O.S.No.54 of 2015 1 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court,
Allagadda, dt.26-06-2023.
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL at NANDYAL.
PRESENT: - SRI P. VASU,
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL AT NANDYAL.
FAC. V Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Allagadda.
Dated: Monday, this the 26 th day of June, 2023.
O.S. No.54 of 2015
Eedula Sivarami Reddy. … Plaintiff. V/s.
1. Eedula Ligamma (Died rep. by her L.Rs. i.e., Plaintiff and 2 nd Defendant).
2. Eedula Sankara Reddy.
3. Galipothula Jyothi.
4. Kachana Srinivasa Reddy.
5. Kachana Sudhakar Reddy.
6. Bollavaram Sarojamma.
… Defendants.
This suit is coming on 24-04-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Neelakanteswaram, Advocate for Plaintiff and
Sri S. Ramanaiah, Advocate for the 2nd Defendant, Sri M. Shadrak,
Advocate for the 3rd Defendant, and 4th to 6th Defendants made set ex- parte, having heard on both sides, having perused the material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties by dividing into four equal shares and allot one such share to the Plaintiff and two such shares to the 1st Defendant and one such share to the 2nd Defendant and to pass a Preliminary decree declaring that the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant are entitled to 1/4th
O.S.No.54 of 2015 2 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
share each and the 1st Defendant is entitled for ½ share as well as for mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 5 of C.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the plaint, in nutshell, are that :- “The Plaintiff is the son of the 2nd Defendant who is the son of 1st
Defendant as such the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant are grandmother and father of the Plaintiff respectively and one Edula
Jayarami Reddy is the husband of the 1st Defendant and that the
Plaintiff is the son of the 2nd Defendant through his wife by name
Anasuyamma and that the Plaintiff’s grandfather succeeded the plaint schedule properties from his ancestors and has been in possession and enjoyment till his death during which period he managed the joint family properties on behalf of co-parceners and after the death of Jayarami Reddy, the 1st and 2nd Defendants succeeded to the plaint schedule properties by way of succession and as such all the properties are ancestral properties of Plaintiff, 1st and 2nd Defendants.
Since the 2nd Defendant is the son of his father i.e., Jayarami
Reddy through the 1st Defendant as such 1st and 2nd Defendants have got half share each in plaint schedule properties and that since the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties and the Plaintiff; 1st and 2nd Defendants succeeded the plaint schedule properties, the 1st Plaintiff has got share in the plaint schedule properties and accordingly the 1st Defendant and 2nd defendant having half share each and that the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant have got half share being co-owners under Hindu Succession Act and that the 1st Defendant being the elder of the Hindu Joint
Family managed the plaint schedule properties on behalf of other co-parceners and that the Plaintiff and Defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the the plaint schedule properties.
There are misunderstandings between Anasuyamma and the mother of the 1st Defendant in which circumstances, the 2nd
Defendant supported his mother and neglected to look after her and the Plaintiff’s welfare and that the Plaintiff and his mother were necked out from her matrimonial house and having no other go, the said Anasuyamma reached Kamalapuri village of
O.S.No.54 of 2015 3 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
Sanjamala Mandal and taken shelter in her parents’ house and due to boring grudge and to defeat the right of the Plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties, the 1st and 2nd Defendants executed a nominal registered sale deed dt.17-04-2010 in favour of 3rd
Defendant in respect of item No.5 of the Plaint schedule properties and the 1st and 2nd Defendants have also executed another nominal registered sale deed dt.28-07-2012 in favour of 4th and 5th
Defendants in respect of item No.6 of the plaint schedule properties and the 1st and 2nd Defendants executed another nominal registered sale deed Dt.25-03-2013 in favour of 6th
Defendant in respect of item No.7 of the plaint schedule properties and above all the registered sale deeds are nominal, fictitious and not binding on the Plaintiff’s 1/4 th share as because the Plaintiff has not given any consent to the Defendants to alienate the plaint schedule properties and that the the 1st and 2nd Defendants have no manner of right to alienate the Plaintiff’s share without adding him as an executant or taking his consent and the above said documents have not executed to fulfill legal necessities of the Joint Hindu Family and that since the
Defendants making efforts to create some nominal, fictitious and voidable documents in respect of plaint schedule properties as such he issued notice to Sub-Registrar, Allagadda on 06-07-2014 informing about his undivided share and that the Plaintiff demanded the 1st and 2nd Defendants to provide some funds to start a business in the last week of July, 2014 and that the Plaintiff also made efforts to settle the matter amicably which became futile and ultimately filed this suit for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in all the Plaint schedule properties with allied relief.”
3. During pendency of the suit, the 1 st Defendant died
and her legal heirs i.e., the Plaintiff and 2 nd Defendant are
already on record.
4. The 1 st and 2 nd Defendants refuted the suit by filing the written statement with following averments:-
O.S.No.54 of 2015 4 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
“These Defendants, at the first instance, denied the allegations of the Plaint and submitted that this Plaintiff is not the resident of house bearing No.2/88 of Nemalladinne village of Pedda Mudiyam
Mandal and the surname of the Plaintiff is not “Eedula” and he is resident of Kamalapuri village of Sanjamala Mandal and that the alleged Anasuyamma is not at all the wife of the 2nd Defendant and hence, the plaintiff is not all the son of the 2nd Defendant.
