff and defendant nos., 1 to 4 received the said notice, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

(e) Defendant nos., 5 and 6 also filed suit for partition in OS no., 1/2014 ,on the file of Hon’ble XVI Additional District Judge at Nandigama against the plaintiff and defendant nos., 1 to 4. The plaintiff wantonly suppressed the notice, dated 07-05-2013 issued by defendant nos., 5 and 6 to the plaintiff and defendant nos., 1 to 4, for wrongful gain. Since, the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable against co- owners. There is no partition, as pleaded by the plaintiff. Defendant nos., 1 to 6 are ready for partition of the joint family properties, including the plaint schedule properties. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff and , therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

4.(a) (i) The further averment in the written statement of defendant no., 7, though admitting the relationship between the parties to the suit, the averments in the written statement of defendant nos., 1 to 6 about acquiring of schedule properties and other properties by Galam Subbaiah and about death of Galam Subbaiah, that Galam Subbaiah had two sons, by name 6 Venkata Narasaiah and Venkateswarlu and he also got three daughters, that is, Lachamma, Seshamma (the mother of defendant no., 7) and Nagamma.

Galam Subbaiah performed the marriage of his daughters with Arudra

Koteswara Rao of Chillakallu village, Jangala Gopaiah of Gundaboinapalem village and Jangala Veeraiah of Chillakallu village, respectively.

(ii) The elder daughter of Galam Subbaiah by name Lachamma, who married to Arudra Koteswara Rao, were blessed with three sons, namely, 1)

Katam Raju @ Pandu, 2)Veera Swamy @ Chinna, and 3) Chennaiah and two daughters by name Udayamma (defendant no., 1) and Avanthi @ Ajanta.

Defendant no., 1 was given in marriage to Galam Venkata Narasaiah. Arudra

Koteswara Rao and Lachamma died intestate, leaving behind their three sons and two daughters, as Class-I legal heirs, to succeed his estate, including the share of Lachamma, out of the plaint schedule properties and other properties of their joint family.

(iii) The second daughter of Galam Subbaiah, by name, Seshamma, who married Jangala Gopaiah, was blessed with one son by name Anantha Ramulu, who is defendant no., 7. The mother of defendant no., 7, by name Jangala

Seshamma, died on 12-06-2006 and his father also died, leaving behind them defendant no., 7 as their legal heir to succeed their share, including the share of his mother, out of the plaint schedule properties and other properties of

Galam Subbaiah.

(iv) The third daughter of Galam Subbaiah by name Nagamma who married Jangala Veeraiah was blessed with one son-Venkateswarlu and one daughter-Vara Lakshmi (defendant no., 5). Vara Lakshmi (defendant no., 5) was given in marriage to Galam Venkateswarlu, the second son of Galam

Subbaiah. Jangala Nagamma and Veeraiah, died ,intestate, leaving behind them, their son and daughter to succeed their estate, including the share of

Nagamma, out of the plaint schedule properties and other properties of Galam

Subbaiah. Venkateswarlu and his wife-Venkataravamma were blessed with two sons, by name, Veeraiah and Subbaiah and a daughter by name Radhika, who 7 was given in marriage to Pothu Mallaiah of Dondapadu village, Mellacheruvu mandal, Nalgonda district. Venkateswarlu died, intestate, leaving behind him, his wife and children as his legal heirs to succeed his estate.

(b) Galam Subbaiah and his sons have not partitioned their properties, during their life time, and they are in joint and common possession and enjoyment of the legal heirs of Galam Subbaiah. The daughters of Galam

Subbaiah are also having equal shares along with his sons. After the death of

Galam Subbaiah, in the month of December, 2005, all his properties, including the plaint schedule properties were devolved upon his two sons and three daughters, having 1/5th share each, out of the said properties, and all the sons and daughters are having co-parcenary rights. As per Section 6 of the

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the daughters of co-parceners by birth, shall become a co-parcener, in her own right, in the same manner as that of a son. Even otherwise, Galam Subbaiah died, intestate, all his sons and daughters, including the children of pre-deceased sons and daughters are having rights in his share of properties.

(c) Thus, the mother of defendant no., 7 by name Jangala Seshamma, who died ,intestate, and the father of defendant no., 7 also died ,intestate, he being the only son to them, is entitled for 1/5th share in the plaint schedule properties, which is his mother’s share. Likewise, the legal heirs of the deceased daughters of other two daughters of Galam Subbaiah, by name

Lachamma and Nagamma are also having 1/5th share each, respectively, in the total properties of Galam Subbaiah, including the plaint schedule properties.

