Page No.1 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
CHEVELLA, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
PRESENT: Smt. P. Sreedevi
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.
Ranga Reddy District.
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
O.S.No. 2 of 2008
Between:
1.Kalal Santhosha w/o. Janardhan Goud Aged 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 4-129/13, Goutham Nagar colony, Patancheru town and Mandal, Medak District.
2.Marpally Nagamani W/o. Mukundam Age 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Terpole village, Kondapur Mandal Medak District.
3.Tallapally Rani W/o. Srinivas, Age 34 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 7-100/74, Ramakrishna Nagar, Chinthal. Balanagar, Secunderabad. ….Plaintiffs
And
1.Balagoni @ Nomula Vittalaiah S/o. Late Muthaiah Age 65 years Occ: Agriculture,
2.Balagoni @ Nomula Srinivas S/o. Vittalaiah Age 31 years, Occ: Agriculture,
3.Balagoni @ Nomula Amaravathi D/o. Vittalaiah Aged 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, All R/o. Bulkapur village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R.District.
4.Kanakati Jangaiah S/o. Mallaiah Aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bulkapur village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R.District. ….Defendant
This suit coming on this day before me on 02.04.2024 in the presence of Sri. M. Sudhakar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri. P.
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.2 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008
Sampurna Anand, Advocate for the Defendant and matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed for preliminary decree of partition and separate possession in favour of the plaintiffs by dividing the suit schedule property into six (6) equal shares and allotment of one such share to each of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 to 3 by metes and bounds and put them into peaceful possession.
2.The pleadings in the plaint in brief are as follow:
The plaintiffs and defendant No.3 are the daughters and the defendant No.2 is son of the defendant No.1, the defendant No.4 is third party to the family of plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 to 3 as such he is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property. The grand father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and 3 and father of the defendant
No.1 late Balagoni Muttaiah was the original owner and pattadar of agricultural land in Sy No. 51/AA admeasuring Ac.2-16 gts situated at
Bulkapur village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R.District. Late Balagoni
Muttaiah died long back leaving behind him the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 to 3 to succeeded the suit schedule property, the same is their ancestral property. After demise of late Balagoni Muttaiah the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 to 3 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having 1/6th share to each of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 to 3 in the suit schedule property under the management of the defendant No.1.
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.3 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008
3.The suit schedule lands are being cultivated jointly and after deducting expenses of the produce the usufructs and money out of the sale proceeds are being divided among them equally. The suit schedule property was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and the defendant
No.1 to 3 having undivided interest and share irrespective of the entries made in the revenue records. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 were given in marriage to the different villages as such they are living in their in laws houses respectively. But the suit schedule lands were not partitioned among the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 to 3 as such the same were cultivating jointly and the usufructs and money out of the sale proceeds are being divided among them as per their respective shares after deducting expenses of the produce.
4.Since two years the defendant No.1 to 3 not giving share to the plaintiffs in the usufructs of the suit schedule agricultural land and money out of the sale proceeds, due to which the plaintiffs demanded for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule land on 30.10.2007 among the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 3 as per their respective shares by dividing the suit schedule property into six (6) equal shares and allot one such share to each of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3 by metes and bounds. The defendant No.1 to 3 denied to give the share for which the plaintiffs are entitled. The defendant No.1 to 3 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs enquired the revenue records and came to know that the defendant No.1 to 3 colluded with the defendant No. 4 and revenue authorities got entered the name of the defendant No.4 into the revenue records in
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.4 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008 respect of the suit schedule property by creating the false documents in favour of the defendant No.4 and trying to alienate the same in favour of third parties, which does not bind the plaintiffs and the same will be null and void. The defendant No.1 to 3 are class-I heirs of late Balagoni
Muttaiah to succeed the suit schedule property left by him. The plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 to 3 are entitled to get their respective shares.
Hence the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession to get their respective shares in the suit schedule land. Hence requesting the court to pass preliminary decree of partition in favor of the plaintiffs.
5.Defendant No.4 contended in the written statement that defendant
No.4 is the bonafide purchaser from the defendant No.1 under registered sale deed vide document No. 1565/2001 dated 30.03.2001 and had been in possession prior to purchase as the defendant No.4 got entered into oral agreement in the year 1995 and since from the said oral agreement the defendant No.4 was in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and after the registration his name was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor and the revenue authorities issued patta passbooks and title deeds in favour of the defendant No.4 as such the defendant No.4 is the pattadar and possessor in respect of land in Sy
No.51/AA admeasuring Ac.2-16 gts and perfected his title by way of adverse possession also as the defendant No.4 was in continuous possession from 1995 onwards.