The 2nd Defendant is the only son to his father Jaya Rami
Reddy through the 1st Defendant and the said Jaya Rami Reddy died on 14-10-1984 leaving behind him the 1 st and 2 nd
Defendants as his only and who are exclusive legal heirs and except them, there are no other heirs to succeed his properties after the death of said Jayarami Reddy and that since the Plaintiff is not at all the son of the 2 nd Defendant and not the co-owner along with them as such he has no rights over the plaint schedule properties as because the succession opened on the death of Jaya Rami Reddy on 14-10-1984 and even as per plaint averments, the Plaintiff born in the year 1988 by which time the said Jaya Rami Reddy was already died uopn which the 1st and 2nd Defendants succeeded the properties.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants being legal heirs of Jaya Rami
Reddy has personal properties and the 1st Defendant sold item
No.5 to 7 of plaint schedule properties to the 3rd to 5th Defendants apart from delivery of possession and they are also in enjoyment of their respective properties and that either the Plaintiff or his mother Anasuyamma have no rights over the disputes properties and these Defendants being rightful owners have sold the above said properties to 3rd to 6th Defendants as such the Plaintiff has no right to question the alienation and he cannot claim that the above said properties cannot sold without his consent and which sale deeds are not valid.
The Plaintiff filed the suit in order to blackmail these
Defendants to get wrongful gain due to instigation of their ‘Dayadis’ as such the suit is filed basing on false and fictitious ground without having any manner of right and that all the plaint schedule properties are not ancestral properties of Jaya Rami
Reddy being husband of 1st Defendant and father of the 2nd
O.S.No.54 of 2015 5 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
Defendant but the Plaint schedule Properties consisting personal properties of these Defendants as well as Jaya Rami Reddy and the 1st Defendant has acquired item No.1 of plaint schedule properties from one Dhanireddy Rama Lakshmamma under a registered gift deed dt.10-07-2006 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and that the 2nd item of the Plaint
Schedule Properties purchased by the above said Jaya Rami Reddy being the husband of the 1st Defendant under Registered sale deed
Dt.18-02-1967 from on Nitchenametla Chinna Subbaiah and that 3rd item of plaint schedule properties purchased by the 1st
Defendant for consideration of Rs.90/- from her sister-in-law by name Rama Lakshmamma and that the 1st Defendant sold the above said 2nd and 3rd items of plaint schedule properties to one
Poreddy Rama Subba Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy under registered sale deed Dt.29.07.2015 for Rs.3,03,000/- apart from delivery of delivery of possession and that the 1st Defendant has got pattadar pass book and title deed in respect the item No.1 to No.3 of plaint schedule properties and among them item Nos. 2nd and 3rd items of plaint schedule properties sold away by her.
The land in an extent of Ac.2-33 cents in Survey No.39 part of item No.4 of plaint schedule properties purchased by the 1st
Defendant from Yella Reddy for Rs.100/- and that the 2nd
Defendant sold away the said property to Poreddy Ramakrishna
Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy under Registered Sale Deed dt.08-10-2015 for Rs.3,03,000/- apart from delivery of possession and the rest of item No.4 i.e., Ac.0.30 cents in Survey No.37/7; Ac.0-13 cents in
Survey No.38/1 and Ac.0-05 cents in Survey No.38/2 which are all
Kundu Poramboke sites which are in possession and enjoyment of 2nd Defendant.
Item No.5 purchased by the 1st Defendant and that the 1st and 2nd Defendants sold the said property to 3rd Defendant for
Rs.99,000/- under Registered Sale Deed dt.17-04-2010 and that the 2nd Defendant purchased the land in an extent of Ac.1-05 cents in Survey No.109/2A being part of item No.6 of Plaint schedule properties from one Simham Ratnam of Nemalladinne village for
Rs.24,500/- bearing document No.324/2007 dt.26-02-2007 and some other property i.e., item No.6 in an extent of Ac.2-40 cents in
O.S.No.54 of 2015 6 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
Survey No.109/1 and an extent of Ac.1-54 cents in Survey No.125 purchased by the 1st Defendant under Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.307/2009 dt.25-02-2009 and the remaining
Survey No.109 in an extent of land i.e., Ac.6-96 cents was sold to 4th and 5th Defendants under Registered Sale Deed dt.28-07-2012 for Rs.3,48,000/- by the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
The 1st Defendant purchased the land an extent of Ac.1-88 cents in Survey No.400/1A i.e., item No.7 of the plaint schedule properties from one Edula Mallikarjuna Reddy under Registered
Sale Deed bearing document No.36/2005 dt.07-01-2005 and that the 1st Defendant purchased the land in an extent of Ac.1.87 cents being remaining land in Survey No.400/2B from her ‘Dayadi’ by name Edula Eswara Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy and that the 1st and 2nd Defendants sold away item No.7 of plaint schedule properties to the 6th Defendant under Registered Sale Seed bearing document No.700/2013 Dt.25-03-2013 for Rs.1,88,000/- and that the 1st Defendant’s husband and 2nd Defendant’s father by name Jaya Rami Reddy purchased item No.8 from one Edula
Rami Reddy under Registered Sale Deed bearing document bearing No.2145/1973 Dt.15-09-1973 and that item No.8 being old house sold to P. Ramasubba Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy about six months back as such the 1st and 2nd Defendants sold away item
No.2 to No.8 of plaint schedule properties as absolute owners and the remaining item No.1 is the absolute property of 1st Defendant.