(d) The plaintiff and defendant nos., 1 to 6 ,with a view to avoid share of daughters of the deceased-Galam Subbaiah, to have unlawful gain, filed the suit falsely, pleading oral partition among the plaintiff and defendant nos., 1 to 6 of the properties of Galam Subbaiah.

(e) In view of pendency of OS no., 1/2014, on the file of Hon’ble XVI

Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama, the entire properties of the

8 deceased-Galam Subbaiah, including the plaint schedule properties, are not partitioned, even after demise of Galam Venkata Narasaiah and Galam

Venkateswarlu and they are in joint and common possession and enjoyment of all the legal heirs of the deceased-Galam Subbaiah, including the parties to the suit.Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of OS no., 1/2014. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

5.(a) The plaintiff filed his additional plaint, in view of filing the written statement by defendant no., 7, denying the averments of the written statement filed by defendant no., 7, and praying for grant of the relief in the suit, though admitting that the schedule properties and other properties of

Galam Subbaiah are his self acquired properties and his sons have not partitioned them during their life time and about the death of Galam

Subbaiah, in the month of December, 2005 ,intestate. Since, the marriage of three daughters of Galam Subbaiah was performed by Galam Subbaiah, during his life time, the daughters are not entitled to seek any share in the schedule properties, particularly, when the legal heirs of Venkata Narasaiah and Venkateswarlu, the sons of Galam Subbaiah, already partitioned the properties of Galam Subbaiah, after the death of Venkata Narasaiah and

Venkateswarlu.

6.In view of the rival pleadings of the parties to the suit, the following issues have been settled for trial, on 18-02-2014.

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as absolute owner of plaint schedule properties as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

7.The following additional issue has been settled for trial, on 21-03-2018.

(i) Whether after demise of Galam Venkata Narasaiah and Galam

Venkateswarlu the plaintiff and defendant nos., 2 to 6 have orally partitioned their joint family properties and suit schedule property was alloted towards the share of the plaintiff?

9

8.(i) The plaintiff filed his chief-examination affidavit as PW-1 (Galam

Anjaneyulu) and got marked Ex., A-1 documentary evidence.

(ii) After closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, defendant nos., 5 and 7 filed their chief-examination affidavits as DWs., 1 and 2 (Galam Varalakshmi and

Jangala Anantha Ramulu) and got marked Exs., B-1 to B-4 documentary evidence.

9.After conclusion of the arguments, on both sides, on 20-12-2018, the suit is posted to today for judgment.

10.(I) ADDITIONAL ISSUE no., (i) framed, on 21-03-2018:

(a) There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties to the suit, though, defendant no., 7 is subsequently added in the suit.

So far as the pleading of the plaintiff and his evidence, as PW-1, that there was oral partition among the plaintiff and defendant nos., 2 to 6 is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to Exs., B-1 and B-2 documentary evidence.

Under Exs., B-1 and B-2, the plaintiff and defendant nos., 1 to 7 herein are parties to it and ,defendant nos., 5 and 6 herein, filed the said suit for partition of the schedule properties therein into five equal shares and allotment of 1/5th share to the plaintiffs and defendant nos., 1 to 4 therein, the legal heirs of the deceased-Lachamma, that is, defendant no., 1 and defendant nos., 6 to 9, defendant no., 10, who is the legal heir of Seshamma and plaintiff no., 1 and defendant nos., 11 to 14 therein. The schedule property herein is part of item nos., 2 and 3, under Exs., B-1 and B-2. The suit under Exs., B-1 and B-2 was decreed by the Hon’ble XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, on 03-08-2018, dividing the properties therein into five equal shares and allotment of the same, among the parties to the said suit. No appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment, under Exs., B-1 and B-2.

Therefore, there is no truth in the version of the plaintiff/PW-1 that there was oral partition among the plaintiff and defendant nos., 2 to 6, as the decree and 10 judgment under Exs., B-1 and B-2 became final, though there is no time limit for obtaining final decree under Exs., B-1 and B-2.

(b) Though, defendant no., 7 herein is added as party to the suit, subsequently, his relationship with the parties to the suit is not denied, as PW- 1 admitted that Galam Subbaiah is his paternal grandfather and Galam

Subbaiah had two sons, by name, Galam Venkata Narasaiah and Galam

Venkateswarlu and three daughters, by name, Lachamma, Seshamma and

Nagamma. Defendant no., 7/DW-2 is the son of Seshamma, who is daughter of

Galam Subbaiah, who is the original owner of the schedule properties. Further, the properties under, Exs., B-1 and B-2 is inclusive of the schedule properties herein and some other properties of Subbaiah.

