Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
APWG010008002016APWG010009542016
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SENIOR DIVISION), ELURU
Present: Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja
Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division),
Eluru
Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017
OS 417/2016
Between:-
1.Patchipala Peda Venkateswara rao, S/o Subbarao, Hindu, Male, aged 65 years, Cultivation, D.No.6-14, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
2.Patchipala China Venkateswara rao (died)
3.Nulakani Veeraswamy Naidu, S/o Venkateswara rao, Hindu, Male, aged 40 years, Cultivation, D.No.1-12, Vegavaram, Jangareddigudem Mandal.
4.Nelluri Subbalakshmi, W/o Veera Raghavulu, Hindu, female, aged 58 years, House wife, D.No.7-22, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
5.Peravali Dhanalakshmi, W/o Gangadhara rao, Hindu, Female, aged 56 years, House wife, D.No.4-12, Tadikalapudi, Kamavarapukota Mandal, Chjcjc
6.Dasari Hymavathi, W/o Venkateswara rao, Hindu, Female, aged 54 years, House wife, D.No.6-18, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc 1
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
7.Yeggepalli Sugunavathi W/o Chalapathi rao, Hindu, female, aged 49 yaers, House wife, D.No.7-82, Mulagalampalli Village, Jeelugamilli Mandal, JRGjcjc
8.Vema Baby Sarojini, W/o Nageswara rao, Hindu, female, aged 47 years, House wife, D.No.5-21, Radrakotaraju Gudem, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
9.Patchipala Dhanalakshmi, W/o China Venkateswara rao, Hindu, female, aged 60 years, House wife, D.No.6-14, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
10. Patchipala Rammohan rao, S/o China Venkateswara rao, Hindu, Male, aged 38 years, Cultivation, D.No.6-14, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
11.Patchipala Rajasekhar, S/o China Venkateswara rao, Hindu, Male, aged 36 years, Cultivation, D.No.6-14, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
12. Patchipala Saraswathi, w/o Nagarjuna, Hindu, Female, aged 40 years, House wife, D.No.6-14, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
13. Patchipala Anvitha, D/o Nagarjuna, Hindu, Female, aged 20 years, D.No.6-14, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
14. Patchipala Puja Priyadarsini, D/o Nagarjuna, Hindu, female, aged 19 years, D.No.6-14, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
15. Pothana Prameela Rani, W/o Jnaneswara rao, Hindu, female, aged 40 years, House wife, D.No.2-11, Lakkavaram, Jangareddigudem, JRGjcjc … Plaintiff
and
1.Thota Veeraswamy Naidu (died)
2.Sadanala Narasimha rao, S/o Badrayya, Hindu, Male, aged 48 years, cultivation, D.No.6-22, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
3.Thota Krishna Kumari, W/o Veeraswamy Naidu, Hindu, Female, aged 51 years, House wife, D.No.7-11, Tirumaladevi Pet, 2
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc 4Thota Pawan Kumar, S/o Veeraswamy Naidu, Hindu, male, aged 30 years, Cultivation, D.No.7-11, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
5.Thota Vamsi Purushotam, S/o Veeraswamy Naidu, Hindu, Male, aged 28 years, Cultivation, D.No.7-11, Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, Chjcjc
Defendants 3 to 5 are added as per order in IA No.631/2022 dated 23.11.2022 … Defendants
OS 375/2017 (Old OS No.122/2016)
Between
1.Thota Veeraswamy Naidu (died) 2Thota Vamsi Purushotham, S/o Late Veeraswamy Naidu, Hindu, Male, aged 36 years, Cultivation, R/o Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.
3Thota Pavan Kumar, S/o Late Veeraswamy Naidu, Hindu, male, aged 37 years, Cultivation, R/o Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.
4.Thota Krishna Kumari, W/o Late Veeraswamy Naidu, Hindu, Female, aged 54 years, House wife, R/o Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.
Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are added as LRs of the deceased 1st plaintiff, amended as per Order in IA No.305/2022 dt.28.4.2022
..Plaintiffs
and
1.Sadanala Narasimha rao, S/o Late Badrayya, Hindu, Male, aged 64 years, Cultivation, R/o Tirumaladevi Pet, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.
2.Akula Satyavathi, W/o Tammarao, Hindu, female, aged 73 years, House wife, R/o Pattannapalem Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District.
..Defendants
3
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
These two suits are coming before this Court on 10.03.2026 in between Sri Avula Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs in OS 417/2016 and Sri E.Srinivasa Babu, advocate for plaintiffs in OS 375/2017 and advocate for defendants 3 to 5 in OS No.417/2016 and 1st defendant died pendenti lite in OS No.417/2016 and Sri N.Ramu, advocate for defendant No.2 in OS No.417/2016 and defendants 1 and 2 in OS No.375/2017 and upon hearing and upon perusing the material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following::
J U D G M E N T
The two suits OS No.417/2016 and OS 375/2017 involves disputes between the plaintiff and the defendants over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs in OS No 417/2016 and OS No.375/2017 seeks relief of permanent injunction.
During the course of the proceedings both the suits were clubbed by the predecessor by order dated 15.12.2022 and thereafter the common trial was commenced in OS No.417/2016.
Pleadings in OS No.417/2016
2. The averments of the plaint, in nutshell, are that:
a)The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of late Patchipala
Subbarao and Pullamma. The plaintiffs 3 to 8 are the children of Smt.