The alleged Anasuyamma had illegal contact with the 2nd
Defendant after the death of his father by name Jaya Rami Reddy in the year 1984 and she had illegal contact with him for a period of two years only and thereafter she left the company of the 2nd
Defendant in the year 1986 and since then the said Anasuyamma living separately from the 2nd Defendant in Kamalapuri village and the Aadhar card of said Anasuyamma reveals about surname as
Gourigari Anasuyamma D/o. Rama Subba Reddy, R/o. H.No.1-74 of
Kamalapuri village of Sanjamala Mandal and in the said record the name of 2nd Defendant not mentioned as such it is clear that the alleged Anasuyamma is not the wife of the 2nd Defendant and the
Plaintiff is not the son of the 2nd Defendant as alleged by the
Plaintiff. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs”.
O.S.No.54 of 2015 7 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
5. Basing on the above said pleadings, my learned predecessor-in-office has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the Plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the Plaintiff, 1st and 2nd Defendants?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for division of Plaint schedule
Properties and to ascert 1/ 4th share?
3. To what relief?
6.At the time of marking documents in evidence and examination of the Plaintiff as P.W.1, the 1st Defendant died leaving behind her the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant as the legal heirs of the 1st
Defendant and thereafter amended plaint was filed.
7. After filing of Written Statement, the 1 st Defendant
died and on filing memo by the learned counsel for Plaintiff
intimating about the death of 1 st Defendant leaving behind her
the 2 nd Defendant and Plaintiff as her legal heirs and this Court
recognized the Plaintiff and 2 nd Defendant as the L.Rs of 1 st
Defendant and after amendment of the Plaint the 2 nd Defendant
filed with additional written statement with the following brief
averments:- “This Defendant, at the first instance, denied the averments of amended plaint and submitted that since the Plaintiff is not the son of Edula Sankar Reddy and not his legal heir as such the
Plaintiff has no right to seek partition and that the 1st and 2nd
Defendants executed registered sale deed dt.28-07-2012 in favour of 4th and 5th Defendants in respect of item No.6 of plaint schedule properties and the defendants are bonafide purchasers of item
No.6 as such registered sale deed dt.28-07-2017 is valid in law and that the 1st and 2nd Defendants also executed another registered sale deed dt.25-03-2013 in respect of item No.7 of plaint schedule properties in favour of 6th Defendant as such the 6th Defendant is a bonafide purchaser and that the 1st and 2nd Defendants executed
O.S.No.54 of 2015 8 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
registered sale deed dt.17-04-2014 in respect of item No.5 of plaint schedule properties in favour of 3rd Defendant who is bonafide purchaser and as such it is not correct to say that item
No.5 of plaint schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment and that the 3rd to 5th Defendants being 3rd parties to item No. 5 to No.7 of Plaint schedule properties purchased prior to filing of the suit and they are in possession and enjoyment of the respective properties as such the Plaintiff has to seek for cancellation of those documents dt.17-04-2010, 28-07-2012 and 25-03-2013 and that since the plaint schedule properties are in their possession and enjoyment as such the plaintiff has to pay correct Court fee and on this ground the suit is not maintainable and that during pendency of the suit, the 1st Defendant died to whom the 2nd defendant is only legal heir and hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.”
8.The 3rd Defendant reported no additional written Statement.
9.On behalf of the Plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and
Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 marked and on behalf of the Defendants DW.1 examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.9 marked.
10. Heard on both sides (Heard the learned Counsel for the
Plaintiff and learned Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants among them represented that the arguments may taken as heard and it may be posted for Judgment.
11. Issue No.1 and No.2:-
This Court would like to answer these issues simultaneously as the discussion is inter-related to each other and to avoid repentance of evidence, facts and circumstances.
12.It is the brief version of the Plaintiff that he is the son of the 2nd Defendant through one Anasuyamma and the 1st Defendant is his
O.S.No.54 of 2015 9 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
paternal grandmother and that the plaint schedule properties succeeded by his paternal grandfather by name Jayarami Reddy from his ancestors and after the death of said Jayarami Reddy, the 1st and 2nd defendants in order to avoid his share in the plaint schedule properties, sold some of the properties without the consent of Plaintiff to 3rd to 6th Defendants by creating nominal, forged and voidable documents and as such filed this suit for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties.