(c) The version of PW-1 is that there is no documentary evidence to show that the partition of the joint family properties was effected between the grand children of late Galam Subbaiah. Though, it is the version of PW-1 that there was oral partition, PW-1 did not produce any documentary evidence to show that the schedule properties are in his possession and enjoyment.

Defendant no., 7/DW-2 herein was also impleaded ,under Exs., B-1 and B-2.

There is no documentary proof, like registered documents or revenue records to show that the suit schedule properties were allotted towards the share of the plaintiff.

(d) Thus, for the foregoing discussion, since the plaintiff/PW-1 admitted about Exs., B-1 and B-2 and, therefore, there is no question of oral partition among the plaintiff and defendant nos., 2 to 6 of partition of their joint family properties. Hence, the question of claiming exclusive ownership over the schedule properties by the plaintiff/PW-1 does not arise. This issue is, accordingly, answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

(II) ISSUE NO., (i) framed on 18-02-2014:

In view of the discussion on additional issue no., (i) ,framed on 21-03- 11 2018, in view of Exs., B-1 and B-2, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of the relief of declaration as absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties. This issue is, accordingly, answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

(III) ISSUE NO., (ii) framed on 18-02-2014:

In view of the discussion of issue nos., (i) and (ii), framed on 18-02-2014 and additional issue no., (i) ,framed on 21-03-2018, holding them against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants, since the defendants are the co- owners of the plaint schedule properties, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the grant of the reliefs, including the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants, as prayed for.

11.In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff/PW-1 is dismissed with costs.

[Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of December 2018].

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW-1: Galam Anjaneyulu.DW-1: Galam Varalakshmi. DW-2: Jangala Anantha Ramulu.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff

Ex., A-1: Office copy of legal notice issued on behalf of the plaintiff to the Sub Registrar Office, Jaggaiahpet, dated 22-04-2013.

For Defendants

Ex., B-1: Certified copy of decree in OS no., 1/2014 on the file of Hon’ble XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Nandigama,

dated 03-08-2018.

Ex., B-2: Certified copy of judgment in OS no., 1/2014 on the file of Hon’ble XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Nandigama,

dated 03-08-2018.

Ex., B-3: Death certificate of Jangala Seshamma, w/o.Gopaiah,

dated 12-06-2006.

12 Ex., B-4: Office copy of written statement filed by defendant no., 7 herein as defendant no., 10 in OS no., 1/2014 on the file of Hon’ble XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Nandigama,

dated 22-11-2016.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandigama.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: NANDIGAMA

Present:- P. Raju.,

Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama

Friday, the twenty first [ 21st ] day of December, 2018.

O.S. no., 175 of 2017

Between:-

Guntaka Narasamma, wife of Peda Nagireddy, Hindu, age. 52 years, House wife, resident of Alluru village, Veerulapadu mandal, Krishna district.

....Plaintiff

AND 1.Guntaka Subba Reddy, son of Veera reddy, Hindu, age. 60 years, Cultivation, resident of Alluru village, Veerulapadu mandal, Krishna district.

2.Guntaka Pedda Nagireddy Reddy, son of Veera reddy, Hindu, age. 58 years, Cultivation, resident of Alluru village, Veerulapadu mandal, Krishna district.

3.Guntaka Chinna Nagireddy, son of Veera reddy, Hindu, age. 56 years, Cultivation, resident of Alluru village, Veerulapadu mandal, Krishna district.

4.Mettela Seetha Mahalakshmi, wife of late Venkatareddy, Hindu, age. 54 years, House wife, resident of Jayanthi village, Veerulapadu mandal, Krishna district.

5.Bommareddy Venkayamma, wife of Panakalu, Hindu, age. 52 years, House wife, resident of Peddaparimi village, Thulluru mandal, Guntur district.

6.Vuyyuru Koteswaramma, wife of Kotireddy, Hindu, age. 50 years, House wife, resident of Raghavapuram village, Reddygudem mandal, Krishna district.

....Defendants

This suit is coming on this the 17-12-2018 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri Bezawada Narapareddy, Sri M.V.Anjaneyulu and Sri M.Yedukondala Rao, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendants remained absent and were set ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following:- / / J U D G M E N T / /

1.(a) This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendant nos., 1 to 6 for grant of a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint 2 schedule property ,within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed, dated 25-06-1998 bearing a document no., 785/1988 on the file of Sub-Registrar,

Nandigama, irrespective of survey number mentioned in the sale deed, and to grant consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, by awarding costs of the suit and consequential reliefs.

