Sri P.V.S Suryanarayana Murthy FAC Shadnagar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT SHADNAGAR

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2018

Present: Smt. G. Prathibha devi, B.Sc., M.L.,

Senior Civil Judge,

SHADNAGAR.

Appeal Suit No.18 of 2014[old AS No.07 of 2012]

Between

Kottam Chandrakala w/o late K. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 40 yrs, occ. House hold r/o Siddapur vlg, Kothur mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

..Appellant.

And,

1.Vadde Mysaiah s/o late Balaiah [died] per LRs 3 to 11.

2.Kottam Ranga Reddy s/o Raam Reddy, Age 55 yrs, Agrl. Both r/o Siddapur vlg, Kothur mandal.

3.Vadde Anjamma w/o Vadde Mysaiah, aged about 70 yrs.

4.Vadde Krishnaiah s/o Vadde Mysaiah, Aged about 50 yrs.

5.Vadde Balaiah s/o Vadde Mysaiah, Aged about 48 yrs.

6.Vadde Venkataiah s/o Vadde Mysaiah, aged about 43 yrs.

7.Sreesailam s/o Vadde Mysaiah, aged about 35 yrs. All r/o Siddapur vlg, Kothur ml.

8.Kodur Yadamma w/o Mallaiah, aged about 60 yrs. r/o Kakunoor vlg, Keshampet.

9.Katike Lingamma w/o Mallaiah, aged about 55 yrs, r/o vemulnarva vlg, Keshampet ml

10.Boda Laxmamma w/o Venkataiah, Aged 46 yrs r/o Venkatraopet vlg, Thalakondapally ml

11.Yerra Pochamma w/o Beerappa r/o Natkhanpally H/o Raichoti village, Thalakondapally ml. Mahabubnagar dist. [Respondents 3 to 11 LRs of respondent are impleaded vide orders in IA No.203 of 2015]

.. Respondents

Appeal Under O.41, Rule 1 CPC against the Judgment and Decree

dated 7-12-2011 in OS Nho.35 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Shadnagar between:-

Kottam Chandrakala w/o late K. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 40 yrs, occ. House hold r/o Siddapur vlg, Kothur mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

..Plaintiff.

And,

1.Vadde Mysaiah s/o late Balaiah [died] per LRs 3 to 11.

2.Kottam Ranga Reddy s/o Raam Reddy, Age 55 yrs, Agrl. Both r/o Siddapur vlg, Kothur mandal.

.. Defendants

@ @ @ 2

This appeal suit is coming on 01-05-2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. A. Rajak Hussain, Advocate for the appellant. Sri M. Mohan Rao, Advocates for the respondent No.3 to 11. Respondent No.1 died. Respondent No.2 remained exparte. And upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood-over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The appellant is the plaintiff in OS No.35 of 2005 on the file of

Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the lower court on 07-12-2011 praying to set aside the Judgment and decree.

2. The averments of the ground of appeal in brief are that, the late husband of the appellant Kottam Narsimha Reddy and respondent

No.2 are cousin brothers and the respondent No.2 was having sufficient water source. So they entered into agreement that the husband of appellant shall discharge the loan taken on installation of bore and motor and also should bear the regular bills as security.

Further, the husband of appellant has to transfer the suit extent ac.1- 00 to the respondent No.2. After death of her husband the appellant discharged the loan on motor and regularly paid the consumptions charges and after complete repayment, the respondent No.2 has to re- transfer suit extent to the appellant. But in the meantime the respondent No.2 transferred all his lands including the suit extent ac.1-00 in the name of his wife Jayamma. Hence they filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. But the lower court without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of the appellant dismissed the suit on the sole ground that the link documents of

Jayamma are not filed.

3

3. The respondent No.1 has taken plea in his written statement that, Jayamma sold her land including the suit ac.1-00 to him in the year 1997. When Jayamma sold suit ac.1-00 to the appellant in the year 1992 and same Jayamma cannot alienate the same extent to the respondent No.1. Even if suit extent ac.1-00 is included in the sale deed of R1 the same is illegal since the first sale will prevail. But the lower court did not appreciate the legal position of alienations and dismissed the suit. The lower court also taken a ground of dismissal that the appellant herein did not file any document to show her possession over ac.1-00. The respondent No.1 has no locus-standi to claim over the suit land ac.1-00 since his vendor already sold the land to the appellant through the registered sale deed and delivered the possession and as on the date of his purchase his vendor is no more owner of suit ac.1-00 whereas the appellant was the owner. So Ex.A2 executed by said Jayamma in favour of Respondent No.1 is illegal and unauthorized. Hence prays the court to allow the appeal suit as prayed for.

4. The first respondent died his legal heirs i.e. Respondent No.3 to 11 are brought on record as per IA No.203 of 2015.

5. No documentary or oral evidence is adduced by the appellant and respondents herein.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to seek the relief of setting aside the Judgment and decree passed in OS No.35 of 2005 dated 07-12-2011 by the Junior Civil

Judge, Shadnagar?

4

9. Point:- The lower court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant herein on the ground that the appellant herein failed to discharge his burden and also there is inconsistency with regard to the documents marked on behalf of the appellant i.e. Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 13-7-1992 and Ex.A5 agreement dated 30-11-1988 and also lower court observed that Ex.A5 is conditional agreement but not simple agreement and appellant failed to produce the document said to have been executed by K. Narsimha Reddy or either in person as shown under Ex.A1 and further the defendant No.2 filed his admission written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff in toto. But he did not enter into witness box to depose to that effect and no evidence. Hence holds that admission of the defendant no.2 no way helpful to the plaintiff case when party failed to enter into the witness box in support of his pleadings and also observed that the first respondent herein examined as DW1 and his son as DW2 got marked

Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 documents marked to prove sale transaction and also relied upon the pahanies filed by the defendants and dismissed the suit that the appellant herein failed to prove her case.

10. The plaintiff who is examined herself as PW1 in the trial court categorically deposed that she filed the suit in respect of the land in

Sy.No.1 to an extent of ac.1-00. Her father-in-law died and her mother-in-law and her husband used to cultivate the lands by raising paddy crop and she further deposed that her husband executed the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of 29 gts in Sy.No.1, 11 gts in Sy.No.3 and pending suit Jayamma died and it is also suggested to PW1 that Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 13- 5 07-1992. But according to PW1 the said document is executed facilitating to the defendant No.2 to obtain the water. But it is not sale deed but the plaintiff is not expected to depose against the registered sale deed as the court can draw presumption in respect of the registered sale deed that it is genuine document unless contra is proved.

11. In support of her the appellant/plaintiff examined PWs 2 and 3 in the trial court. PW2 deposed that he purchased 256 sq. yds. According to him the husband of PW1 entered into agreement with the defendant

No.2 regarding water source. PW3 is also deposed in the same lines of

PWs 1 and 2 and he is also one of the attesting witnesses to the panchanma, which is marked as Ex.A3. PW4 is also reiterated the version of PWs 2 and 3. He further admitted in his cross examination that he does not know the contents of Ex.A2 registered sale deed. He admitted that the defendant No.1 purchased the suit land in the year 1997, but he is cultivating the same since 5 or 6 years and there are also suggestions to PW4 that there are criminal cases but that it is not ground to disbelieve the version of the PW4.

12. In the other hand the defendant No.1, who is examined as DW1.

He reiterated his contention pleaded in the written statement and

Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 documents are marked. He pleaded ignorance that the wife of the defendant No.2 sold the property to PW1 under registered sale deed and his son Balaiah attested the agreement between the defendant No.2 and husband of the defendant No.1. DW2 son of DW1 reiterated the evidence of DW1. But he denied his signature on Ex.A5, 6 when Ex.A5 document is confronted. Ex.A5 is agreement of sale dated 30-11-1988.

13. According to the plaintiff, her father-in-law Ram Reddy was the original owner of the suit land after his demise her husband Narsimha

Reddy and mother-in-law Rameswaramma succeeded the property and when they are not having sufficient water for cultivation and the defendant No.2 got sufficient water her husband agreed to bear half of the expenditure on water and thus entered into agreement to transfer the land in the name of the defendant No.2 and it was also agreed after that payment of Bank loan, the defendant No.2 has to re-transfer the suit land. She further deposed that the defendant No.2 transferred the suit land and other land to his wife Jayamma and later after payment of amount agreed by the husband of plaintiff, the said

Jayamma retransfer the land to the plaintiff under sale deed dated 13-7-1992 i.e. Ex.A1 and the plaintiff is denying the Ex.A2 document

dated 12-3-1997 alleging that Jayamma executed the sale deed in

favour of the defendant No.1 by showing wrong extent including the land already retransferred to the plaintiff and said mistake is not noticed by anybody including the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff she leased out the suit land to the defendant No.1 on crop share basis, after death of her husband, the defendant No.1 paid crop share for four years later stopped the same and later claiming rights over the suit land basing on the wrong entries in the sale deed under Ex.A2.

But if any wrong entries are there, the plaintiff has to take steps for cancellation of the alleged document or has to take steps that the said document is not binding.

7

14. But she filed the suit for declaration of her title and also recovery of the possession and when the plaintiff is seeking declaration of title, she has to prove her case independently, she cannot question the registered sale deed in favour of the defendants and plaintiff must prove her case independently and she is not suppose to shift the burden on the defendants. The plaintiff only adduced the oral evidence of PW2 to PW4 which is not sufficient. As per the plaintiff, the defendant no.2 transferred the lands including the suit land in favour of his wife Jayamma, as such Jayamma executed Ex.A1. The contents of Ex.A1 shows Jayamma acquired the suit land under sale deed

No.3870/88 but no copy of the said sale deed is filed and it is material document before this court. In view of the fact the vendor of Jayamma is referred in the said sale deed and as it is not case of the plaintiff that her husband Narsimha Reddy executed said sale deed in favour of

Jayamma.

15. The defendant No.2 also not pleaded that he executed the sale deed in favour of his wife Jayamma. Hence the court can draw adverse inference against the plaintiff.

16. On perusal of Ex.A5 agreement dated 30-11-1988, the husband of the plaintiff entered into agreement with one Jayamma and recitals of Ex.A5 further reads that the executant one Narsimha Reddy agreed to repay the amount to Jayamma as well as to the bank and get back the registration in his favour that he would bear the registration expenses and also agreed to pay Rs.2000/- in two months and also

Rs.2200/- as per bank installments and land would be in his possession only. The plaintiff husband signed on Ex.A5, no objection is 8 raised while marking Ex.A5 and Ex.A5 contents shows it is condition sale and if the amount is not paid within stipulated two years then executants must deliver the land to Jayamma. Though Ex.A5 shows it is totally named as agreement but the contents to be looked into by court, which discloses that it is condition sale. Though the recitals shows possession of the land remains with Narsimha Reddy, the plaintiff could not produce any document to show such possession of her husband over the suit land at any point of time. Ex.A5 also not showing the details of the land which is the subject matter therein and also there are no survey numbers. In view of the discrepancy in Ex.A5 unless document which is referred that document No.3780/1988 as referred in Ex.A1 is produced the court cannot come to a right conclusion.

17. The learned counsel for appellant, who filed the written arguments arguing that the sale deed of the plaintiff under Ex.A1 prevails over the sale deed of defendant No.1 under Ex.B1 as it is prior document.

18. Admittedly there is no mention about the retransfer of the land by Jayamma in favour of the plaintiff in Ex.A1. The recitals of documents on Ex.A1 and Ex.A5 are contrary and PWs 2 and 3 are the alleged panch witnesses to the panchanama Ex.A3. But the plaintiff admitted no notice is given to the first defendant at the time of conducting panchanama. The recitals on Ex.A3 also shows no notice issued to him. According to the plaintiff, Ex.A1 is not sale deed but

PW2 deposed it is sale deed. PW3 also admitted that the defendant

No.1 purchased the land and also PW1 did not leased out the property 9 to the defendant No.1. In view of the criminal cases against PW4 and her son there is animosity between the defendant and PW4 family.

Hence PW4 might have come forward to depose in favour of the plaintiff. As per Ex.A4 orders passed by the Joint Collector on 13-07- 2004 the plaintiff filed revision petition and the Joint Collector directed the plaintiff to approach the proper forum for remedy as the name of the Jayamma is not shown as owner of the property in Sy.No.1 and 3 i.e. suit land.

19. It is the case of the defendant No.1 and DW2 is the son of DW1 and Ex.B1 is the sale deed dated 12-3-1997 and the certified copy of same is marked as Ex.A2. Ex.B1 shows the defendant No.1 purchased the land from Jayamma. Ex.B3 is the sale deed shows Jayamma sold 18 gts of land to the defendant No.1 and delivered possession. Ex.B4 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1992-93 showing name of K.

Jayamma as pattadar and possessor, mother-in-law of the plaintiff

Rameswaramma is shown as pattadar and possessor of 70 cents extent in Sy.No.1/A, possession of K. Jayamma is recorded as ac.2-22 gts. The plaintiff name is not recorded as either owner or pattadar of

Sy.No.1 and 3. If the contention of the appellant that she was cultivating the land after obtaining sale deed from Jayamma under

Ex.A1 is correct definitely her name would be recorded at least as possessor though not as pattadar. Whereas pahanies relied upon by the defendant No.1 are showing name of his vendor and also name of defendant No.1 as pattadar and it is no where shown as pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is lease holder.

10

20. PW3 supported the case of the defendant No.1 that the defendant No.1 is cultivating the suit land from the date of purchase but not in the capacity as lease holder. PW4 also admitted the same when he was put to cross examination that the defendant No.1 did not take lease from Jayamma. The plaintiff not filed any document before the court to show that the defendant No.1 took lease of the property.

When the plaintiff herself failed to prove her case, the plaintiff is not expected to shift the burden on the defendants. Hence the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff failed to prove her case. So in view of above discussion there is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant and the decisions referred by the plaintiff are no way helpful for declaration of her title. Hence the point is answered accordingly against the appellant.

21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar in

OS No.35 of 2005 dated 07-12-2011.

Dictated to the Gr-I Stenographer corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court on this the 29th day of June, 2018.

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Shadnagar.

No evidence adduced and no documents marked in appeal on behalf of both parties.

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Shadnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT; SHADNAGAR

Dated this the 14th day of June, 2017.

Present: Smt. G. Prathibha Devi, B.Sc., M.L.,

Senior Civil Judge,

SHADNAGAR.

IP No.9 of 2015

Between:

Potharla Anjaiah.. Petitioner.

And,

Pichakuntla Yadaiah and ors. .. Respondents.

@ @ @

This case is coming on 6-6-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and the respondents are set exparte. And upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood-over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under sec. 7,10 to 13 (1) of the

Provincial Insolvency act 1920 and Rule XXVIII of AP Provincial Insolvency

Rules declaring that the petitioner is insolvent and to grant such other reliefs.

The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner hails from respectable family and their family solely depending on the agriculture. The petitioner is married having wife and two sons and daughter. He performed marriages of his children. The petitioner is having agriculture dry land in

Sy.No.921. The profits from the agriculture lands were sole income. So the petitioner raised debts from his near and dear. So the petitioner was provided financial assistance of Rs.6,70,000/- from more than [7] members.

But the petitioner did not get proper funds in return. The petitioner started raising loans from his near and dear including the respondents herein. But he sustained loss in agriculture and became defaulter of his repayment. The petitioner is only having household articles and also residential house at

Boorgul village. So he is only to clear off the debts Rs.6,70,000/- He prays the court to declare the petitioner as insolvent.

2.The respondents remained exparte.

3.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

2

4.Point:- The petitioner has filed his chief affidavit examined as PW1 corroborated the pleadings in the petition. That he is doing agriculture in

Sy.No.921 and it is dry land. So he raised loans from near and dear to meet the expenses of his cultivation but due to drought and non-availability of water source for cultivation of the lands he sustained loss. So he provided financial assistance Rs.6,70,000/- from [7] members. So he committed default in paying the debts of the amount shown in the schedule. But absolutely there is no material available what happened to the agricultural dry land in Sy.No.921 cultivated by the petitioner as he is very much silent whether it is in existence or he sold the property to any one. But he only mentioned earlier that he got that land and sustained loss. So the burden is on the petitioner to establish his case simply mentioning the debtors names showing No.1 to 7 showing debts to a tune of Rs.6,70,000/- is not sufficient

Absolutely there is no other evidence on record to prove the same, and as per B schedule he got residential house worth Rs.3 lakhs and other articles worth Rs.13,000/- and he is also having agricultural land extent ac.1-20 gts in Sy.No.921 worth Rs.6 lakhs. So in view of this evidence I am not satisfied to declare the petitioner as insolvent because he got only debts worth

Rs.6,70,000/- but he is having assets worth Rs.9,13,000/- So there is no merit in the petition and also except showing R1 to R7 as debtors there is no material on record and they are making nuisance at the house of the petitioner to pay the debts except his oral pleadings. Except that there is no material evidence in favour of the petitioner. Hence the point is answered accordingly against the petitioner.

5.In the result, this petition stands dismissed with costs.

Dictated to Superintendent, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open

Court on this the 14th day of June, 2017

Senior Civil Judge,

Shadnagar. Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined

For petitioner:

PW1 Potharla Anjaiah

For Respondents: None.

Exhibits marked -NIL-

Senior Civil Judge,

Shadnagar.

3