13.Whereas, it is the contention of the Defendants that the
Plaintiff is not the son of the 2nd Defendant and the above said
Anasuyamma is not the wife and she had illegal contact with him after the death of Jayarami Reddy in the year 1984 for a period of two years only and thereafter she left the company of the 2nd Defendant and as such the Plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule properties and it is also the contention of the 3rd that she is a bonafide purchaser having purchased item No.5 of the plaint schedule properties from his legitimate vendor i.e., the 2nd Defendant, the Plaintiff’s father for valid consideration under registered sale deed dt.17-04-2010 and even item No.5 was not shown in the legal notice issued by the Plaintiff to the Sub-Registrar, Allagadda and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
14.The Plaintiff, to substantiate his version, himself examined as P.W.1 in chief examination by way of affidavit, as usual reiterated the important contents of plaint which brief facts this Court already discussed in the above paras as such again not inclined to narrate the same in order to avoid repeatance of allegations and apart from that marked S.S.C. Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary
Education, A.P., Copy of Aadhar Card, Transfer Certificate issued by
O.S.No.54 of 2015 10 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
the Principal, S.V.Degree College, Koilkuntla, Attested copy of sanction letter issued by A.P. Tahsildar, Jammalamadugu, Attested copy of voters list dt.21-07-1989 of Nemalladinne village and
Attested copy of voters list for the year 1988 of Nemalladinne village as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6.
15.This Court would also like to discuss the evidences of witnesses examined by the Plaintiff, in support of his version, in order to have marshaling of facts and evidence whenever necessary.
16.This Court perused the chief examination affidavits of witnesses examined as PW.2 and P.W.3 whose chief examination affidavit contents are similar to each other as such this Court would like to discuss the contents of chief examination affidavitsin one contention.
17.P.W.2 and P.W.3 stated about the relationship between the
Plaintiff, 1st and 2nd Defendants as the Plaintiff is the son of the 2nd
Defendant and grandson of 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff born to the 2nd
Defendant through his mother by name Anasuyamma and the 1st
Defendant’s husband by name Edula Jayarami Reddy succeeded the plaint schedule properties from his ancestors as such they are the joint family properties after the death of Jayarami Reddy and that due to misunderstandings between the 1st Defendant and Anasuyamma, the said Anasuyamma went to Kamalapuri village and they came to know that the 1st and 2nd Defendants executed nominal registered sale deeds in favour of others for which neither the Plaintiff nor his mother are parties to the registered documents.
18.This Court would also like to discuss the evidence of
Defendants and their witnesses, if any, in order to have marshaling of
O.S.No.54 of 2015 11 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
facts and circumstances as well as evidence available on record in order to resolve the controversy between the parties to the suit.
19.During pendency of the suit, the 1st Defendant died and the plaint was amended as it is by recognizing the Plaintiff and 2nd
Defendant as there are no other legal heirs of the deceased 1st
Defendant.
20.The 2nd Defendant, to substantiate his version, as usual reiterated the entire contents of Written Statement which brief facts this
Court already discussed in the above paras as such again not inclined to narrate the same in order to avoid repeatance of allegations and apart from that marked Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.18-02- 1967 in respect of item No.2 of plaint schedule property in favour of
1 st Defendant’s father by name Jayarami Reddy, Certified copy of
registered gift deed Dt.10-07-2006 in respect of item No.1 of plaint schedule property in favour of 1 st Defendant, Certified copy of registered sale deed Dt.25-02-2009 in respect of item No.6 of plaint schedule property in favour of 1 st Defendant, Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.26-02-2007 in respect of item No.6 of plaint schedule property in favour of 2 nd Defendant, Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.07-01-2005 in respect of item No.7 of plaint schedule property in favour of 1 st Defendant, Certified copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1424 to 1430 in respect of item No.7 of plaint schedule property, Certified copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1430 in respect of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, Certified copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1427 to 1430 in respect of item
No.6 of plaint schedule property in Survey No.109/2A, Certified copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1427 to 1430 in respect of item No.6 of
O.S.No.54 of 2015 12 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
plaint schedule property in Survey No.125, Certified copy of No.3
Adangal for fasli 1427 to 1430 in respect of item No.6 of Plaint schedule property in Survey No.109/1 as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.9.
21.Now let us discuss the cross examination of Plaintiff and his witnesses as well as contesting 2nd Defendant who were examined as
P.W.1 to P.W.3 and D.W.1 in order to ascertain whether the Plaintiff is able to prove his version that he is the son of the 2nd Defendant and he is entitled for partition and separate possession of Plaintiff’s share in the plaint schedule properties or not.
22.This Court would say that the evidence of Plaintiff as P.W.1 and the 2nd Defendant as D.W.1 is proper and essential to resolve the controversy between the parties to the suit. It is an admitted fact through the pleadings as well as evidence of witnesses available before this Court that the deceased 1 st Defendant and the 2 nd Defendant are wife and son of one Edula Jayarami Reddy and the 2 nd
Defendant is only his legal heir and title holder of the properties of the 1st Defendant and her husband i.e., Jayarami Reddy. The Plaintiff as
P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that the 2nd Defendant is his father whose marriage took place with the Plaintiff’s mother by name
Anasuyamma in the year 1982 and also stated that no documentary proof filed to prove the marriage of 2nd Defendant with Plaintiff’s mother.