(b)The plaint schedule property is as follows:

An extent of acres 0-10 ¼ in D. no., 115/D (As per document), (As per revenue record Sy.no., 108), Alluru village, Veerulapadu mandal,

Kanchikacherla Sub-Registrar, and Krishna district, being bounded by:

East:Land of Dagulla Chinna Kotireddy;

West :R&B Road;

North :Land of Thamma Venkata Reddy;

South:18 Links width of Joint way.

2.The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are that:

(a) The plaintiff purchased the schedule property for valuable consideration of Rs., 34,750/-, on 25-06-1998, under registered sale deed, from

Guntaka Veera Reddy and took possession of the same. The plaintiff is enjoying the same as owner of it till date, by using it as hayrick yard.

(b) About three months back ( prior to filing the suit) , the plaintiff came to know about wrong survey number in the registered sale deed. The plaintiff made application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veerulapadu for fixing correct survey number, by paying requisite amount through challan. The Mandal

Revenue Surveyor visited the schedule property, measured it and identified the boundaries ,under the sale deed, and found that it is in survey number 108 and not in 115/D and gave endorsement to that effect, through letter

RC.B/148/2017, dated 16-10-2017.

(c) The plaintiff ,several times, requested defendant nos., 1 to 6 for execution of rectification deed ,mentioning the correct survey number. She also 3 gave legal notice to the defendants, on 31-10-2017, and the defendants received the said notice and kept quiet.

(d) Since, when there is inconsistency in between the boundaries and survey number, the boundaries prevail over survey number and that the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff sought for grant of the reliefs.

3.After institution of the suit, though the summons were served on defendant nos., 1 to 6, they did not appear before the court and they were set ex parte, on 30-01-2018, 22-06-2018 and 12-11-2018.

4.The plaintiff filed her chief-examination affidavit as PW., 1 (Guntaka

Narasamma ) and got marked Exs., A-1 to A-5 documentary evidence.

5.After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, on 17-12-2018, the suit is posted to today for judgment.

6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of the reliefs as prayed for?

7. POINT: (i) The learned Counsel for the plaintiff ,by relying on the judgment in the case of Rukmini Bai @ Laxmi Bai and others vs. K.Mohanlal (1) (2011 (4)

ALD 537 ), and in view of production of Exs., A-1 to A-5 by PW-1, contended that the plaintiff/PW-1 is entitled for grant of the reliefs.

(ii) Ex., A-1 is clearly showing about the boundaries of the schedule property purchased by PW-1, under Ex., A-1. The plaintiff/PW-1 did not produce any other revenue record pertaining to the schedule property, under Ex., A-1.

But, the transaction ,under Ex., A-1, registered sale deed for valuable consideration, cannot be doubted.

(iii) As per Ex., A-2, the survey number ,under Ex., A-1, is wrongly mentioned as 115/D in stead of 108. But it is settled principle of law that the boundaries of an immovable property will prevail over its survey number and 4 extent. Though, Ex., A-1 is executed by Guntaka Veera Reddy and defendant nos., 1 to 3 are shown as his sons, the relief claimed by the plaintiff/PW-1 is basing on Ex., A-1 registered sale deed executed by Guntaka Veera Reddy for valuable consideration. As long as Ex., A-1 is in existence, the defendants cannot interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

(iv) The defendants did not give any reply to Ex., A-3 legal notice, though it was sent to them under Ex., A-4.

(v) For the foregoing discussion, in view of the version of PW-1, supported by Exs., A-1 to A-5, since the defendants are set ex parte, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff/PW-1 is entitled for the grant of the relief as prayed for.

8. In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff/PW-1 is decreed by declaring that the plaintiff/PW-1 is the absolute owner of the schedule property, within the boundaries as shown under Ex., A-1, and granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, over the schedule property. In the circumstance of the case, no order as to costs.

[Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of December 2018].

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW-1: Guntaka Narasamma. ....Nil.…

DOCUMENTS MARKED

5

For Plaintiff For Defendants

Ex., A-1: Original sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, .... Nil.…

dated 25-06-1998.

Ex., A-2: Original endorsement by MRO, Veerulapadu,

dated 16-10-2017.