6.Plaintiffs are mentioned false ages in the plaint and the suit schedule property was not in joint possession nor the plaintiffs and the
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.5 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008 defendant No.1 to 3 are in joint possession nor cultivating the suits schedule property jointly and the plaintiffs mischievously filed the suit against the defendant No.4 by colluding with the defendant No.1 to 3 in view of the considerable increase of market price and also the defendant
No.4 got developed the suit schedule property into wet land by investing huge amounts in view of such development, by the defendant No.4, the defendant No.1 to 3 bored grudge with defendant No.4 and foisted the present false suit by colluding with the plaintiff.
7.The defendant No.1 long back partitioned the suit schedule property prior to the marriages of the plaintiffs as such the plaintiffs do not have any right over the said land. The defendant No.4 perfected his title and possession against the illegal claims made by the plaintiffs, as defendant
No.4 is a bonafide purchase he could not made as party to the suit. The plaint is devoid of merits and more over the documents filed by the plaintiffs discard them to seek the equitable relief of suit for partition and possession hence it is liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.1 is having land Sy No. 137/AA, 137/AA, admeasuring Ac.0-37 and Sy No.
149/A, admeasuring Ac.2-08 gts and also Sy No. 180/A admeasuring
Ac.0-14 gts and Sy No. 206 admeasuring Ac.0-39 gts situated at
Bulkapuram village of Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District but the plaintiffs in collusion with defendant No.1 not added the above said properties to cause loss to defendant No.4 and requesting the court to dismiss the suit.
8.Basing on the pleadings of both parties this court has settled following issues:
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.6 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008 1). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession as prayed for?
2)To what relief?
9.The plaintiff No.1 got herself examined as PW1 and filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and deposed the facts which are on similar lines as that of pleadings in the plaint. In support of the oral evidence she got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1971-72. Ex.A2 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1998-
99. Ex.A3 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05.
10.PW1 deposed in her cross examination deposed that her marriage was performed in 1979, marriage of plaintiff No.2 in the year 1981 and marriage of plaintiff No.3 was held after two or three years of her marriage. Since their marriages they were residing with their respective husbands in their villages. The marriage of defendant No.3 was held about seven years back and since then she is residing with her husband.
She never personally cultivated the suit land and so also her sisters. Her father used to cultivate the suit land. At the time of filing of the suit her father had one residential house and the same was not included in the plaint. Her father sold out the suit schedule property about three or four years prior to the filing of the suit. Since then the defendant No.4 has been cultivating the suit land. Herself and her sisters never cultivated the suit land.
11.After completion of the evidence of plaintiffs the defendant No.4 got himself examined as DW1. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu his
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.7 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008 chief examination. The facts deposed in the chief affdiavit are on similar lines as that of pleadings in the written statement of defendant No.4. In support of the oral evidence of DW1, he got marked Exs.B1 to B21.
Ex.B1: Certified copy of sale deed dated 30.03.2021. Ex.B2 Original pattadar passbook standing in my name. Ex.B3 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-01. Ex.B4 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-
02. Ex.B5 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2002-03. Ex.B6 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-04. Ex.B7 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05. Ex.B8 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06.
Ex.B9 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08 (2 sheets).Ex.B10
Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-09 (4 sheets). Ex.B11:
Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11 (2 sheets). Ex.B12
Certified copy of fasli for the year 1423. Ex.B13 Certified copy of fasli for the year 1425. Ex.B14 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1971-72.
Ex.B15 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1973-74. Ex.B16 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1975-76. Ex.B17 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1976-77. Ex. B18 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1985-86. Ex.B19 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08. Ex.B20
Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-09. Ex.B21 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-2011.
12.DW1 deposed in his cross examination that he purchased the land to the extent of Ac.2-16 gts., in Sy.No.51 from defendant No.1. In the year 2000 he entered into agreement of sale with the defendant No.1.