The Plaintiff as P.W.1 also stated that no succession certificate or no legal heir certificate or family members certificate to prove that he was the son of 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff’s witnesses i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3
stated the relationship between the Plaintiff and the 2 nd
Defendant as son and father and in their cross examination
O.S.No.54 of 2015 13 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
stated about the marriage of Plaintiff’s mother by the 2 nd
Defendant about 30 to 40 years back.
23. Now let us discuss the cross examination of 2nd Defendant as
D.W.1 in order to ascertain whether there is any admission regarding relationship between the Plaintiff and himself as son and father or not.
24.As seen from Written Statement, chief examination affidavit of 2nd Defendant as D.W.1, relationship between the Plaintiff and his mother by name Anasuyamma, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff testified the 2nd Defendant in the cross examination by posing questions and at the first instance he denied the fact stating that the
Plaintiff and his mother Anasuyamma are his son and wife and also in his cross examination at the first instance stated that he do not know one Anasuyamma as well as the Plaintiff even though in his pleadings and evidence stated that he and Anasuyamma lived for a period of two years and thereafter there is no relationship.
25. In the cross examination of 2nd Defendant by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, D.W.1 admitted about his relationship with the 1 st Defendant and one Jayarami Reddy as his parents and also
admitted the fact about the death of his father about 60 years
back and also admitted about the death of his mother i.e., 1st Defendant about 3 years back during pendency of the suit. The 2nd Defendant as
D.W.1 admitted that one Anasuyamma is his wife and stated that
his marriage took place with Anasuyamma about 40 years back
in Koilkuntla village. DW.1 admitted about his native place and living place as Nemalladinne village, Peddamudiam Mandal of Kadapa District to which place his wife came to Nemalladinne village after marriage to
O.S.No.54 of 2015 14 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
live with him and also admitted about his relationship with the
Plaintiff as his only son. D.W.1 also admitted the fact stating that he along with his wife, 1 st Defendant lived jointly and after the death of 1 st Defendant, he and the Plaintiff are her legal heirs. So, it could be boldly said that there is relationship between the Plaintiff and 2 nd Defendant as son and father.
26.The Plaintiff, in support of his version, filed original
Secondary School Certificate issued by Board of Secondary
Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Copy of Aadhar Card,
Transfer Certificate issued by the Principal, S.V.Degree College,
Koilkuntla, Attested copy of sanction letter issued by Tahsildar,
Jammalamadugu, Attested copy of voter list Dt.21-07-1989 relating to Nemalladinne village and Attested True Copy of another voter list for the year 1988 as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 which would go to show that the 2nd Defendant is shown as father of the Plaintiff and one
Anasuyamma shown as mother of the Plaintiff.
27.As seen from the above evidence of Plaintiff, his witnesses and the 2nd Defendant as well as documentary evidence placed by the
Plaintiff apart from cross examination of 2nd Defendant as D.W.1, this
Court has no hesitation to say that the Plaintiff is the son of 2nd
Defendant born through one Anasuyamma. So the Plaintiff established his version of relationship with 2nd Defendant as his son.
28.Now let us discuss whether the Plaintiff has established his version to get share in the plaint schedule properties in view of his relationship with the 2nd Defendant as son or not.
O.S.No.54 of 2015 15 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
29.The learned counsel for the contesting 2nd Defendant cross- examined the Plaintiff as P.W.1 in which he posed a suggestion that no revenue record is filed to prove that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties for which he denied the same and also denied the suggestion that the plaint schedule properties are self acquired properties of 1st and 2nd Defendants as such they alienated the same to 3rd to 6th Defendants. The learned counsel for 3rd Defendant cross- examined P.W.1 in which he deposed about mutation of 3rd Defendant’s name in revenue records after purchase of item No.5 of plaint schedule property and she has been in possession and enjoyment.
30.Now let us discuss the cross examination of 2nd Defendant as
D.W.1 in order to ascertain whether the Plaintiff is entitled to share in the
Plaint schedule properties or not.
31.The learned counsel for the Plaintiff cross examined 2 nd
Defendant as D.W.1 in which he admitted about the status of
Plaintiff and himself, after the death of his mother as 1 st
Defendant as Legal heir and also admitted about existence properties in Rajoli village of Chagalamarri mandal, Nemalladinne village, Pedda
Mudiam Mandal of Kadapa District. D.W.1 admitted stating that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties and after
the death of his father, the plaint schedule properties devolved
upon him, the Plaintiff and the deceased 1 st Defendant and also admitted the fact stating that the suit schedule properties have
been in joint possession and enjoyment of himself and the
Plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. The 2nd Defendant as
D.W.1 also admitted that since he along with the Plaintiff
enjoying joint right and joint possession of suit schedule
O.S.No.54 of 2015 16 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
properties as such he and the Plaintiff have equal rights over
the suit schedule properties and that the 3rd to 5th Defendants, one
Poreddy Ramasubba Reddy, Poreddy Ramakrishna Reddy and Kuluru
Bala Narasimha Reddy have no right or possession over the same. So,
it could be boldly said that the Plaintiff established his version
of having share in the plaint schedule properties along with his
father i.e., 2 nd Defendant.
32.It is the plea and evidence of Plaintiff that the 1st and 2nd
Defendants being the mother and son executed nominal registered sale deeds in favour of 3rd to 6th Defendants due to misunderstandings between the 1st Defendant, 2nd Defendant and the Plaintiff’s mother i.e.,
Anasuyamma in order to deprive the legitimate right of Plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. As such, it has to be seen whether the Plaintiff established from the cross examination of 2nd Defendant in order to get a decree in his favour of not.
33.To answer these facts, it is just and proper to have a glance the evidence of 2nd Defendant, examined as D.W.1. The 2nd Defendant as D.W.1 deposed that the 3 rd to 6 th Defendants are his close friends and there are previous petty disputes between him and
his wife upon which becoming angry on his wife he along with 1 st
Defendant executed nominal registered sale deeds in favour of
3 rd to 6 th Defendants without receiving sale consideration from
them and he along with the 1 st Defendant also not handed over any possession of the properties covered under those registered sale deeds to 3 rd to 6 th Defendants in respect of some of the suit schedule properties. The 2nd Defendant as D.W.1 also admitted about his acquaintance with one Poreddy Ramasubba Reddy, Poreddy
O.S.No.54 of 2015 17 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
Ramakrishna Reddy and Kuluru Bala Narasimha Reddy and also
admitted about execution of nominal registered sale deeds in
favour of above three persons in respect of some of suit
schedule properties and no delivery of possession of properties given to them and the above said properties have also been in
joint possession and enjoyment of himself and his son i.e., the
Plaintiff.
34.As seen from the above said discussion and evidence of 2nd
Defendant as D.W.1, it could be boldly said that the Plaintiff
established his version about execution of nominal registered
sale deeds in favour of 3 rd to 6 th Defendants in respect of item
Nos.5 to No.7 in favour of 3 rd to 6 th Defendants and some other
properties of suit schedule properties in favour of Poreddy
Ramasubba Reddy, Poreddy Ramakrishna Reddy and Kuluru Bala
Narasimha Reddy without delivering possession of said properties and the Plaintiff is able to show that he along with the 2 nd
Defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint
schedule properties as legal heirs and that the Plaintiff and 2 nd
Defendant having share in the plaint schedule properties.
35.The contesting 3rd Defendant, even though cross examined the Plaintiff, failed to adduce evidence by entering into witness atleast to deny the allegations of plaint and to put forth her version.
36.It is well settled that if at all the Defendant not adduced any evidence by entering into witness box and his non-appearance as a witness would be the strongest possible circumstance which will go to discredit the truth of his case.
O.S.No.54 of 2015 18 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
37. At this juncture, this Court would also like to rely on
AIR 1999 SC 1341 = (1999) 3 SCC 457 held in between Iswar
Bhai C.Patel @ Bachu Bhai Patel, Appellant, Vs. Harihar Behera
and another, Respondents wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed in para 18 that:- “As early as in 1927, the Privy Council in Sardar Gurbaksha Singh
Vs. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1927 PC 230, took note of a practice prevalent in those days of not examining the parties as a witness in the case and leaving it to the other party to call that party so that the other party may be treated as the witness of the first party. Their Lordships of the Privy Council observed as under:- “Notice has frequently been taken by this Board of this style of procedure. It sometimes takes the form of a manoeuvre under which counsel does not call his own client, who is an essential witness, but endeavours to force the other party to call him, and so suffer the discomfiture of having him treated as his, the other party’s own witness. This is thought to be clever, but it is a bad and degrading practice.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court observed in para 23 that:- “This decision was also relied upon by the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari Vs. Radhabai Krishnarao
Deshmukh, AIR 1931 Bombay 97, which observed as under:- “It is the bounden duty of a party personally knowing the facts and circumstances, to give evidence on his own behalf and to cross-examination and his non-appearance as a witness would be the strongest possible circumstance
which will go to discredit the truth of his case.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed in para 25 that:- “The Madhya Pradesh High Court also relied upon the following observation of the Calcutta High Court in Pranballav Saha Vs.
Sm.Tulasibala Dassi, AIR 1958 Cal 713:- “The very fact that the defendant neither came to the box herself nor called any witness to contradict evidence given on oath against her shows that these facts cannot be
O.S.No.54 of 2015 19 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
denied. What was prima facie against her became conclusive proof by her failure to deny.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed in para 27 that:- “It was further observed that:- “If such a party abstains from entering the witness box
it must give rise to an inference adverse against him.”
38.As seen from the above said citation it is clear that whenever the Defendant did not enter into witness box and abstains from entering into witness box, it shall give raise to an adverse inference against him that the case set up by him is not correct. In the instant suit, the 3rd
Defendant, even though filed written statement, cross examined the
Plaintiff, did not come forward to enter into witness box to deny the allegations and put forth her version and in which circumstances it could be said that the case set up by her is not correct.
39.On the scrutiny of the above said discussion of oral as well as documentary evidence and admission of facts in the cross examination of 2nd Defendant, it could be said that the Plaintiff established his version of his relationship with 2nd Defendant as his son and after the death of 1st Defendant being the mother of 2nd Defendant, the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant being her legal heirs acquired the plaint schedule properties and as per the evidence of 2nd Defendant, it is established that the registered sale deeds executed in favour of 3rd to 6th
Defendants and other persons nominally in view of angry against his wife and misunderstandings between the 2nd Defendant and his wife i.e.,
Anasuyamma without delivery of possession to the purchasers.
40. Issue No.3:-
Since Issue No.1 and No.2, regarding nature of plaint schedule properties and entitlement of Plaintiff to get share, answered in
O.S.No.54 of 2015 20 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
favour of Plaintiff as such the Plaintiff is rightly entitled to a decree for partition. Hence, this issue is also answered in favour of the Plaintiff.
In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed and thereby a
Preliminary decree is passed declaring the Plaintiff’s 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties and for partition of plaint schedule properties into 4 equal shares out of which 1/4th share allotted to the Plaintiff but in the circumstances both parties do bear their own costs.
Partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and partly typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me, in open court in the III Additional District Judge’s Court, Kurnool at Nandyal, on this the 26th day of June, 2023.
III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL AT NANDYAL.
FAC. V Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Allagadda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTs P.W.1: Edula Siva Rami Reddy. D.W.1 : E.Shankar Reddy P.W.2: T.Venkateswara Reddy. P.W.3: S.Shadrak.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PLAINTIFF
Ex.A.1: SSC Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, A.P.
Ex.A.2:Copy of Aadhar Card.
Ex.A3: Transfer Certificate issued by the Principal, S.V.Degree College, Koilkuntla.
Ex.A.4: Attested copy of sanction letter issued by A.P. Tahsildar, Jammalamadugu.
Ex.A.5:Attested copy of voters list dt.21-07-1989 of Nemalladinne village.
Ex.A.6:Attested copy of voters list for the year 1988 of Nemalladinne village.
O.S.No.54 of 2015 21 V-Addl. District Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. dt. 26-06-2023.
FOR DEFENDANTs:-
Ex.B1:Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.18-02-1967 in respect of item No.2 of plaint schedule property in favour of 1st Defendant’s father by name Jayarami Reddy.
Ex.B2: Certified copy of registered gift deed Dt.10-07-2006 in respect of item No.1 of plaint schedule property in favour of 1st Defendant.
Ex.B3: Certified copy of registered sale deed Dt.25-02-2009 in respect of item No.6 of plaint schedule property in favour of 1st Defendant,
Ex.B4: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.26-02-2007 in respect of item No.6 of plaint schedule property in favour of 2nd Defendant,
Ex.B5: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.07-01-2005 in respect of item No.7 of plaint schedule property in favour of 1st Defendant,
Ex.B6:Certified copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1424 to 1430 in respect of item No.7 of plaint schedule property,
Ex.B7: Certified copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1430 in respect of item No.6 of plaint schedule property,
Ex.B8: Certified copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1427 to 1430 in respect of item No.6 of plaint schedule property in Survey No.109/2A,
Ex.B9: Certified copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1427 to 1430 in respect of item No.6 of Plaint schedule property in Survey No.109/1.
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL AT NANDYAL.
FAC. V Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Allagadda.
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
ALLAGADDA.
PRESENT: - SRI P. VASU,
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL AT NANDYAL.
FAC. V Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Allagadda.
Dated: Monday, this the 26 th day of June, 2023.
O.S. No.54 of 2015
Eedula Sirami Reddy S/o E.Sankara Reddy, aged about 24 Years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o H.No.2/88, Nemalla Dinne village, Pedda Mudiam Mandal, Kadapa District. … Plaintiff.
V/s.
1. Eedula Ligamma W/o late E.Jayarami Reddy, aged 82 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o H.No.2/88, Nemalla Dinne village, Pedda Mudiam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. (Died rep. by her L.Rs. i.e., Plaintiff and 2 nd Defendant).
2. Eedula Sankara Reddy S/o E.Jayarami Reddy, aged 82 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o H.No.2/88, Nemalla Dinne village, Pedda Mudiam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
3. Galipothula Jyothi W/o G.Jayakumar, aged 23 years, Hindu, House-wife, R/o Rajoli village, Chagalamarry Mandal, Kurnool District.
4. Kachana Srinivasa Reddy S/o K.Venkata Reddy, aged 42 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o H.No.2/39, N.Kottala Palli village, Peddamudiam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
5. Kachana Sudhakara Reddy S/o K.Venkata Reddy, aged 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o H.No.2/39, N.Kottala Palli village, Pedda Mudiam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
6. Bollavaram Sarojamma W/o B.Hussain Reddy, aged 62 years, Hindu, House-wife, R/o H.No.13/187-2, Kapu Veedhi, Jammalamadugu Town, YSR Kadapa District. … Defendants.
This is a suit filed for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties by dividing into four equal shares and allot one such share to the Plaintiff and two such shares to the 1st Defendant and one such share to the 2nd Defendant and to pass a Preliminary decree declaring that the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant are entitled to 1/4th share each and the 1st Defendant is entitled for ½ share as well as for mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 5 of C.P.C.
Suit Presented on 28-01-2015 and filed on 02-06-2015. The value of the Suit is Rs.17,83,500/-(1/4th M.V.) fixed C.F. of Rs.200/- is paid under Sec.34(2) of APCF & SV Act.
This suit is coming on 24-04-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Neelakanteswaram, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri S. Ramanaiah, Advocate for the 2nd Defendant, Sri M. Shadrak, Advocate for the 3rd Defendant, and 4th to 6th Defendants made set ex-parte, having heard on both sides, having perused the material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and DECREE as follows:-
1. that the suit be and the same is hereby Preliminary decreed; and
2. that the plaintiff is hereby allotted 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties which were partitioned into 4 equal shares;
3. that the both parties do bear their own costs.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court this the 26 th day of June, 2023.
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL AT NANDYAL.
FAC. V Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Allagadda.
TABLE OF COSTS
Respondent 2 [
For Petitioner [Rs.]
Rs.] Stamps on Vakalat2-002-00
Stamps on Petition 200-00----
Process Fee40-00----
Advocate fee25,000-00---- Writing Charges50-00----
Typing charges100-00- N I L - Total Rs. 25,392-00 (not entitled)
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL AT NANDYAL.
FAC. V Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Allagadda.
SCHEDULE
Item No.1
Land situated in Kurnool District, Nandyal Registration District, Allagadda Sub-District, Chagalamarri Mandal, with in the village limits of Rajoli in the following particulars:-
Sy.No.80/1Extent : Ac.03.45 ct
BOUNDARIES:
East : Land of Eedula Maheswara Reddy West : Land of D.Maheswara Reddy North: Land of T.Bala Venkata Subba Reddy South: Land of G.Jagan Mohan Reddy
Item No.2
Land situated in Kurnool District, Nandyal Registration District, Allagadda Sub-District, Chagalamarri Mandal, with in the village limits of Rajoli in the following particulars:-
Sy.No.83Extent : Ac.01.50 ct
BOUNDARIES:
East : Land of Parlapadu Chinnapur Subba Reddy West : Rasta North: Land of Baladasu South: Land of Seela Venkata Subbaiah
Item No.3
Land situated in Kurnool District, Nandyal Registration District, Allagadda Sub-District, Chagalamarri Mandal, with in the village limits of Rajoli in the following particulars:-
Sy.No.79Extent : Ac.01.53 ct
BOUNDARIES:
East : Land of G.Suryanarayana Reddy West : Land of E.Maheswara Reddy North: Land of T.Venkata Narapu Reddy South: Land of G.Jagan Mohan Reddy
Item No.4
Land situated in Kurnool District, Nandyal Registration District, Allagadda Sub-District, Chagalamarri Mandal, with in the village limits of Rajoli in the following particulars:-
Sy.No.39Extent : Ac.01.75 ct Sy.No.37/7 Ac.00.30 ct Sy.No.38/1 Ac.00.13 ct Sy.No.38/2 Ac.00.05 ct Sy.No.39 Ac.00.58 ct Total Ac.02.81 ct
BOUNDARIES:
East : Land of Eedula Eswara Reddy West : Land of Siva Reddy North: Kundu River South: Rasta
Item No.5
Land situated in Kurnool District, Nandyal Registration District, Allagadda Sub-District, Chagalamarri Mandal, with in the village limits of Rajoli in the following particulars:-
Sy.No.253/BExtent : Ac.03.27 ct
BOUNDARIES:
East : Land of Eedula Sambasiva Reddy West : Land of Eedula Sambasiva Reddy North: Kaluva South: Land of Eedula Sambasiva Reddy
Item No.6
Land situated in Kurnool District, Nandyal Registration District, Allagadda Sub-District, Chagalamarri Mandal, with in the village limits of Rajoli in the following particulars:-
Sy.No.109/1Extent : Ac.03.60 ct Sy.No.125 Ac.02.31 ct Sy.No.109/2A Ac.01.05 ct Total Ac.06.96 ct BOUNDARIES:
East : Land of Simha Lazar West : Land of Eedula Siva Reddy North: Land of Kachana Venkata Krishna Reddy South: Land of Tathireddy Chinnapu Reddy
Item No.7
Land situated in YSR Kadapa District, Jammalamadugu Sub-District, Peddamudiam Mandal, with in the village limits of Nemalladinne in the following particulars:-
Sy.No.400/1AExtent : Ac.01.88 ct Sy.No.400/2B Ac.01.87 ct Total Ac.03.75 ct
BOUNDARIES:
East : Rasta and Land of Yennam Srinivasa Reddy West : Land of Gandla Veeraiah, Gandla Ramaiah and Gandla Pullaiah others North: Land of Eedula Maheswara Reddy South: Land of Eedula Siva Lakshmi Reddy
Item No.8
House bearing No.1’3 situated in YSR Kadapa District, Jammalamadugu Sub-District, Peddamudiam Mandal, with in the village limits of Nemalladinne in the following particulars:-
Extent : 450 Square foot
BOUNDARIES:
East : House of Eedula Siva Reddy West : House of Amarnatha Reddy North: House of Ramana Reddy South: Rasta
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL AT NANDYAL.
FAC. V Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Allagadda.