Ex., A-3: Office copy of registered legal notice to defendant nos., 1 to 6, dated 31-10-2017. Ex., A-4: Six postal receipts. Ex., A-5: Four acknowledgments.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandigama.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: NANDIGAMA

Present:- P. Raju.,

Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama

Friday, the twenty first [ 21st ] day of December, 2018.

O.S. no., 175 of 2017

Between:-

Guntaka Narasamma, wife of Peda Nagireddy, Hindu, age. 52 years, House wife, resident of Alluru village, Veerulapadu mandal, Krishna district.

....Plaintiff

AND 1.Guntaka Subba Reddy, son of Veera reddy, Hindu, age. 60 years, Cultivation, resident of Alluru village, Veerulapadu mandal, Krishna district.

2.Guntaka Pedda Nagireddy Reddy, son of Veera reddy, Hindu, age. 58 years, Cultivation, resident of Alluru village, Veerulapadu mandal, Krishna district.

3.Guntaka Chinna Nagireddy, son of Veera reddy, Hindu, age. 56 years, Cultivation, resident of Alluru village, Veerulapadu mandal, Krishna district.

4.Mettela Seetha Mahalakshmi, wife of late Venkatareddy, Hindu, age. 54 years, House wife, resident of Jayanthi village, Veerulapadu mandal, Krishna district.

5.Bommareddy Venkayamma, wife of Panakalu, Hindu, age. 52 years, House wife, resident of Peddaparimi village, Thulluru mandal, Guntur district.

6.Vuyyuru Koteswaramma, wife of Kotireddy, Hindu, age. 50 years, House wife, resident of Raghavapuram village, Reddygudem mandal, Krishna district.

....Defendants

This suit is coming on this the 17-12-2018 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri Bezawada Narapareddy, Sri M.V.Anjaneyulu and Sri M.Yedukondala Rao, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendants remained absent and were set ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following:- / / J U D G M E N T / /

1.(a) This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendant nos., 1 to 6 for grant of a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint 2 schedule property ,within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed, dated 25-06-1998 bearing a document no., 785/1988 on the file of Sub-Registrar,

Nandigama, irrespective of survey number mentioned in the sale deed, and to grant consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, by awarding costs of the suit and consequential reliefs.

(b)The plaint schedule property is as follows:

An extent of acres 0-10 ¼ in D. no., 115/D (As per document), (As per revenue record Sy.no., 108), Alluru village, Veerulapadu mandal,

Kanchikacherla Sub-Registrar, and Krishna district, being bounded by:

East:Land of Dagulla Chinna Kotireddy;

West :R&B Road;

North :Land of Thamma Venkata Reddy;

South:18 Links width of Joint way.

2.The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are that:

(a) The plaintiff purchased the schedule property for valuable consideration of Rs., 34,750/-, on 25-06-1998, under registered sale deed, from

Guntaka Veera Reddy and took possession of the same. The plaintiff is enjoying the same as owner of it till date, by using it as hayrick yard.

(b) About three months back ( prior to filing the suit) , the plaintiff came to know about wrong survey number in the registered sale deed. The plaintiff made application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veerulapadu for fixing correct survey number, by paying requisite amount through challan. The Mandal

Revenue Surveyor visited the schedule property, measured it and identified the boundaries ,under the sale deed, and found that it is in survey number 108 and not in 115/D and gave endorsement to that effect, through letter

RC.B/148/2017, dated 16-10-2017.

(c) The plaintiff ,several times, requested defendant nos., 1 to 6 for execution of rectification deed ,mentioning the correct survey number. She also 3 gave legal notice to the defendants, on 31-10-2017, and the defendants received the said notice and kept quiet.

(d) Since, when there is inconsistency in between the boundaries and survey number, the boundaries prevail over survey number and that the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff sought for grant of the reliefs.

3.After institution of the suit, though the summons were served on defendant nos., 1 to 6, they did not appear before the court and they were set ex parte, on 30-01-2018, 22-06-2018 and 12-11-2018.

4.The plaintiff filed her chief-examination affidavit as PW., 1 (Guntaka

Narasamma ) and got marked Exs., A-1 to A-5 documentary evidence.

5.After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, on 17-12-2018, the suit is posted to today for judgment.

6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of the reliefs as prayed for?

7. POINT: (i) The learned Counsel for the plaintiff ,by relying on the judgment in the case of Rukmini Bai @ Laxmi Bai and others vs. K.Mohanlal (1) (2011 (4)

ALD 537 ), and in view of production of Exs., A-1 to A-5 by PW-1, contended that the plaintiff/PW-1 is entitled for grant of the reliefs.