Nulakanı Venkateswara Rao and Kanthamma. Smt. Thota Subbamma had four daughters ie, 1 Pachipalla Pullamma, 2 Nulakani Kanthamma, 3
Sadanala Gangajalam and 4. Sadanala Raghavamma and three sons ie., 1 Thota Peda Puliaiah, 2 Thota China Pullaiah and 3. Thota Suryarao.
The 1st defendant is the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant is their cousin.
4
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
b) It is asserted by the plaintiffs that during pendency of the Suit, the 2nd plaintiff died on 09-04-2019 intestate, leaving behind his legal heirs.
It is asserted by the plaintiffs that the originally the plaint schedule properties belonged to Smt Thota Subbamma W/o Veeraswamy and during her life time Smt Thota Subbamma executed a Will dated 01-02- 1986 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing Item No.1 of the Plaint Schedule Property to her daughter Patchipala Pullamma and
Item No.2 of the Plaint Schedule Property to her daughter Smt. Nulakani
Kanthamma and giving an extent of Ac.0-89 cents situated on the north of
Item No 2 to her grand daughter Smt.Akula Satyavathi through her daughter Sadanala Gangajalam and also bequeathed an extent of Ac.0- 88 cents situated on the south of Item No.2 to the 2nd defendant and his brother/Veeraswamy Naidu. It is submitted that Smt Thota Subbamma died on 08-02-1987 testate and on her death, the Will dated 01-02-1986 came into force and the legatees under the Will became the absolute owners of their respective items mentioned in the said Will. It is submitted that original Will is with the father of the 1st defendant by name Thota
China Pullaiah who is one of the legatees under the Will. It is submitted that Smt. Patchipala Pullamma died on 26-12-2005 intestate, leaving behind her sons ie, plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they succeeded to her property and plaintiffs 3 to 8 succeeded to item No.2 after death of Kanthamma who died on 27.12.2001 and the plaintiffs being the cousins and they have been enjoying the plaint schedule property jointly.
c) It is asserted by the plaintiffs that the 2nd defendant being their cousin, used to manage the Plaint Schedule Properties on their behalf and he did not render accounts properly and developed hostile attitude 5
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru towards them and he was removed from the management of the plaint schedule property. It is submitted that the 2nd defendant has got some land on the southern side of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties, and he colluded with 1st defendant and planed to occupy the plaint schedule property and on 20-11-2016 when the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were attending to agricultural operations in the Plaint Schedule Properties along with one Perabathina Ramarao, the defendants came and picked up quarrel with the plaintiffs 1 and 2 with regard to the southern boundary of Item No 1 and abused them in filthy language and when the plaintiffs 1 and 2 along with one Perabathina Ramarao questioned their highhanded behaviour, the defendants proclaimed that some land of the 2nd defendant's land is in Item No.1 of the Plaint Schedule Properties.
Immediately, matter was reported to the SHO. T Narsapuram PS on 20- 11-2016 but the Police refused to receive the report.
d) It is asserted by the plaintiffs that the defendants have no right, over the Plaint Schedule Properties and submitted that plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessor of the Item Nos.1 and 2. and submitted that the defendants 1 and 2 being close relatives and 2nd defendant having land on south of Item No.1 of the Plaint Schedule Property attempting to occupy the entire Plaint Schedule Properties. Hence the suit.
3.The 1st defendant filed written statement having admitted the relationship denied the material averments in the plaint and contended that the alleged will dated 01.02.1986 is fabricated and a false document brought into existence by the plaintiffs with the active support of the 2nd 6
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru defendant to grab the entire extent of Ac.3.55 cents in RS No.598/5A of
Tirumaladevi pet Village.
a)It is submitted by the 1st defendant that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties at any point of time and the plaint schedule properties and other properties are originally belongs to Thota
Subbamma who is the daughter of Pappu Gangamma and she succeeded properties from her mother Gangamma as stridhana Property and also bequeathed properties from her husband Thota Veeraswamy
Naidu. It is submitted that during her matrimonial life she begot three sons namely Peda Pullayya, China Pullayya and Suryarao and four daughters namely Pullamma, W/o Pachipala Subbayya, Kanthamma, W/o
Nulakani Venkateswara Rao, Gangajalam whose marriage is performed with Sadhanala Bhadrayya and she gave birth to Akula Satyavatlı and
Sadhanala Subbarao and she died and again Sadhanala Bhadrayya married Ragahvamma, sister of deceased Gangajalam and she begot
Narasimha Rao and Veeraswamy Naidu.
b)It is asserted by the 1st defendant that during the life time of Thota
Veeraswamy Naidu and Subbamma they performed the marriages of their sons and daughters and Thota Subbamma executed a will on 03-02-1987 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing her properties to her sons, surviving daughters, grand sons, grand daughters and great grand daughters which constitute her last and valid testament and in the said
Will an extent of Ac.3-56 cents in R S.No.598/5 of Tirumaladevipet Village which is 'D' schedule in the Will dated 03-02-1987 is bequeathed to Thota 7
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
China Pullayya who is his father and he became the absolute owner and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. It is submitted by the 1st defendant that
China Pullayya out of love and affection towards him executed a
Registered Gift Deed document No.3022/2008, dated 17-9-2008 in his favour in respect of the Ac.3-56 cents in R.S.No.598/5 of Tirumaladevipet
Village and since then he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
Ac.3-56 cents in R.S.No.598/5 which was subdivided as R.S.No.598/5A and his name was also mutated in Revenue records and he is raising maize crop in the entire extent of Ac 3-56 cents.
c)It is submitted by the 1st defendant that he fell sick and he was admitted in hospital and after he returned from the hospital the 2nd defendant occupied Ac.0-88 cents on the southern side and Akula
Satyavathi occupied Ac.0-89 cents on the northern side of Ac.3-56 cents and the remaining extent is only Ac.1-78 cents in R.S.No.598/5 and he also lodged a complaint in T Narasapuram Police Station regarding the illegal trespass of the 2nd defendant and her sister Akula Satyavathi, but the Station House Officer, T Narasapuram did not act on the complaint and then he filed a suit in O.S.No.122/2016 on the file of Junior Civil
Judge's Court, Chintalapudi against the 2nd defendant and his sister
Akula Satyavathı and also got filed I.A.No. 461/2016 to grant an exparte temporary injunction order in his favour in O.S.No.122/2016 in respect of
Ac. 1-78 cents out of Ac 3-56 cents in R.S.No.598/5A and Junior Civil
Judge Court, Chintalapudi was pleased to grant an exparte temporary
injunction order in his favour against the 2nd defendant and Akula
Satyavathi in respect of Ac 1-78 cents and he also re-entered in the 8
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru remaining extent on the north and south in R.S.No. 598/5A and the entire extent of Ac 3-56 cents is in his possession and enjoyment.
d)It is submitted by the 1st defendant that the plaintiffs are no way concerned with the plaint schedule properties and they acted with the active support of the 2nd defendant who suffered an injunction order obtained by him in IA No.461/2016 and encouraged the plaintiffs to engineer the above false suit and the documents relied by the plaintiffs are manipulated documents and they are managed and brought into existence to maintain the suit. It is submitted that the alleged will dated 01-02-1986 does not disclose who are the attestors and scribe of the document and further submitted that there is no recital in the said alleged
Will dated 01-02-1986 that Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is bequeathed to Pachipala Pullamma and Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is bequeathed to Nulakanı Kanthamma.
e)It is submitted by the 1st defendant that the alleged will is not admissible in evidence and there is no documentary evidence to show that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties and submitted that his son Pavan kumar filed O.S.No.215/2008 against the 2nd defendant and Kasaganı
Venkateswara Rao on the file of Junior Civil Judge's Court, Chintalapudi seeking a decree for permanent injunction in respect of Ac.1-20 cts. in
R.S.No.84 of Appalarajugudem Village. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are sailing with the 2nd defendant to grab the plaint schedule properties.
9
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
4.The plaintiffs filed rejoinder and contended that the Will dated 03.02.1987 alleged to have been executed by Thota Subbamma is forged and fabricated document.
Pleadings in OS No.375/2017 (Old OS No.122/2016)
5.The averments of the plaint, in nutshell are that:
a)The plaint in OS No.375/2017 (Old OS No.122/2016) is nothing but replica of the written statement of 1st defendant in OS No.417/2016. It is asserted by the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property which was acquired by Thota Subbamma executed a registered will dated 03.02.1987 in a sound and disposing state of mind, being her last and final testament and under the said will she made specific arrangements regarding possession and enjoyment of properties after demise and she died on 03.02.1987 and the Will came into force and the legatees entered into possession of their respective shares.
b)It is submitted by the plaintiffs that the deceased 1st plaintiff's father was bequeathed Ac.3-56 cents in R.S.No.598/5 of Tirumaladevipeta village which is "D" schedule in the Will dated 03-02-1987 and ever since the date of the death of Thota Subbamma, Thota Veeraswamy was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.3-56 cents as an absolute owner and his name was also mutated in revenue records and Thota China Pullayya executed a registered Gift deed in favour of the deceased 1st plaintiff under document No 3022/2008, dated 17-9-2008 and deceased 1st plaintiff accepted the said gift and took possession of the property and since 17-9-2008 he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of 10
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
Ac.3.55 cents in RS No.598/5A and name of the deceased 1st plaintiff is also mutated in the revenue records.
c)It is submitted by the plaintiffs that the deceased 1st plaintiff fell sick in the year 2013 and he was admitted in hospital and after he returned from the hospital the 1st defendant occupied Ac.0-88 cents and the 2nd defendant occupied Ac.0-89 cents out of Ac 3-55 cents on the north-east and south of the plaint schedule property and the remaining is Ac.1-78 cents and the deceased 1st plaintiff after return from the hospital lodged a police case before T.Narsapuram police station, but they did not took any action. It is submitted by the plaintiffs that the deceased 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner to an extent of Ac 3-55 cts in R.S.No 598/5A and the plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac 1-78 cents in which the deceased 1st plaintiff raised maize crop and also intended to file a separate suit for declaration and for possession against the defendants for the remaining extent.
d)It is submitted by the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the suit the 1st plaintiff died intestate on 04-06-2021 leaving plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the estate of the deceased 1st plaintiff devolved on them as legal heirs.
e)It is submitted by the plaintiffs that the 1st defendant is the brother of 2nd defendant and submitted that they are children of Sadhanala
Gangajalam and Raghavamma and the said Gangajalam and
Raghavamma are no other than the deceased 1ST plaintiff's paternal aunts and the defendants influenced the revenue authorities and manipulated their names in respect of the extents which they illegally trespassed into their lands and the deceased 1st plaintiff made several 11
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru requests to the Mandal Revenue Officer to delete the names of the defendants from the revenue records as they have no title to the property to the extents of their illegal possession. It is submitted by the plaintiffs that the defendants proclaiming since 2-10-2016 that they will trespass into the plaint schedule property with the active support of the political followers. Hence this suit.
6)The 1st defendant filed written statement and same was adopted by 2nd defendant and they denied the allegations of the plaint and submitted that Plaint Schedule Property and some other property originally belonged to Smt Thota Subbamma W/o Veeraswamy and during her life time, Smt Thota Subbamma executed a Will dated 01-02-1986 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing an extent of Ac.0-89 cents out of
Ac.3-55 cents in R.S.No.598/5A of Tirumaladevi Pet Village to her daughter Patchipala Pullamma and also an extent of Ac.0-89 cents out of
Ac.598/5A to her daughter Smt Nulakani Kanthamma and giving an extent of Ac.0-89 cents situated on the north of Ac 0-89 cents to her grand daughter Smt.Akula Satyavathi through her daughter Sadanala
Gangajalam and she also bequeathed an extent of Ac.0-88 cents situated on the south of Ac.0-89 cents to him and his brother/Veeraswamy Naidu.
It is submitted that Thota Subbamma died on 08-02-1987 testate and on her death, the Will dated 01-02-1986 came into force and the legatees under the Will became the absolute owners and the original Will is with the plaintiff's father Thota China Pullaiah who is one of the legatees under the Will. It is submitted by the defendants that Pachipala Peda
Venkateswara Rao and others Smt. Patchipala Pullamma had been in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.0-89 cents till her death ie 12
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru 26-12-2005 and she died intestate leaving behind her two sons and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
a)It is submitted by the defendants that Smt. Nulakani Kanthamma had been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-89 cents till her death i.e., 27-12-2001 and she died on 27-12-2001 intestate, leaving behind her her son and five daughters ie, 1. Nulakani Veeraswamy Naidu, 2 Nelluri
Subbalakshmi, 3. Peravali Dhanalakshmi 4. Dasari Hymavathi and 5.
Yeggepalli Sugunavathi 6. Vema Baby Sarojini and the said Ac.089 cents devolved upon them only and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
b)It is submitted by the 1st defendant that he being the cousin, used to manage the Plaint Schedule Properties and give amounts out of the income realized and when the correctness of the income was disputed, he handed over the land in the month of August, 2015 and since then 1.
Patchipala Peda Venkateswara Rao, 2 Patchipala China Venkateswara
Rao 3. Nulakani Veeraswamy Naidu, 4. Nelluri Subbalakshmi, 5. Peravali
Dhanalakshmi. 6. Dasari Hymavathi, 7. Yeggepalli Sugunavathi and 8.
Vema Baby Sarojini have been in cultivating the same. It is submitted by the defendant that plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment the
Plaint Schedule Property and therefore, prays the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.
7.Basing on the plaint and written statement, the following issues are settled for trial by my learned predecessor in OS 417/2016
1) Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property?
13
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
3) To what relief?
8.Basing on the plaint and written statement, the following issues are settled for trial by my learned predecessor in OS 375/2017
1. Whether the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
9.During the cousre of trial, 1st plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got examined PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On the other hand, 4th defendant/3rd plaintiff in OS No.375/2017 is examined as Dw.1 and got examined Dws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B13 and 1st defendant in OS No.375/2017 is examined as DW.4 and got examined
DWs.5 and 6 and got marked Exs.B14 to B33. During cross examination of DW.4, Ex.B.34 marked.
Issues 1 and 2 in OS No.417/2016 and Issues 1 and 2 in OS
No.375/2017:
10.Since issues 1 and 2 in OS No.417/2016 and issues 1 and 2 in OS
No.375/2016 are inter related and since the reliefs sought in both the suits for permanent injunction and considering the subject matter in both the suits as one and the same , the issues of both the suits are taken upo together.
14
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
11.It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs in OS
No.417/2016 that the plaint schedule properties originally belongs to Smt
Thopta Subbamma who is the absolute owner and she executed a Will
dated 01.02.1986 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing
Item No.1 to Patchipala Pullamma and Item No.2 to Nulakani Kanthamma and after her death, the will came into force and the legatees became absolute owners. It is submitted that all the plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment and 2nd defendant initially used to manage the property and he did not render the accounts properly and attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs.
12.To fortify his contention 1st plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got
PWs.2 and 3 and placed reliance upon Ex.A.1/Death certificate of Thota
Subbamma dated 11.11.2008, Ex.A.2/Certified copy of adangal dated 28.08.2012 with regard to land in RS No.598/5A and Ex.A.3/Certified copy of adangal pahani dated 11.11.2008.
13.The learned counsel for the defendant No.1, 3 to 5 and plaintiffs in
OS No.375/2017 contended that Will dated 01.02.1986 is not binding and
further submitted that Smt Thota Subbamma executed a Will dated 03.02.1987 which is her last Will and under the said Will the property devolved upon Thota China Pullayya who is the father of deceased 1st plaintiff and later, the property was transferred to 1st plaintiff in OS
No.375/2017 through a registered Will dated 17.09.2008 and since then the defendants 1, 3 to 5 and plaintiffs in OS No.375/2017 are in possession. It is submitted that when the deceased 1st plaintiff fell sick in the year 2013 he was in admitted in hospital and at that time 1st 15
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru defendant occupied Ac.0.88 cents and 2nd defendant occupied Ac.0.89 cents out of Ac.3.55cents and the plaintiffs in OS No.375/2017 are in possession of Ac.1.78 cents for which they sought relief seeking permanent injunction.
14.To fortify their contention, 4th defendant who is 3rd plaintiff in OS
No.375/2017 is examined as DW.1 and also got examined Dws.2 and 3 and placed reliance upon Exs.B.1/Original registered dakhal deed vide
Doc No.3022/2008 dt.17.09.2008 which was executed by Thota China
Pullayya in favour of Thota Veeraswamy Naidu for an extent of Ac.3.55 cents in RS No.598/5A of Tirumaladevipeta, Ex.B.2/ Original title deed book of Thota Veera Swamy Naidu, dated 06.10.2008 for an extent of
Ac.3.55 cents in RS No.598/5A and Ac.10.02 cents in RS No.19/3 of
Tirumaladevipeta, Ex.B.3/Unregistered Will dated 03.02.1987,
Ex.B.4/Possession certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer,
T.Narasapuram, dated 20.06.2003, Ex.B.5/Possession certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, T. Narasapuram under L.Dis.No.155/2006
(c), dated 24.02.2006, Ex.B.6/copy of settlement register in respect of
R.S.No.598/5A, issued by MRO, T. Narasapuram, Ex.B.7/No.3 Account for the year 2002/2003 issued by the MRO, T. Narasapuram I the name of
Thota China Pullayya, Ex.B.8/Adangal Pahani issued by the MRO, T.
Narasapuram in favour of my father to an extent of Ac.3.55 cents in
R.S.No.598/5A, Ex.B.9/Certificate issued by MRO, T. Narasapuram, under Re.Ca.No.75/2008, dated 06.10.2008, Ex.B.10/Pattadar pass book issued by MRO, T. Narasapuram in favour of father of DW.1 T.
Veeraswamy Naidu, dated 06.10.2008, Ex.B.11/Digital signed copy of 1B namuna in favour of father of DW 1 in respect to the plaint schedule 16
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru property dated 04.11.2015, Ex.B.12/Digital signed copy of Adangal for
R.S.No.598/5A of Tirumaladevipet, dated 04.11.2015, Ex.B.13/Attested copy of mortgage deed bearing Doc.No.3334/2015 executed by Thota
Veeraswamy Naidu, with the HDFC Bank Ltd., dated 10.08.2015.
15.Sadanala Narasimha rao who is the 1st defendant in OS
No.375/2017 and the 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016 disputed the Will
dated 03.02.1987 and asserted that the Thota Subbamma executed a
Will 01.02.1986 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing an extent Ac.0.89 cents out of Ac.3.56 cents in RS No.598/5A of
Tirumaladevi peta Village to her daughter Pachipala Pullamma and an extent of Ac.0.89 cents to her grand daughter Smt Akula Satyavathi and
Ac.0.88 cents to him and his brother and after her death, the Will dated 03.02.1987 came into force and submitted that the plaintiffs 1 to 8 in OS
No.417/2016 being the cousins enjoying the plaint schedule properties jointly and the plaintiffs is aware of the possession of them.
16.To forty his contentions, Sadanala Narasimha rao himself examined as DW.4 and got examined Dws.5 and 6 and placed reliance
Ex.B14/possession certificate dated 4.11.2008 issued by Tahsildar,
T.Narasapuram Mandal, Ex.B.15/Mee seva copy of 1B Register in favour of 2nd defendant, Ex.B.16/Mee seva copy of 1B Register in favour of 2nd defendant, Ex.B.17/Original pattadar passbook in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016 and 1st defendant in OS No.375/2017,
Ex.B.18/Original Title deed book in the name of 2nd defendant in OS
No.417/2016 and 1st defendant in OS No.375/2017, Ex.B.19/ Original pattadar passbook in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017, 17
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
Ex.B.20/Original tax receipt, dated 29.01.2009 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017, Ex.B.21/Original tax receipt, dated 29.01.2009 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017,
Ex.B.22/Original 10 (1) Adangal, dated 04.11.2008, Ex.B.23/Original
Adangal pahani fasali no.1410 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS
No.417/2016 and D.1 and D.2 in OS No.375/2017, Ex.B.24/Original
Adangal Pahani dated 26.11.2016 in RS No.598/5A2 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016, Ex.B.25/Original 1 (B) Register dated 26.11.2016 in RS No.598/5A2 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS
No.417/2016, Ex.B.26/Original Adangal Pahani dated 26.11.2016 in RS
No.598/5A1 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017,
Ex.B.27/Original 1 (B) Register dated 26.11.2016 in RS No.598/5A1 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017, Ex.B.28/Original Adangal
Pahani dated 28.11.2018 in RS No.598/5A2 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016, Ex.B.29/1 (B) Register dated 28.11.2018 in RS
No.598/5A2 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016,
Ex.B.30/Original (mee seva) Adangal Pahani dated 05.12.2018 in RS
No.598/5A1 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017;
Ex.B31/Original (mee seva) Adangal Pahani dated 05.12.2018 in RS
No.598/5A1 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017;
Ex.B.32/1(B) Form dated 13.03.2023 in RS No.598/5A2 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016; Ex.B.33/Original Loan Particulars
dated 29.03.2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer,
Madyanapuvarigudem PACS, Madyanapuvarigudem. During cross examination of Dw.4, Ex.B.34/Signature of Dw.4 on the certified copy of sale deed dated 04.01.2025 marked.
18
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
17.PW.1 reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief affidavit and testified in his evidence that Smt Thota Subbamma bequeathed a will deed dated 01.02.1986 in a sound and disposing state of mind. It is well settled law that a Will being a documentary of testamentary dispossession, is required to be proved in strict compliance with the provisions of Section 63 of Indian succession Act and Section 68 of Indian
Evidence Act. Under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act, a Will must be attested by at-least two witnesses, each of them who has seen the testator sign or affixed his mark on the Will, and such witnesses must sign the Will in the presence of testator. Further, under Section 68 of Indian
Evidence Act, a Will cannot be used as a evidence unless at-least one attesting witness has been examined to prove its execution, if such witnesses is alive and capable of giving evidence.
18.In the present case, though PW.1 has deposed about the alleged will dated 01.02.1986, the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of the law. Admittedly, the original will has not been produced before the Court. Further none of the attesting witnesses is examined nor their names were mentioned. Mere oral assertion by PW.1 regarding execution of Will is insufficient to prove a testamentary document. In the absence of compliance of statutory requirement under
Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act the Will dated 01.02.1986 has not been proved.
19.The plaintiffs has placed reliance upon Exs.A.2 and A.3, which are revenue records reflecting possession to an extent Ac.0.88 cents in the name of Sadanala Narasimha rao and Ac.0.89 cents in the name of Akula 19
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
Satyavathi and these documents prima facie indicate the said individuals are recorded as persons in possession of the respective extents of the suit schedule property.
20.On the other hand, 4th defendant in OS No.417/2016 and the 3rd plaintiff in OS No.375/2017 is examined as DW.1 and he relied upon
Ex.B.3 Will dated 03.02.1987 executed by late Thota Subbamma. In order to prove the said Will, got examined DW.2 an attesting witness and
DW.3.
21.Dw.2 deposed that the Will was drafted by Thota Subbamma and put her thumb impression after reading over the contents of the Will. He deposed that he attested as 2nd attestor at the time of execution of the said Will. The evidence of Dw.2 satisfies due execution and attestation as required under the law. Further the evidence of D.W.3 who is brother of
K.Sitarama rao lends corroboration and he identifies the signature of his brother in the Will.
22.The evidence of DWs.1 to 3 complies the requirement of prove of the Will. However, mere proof of will does not automatically entitle the party to a decree for injunction unless possession as on the date is established. In the present case, Pw.1 placed reliance upon Ex.A.2 and
Ex.A.3 which are revenue records reflecting possession to an extent of
Ac.0.89 cents in the name of Akula Satyavathi and Ac.0.88 cents in the name of Sadanala Narasimha rao and the records indicate the said individuals are in possession of respective extent of suit schedule property.
20
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
23.It is specifically contended by the 1st defendant that the entries in the revenue records were brought by influencing the revenue authorities.
However, except mere assertions it is not supported by any cogent evidence. It is trite law that the revenue records are not documents of title, that they carry the presumption of correctness regarding possession.
In the present case, except making mere allegations no evidence was produced establishing that the entries in Exs.A.2 and A.3 are fraudulently obtained. Hence the plea of manipulation of revenue records, in the absence of substantial proof cannot be accepted.
24.DW.1(3rd plaintiff in OS No.375/2017) has placed reliance upon
Exs.B.1, B.4 to B.13 in support of the claim of title and possession . Per contra, the 1st defendant in OS No.375/2017 examined as Dw.4 has relied upon Exs.B.14 to B.33 to establish his possession and possession of
Akula Satyavathi and also got examined Dws.5 and 6. Thus, both sides have adduced documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claim of possession. Perusal of the record, as seen from the record, it is pertinent to observe that both suits are filed for mere injunctions simplicitor, without seeking declaration of title, despite serious rival claims.
25.It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that when both parties are claiming title in a suit property it casts a cloud over the title and it is therefore, the plaintiffs in OS No.375/2017 has to seek relief for declaration. To fortify their contentions, reliance was placed in a decision reported in2013 (4) ALT 474 between Vegendla
Vijayalakshmi and Others. vs. Gaddipati Naga Himabindu and Others
21
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru wherein it was discussed by the Honourable High Court of Judicature,
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad that “when a cloud is casted on plaintiffs title to the suit property, it is all no necessary for the plaintiff to have filed suit for declaration of title.”
26.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants in OS
No.417/2016 who are also plaintiffs in OS No.375/2017 contended that when the plaintiff has clear title supported by the documents and if the defendants in possession is without any title and merely denies the plaintiff’s title it does not amounts to raising a cloud of the plaintiff necessitating the plaintiffs to seek declaration of title and further contended that mere entries in revenue records did not confer title. To fortify his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the following catena of decisions.
1.In a decision reported in 2001 (5) ALT 197 between Mahendra C.
Mehta and others vs. M/s. Kousalya Co-op. Housing Society Limited
Hyderabad and Others wherein the Honourable High Court of
Judicature, Andhra Pradash at Hyderabad discussed that“Entries in the revenue record do not confer title. Title to property of a person would not be lost merely because his name is not mutated in the revenue registers.”
2. In a decision reported in 2014 (2) ALT 245 between Garlapati
Venkateswaralu, (died) per LRs. and Others vs. Divi Appalacharyulu
wherein the Honourable High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradash at
Hyderabad discussed that “When the defendant in possession without apparent title merely denied the plaintiffs title, it does not amount to 22
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff necessitating the plaintiff to seek declaration of title also besides seeking recovery of possession.“
3. In a decision reported in 2014(5) ALT 152 (DB) between Kurella
Venkata Satyavathi vs. Kanyamayini Devender Yadav wherein the
Honourable High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradash at Hyderabad
discussedthat “Section 92 of Indian evidence Act Postulates that the parties to the instrument are precluded from adducing oral evidence to contradict, vary, add or to subtract from the terms of valid written statement.”
4. In a decision reported in 2023 (6) ALT 576 A.P. between
Arshtunnisa and others vs. Mohammed Kasim (died) and Others
wherein the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradash at Amaravathi discussed that “In a suit for injunction simplicitor, the concern is only with possession. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish possession. The suit for injunction will be decided with reference to the findings on possession.” Generally, the question of title will not be a direct and substantial issue.
5. In a decision reported in 2025 (5) ALT 777 (A.P) between State
represented by the District Collector, Vizianagaram and another vs.
Vakatipudi Pydithalli and otherswherein the Honourable High Court of
Andhra Pradash discussed that “when admittedly the plaintiffs are long settled possession of plaint schedule property the plaintiff shall not be evicted forcibly except under process of law.”
6. In a decision reported in 2008(2) ALT 304 between Somisetti
Venkata Rama Krishna Rao vs. Kandiboyina Kondaiah and another
23
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
wherein the Honourable High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradash at
Hyderabad discussed that “when the recitals relating to the delivery of possession are clear and categorical in the title deeds, the discrepancy, if any, in the oral evidence cannot be a ground to disbelieve the factum of possession.”
7. In a decision reported in 2011 (3) ALT 229 between G.Venkat
Ratna vs. Kollipara Jhansi Lakshmi and otherswherein Honourable
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad discussed that “In a suit for perpetual injunction simplicitor, the question of title cannot be decided, and at the most it can be referred for limited purpose.”
8. In a decision reported in 2016 (4) ALT 17 between Saraswathi
Bhagat vs. Eshwaramma @ Lakshmamma (died) per LR and Others
wherein the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad discussed that “In a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of plaintiffs title.” 9 In a decision reported in 2017(2) ALT 468 between P.Jhon Britto vs. Potluri Srinivas Chowdary and anotherwherein the Honourable
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad discussed that “In a suit for injunction simplicitor is concerned the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue.” 24
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
27.In the present suits, upon careful consideration of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record in OS No.417/2016 and in OS 375/2017, it is evident that both suits are filed simplicitor for the relief of permanent injunction. In such suits, the primary and the decisive issue is lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit and the title assumes significance only when possession is seriously disputed or clouded. In the present case, both parties have not only disputed possession but also set up rival claims of title based on different Wills, thereby introducing a substantial cloud over title. The plaintiff in OS No.417/2016 in their rejoinder categorically disputed the Will deed 03.02.1987. Even though the plaintiffs in OS No.417/2016 failed to prove the Will deed dated 01.02.1986 they placed reliance upon Exs.A.2 and A.3 and further defendants in OS No.375/2017 placed reliance upon Exs.B.17 to B.33 to fortify the factum that Akula Satyavathi is in possession of Ac.0.89 cents and V.Sadanala Narasimha rao is in possession of Ac.0.88 cents in RS 598/5A. All though, the plaintiffs in OS No.375/2017 placed reliance upon
Ex.B.3 Will deed and proved the same by examining DW.2 and by identifying the signature of scribe Dw.3, however the extent of factum of possession is not proved.
28.A careful scrutiny of pleadings of the defendants in OS
No.417/2016 reveals serious inconsistencies regarding possession. In OS
No.417/2016, the 1st defendant categorically pleaded that 2nd defendant occupied Ac.0.88 cents on the northern side and Akula Satyavathi occupied Ac.0.89 cents on the Northern side of Ac.3.56 cents during the period when the 1st defendant was unwell and specifically pleaded after filing OS 122/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chinthalapudi against 25
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru 2nd defendant and Akula Satyavathi he also re-entered in the remaining extent on the North and South in RS No.598/5A and entire extent of
Ac.3.56 cents is in his possession and enjoyment. However, in OS
No.375/2017 who approached the court as plaintiffs pleaded they are in possession of Ac.1.78 cents. Such contradictory pleadings go to the root of the matter and render the claim of possession highly doubtful. A parties seeking equitable relief of injunction must approach with clear, consistent and cogent pleadings. The inconsistency in the extent of possession claimed by the defendants in the two suits create a serious doubt, about actual possession of the defendants in OS No.417/2016 who are also plaintiffs in OS No.375/2017.
29.In a decision reported in 2008 SCC (4) 718 between Ananthula
Sudhakar Vs. P. Butchireddi (died) by LRs and Others wherein it was discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court “Even when there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will deligate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.”
30.The Honourable Apex Court also discussed general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled.
“11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any 26
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere 27
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff's title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title.
13. In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Where the property is a building or building with appurtenant land, there may not be much difficulty in establishing possession. The plaintiff may prove physical or lawful possession, either of himself or by him through his family members or agents or lessees/licensees. Even in respect of a land without structures, as for example an agricultural land, possession may be established with reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of title is not in issue in such a suit, though it may arise incidentally or collaterally”.
31.In the present case, upon a close scrutiny of evidence in pleadings in both the suits in OS No.417/2016 they failed to establish the proof of will relied by them but seriously disputes the Will deed relied by plaintiffs in OS No.375/2017. Even though the defendants in OS No.417/2016 proved the Will dated 03.02.1987 failed to establish clear and consistent possession. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the 28
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru considered that both the parties have failed to establish their lawful possession by producing consistent evidence. Further, in the light of serious cloud over titles and rival claims, a mere suit for injunction without seeking relief of declaration is not maintainable. Accordingly, both OS 417/2016 and OS No.375/2017 are liable to be dismissed. However, dismissal of the suits will not preclude either party from instituting a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and consequential relief in accordance with law. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 in OS No.417/2016 and
OS No.375/2017 are answered against the plaintiffs.
32.Issue no.3 - To what relief in OS No. 417/2016
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
33.Issue no.3 - To what relief in OS No. 375/2017
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, directly on computer corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 2 9 th day of April, 2026.
Sd/- P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),
ELURU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
P.W.1: Patchipala Peda Venkateswara rao
PW.2: Nulakani Veera Swamy Naidu
PW.3: Perabathula Ramarao 29
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
FOR DEFENDANTS:
DW.1: Thota Pawan Kumar
DW.2: Thota Venkata rao
Dw.3: Kondapalli Srinivasa rao
Dw.4: Sadanala Narasimha rao
Dw.5: Thota Ramarao
Dw.6: Uppala Satyanarayana
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFs:
Ex.A.1/-Death certificate of Thota Subbamma dated 11.11.2008
Ex.A.2/-Certified copy of adangal dated 28.08.2012 with regard to land in RS No.598/5A
Ex.A.3/-Certified copy of adangal pahani dated 11.11.2008
FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B.1/-- Original registered dakhal deed vide Document No.3022/2008 dt.17.09.2008 which was executed by Thota China Pullayya in favour of Thota Veeraswamy Naidu for an extent of Ac.3.55 cents in RS No.598/5A of Tirumaladevipeta
Ex.B.2/-- Original title deed book of Thota Veera Swamy Naidu, dated 06.10.2008 for an extent of Ac.3.55 cents in RS No.598/5A and Ac.10.02 cents in RS No.19/3 of Tirumaladevipeta.
Ex.B.3/-- Unregistered Will dated 03.02.1987
Ex.B.4/-- Possession certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, T. Narasapuram, dated 20.06.2003.
Ex.B.5/-- Possession certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, T. Narasapuram under L.Dis.No.155/2006 (c), dt.24.02.2006.
Ex.B.6/-Copy of settlement register in respect of R.S.No.598/5A, issued by MRO, T. Narasapuram.
Ex.B.7/-No.3 Account for the year 2002/2003 issued by the MRO, T.
30
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
Narasapuram in the name of Thota China Pullayya.
Ex.B.8/-Adangal Pahani issued by the MRO, T. Narasapuram in favour of father of 4th defendant to an extent of Ac.3.55 cents in R.S.No.598/5A.
Ex.B.9/-Certificate issued by MRO, T.Narasapuram, under Re.Ca.No.75/2008, dated 6.10.2008.
Ex.B.10/- Pattadar pass book issued by MRO, T. Narasapuram in favour of father of DW.1 T. Veeraswamy Naidu, dated 6.10.2008.
Ex.B.11/- Digital signed copy of 1B namuna in favour of father of DW 1 in respect to the plaint schedule property, dated 04.11.2015.
Ex.B.12/- Digital signed copy of Adangal for R.S.No.598/5A of Tirumaladevipet, dated 04.11.2015.
Ex.B.13/- Attested copy of mortgage deed bearing Document No.3334/2015 executed by Thota Veeraswamy Naidu, with the HDFC Bank Ltd., dt.10.08.2015.
Ex.B.14/- Possession certificate dated 04.11.2008 issued by Tahsildar, T.Narsapuram Mandal
Ex.B.15/- Mee seva copy of 1(B) register in favour of the 2nd defendant
Ex.B.16/- Mee seva copy of 1(B) register in favour of the 2nd defendant
Ex.B.17/- Original pattadar passbook in the name of 2nd defendant in
OS No.417/2016 and 1st defendant in OS No.375/2017.
Ex.B.18/- Original Title deed book in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016 and 1st defendant in OS No.375/2017.
Ex.B.19/- Original pattadar passbook in the name of 2nd defendant in
OS No.375/2017
Ex.B.20/- Original tax receipt, dated 29.01.2009 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017
Ex.B.21/- Original tax receipt, dated 29.01.2009 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017
Ex.B.22/- Original 10 (1) Adangal, dated 04.11.2008
Ex.B.23/- Original Adangal pahani fasali no.1410 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016 and D.1 and D.2 in OS No.375/2017 31
Common Judgment in OS 417/2016 and OS 375/2017 ACJ (Sr.Dvn.) Court, Eluru
Ex.B.24/- Original Adangal Pahani dated 26.11.2016 in RS No.598/5A2 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016
Ex.B.25/- Original 1 (B) Register dated 26.11.2016 in RS No.598/5A2 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016
Ex.B.26/- Original Adangal Pahani dated 26.11.2016 in RS No.598/5A1 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017
Ex.B.27/- Original 1 (B) Namuna dated 26.11.2016 in RS No.598/5A1 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017
Ex.B.28/- Original Adangal Pahani dated 28.11.2018 in RS No.598/5A2 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016.
Ex.B.29/- 1 (B) Register dated 28.11.2018 in RS No.598/5A2 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016
Ex.B.30/- Original (mee seva) Adangal Pahani dated 05.12.2018 in RS No.598/5A1 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017
Ex.B.31/- Original (mee seva) Adangal Pahani dated 05.12.2018 in RS No.598/5A1 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.375/2017.
Ex.B.32/- Form -1(B) dated 13.03.2023 in RS No.598/5A2 in the name of 2nd defendant in OS No.417/2016
Ex.B.33/- Original Loan Particulars dated 29.03.2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Madyanapuvarigudem PACS, Madyanapuvarigudem.
Ex.B.34/- Signature of Dw.4 on the certified copy of sale deed dated 04.01.2025
Id/- P.S.V.B.K.S.T A.C.J. (Sr.Dvn.), Eluru 32