Within three months after agreement of sale the registered sale deed under Ex.B1 was executed in his favour. He did not get issue public
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.8 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008 notice prior to his purchase of the suit property under Ex.B1. He made enquiries with defendant No.1 and he informed him that he along with defendant No.2 will sign on Ex.B1 and that he had only one daughter and for her marriage purpose the suit property is being sold. The defendant No.1 owned land in Sy.No.137 to the extent of Ac.0-37 gts., in Sy.No.149 to the extent of Ac.2-08 gts., in Sy.No.180 to the extent of
Ac.0-14 gts., and in Sy.No.206 to the extent of Ac.0-39 gts., apart from the suit schedule property. He filed documents to show that defendant
No.1 owned the said lands. Ex.B3 to B13 had no reference of the lands in Sy.Nos.137, 149, 180 and 206. He did not file any document to show the marriage dates of plaintiff No.1 to 3. Defendant No.1 informed that he purchased the marriages of his three daughters born through his first wife by selling away the other properties. He admitted that Ex.B14 is not in the name of defendant No.1 and it is in the name of one Mutha
Goud, who is father of defendant no.1. He did not obtain any record from concerned Grampanchayath or Revenue Authorities to show that said Mutha Goud is father of defendant No.1.
13.The DW2 is the third party to the suit and known to the plaintiffs and defendant No.4. His chief evidence is in support of evidence of
DW1. He deposed in his cross examination that he does not have acquaintance with plaintiffs but acquaintance with father of plaintiffs i.e., defendant No.1. In the year 2005 the suit schedule property was sold. He was not an attesting witness to the said document. He did not file any document before the court to show that he is residing in H.No.4- 29 at Bulkapur village. He does not know the extent of the lands and
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.9 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008 boundaries of lands in Sy.No.137, 149 and 180 alleged to belong to defendant No.1 at Burugugadda land at Bulkapur village.
14.The learned counsel for plaintiffs filed written arguments and argued that the grandfather of plaintiffs, defendant No.2 and defendant
No.3 who was father of defendant No.1 late Muthaiah was the original owner and pattedar of suit schedule property. As such the same is ancestral property and on his demise plaintiffs, defendant No.1 to 3 have succeeded the same. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they are jointly cultivating the said land. When the defendant No.1 to 3 stopped giving shares to the plaintiffs out of the usufructs of the suit schedule property and money out of the sale proceeds, they demanded for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property for which the defendants denied. When the plaintiffs enquired with the revenue records, they came to know that defendant No.1 to 3 in collusion with defendant No.4 and revenue authorities got entered the name of defendant No.4 in the revenue record by creating false documents and trying to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs.
15.He further argued that plaintiffs being the class-I legal heirs, they are entitled for equal shares equivalent to the defendants 1 to 3 out of the suit schedule property. Hence they filed the present suit for partition and separate possession . They got examined PW1 and produced Exs.A1 to
A3 documents in support of plaintiffs which sufficiently established that the suit schedule property is ancestral property and the plaintiffs are
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.10 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008 entitled for partition and separate possession. The evidence of defendant
No.4 failed to disprove the claim of the plaintiffs. The DW1 evidence elicited that material documents such as agreement of sale and proof of marriage dates of the plaintiffs not filed by the defendant No.4. There are admissions by DW1 and DW2 about not filing the documents showing other properties of defendant No.1. Hence the oral and documentary evidence of defendant No.4 is not disproved the allegations of the plaintiffs as such they are entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property.
16. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant No.4 argued that the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property as the same was sold out to the defendant No.4 in the year 2001 itself through a registered sale deed for valid sale consideration. As per amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession
Act, any disposition or alienations prior to 20.12.2004 are protected and they cannot be challenged by the daughters who became as coparceners in the ancestral property of their father as per the said amendment.
Further PW1 admitted that the defendant No.4 is in possession of the suit schedule property since the date of the purchase. In view of the said admission it is disproved that the plaintiffs are not in joint possession and not jointly cultivating the suit schedule property. There are other land properties in different survey numbers and also residential house property of defendant No.1 which are also ancestral properties but they have not been included in the plaint schedule property as such suit is not
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.11 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008 maintainable for partial partition. Hence requesting the court to dismiss the suit.
17.ISSUE No.1:
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession as prayed for?
18.On the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence of both parties, after hearing both sides and after careful scrutiny of entire material available on record, it is pertinent to mention that plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that suit schedule property i.e., land in Sy.No.51/AA admeasuring Ac.2-16 gts., situated at Bulkapur village is ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3 having succeeded from their grandfather late Balagoni Muthaiah. In support of their pleadings, they examined PW1 and produced documentary evidence. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1971-72 which elicited that the suit property is recorded in the name of Muthaiah Goud as pattedar and his son, the defendant No.1 herein as possessor. Ex.A2 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1998-99 and Ex.A3 also certified copy of same pahani which elicited similar entries as that of Ex.A1. In view of Ex.A1 to A3, it is elicited that the suit schedule property is recorded in the name of grandfather of plaintiffs late Balagoni Muthaiah Goud from the year 1971 onwards. The plaintiffs failed to file certified copies of kasra pahani or chasala pahani which are being the basic records of details of the lands to ascertain whether their common ancestor Muthaiah Goud was the original pattedar of the suit schedule property.
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.12 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008
19.However it is borne by the record that defendant No.1 to 3 who are non other than family members of plaintiffs failed to contest the suit and they remained exparte. The defendant No.4 who is a third party to the family of plaintiffs is the only contesting party but he failed to deny the pleadings of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is ancestral property. Therefore in view of the available revenue record filed by the plaintiffs which was not challenged by the defendant No.4 it is established that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3.
20.The plaintiffs further pleaded that after demise of their grandfather plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3 are in joint possession and jointly cultivating the suit schedule property. This pleading was denied by defendant No.4 through his written statement. The PW1 who is the plaintiff No.1 in the suit had admitted clearly in her cross examination that herself and her sisters are never in possession of the suit schedule property along with the defendant No.1 to 3. She further admitted that since the date of purchase by the defendant No.4, he is cultivating the suit schedule property. These admissions show that pleading of the plaintiffs that they are in joint possession is not established. Further plaintiffs failed to file any documents to show that the defendant No.1 to 3 were sharing the usufructs or sale proceeds with plaintiffs out of the agriculture produce over the suit schedule property. Therefore the pleading that plaintiffs are receiving usufructs or sale proceeds is not established.
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.13 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008
21.It is the allegation of the plaintiffs that when the defendant No.1 to 3 stopped sharing the agricultural produce or usufructs they demanded for partition and on their enquiry they came to know that some false documents were created in favour of defendant No.4. The plaint is silent with regard to the details of the document in favour of defendant No.4.
The pleadings also silent when the said document is executed in favour of defendant No.4. In addition to that plaintiffs failed to file any documents supporting their contention that documents were created in favour of defendant No.4.
22.On the other-hand the defendant No.4 got himself examined as
DW1 and filed documentary evidence supporting his defence. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.1565/2001
dated 30.03.2001. The recitals of the said document elicited that the suit
schedule property was offered to sell by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.4 for his personal needs. It is further elicited that defendant
No.1 received entire sale consideration and delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. By virtue of said sale deed the defendant No.4 applied for mutation of his name in the revenue record.
Ex.B2 is the original pattedar passbook of the defendant No.4 which elicited the entries of the suit schedule property recorded in the name of defendant No.4. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2000- 2001 which elicited the entries of the suit schedule property recorded in the name of defendant No.4 as pattedar and possessor. Ex.B5 to B8 are certified copies of pahanies from 2002 to 2006 which continuously elicited the name of defendant No.4 in respect of the suit schedule
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.14 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008 property. Ex.B9 to B13 also eliciting the name of defendant No.4 as pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule property from 2007 to till 2015 and thereafter.
23.It is evident from the above documentary evidence that the defendant No.4 purchased the suit schedule property from defendant
No.1 in the year 2001 itself and got the mutated his name in the revenue record as pattedar and possessor and since the date of his purchase he got revenue entries on his name in respect of suit schedule property. This documentary evidence is suffice to say that the defendant No.4 by virtue of the Ex.B1 sale deed became absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs though pleaded ignorance of said sale till filing of the suit and absence of pleadings about details of the sale deed does not make their case good as plaintiffs failed to produce any oral independent evidence apart from PW1 and any other documentary evidence that they were receiving usufructs or sale proceeds till prior to two years from the date of filing of the suit, and when the sale deed of defendant No.4 is of the year 2001 and further in the light of admission of PW1 that since the date of purchase the defendant No.4 is in possession of the suit schedule property.
24.The defendant No.4 by way of amendment to his written statement as per the orders in IA.762/2015 included para No.12 in his written statement in which he pleaded that defendant No.1 had lands in
Sy.No.157/AA admeasuring Ac.0-37 gts., in Sy.No.149/A admeasuring
Ac.2-08 gts., and in Sy.No.181/E to the extent of Ac.0-14 gts., and in
Sy.No.206 to the extent of Ac.0-39 gts., at Bulkapur village. By adding
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.15 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008 this para the defendant No.4 taken defence that there are other land properties in the name of defendant No.1 which were not included in the suit schedule property. In support of their evidence they got marked
Ex.B14 certified copy of pahani for the year 1971-72 showing the land in Sy.No.206 to the extent of Ac.0-39 gts., recorded in the name of grandfather of the plaintiffs. Ex.B15 certified copy of pahanie for the year 1973-74 eliciting the land in Sy.No.149/A and 149/AA to the extent of Ac.4-15 gts., in each survey number in the name of grandfather of plaintiffs. Ex.B16 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1975-76 showing the land in Sy.No.137/AA to the extent of Ac.0-37 gts., in the name of defendant No.1 and also land in Sy.No.180/A tot he extent of
Ac.0-28 gts., elicited in Ex.B16. Ex.B17 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1976-77, the land in Sy.No.149/AA to the extent of Ac.2-08 gts., in the name of defendant No.1. Ex.B18 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1985-86 land in Sy.No.137 to the extent of Ac.3-35 gts., in the name of defendant No.1, in Sy.No.149/AA to the extent of Ac.4-15 gts., was recorded in his name. Ex.B19 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-2008 which does not elicit the name of defendant No.1 in respect of the land in Sy.No.205. Ex.B20 and B21 also do not elicit the name of defendant No.1. However Ex.B14 to B18 categorically elicited there are other land properties recorded in the name of defendant
No.1 succeeded by him from his father. Therefore it is clear that apart from the suit schedule property there are other land properties in the name of defendant No.1 and as per the admission of the PW1 as on the date of filing of the suit there is a residential house property in the name of defendant No.1. Cross examination of DW1 does not elicit any
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.16 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008 material in support of the plaintiffs that the above land properties were not acquired by the defendant No.1 and that they are not the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3. Therefore it is established that plaintiffs failed to mention all the ancestral properties in the present suit for partition. Hence the suit is not maintainable for partial partition.
25.As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineetha
Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma the daughters of a coparcener are also recognized as coparceners and entitled for equal share as that of sons of such coparcener in the ancestral property. However as per the explanation of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 any alienation or disposition prior to 20.12.2004 they cannot be challenged by virtue of amendment of Section 6 of the Act recognizing the rights of the daughters as coparceners in the ancestral property. Hence plaintiffs are not entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly the issue is answered.
26.ISSUE No.2:
To what relief?
27.In the result, the suit is dismissed with no costs.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of April, 2024).
Senior Civil Judge
Chevella, R.R.District.
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.
Page No.17 of 17 O.S.No. 2 of 2008
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiff : For Defendant:
PW1: K. Santhosha DW1: K. Jangaiah DW2: M. Laxma Reddy
Exhibits Marked
For Plaintiff:
1.Ex.A1: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1971-72
2.Ex.A2: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1998-99
3.Ex.A3: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05
For Defendant:
1.Ex.B1: Certified copy of sale deed dated 30.03.2021
2.Ex.B2: Original pattadar passbook standing in my name
3.Ex.B3: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-01
4.Ex.B4: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02
5.Ex.B5: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2002-03
6.Ex.B6: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-04
7.Ex.B7: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05
8.Ex.B8: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06
9.Ex.B9: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08 (2 sheets)
10.Ex.B10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-09 (4 sheets)
11.Ex.B11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11 (2 sheets)
12.Ex.B12: Certified copy of fasli for the year 1423
13.Ex.B13: Certified copy of fasli for the year 1425
14.Ex.B14: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1971-72
15.Ex.B15: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1973-74
16.Ex.B16: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1975-76
17.Ex.B17: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1976-77
18.Ex. B18: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1985-86
19.Ex.B19: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08
20.Ex.B20: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-09
21.Ex.B21: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-2011
Senior Civil Judge
Chevella, R.R.District.
Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.