(ii) Ex., A-1 is clearly showing about the boundaries of the schedule property purchased by PW-1, under Ex., A-1. The plaintiff/PW-1 did not produce any other revenue record pertaining to the schedule property, under Ex., A-1.

But, the transaction ,under Ex., A-1, registered sale deed for valuable consideration, cannot be doubted.

(iii) As per Ex., A-2, the survey number ,under Ex., A-1, is wrongly mentioned as 115/D in stead of 108. But it is settled principle of law that the boundaries of an immovable property will prevail over its survey number and 4 extent. Though, Ex., A-1 is executed by Guntaka Veera Reddy and defendant nos., 1 to 3 are shown as his sons, the relief claimed by the plaintiff/PW-1 is basing on Ex., A-1 registered sale deed executed by Guntaka Veera Reddy for valuable consideration. As long as Ex., A-1 is in existence, the defendants cannot interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

(iv) The defendants did not give any reply to Ex., A-3 legal notice, though it was sent to them under Ex., A-4.

(v) For the foregoing discussion, in view of the version of PW-1, supported by Exs., A-1 to A-5, since the defendants are set ex parte, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff/PW-1 is entitled for the grant of the relief as prayed for.

8. In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff/PW-1 is decreed by declaring that the plaintiff/PW-1 is the absolute owner of the schedule property, within the boundaries as shown under Ex., A-1, and granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, over the schedule property. In the circumstance of the case, no order as to costs.

[Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of December 2018].

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW-1: Guntaka Narasamma. ....Nil.…

DOCUMENTS MARKED

5

For Plaintiff For Defendants

Ex., A-1: Original sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, .... Nil.…

dated 25-06-1998.

Ex., A-2: Original endorsement by MRO, Veerulapadu,

dated 16-10-2017.

Ex., A-3: Office copy of registered legal notice to defendant nos., 1 to 6, dated 31-10-2017. Ex., A-4: Six postal receipts. Ex., A-5: Four acknowledgments.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandigama.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: NANDIGAMA

Present:- P. Raju.,

Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama

Friday, the fourteenth [ 14 th ] day of December, 2018.

O.S.no., 109 of 2017

BETWEEN:

Konangi Lingaiah. ..Plaintif AND

Vasireddy Prabhakara Rao.

..Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintif against defendant for grant of decree for recovery of Rs.,7,90,500/- , due under the suit promissory note, dated 25-04-2015, executed by the defendant for Rs., 5,10,000/- in favour of the plaintif, repayable with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum, by awarding costs of the suit and consequential reliefs.

This suit is coming on this the 14-12-2018 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri V.Madhu and Sri D.Subrahmanyam, Advocates for the plaintiff, and of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the defendant, and on perusing the material on record, this Court made the following :

/ / J U D G M E N T / /

Plaintif is called absent. No representation for the plaintif till 3-45 p.m. Costs awarded against the plaintif are not paid. The case is coming for filing chief examination affidavits of the plaintif and is being adjourned from time to time, that is, 02-08-2018, 16-08-2018, 24-08-2018, 25-09- 2018, 23-10-2018, 16-11-2018 and to today. Thus, the plaintif is not proceeding with the case, in spite of granting sufficient number of opportunities.

Hence, the suit is dismissed for default. No costs.

[Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of December, 2018]

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

….Nil….

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandigama.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: NANDIGAMA

Present:- P. Raju.,

Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama

Thursday, the thirteenth [ 13 th ] day of December, 2018.

O.S.no., 142 of 2018

BETWEEN:

Pasal Ramesh Babu. ..Plaintif AND

Buthukuri China Narsi Reddy.

..Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintif against defendant for grant of decree for recovery of Rs.,4,28,968/- , due under the suit promissory note, dated 12-09-2015, executed by the defendant for Rs., 2,49,400/- in favour of the plaintif, repayable with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum, by awarding costs of the suit and consequential reliefs.

This suit is coming on this the 13-12-2018 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri B.Venkata Ramaiah and Sri K.Satyanarayana, Advocates for the plaintiff, and of Sri P.S.Srinivasa Rao, Sri T.L.Narasimha Rao and Sri M.Yedukondala Rao, Advocates for the defendant, and on perusing the material on record, this Court made the following :

/ / J U D G M E N T / /

Both the parties are called absent. But both the Counsel for the parties are present. Full satisfaction memo filed by giving notice to other side.

Full satisfaction is recorded. The suit is dismissed without costs.

[Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of December, 2018]

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

….Nil….

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandigama.