Smt. P. Venkata Padma Lalitha Siva Jyothi

1 OS No. 43 of 2008

COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT -CUM- ADDITIONAL DIST. &

SESSION JUDGE, AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: P.V.P. LALITHA SIVA JYOTHI.,

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,-CUM-

ADDL.DISTRICT&SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Thurs day this the 6 th day of August, 2020.

O.S.NO. 43 of 2008

Between : -

1. Perka Mallaiah, S/o Late Perka Durgaiah, Age: 60 years, (died his

L.Rs.12 to 18)

2. Perka Shankaraiah, S/o Late Perka Durgaiah , age: 57 yrs( Died ),

3. Perka Devaiah, S/o Late Perka Durgaiah, age 54 yrs, ( Died ),

4. Perka Madunaiah, S/o Late Perka Durgaiah, Age: 50 years,

5. Perka Ramaiah, S/o Late Perka Durgaiah, Age: 46 years,

6. Perka Narsaiah, S/o Late Perka Shankaraiah, Age: 33 years,

7. Perka Thirupathi, S/o Late Perka Shankaraiah, Age: 31 years,

8. Perka Bondamma, W/o Late Perka Shankaraiah, Age: 55 years,

9. Perka Rajesham, S/o Perka Devaiah, Age: 30 years,

10. Perka Narsingh, S/o Perka Devaiah, Age: 27 years,

11. Perka Sampath S/o Perka Devaiah, Age: 23 years,

All are R/o Rangampalli village, Pedapalli mandal of Karimnagar district.

(Plaintiffs No.6 to 8 are added as legal heirs of plaintiff No.2 vide order

dt: 5-12-2007 in IA.No. 1271/2007. (Plaintiffs No.8 to 11 are added as

legal heirs of plaintiff No.3 vide orders dt: 22-09-2008 in IA.No.

862/2008) 12.Perka Shanthamma w/o late Mallaiah, age: 70 yrs, household lady, 13.Perka Eshwar s/o Late Mallaiah (died his LRs 14 and 15) 14.Perka Shruti d/o Late Eshwar, age: 12 yrs, (minor under guardianship of Natural grandmother i.e., plaintiff NO.12 Perka Shanthamma w/o late Mallaiah) 15.Perka Prathima d/o Late Eshwar, age: 9 yrs, (minor under guardianship of Natural grandmother i.e., plaintiff NO.12 Perka Shanthamma w/o late Mallaiah) 16.Perka Sampath s/o Late Mallaiah, age: 41 yrs, occ: Labour, 17.Perka Shankar s/o Late Mallaiah, age: 27 yrs, occ: Labour, 18.Karangal Laxmi d/o Late Mallaiah, w/o Karangal Rajalingu, age: 44 yrs, house hold, all are r/o Rangampalli village, Peddapalli mandal and district. ( As per order in IA 170 of 2018 dt: 21.3.2018 the plaintiff No.

12 to 18 are added as L.Rs.) 2 OS No. 43 of 2008 19.Perka Durgamma w/o late Perka Devaiah, age: 60 yrs, house-hold, r/o

Rangampalli v/o Peddapalli mandal and district.

(As per order in IA No. 193 of 2018 dt: 21.03.2018 the plaintiff No.19 added as LRs) 20.Kampalli Anjamma w/o Sadaiah, age: 32 yrs, occ: house hold r/o

Kothapalli v/o Peddapalli mandal and district.

(As per order in IA No. 197 of 2018 dt: 21.03.2018 the plaintiff No.20

added as LRs). ...Plaintiffs.

A N D 1.Vaida Mallaiah, S/o Venkati, Age: 60 years, R/o Rangampalli V/o Peddapalli Mandal. 2.Chirra Ram Linga Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy (Died ) R/o Rangampalli V/o Peddapalli Mandal. 3.Chirra Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Age: 54 years, R/o Rangampalli V/o Peddapalli Mandal. 4.Nadiveddi Kishtaiah, S/o Late Laxmi Rajam, R/o Near Vegetable Market, Srirampur Colony, ( Died ). 5.Nadiveddi Mallesham, S/o Late Laxmi Rajam, Age: 32 years, R/o Ashoknagar locality of Godavarikhani town.

6.Nadiveddi Shankar, S/o Late Laxmi Rajam, Age: 26 years, R/o Somagudem V/o Mandamarri Mandal.

7.Nadiveddi Srinivas, S/o Late Kishtaiah, Age: 25 years, R/o Rangampalli V/o Peddapalli Mandal. 8.Smt. Padma W/o Rajanna, (Sarpanch ), Age: 22 years, /o Singireddipalli V/o Kamanpur mandal. 9.Nadivelli Radha W/o Kishtaiah, Age: 40 years, R/o Rangampalli V/o Peddapalli Mandal. ( Defendants No.7 to 9 L.Rs ofe Defendant No.4 added as per the orders, Dated 30-06-2008 in I.A.No. 1272/2007 ). 10.Sri Ramoji Devendramma W/o Narayana Chary, Age: 40 years, R/o H.No.32/A, Rangampalli V/o Peddapalli Mandal.

11.Kailasa Srinivas, S/o Nagabhushanam, Age: 35 years, R/o H.No. 4-2-135/4, Rajiv Road, Peddapalli. 12.Gourishetti Bharathi W/o Dayakar, , Age: 30 years, R/o H.No. 4-2- 140/5/A, Kunaram road, Peddapalli Mandal. 13.Bajjuri Santhosh, S/o Venkateshwarlu, Age: 29 years, R/o H.No.2- 1-42, Ammar Nagar, Peddapalli Mandal. 14.Vavilala Rajeshwar Rao S/o Bheem Rao, Age: 32 years, R/o Nitturu V/o Peddapalli Mandal. 15.Gnadu Mallaiah, S/o Jogaiah, Age: 38 years, R/o H.No.3-30, Kachapur V/o Julapalli Mandal. 16.Madasu Uma Rani W/o Venkateshwar Rao, Age: 35 years, R/o H.No.32-1-5, Peddapalli. 17. Sorupaka Narsaiah S/o Ellaiah, Age: 27 years, R/o H.No.3-30, Kachapur V/o Julapalli Mandal. 18.Kontam Gopi Krishna S/o Papaiah, Age: 33 years, R/o H.No.1-3- 189, Old Bus Stand, Karimnagar. 19.Nugilla Kanakaiah S/o Chandraiah, Age: 39 years, R/o H.No.2-1- 291, Amar Nagar, Peddapalli. 20.Balasani Manjula W/o Ellaiah, Age: 32 years, R/o H.No.3-30, Kachapur V/o Julapalli Mandal. 21.Koneti Srinivas, S/o Rajesham, Age: 32 years, R/o H.No.2-1-222, Peddapalli.

3 OS No. 43 of 2008 22.Veluturi Ravinder, S/o Komuraiah, Age: 35 years, R/o Vennampalli V/o Srirampur Mandal. 23.Gandam Rajaiah S/o Veeramallu, Age: 40 years, R/o Upparapalli V/o Odela Mandal. 24.Velthuri Swamy S/o Raj Gattaiah, Age: 36 years, R/o Vennampalli V/o Srirampur Mandal. 25.Thatipamula Rajanarsaiah S/o Venkata Rajam, Age: 35 years, R/o H.No.3-133, Kannala, V/o Kamanpur Mandal. 26.Kengerla Kanakaiah, S/o Venkati, Age: 40 years, R/o Eligaidu village and Mandal. 27.Dadde Bhoomaiah, S/o Laxmaiah, Age: 45 years, R/o Odela Mandal. 28.Keshetty Srinivas, S/o Chandraiah, Age: 38 years, R/o Peddakalvala V/o Peddapalli Mandal 29.Valuka Hanmanthu, S/o Bhoomaiah, Age: 40 years, R/o Botlavanaparthi V/o Dharmaram Mandal. 30.Laxetti Raj Kishore, S/o Prakash, Age: 35 years, R/o 8 Incline Colony, Godavarikhani. 31.Badrapu Thirupathi S/o Rajamouli, Age: 30 years, r/o Nagaram, Post: Vavilala, V/o Jammikunta Mandal. 32.Badrapu Soujanya W/o Thirupathi, Age: 22 years, R/o Nagaram, Post: Vavilala, V/o Jammikunta Mandal. 33.Katukuri Srinivas, S/o Mallaiah, Age: 33 years, R/o Qtr. No.T2-129, ( New ) 8 Incline Colony. 34.Mitta Gangaiah, S/o. Rajam, Age: 40 years, R/o. Chandapalli, V/o. Peddapalli mandal. 35.Sheelarapu Kanakaiah, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 39 years, R/o Kothapalli V/o. Peddapally Mandal. 36.Shanigarapu Mondaiah, S/o. Sammaiah Age: 39 years, R/o Pothkapalli V/o. Odela Mandal. 37.Matoori Mallaiah, S/o. Salaiah, Age: 40 years, R/o H.No.7-4-178, Bapujinagar, Godavarikhani. 38.Kalval Shyamaiah, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 42 years, R/o Pachunoor V/o. Manakondur Mandal. 39.Mudrakola Komuraiah, S/o. Nagulu, Age: 42 years, r/o Gangaram V/o. Srirampur Mandal. 40.Mudrakola Thirupathi, S/o Nagulu, Age: 42 years, r/o Gangaram V/o. Srirampur Mandal. 41.Mudrakola Kumaraswamy S/o Swamy, Age: 38 years, r/o Gangaram V/o. Srirampur Mandal. 42.P. Sudhakar, S/o. Narahari, Age: 35 years, r/o H.NO.6-37, Annaram V/o. Manakondur Mandal. 43.Mudrakola Sammaiah, S/o. Narayana, Age: 40 years, r/o Gangaram V/o. Srirampur Mandal. 44.Peyyala Sammaiah, S/o. Narayana, Age: 42 years, r/o Qtr No.T2- 13, G.M. Colony, Godavarikhani. 45.Konda Anil Kumar, S/o. Nagaiah, Age: 29 years, r/o H.No.1-2-27, Opp: LIC Office, Peddapalli. 46.Vaddepally Balnarsaiah, S/o. Ram Narayana, Age: 45 years, r/o H.No.4-3-6/4, Peddapalli. 47.Kamatala Basawaiah, S/o. Narayana, Age: 55 years, r/o H.No.4-5- 32, Subashnagar, Peddapalli. 48.Maddela Shankaraiah, S/o. Ashalu, Age: 40 years, r/o Ryakaldevpalli, V/o. Eligaidu Mandal. 49.Kothireddy Raji Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Age: 42 years, r/o H.No.8-64, Bhagathsingh Nagar, B-Zone, Ramakrishnapur, Mandamarri 50.Thota Shankar, s/o. Balaiah, Age: 45 years, R/o. H.No.2-1-139, Pragathinagar, Peddapalli. 51.Sundaragiri Ramanamma, W/o. Pocham, Age: 48 years, r/o.Qtr.No.768, Shivajinagar, Ramakrishnapur.

4 OS No. 43 of 2008 52.Kalaveni Rajamouli, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 39 years, R/o. Kothapalli v/o. Peddapalli Mandal. 53.Puli Rajeshwari, W/o. Mallesham, Age: 35 years, R/o. H.No.13-2- 231/1, Vittalnagar, Godavarikhani. 54.Podila Kumaraswamy, S/o. Gangulu, Age: 34 years, R/o. H.No.2-1- 25/3, Amarnagar, Peddapalli. 55.Podila Venkatesham, S/o. Kanakaiah, Age: 40 years, R/o. H.No.2-1- 25/4, Amarnagar, Peddapalli. 56.Kondaparthy Narendra Swamy, S/o. Buchaiah, Age: 35 years, R/o. H.No.14-3-58, Vittalnagar, Peddapalli. 57.Emmadishetty Mallesham, s/o. Narsaiah, Age: 45 years, R/o.H.No.3- 1-120, Main Road, Peddapalli. 58.Rendla Srinivas, s/o. Bhoomaiah, Age: 35 years, R/o.Kalvacherla V/o. Kamanpur Mandal. 59.Gundla Venkataswamy, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 35 years, R/o.H.No.2- 1-48, Pragathinagar, Peddapalli. 60.Baisa Balaji, S/o. Babu, Age: 40 years, R/o. H.No.3-2-81, Thilaknagar, Peddapalli. 61.Bandari Nambaiah, S/o. Rathnaiah, Age: 49 years, R/o. D-2333, Tilaknagar, Godavarikhani. 62. Chirra Ravindra Reddy, s/o. Ram Reddy, Age: 38 years, R/o. Rangampalli V/o. Peddapalli mandal. 63. Bandari Eshwar s/o late Bandari Nambaiah, age: 27 yrs, occ: Business r/o D-2333, Ilaknagar, Godavarikhani of Ramagundam mandal of Peddapalli district. (As per order in IA 199 of 2018, dt: 21.3.2018, the defendant No.63 added as L.R.) 64. Vaida Kanthamma w/o late Mallaiah, age: 80 yrs, (wife) 65. Vaida Mohan s/o late Vaida Mallaiah, age: 59 yrs, (son) 66. Kanka Laxmi w/o Venkataiah, age:60 yrs, (daughter) 67. Velpula Rajeshwari w/o Mallaiah, age: 46 yrs, ( daughter) all r/o Rangampalli v/o Peddapalli mandal and District. (As per order in IA 21 of 2018 dt: 21.7.2018 the defendants No.64 to 67 are L.Rs of defendant No.1)

*Note:- D2 died and his LR is D3, D4 died and his LRs are D7 to D9,

D61 died and his LR is D63.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 21.07.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Mallaiah, counsel for the Plaintiffs No. 1 to 20, Sri K.Gopal Reddy, counsel for defendants No.1, D3, D5 to D9 and D65, Sri Kiran Singh, Counsel for the defendants D13, D14, D15, D19, D21, D28, D39, D40, D41, D42, D43, D46, D53, D54, D55 and D59, and Sri P.Rameshwar Rao, counsel for the defendants No.D20, D25, D26, D29, D48, D49, D58, D63, and D11, D17, D18, D22, D23, D24, D31, D32,

D34, D38, D45, D47, D50, D51, D56, D57, D60, D62, D64, D66, D67

remained exparte, and D10, D12, D16, D27, D30, D33, D35, D36, D37, D44, D52 suit against them was dismissed for default,upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following: -

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs No.1 to 20 against the defendants

No.1 to 67 for the relief of declaration of title over the suit schedule property and for recovery of the possession of suit land measuring Ac. 4-30 gts in

Sy.No. 21 of Rangampalli, v/o Peddapalli mandal.

5 OS No. 43 of 2008 2.The case of the plaintiffs as could be seen from the plaint averments in brief is that the plaintiffs NO.1 to 5 are the sons of late Perka

Durgaiah s/o Pochaiah and he died in the month of September, 1992 and said Perka Durgaiah was the owner and possessor of the dry land measuring

Ac. 4-30 gts in Sy.No. 21 of Rangampally v/o Peddapalli mandal fully described in the suit Schedule-A. The said Perka Durgaiah was a poor and illiterate man and belonging to Madiga caste and the suit land is a unfertile fallow land and he and his family were facing starvation and on that he obtained loan of rupees three hundred, seven bags of paddy and (3) bags of

Maize from the defendant NO.1 and his brother late Vaida Veeraiah who were the members of joint family, by mortgaging the suit land in their favour about 43 to 44 years back and said Perka Durgaiah executed a mortgage deed in the name of Vaida Veeraiah who was the elder brother and Kartha of the family, in the presence of Perka Pedda Narsaiah, Perka Hanmaiah and

Mamidipelli Lingaiah of Rangampalli village and said mortgage deed was handed over to late Vaida Veeraiah and is in possession of the defendant.

They further stated that about four years after making said mortgage, said late Vaida Veeraiah separated from his brother, the defendant No.1 and joined as an employee in Singareni colleries company at Godavarikhani and about five years after making the said mortgage, late Perka Durgaiah offered to repay the loan obtained by him to the defendant No.1 several times as he was managing the properties at village Rangampally, but he evaded from receiving the loan amount and for returning the mortgage deed, on the ground that his brother Vaida Veeraiah was not available in the village and he told late Perka Durgaiah to wait for the return of his brother Vaida

Veeraiah to the village and later the said Perka Durgaiah died, without redeeming the mortgage made by him. The mortgaged amount stands discharged, since the plaintiffs are enjoying the possession of the suit land, however the plaintiffs are ready to pay mortgage amount if the court directs.

6 OS No. 43 of 2008 3.They further contends that in or about the years 1996, the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of said Perka Durgaiah offered to repay the loan to the defendant No.1 and demanded him to return the mortgaged deed, but the defendant No.1 refused to do so, at that time the plaintiffs learnt that the defendant No.1 in collusion with brother-in-law later

Nadiveddi Laxmi Rajam and defendant No. Chira Jagan Mohan Reddy, fabricated some documents purporting to have been executed by late Perka

Durgaiah under which it is alleged that said Perka Durgaiah sold Ac. 1-20 gts out of suit land in favour of said later Nadiveddi Laxmi Rajam, Ac. 2-10 gts out of the suit land in favour of the defendant No.2 and Ac. 1-00 gts out of the suit land in favour of the defendants No.1 to 3 and later Nadiveddi Laxmi

Rajam and he did not execute any sale deed in their faovur and the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by late Perka Durgaiah are forged and they are not genuine and the defendant No.2 went to United State of

America in the year 1970 and returned to India in the year 1985 and he never purchased any land from late Perka Durgaiah and never came into contact with the D2 and late Nadiveddi Laxmi Rajam who does not belongs to Rangampalli village and he never sold any part of suit land in their favour.

They also learnt in the year 1996, the defendant No.1 to 3 and late

Nadiveddi Laxmi Rajam, colluded with the Patwari of the village and managed to tamper the entries in the pahani patrikas in support of their false claim of purchase. The defendant No.3 managed to forge a false certificate, as if the Tahsildhar Peddapalli issued a certificate on 5.10.1971 validating the sale of Ac. 2-20 gts out of the suit land alleged to have been executed by late Perka Durgaiah in favour of the defendant NO.2, in fact there were no proceedings on the file of Tahasildar, Peddapalli in respect of said Validation and no notice was served on late Perka Durgaiah in such proceedings if any and after knowing about the same, the plaintiff No.5 approached the Revenue Divisional officer, Peddapalli and filed an application before him in the year 1997 complaining about said fabrication of records and requested him to take action and to restore the possession of 7 OS No. 43 of 2008 the suit land to the legal heir of Late Perka Durgaiah and the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Peddapally himself did not make any enquiry upon the said representation, without any notice to the plaintiffs, he called for the report from Mandal revenue officer, the defendants 1 to 3 and later

Nadiveddi Laxmi Rajam won over the MRO Peddapalli and got a false report sent to the Revenue Divisional officer in their favour on 22.08.1998, basing on the said report, the application filed by them was dismissed by the

Revenue Divisional officer Peddapalli on 3.11.2000 in File No. B/3112/08 and the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the said order dt; 3.11.2000 before the

Collector, Karimnagar which is still pending in the file No. F1/50/2000. As the defendants are denying the title of the plaintiffs and their father over the suit land, and the Revenue officers are not competent to decide the question of title and they approached this court for the redressal of their grievance.

Late Nadiveddi Laxmi Rajam died during the pendency of the said appeal

before the collector, the defendants No.4 to 6 are his sons and legal

representatives therefore they are impleaded in this suit. The name of the pattedar of the suit land is being recorded as ‘Perka Durgaiah s/o Pochaiah” in all the pahanies continuously from 1955-56 till now. Only from the year 1995-96 the name of the defendant No.2 “Chirra Ram Linga Reddy” is being added along with Perka Dugaiah as pattedar, surreptitiously in the pahanies from the year 1995-96 onwards. The names of the defendants No.3 to 6 or late Nadiveedi laxmi Rajam are not recorded as pattedars of suit land in any pahani till now and the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land described in the plaint schedule. The defendants have no rights or title therein and the suit land has been follow since last more than 40 years. The possession recorded in the pahani patrikas for the village is not true and genuine, such possession, if any, is only permissive possession as late Perka Durgaiah originally mortgaged the suit land with the defendant No.1 and his brother late Vaida Veeraiah about 43 to 44 years back and the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the reliefs that they are owners of the suit land and for recovery of possession of the suit land. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs 8 OS No. 43 of 2008 came to know that the defendant No.1 to 9 have sold away suit properties in favour of the defendant No.10 to 62, immediately on coming to know about the illegal sales by the defendant NO.1 to 9 and they have filed the petition in IA.No. 69 of 2009 for impleading the subsequent purchasers i.e., defendants No.10 to 62. The plaintiffs are indigent persons and they have no means to pay the required court fee. The plaintiff No.5 is working as sunkari and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1,200/-, the said amount is not sufficient ever for providing food for his family members, the plaintiffs are having only the movables in their possession which are specifically mentioned in the schedule B. the plaintiffs have no other assets and the plaintiffs are not in a position to pay the required court fee, hence the plaintiffs may be permitted to file the suit as indigent persons. Hence the suit.

4.As seen from the record, and as per the office note, the defendants No.11, D17, D18, D22, D23, D24, D31, D32, D34, D38, D45, D47,

D50, D51, D56, D57, D60, D62, D64, D66, D67 are remained exparte, and suit against defendant No.10, D12, D16, D27, D30, D33, D35, D36, D37,

D44, D52 was dismissed due to compromise with the plaintiffson 17.09.2014 and 29.04.2015.

5.The defendants No.1, 3, 5 to 9 entered appearance and filed written statement and D65 filed adoption memo denying the material averments in the plaint and stated that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule property and there is no mortgage deed executed by

Perka Durgaiah and the plaintiffs did not give the date of execution of the said mortgage deed and in which month and year it was executed in favour of Vaida Veeraiah except throwing the burden on Vaida Veeraiah stating that the original mortgage deed is with him and the plaintiffs taken a false plea that they are ready to pay the mortgage amount if this court directs, but in fact when there is no mortgage transaction the question of redemption of 9 OS No. 43 of 2008 mortgage by repaying the loan amount does not arise. The defendant No.1 was the owner and possessor of Ac. 1-00 gts of land in Sy.No. 21 having purchased the same from Perka Durgaiah under a simple sale deed, dt:

30.04.1966 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,350/-, the said Durgaiah put him in possession of the same and having acquired the property under an unregistered document, the defendant No.1 submitted a claim before the

M.R.O., Peddapalli under R.O.R., Act to record his name by regularizing the purchase made by him. Accordingly, the MRO., Peddapalli conducted enquiry in the said claim vide File No. ROR/45/89 and allowed the claim on 06.11.2003 by collecting stamp duty and penalty from him and basing on that the M.R.O., Peddapalli issued Certificates U/sec. 13-B and 13-C of R.O.R.

Act and subsequently, the defendant No.1 was issued pattadar passbook and title deed book with patta No. 69. The name of the defendant No.1 has been shown in the possession column of the pahanies since the date of purchase by him and the proceedings under R.O.R. Act became final and these plaintiffs did not challenge the same by filing appeal or revision till today. They further contends that the defendant No.2 Chirra Ramalinga

Reddy purchased land measuring Ac. 2-10 gts, in Sy.No. 21 from Perka

Durgaiah under a simple sale deed, dt: 19.3.1967 for a sale considerationi of

Rs. 1,400/- by delivering possession to him and the purchase of the said land was regularized under sub section 2 of Sec. 50 (B) of A.P. Telangana and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 by collecting required stamp duty and penalty from him vide proceedings issued in File No. D.Dis.No. B2/7716/70, dt:

08.10.1971 by the then Tahsildar, Peddapalli, basing on the said document, the name of the defendant No.2 was recorded in the revenue records and he was issued with pattadar passbook and title deed book and the said proceedings became final and the plaintiff and Perka Durgaiah did not challenge them by filing appeal or revision. Likewise, Nadiveddi

Laxmirajam, who is the ancestor of defendants No.4 to 9, purchased an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts, of land in Sy.No. 21 from Perka Durgaiah under a simple sale deed, dt: 22.9.1961 for a sale consideration of Rs. 500/- and the 10 OS No. 43 of 2008 said Perka Durgaiah having received the sale consideration executed the same by delivering possession of the said land to Laxmirajam and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of it till his death. The said

Laxmirajam filed a claim before the recording Authority, i.e., M.R.O.,

Peddapalli under the provisions of R.O.R. Act in R.O.R. file No. 46/89 to record his name in the revebnue records basing on the said simple sale deed. The

MRO Peddapalli caused enquiry into the claim and issued certificates U/sec.

13-B and 13-C of ROR Act dt: 6.1.2003 by collecting required stamp duty and penalty and issued pattadar passbook and title deed book No. 314094 with patta No. 234 and the name of the said laxmirajam is recorded in the pahanies since the date of purchase and after his death, the defendants

No.4 to 9 succeeded to the said property and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and for the last more than 45 years, the suit land has never been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs or their ancestors and Perka Durgaiah delivered possession of the same about 45 years back.

6.They further contends that the plaintiffs made an application to the RDO., Peddapalli in file No. B/31/2/98 stating that these defendants and

Ram Linga Reddy managed to get their names entered in the pahanies by fabricating some documents and on the said application, the RDO., called for report from the MRO., Peddapalli who gave his report stating that Perka

Durgaiah sold the suit land to the defendants NO.1 and 2 and Laxmirajam by executing simple sale deeds in their favour long back and their names are recorded in the pahanies in the occupant column. Basing on the said report, the RDO., dismissed the claim made by the plaintiffs on 3.11.2000 and against the dismissal of the said claim, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal

before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar in File No. F1/50/2000 challenging the

said orders. After hearing both sides the learned Joint Collector, Karimnagar was pleased to dismiss the said appeal confirming the orders passed by the

RDO., Peddapalli holding that the defendants NO.1 and 2 and Laxmirajam purchased the property for valuable sale consideration and the plaintiffs 11 OS No. 43 of 2008 made a false claim before the authority. Against the said orders also, the plaintiffs filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in W.P. No.

19175/2003 which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble single Judge of the

Hon’ble High Court of AP against which, the plaintiffs filed writ appeal

bearing No. 434/2005 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of AP and Hon’ble

Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy on 5.3.2005 confirming the orders of the Joint collector, Karimnagar. Having lost the litigations filed by them for the last more than ten years, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit with a malafide intention to claim rights over the property. They further contends that

N.Laxmirajam and one Vaida Nambaiah are owners of land to an extent of

Ac. 3-00 gts, in Sy.No. 22 of Rangampalli village. The suit Sy.NO. And Sy.No.

22 adjoins each other and form one compact plot, therefore, the defendant

No.1, 2 Laxmirajam and Vaida Nambaiah have prepared a Layout demarcating (111) house sites plots in the total area of Ac. 7-30 gts., (Ac. 4- 30 gts, + Ac. 3-00 gts) by forming internal roads, which is duly approved by the Sarpanch, Grampanchayath Rangampalli village. Subsequenly they have sold away the said plots to different persons by executing registered sale deeds. Some of the purchasers who purchased plots from them have already constructed houses in the plots which are now in existence on the plots. The plaintiffs are never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for the last more than 45 years and the claim that the defendants have illegally occupied the same is created for the purpose of filing the suit. The suit claim is barred by limitation and the plaintiffs are out of possession of the property for the last more than 45 years and the defendants No.1 & 2 and Laxmirajam having purchased the suit schedule property are in possession of it with the knowledge of Perka Durgaiah and the plaintiffs and they have never challenged their possession and enjoyment over it and they have also perfected their title by virtue of adverse possession. The plaintiffs did not produce any document to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of it during the last more than 45 12 OS No. 43 of 2008 years and therefore prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

7.The defendants No.13, 29 and 55 entered appearance and filed written statements and D14, D15, D19, D21, D29, D39, D40, D41, D42, D43,

D46, D53, D54 and D59 filed adoption memo by adopting the written statement of D55 and denying the material averments in the plaint and they stated that the defendant No.1 was the owner and possessor of Ac. 1-00 gts land in Sy.No. 21 situated at Rangamaplli village of Peddapalli mandal having purchased the same from Perka Duraiah under simple sale dt: 30.4.1966 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1350/- and the said Perka Durgaiah after receiving the sale consideration amount from the defendant No.1 delivered the vacant possession of the land and after purchasing the property under unregistered document submitted a claim before the MRO Peddapalli under

ROR Act to record his name by regularizing the purchase made by him, after due enquiry allowed the claim vide file No. ROR/45/89 dt: 6.11.2003 by collecting requisite stamp duty and penalty from D1 and on basing that the

MRO Peddapalli issued certificate under section 13-B and 13-C of ROR Act and subsequently the D1 was issued pattedar pass book and title deed book with patta No. 69 and the name of the D1 has been shown in the possession column of the pahanies since the date of purchase from Perka Durgaiah.

The defendant No.2 Chirra Ram Linga Reddy purchased the land measuring

Ac. 2-10 gts in Sy.No. 21 from Perka Durgaiah under a simple sale deed dt:

19.3.1967 for a sale consideration fo Rs. 1400/- and the purchase of the land was regularized under sub-section 2 of Sec. 50(B) of AP, Telangana and agriculture lands Act 1950 by collecting required stamp duty and penalty from him vide proceedings issued in file No. Dis.No. B2/7716/70 dt:

8.10.1971 by the then Tahasildar Peddapalli, basing on the said document the name of the D2 was recorded in the revenue records and he was issued with pattedar pass book and title deed book. He further contends that

Nadiveddi Laxmirajam who is the ancestor of Defendant No. 4 to 9 purchased land to an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts in Sy.No. 21 from Perka Durgaiah under simple sale deed dt: 22.09.1961 by paying valuable sale consideration 13 OS No. 43 of 2008 amount of Rs. 500/- and said Perka Durgaiah delivered the vacant possession of the land to Laxmirajam and he filed a claim before the MRO

Peddapalli and after conducting eqnuiry issued 13-B, 13-C certificates dt; 6.1.2003 by collecting the requisite stamp duty and penalty and issued pattedar pass book and title deed book No. 314094 with patta No. 234 and after his death defendant No.4 to 9 succeeded to the said property. He further contends that the plaintiffs made an application to the RDO

Peddapalli vide file No. B/31/2/98 stating that this defendants and Ram Linga

Reddy managed to get their names entered into the phanies by fabricating some documents and on the said application the RDO Peddapalli called for report from the MRO Peddapalli who gave his report stating that Perka

Durgaiah sold the suit land to the defendant No.1 and 2 and Nadiveddi

Laxmirajam by executing simple sale deeds in their favour long back and their names are recorded in the pahanies in the occupant column, basing on the said report the RDO Peddapalli dismissed the claim made by the plaintiffs on 3.11.2000 and against the dismissal of the said claim the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector Karimnagar in File No.

F1/50/2000 challenging the said order and the Joint Collector Karimnagar after hearing both sides was pleased to dismiss the said appeal confirming the orders passed by the RDO Peddapalli and against the said orders the plaintiffs filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of AP in WPNo.

19175 of 2003 which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of AP

High Court and again the plaintiffs filed writ appeal against the single judge order vide writ appeal No. 434 of 2005 which was also dismissed by the

Division Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of AP and the

Hon’ble Justice B.Sheshasayana Reddy on 5.3.2005 confirming the orders of

Joint Collector Karimnagar. Having lost the litigations filed by them for the last more than 10 years the plaintiffs have filed the present suit with a malafide intention to claim right over the property.

8.He further contends that N.laxmirajam and one Vaida Nambaiah are owners of land measuring to an extent of Ac. 3-00 gts in Sy.No. 22 of 14 OS No. 43 of 2008

Rangampalli village of Peddapalli mandal and the suit survey number and

Sy.No.22 are adjacent to each other and form compact block, therefore the defendants No.1, 2, Laxmirajam and Vaida Nambaiah have prepared a layout demarcating 111 house site plots in the total area of Ac. 7-30 gts which includes Ac.4-30 gts of land in suit schedule property by forming internal roads which is duly approved by the sarpanch G.P.Rangampalli village.

9.The vendor of the defendant No.13, 14, 19 & 28 by name

Kamatala Basavaiah purchased land measuring total extent of 10890 Sq.

yds in Sy.No. 21 which is part of the suit schedule property from D2 Chirra

Ram Linga Reddy through agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney bearing document No. 1962/2005 dt: 28.4.2005 by paying valuable sale consideration. Out of the total land of 10890 Sq. yds of Kamatala Basvaiah the defendant No.13 purchased plot No. 48 measuring to an extent of 223.45 Sq.yds in Sy.No. 21 situated at Rangampally village of Peddapalli mandal through registered sale deed bearing Doc.No. 1629 of 2009 dt:

13.5.2009 by paying valuable sale consideration and the vendor of the defendant No.13 Kamatala Basavaiah after receiving valuable sale consideration amount delivered vacant possession of the land to the D13 on the same day and since the date of purchase the D13 is in possession of the property. The D14 purchased plot No. 74 & 75 measuring to an extent of 518.26 Sq. yds in Sy.No. 21 situated at Rangampally village of Peddapalli mandal from his vendor kamatala Basvaiah through registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 1628 of 2009 dt: 13.5.2009 by paying valuable sale consideration. The defendant No.19 purchased plot No. 98 measuring to an extent of 233.33 Sq. yds in Sy.No. 21 situated at Rangampalli village of

Peddapalli mandal from his vendor Kamatala Basvaiah through registered sale deed bearing doc. No. 6785 of 2007 dt: 07.12.2007 by paying valuable sale consideration. The defendant No.28 purchased the land measuring to an extent of 266 Sq. yds in Sy.No. 21 situated at Rangamaplly village of

Peddapalli mandal from his vendor Kamatala Basvaiah through registered sale deed B.Doc.No.4621 of 2006 dt: 27.09.2006 by paying valuable sale 15 OS No. 43 of 2008 consideration. The defendant No.13,14,19 & 28 along with other defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and the suit claim is barred by limitation as the plaintiffs are out of the possession of the property for more than 45 years and the plaintiffs did not produce any document to show that their father mortgaged the suit land the defendant No.1 & 2 and others and they have not filed any document to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land during the last 45 years. The defendant

No.13,14,19 & 28 along with other defendants are bonafide purchasers and they have purchased the property from defendant No.1, 2 and Laxmirajam through his GPA Kamatala Basvaiah by paying valuable sale consideration and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

10.The defendant No.29 contends that the vendor of the defendant

No.25,26 & 29 by name Kamatala Basvaiah purchased land measuring total extent of 10890 Sq.yds in Sy.No. 21 which is part of the suit schedule property from defendant No.2, Chirra Ramlinga Reddy through agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney B.doc.No. 1962/2005, dt: 28.4.2005 by paying valuable sale consideration. Out of the total land of 10890 Sq. yds of

Kamatala Basvaiah the defendant No.25 purchased plot No.49 measuring to an extent of 217.08 Sy.No.21 situated at Rangampally villageof Peddapally

Mandal through registered sale deed bearing doc.No. 6118/2006 dt:

11.12.2006 bypaying valuable sale consideration and the vendor of the defendant No.25 Kamatala Basavaiah after receiving valuable sale consideration amount, delivered vacant possession of the land to the defendant No.25 on the same day and since the date of purchase the defendant No.25 is in possession of the property. The defendant No.26 purchased the land measuring to an extent of 257.63 Sq.yds in schedule-A and 240.16 sq.yds in schedule-B, in Sy.no. 21 situated at Rangampalli village of Peddapalli mandal from his vendor, kamatala Basvaiah through Regd. Sale deed bearing Doc.No. 5995/2006, dt: 1.12.2006 by paying valuable sale consideration. The defendant No.29 purchased measuring to an extent of 219.16 sq.yds in Sy.No. 21 situated at Rangampalli village of Peddapalli 16 OS No. 43 of 2008 mandal from his vendor Kamatala Basvaiah through registered sale deed bearing No. 4385/2006, dt: 18.9.2006, by paying valuable sale consideration. The defendant No.48 purchased measuring to an extent of 270 sq.yds in Sy.No. 21 situated at Rangampalli village of Peddapalli mandal from his vendor Vaida Mallaiah through registered sale deed bearing No.

1619/2005, dt: 11.4.2005, by paying valuable sale consideration. The defendant No.49 purchased measuring to an extent of 216 sq.yds in Sy.No.

21 situated at Rangampalli village of Peddapalli mandal from his vendor

Nadiveddu Kisaiah, Mallesham and Shankraiah through registered sale deed bearing No. 314/2005, dt: 28.1.2005, by paying valuable sale consideration.

The defendant No.58 purchased measuring to an extent of 270 sq.yds in

Sy.No. 21 situated at Rangampalli village of Peddapalli mandal from his vendor Vaida Mallaiah through registered sale deed bearing No. 4874/2004,

dt: 09.11.2004, by paying valuable sale consideration. The defendant

No.25, 26, 29, 48, 49 and 58 along with other defendants are bonafide purchasers and they have purchased the property from defendant No.1, 2 and Laxmirajam through his GPA Kamatala Basvaiah and defendants No.4,5 6 and Vaida Mallaiah by paying valuable sale consideration and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

11.The defendant No.55 contends that the vendor of the defendant

No.21, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 46 by name Kamatala Basvaiah purchased land measuring total extent of 10890 Sq. yds in Sy.No. 21 which is part of the suit schedule property from defendant No. 2 Chirra Ram Linga Reddy through agreement of slae cum General power of attorney bearing document No.

1962/2005 dt: 28.4.2005 by paying valuable sale consideration and out of total land of 10890 Sq.yds the said Kamatala Basvaiah sold land measuring to an extent of 210 sq.yds through registered sale deed bearing doc. No. 810 of 2007 dt: 13.2.2007 by receiving valuable sale consideration and delivered vacant possession of the land tot he D21 on the same day. He further contends that the said Kamatala Basavaiah also sold land measuring to an extent of 256.66 Sq. yds to the defendant No.39 & 40 out of his land of 17 OS No. 43 of 2008 10890 Sq. yds through regd. Sale deed bearing doc. No. 2251 of 2005 dt:

30.4.2005 by receiving valuable sale consideration and delivered vacant possession of the property to the defendant No.39 & 40 and since the date of purchase the defendant No. 39 & 40 are in peaceful possession of the property. The said Kamatala Basavaiah also sold land measuring to an extent of 233.33 Sq. yds to the defendant No.41 out of his land of 10890 Sq.

yds through regd. Sale deed bearing doc. No. 2250 of 2005 dt: 30.4.2005 by receiving valuable sale consideration and delivered vacant possession of the property to the defendant No.41 and since the date of purchase the defendant No. 41 is in peaceful possession of the property. The said

Kamatala Basavaiah also sold land measuring to an extent of 256.66 Sq. yds to the defendant No.46 through regd. Sale deed bearing doc. No. 2007 of 2005 dt: 30.4.2005 by receiving valuable sale consideration and delivered vacant possession of the property to the defendant No.46 and since the date of purchase the defendant No. 46 is in peaceful possession of the property.

The defendant No.53 purchased land measuring to an extent of 229.16 Sq.

yds in Sy.No. 21 which is part of suit schedule property from her vendor defendant No.1 i.e., Vaida Mallaiah through registered sale deed bearing doc. No. 305 of 2005 dt: 28.1.2005 by paying valuable sale consideration and her vendor delivered vacant possession of the property to the defendant

No.53. The defendant No.54, 55 and one Mudurukola Rajaiah jointly purchased land measuring to an extent of 229.16 Sq. yds in Sy.No. 21 which is part of suit schedule property from her vendor defendant No.1 i.e., Vaida

Mallaiah through registered sale deed bearing doc. No. 304 of 2005 dt:

28.1.2005 by paying valuable sale consideration and her vendor delivered vacant possession of the property to the defendant No.54 and 55 and the said Mudurukola Rajaiah. The defendant No.59 purchased land measuring to an extent of 495.92 Sq. yds in Sy.No. 21 which is part of suit schedule property from her vendor defendant No.1 i.e., Vaida Mallaiah through registered sale deed bearing doc. No. 4818 of 2004 dt: 03.112004 by paying valuable sale consideration and her vendor delivered vacant possession of 18 OS No. 43 of 2008 the property to the defendant No.59. The defendant No.21, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 53, 54, 55 and 59 are in possession of the suit schedule property along with other purchasers. The suit claim is barred by limitation as the plaintiffs are out of possession of the property for more than 45 yrs. The plaintiffs did not produce any document to show that their father mortgaged the suit land the defendant No.1 & 2 and others. Further they have not filed any document to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land during the last 45 yrs and in the suit for declaration of title the onus is on the plaintiffs to prove that they are owner of the property and they can not claim title without any substantial documentary evidence and the plaintiff filed the present suit only with a malafide intention to blackmail the defendants and extort money from them and therefore prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

12. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiffs are having absolute right and title over the suit schedule property?

2.Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for ?

4. Whether the court fee mentioned in the plaint is correct ?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of suit schedule property ?

6. To what relief ?

13. ISSUE NO.1 & 3:-

In a suit for declaration of title, it is for the plaintiffs to establish their case as set out in the plaint by adducing oral and documentary evidence irrespective of the fact, whether the defendants adduced evidence to establish their case. The plaintiffs are expected to stand on the strength of their own case but not on the weakness of the defendants case.

14.The plaintiffs in order to establish their case got examined as

PW-1 to PW-12 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A32. The defendants got 19 OS No. 43 of 2008 examined DW1 to DW-6 and got marked Exs. B1 to B64 on their behalf.

15.According to the plaintiffs, the father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 namely Perka Durgaiah was died intestate in the month of February, 1994 and he was owner and possessor of the suit A-Schedule property and that he obtained a loan of Rs.300/-, seven bags of paddy and three bags of maize from the 1st defendant and his brother Vaida Veeraiah by mortgaging the suit land in their favour and the said late Vaida Veeraiah was the kartha of the joint family and 4 years after the said mortgage the said Vaida Veeraiah separated from first defendant and joined as an employee in Singareni

Colleries company Godavarikhani and later the said Perka Durgaiah offered to repay the loan amount to the first defendant, but the first defendant evaded to receive the loan amount by stating that his brother Vaida

Veeraiah was not available and the said Perka Durgaiah died without redeeming the mortgage and in the year 1996 the Legal Heirs of Perka

Durgaiah offered to pay the loan amount and demanded for return of the mortgage deed but the first defendant refused to do so and he in collusion with late Laxmirajam and D1 and Chirra Ramlingareddy fabricated some documents and claimed right and title over the suit schedule property and they colluded with the patwari and got tampered the entries in the pahani patrikas and D3 managed to create a false certificate from the Tahasildar

Peddapalli and issued a certificate on 05.10.1971 validate in the sale of Ac.

2-20 gts and on coming to know about the same, the plaintiff No.5 filed an application before RDO Peddapalli in the year 1997 by questioning the same and to restore the land to them and defendants No.1, 2 and late Nadividi

Laxmirajam managed the MRO Peddapalli and got send the false report to

RDO in their favour and on that the application filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed on 3.11.2000 before Joint Collector Karimnagar. They further contends that from year 1995-96, the name of the second defendant was added along with Perka Durgaiah as pattedar and they came to know that, the defendants No.1 to 9 sold away the suit properties in favour of D10 to 20 OS No. 43 of 2008

D62 and defendant No.10 to 62 purchase the plots in Sy.No.21 prior and after filing of the suit under different registered sale deeds and prays to declare the plaintiffs as the owners of the suit land and for recovery of the possession of the suit land by directing them to deliver the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs.

16.Per contra, the contention of the defendants is that the suit land is in their possession and enjoyment and defendants No.1, 2 and Nadiveddi

Laxmirajam purchased the suit A-schedule property from Perka Durgaiah and the land purchased by defendant NO.2 was regularized under 50-B of AP tenants Act basing on the sale deed executed by Perka Durgaiah and

Tahasildar Peddapalli issued validation certificate to an extent of Ac. 2-20 gts on 5.10.1971 and the sale deeds under which D1 and Nadivedi Laxmirajam purchased their land was also regularized and their names were recorded in pahanies since more than 55 years and subsequently being the owners and possessors, they sold the land to defendant No.47 and 50 who had demarcated the suit land into 110 house site plots and thereafter they sold the same to defendant No.10 to 67 and some of the purchasers constructed the buildings and grampanchayath Rangampalli allotted door numbers to them and imposed property tax and the total suit land is converted into residential area. They further contends that during the life time of Perka

Durgaiah they did not challenge the sale transaction made by him in favour of D1, D2 and Nadiveddi Laxmirajam and due to increase in land value, the plaintiffs filed the suit to extract money from them and interfering with the construction work made by some of the defendants. After the death of

Durgaiah in 1992, the plaintiffs filed a petition before RDO Peddapalli to rectify the entries in revenue records and cancel the pass books issued to the defendants and on that Tahasildar Peddapalli submitted report stating that Perka Durgaiah sold away the suit land to defendant No.1, 2 and

Nadiveddi Laxmirajam and on the said report and after hearing both the sides RDO Peddapalli passed orders holding that suit land made as patta land of Nadiveddi Durgaiah and granted patta to the inamdars with effect 21 OS No. 43 of 2008 from 28.7.1955 and the purchasers are in possession of suit land and on that RDO Peddapalli dismissed the application by holding that the defendant

No.1, 2 and Nadiveddi Laxmirajam are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and on that the plaintiffs preferred revision before Joint

Collector, Karimnagar and after hearing both sides, the said petition was dismissed on 19.05.2003 holding that Perka Durgaiah sold the property in the year 1961 and defendants are in possession of the same and again the plaintiffs filed writ petition before Hon’ble High Court, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed confirming the order of Joint Collector and again the plaintiffs filed writ appeal before Division bench of Hon’ble High Court,

Hyderabad and the same was also dismissed directing them to approach

before Joint Collector, Peddapalli and accordingly the Joint Collector

Peddapalli conducted enquiry and after hearing both sides dismissed the revision petition on 25.5.2019 by confirming the orders passed by the RDO

Peddapalli holding that the defendant No.1, 2 and Nadiveddi Laxmirajam purchase the suit land from Perka Durgaiah and are in possession of the same since more than 50 years and it is also held by the Joint Collector that the suit land became patta land of Perka Durgaiah and he sold the same to the defendants and therefore, the plaintiffs are not having right or title over the suit A-Schedule property.

17. PW-1/plaintiff No.5 in his chief affidavit stated that the plaintiff

No.1 to 4 are the sons of late Perka Durgaiah who died in the month of

September, 1992 and said Perka Durgaiah was the owner and possessor of the dry land measuring Ac.4.30 gts in Sy.No.21 of Rangampalli village and as he was not deriving any produce from the suit land and he and his family were facing starvation, he obtained loan rupees three hundred, seven bags of paddy and (3) bags of Maize from the Defendant No.1 and his brother late

Vaida Veeraiah who were the members of joint family, by mortgaging the suit land in their favour about 43 or 44 years back and said Perka Durgaiah executed a mortgage deed in the name of Vaida Veeraiah who was the elder brother and kartha of the family, in the presence of Perka Peda Narsaiah, 22 OS No. 43 of 2008

Perka Hanmaiah and Mamidipalli Lingaiah of Rangampalli village and said mortgage deed was handed over to late Vaida Veeraiah, and is in possession of the defendants. About four years after making said mortgage said late

Vaida Veeraiah separated from his brother the defendant NO.1 and joined as an employee in Singareni Colleries company at Godavarikhani and about five years after making mortgage, later Perka Durgaiah offered to repay the loan obtained by him, to the defendant No.1 several times, as he was managing the properties at Rangampalli village, but defendant No.1 evaded to receive the same for returning the mortgage deed on the ground that his brother Vaida Veeraiah was not available and later the said Perka Durgaiah died, without redeeming the mortgage made be him and the mortgaged amount stands discharged, since the plaintiffs are enjoying the possession of the suit land and the plaintiffs are ready to pay mortgaged amount, if this court directs. He further stated that in or about the year 1996, the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of said Perka Durgaiah offered to repay the loan to the defendant No.1 and demanded him to return the mortgage deed, but the defendant NO.1 refused to do so and at that time they learnt that the defendant Chirra Jagan Mohan Reddy, fabricated some documents purporting to have been executed by late Perka Durgaiah under which it is alleged that said late Nadiveddi Laxmi Rajam, Ac. 1-20 gts out of suit land in favour of said late Nadiveddi Laxmi Rajam and Ac. 2-10 gts out of the suit land in favour of defendant No.2 and Ac. 1-00 gts out of the suit land in favour of the defendant No.2 and Ac. 1-00 out of the suit land in favour of the defendant No.1 and in fact late Perka Durgaiah never sold any part of the suit land in favour of the defendant No.1 to 3 and late Nadiveddi Laxmi

Rajam and he did not execute any sale deed in their favour. The sale deeds alleged to have executed by late Perka Durgaiah are forged and they are not genuine documents. The D2 went to United States of America in the year 1970 and returned to India in the year 1985 and he never purchased any land from late Perka Durgaiah and never came into contact with the D2 and late Nadiveddi laxmi Rajam who does not belong to Rangampalli village and 23 OS No. 43 of 2008 he never sold any part of suit land in their favour.

18.He further stated that they came to know in the year 1996, the defendants No.1 to 3 and late laxmi Rajam colluded with the patwari of the village and got tampered the entries in pahani patrikas and the defendant

No.3 managed to forge a false certificate, as if the Tahsildhar peddapalli issued a certificate on 5.10.1971 validating the sale of Ac. 2-20 gts out of the suit land alleged to have been executed by late Perka Durgaiah in favour of the defendant NO.2, in fact there were no proceedings on the file of

Tahasildar, Peddapalli in respect of said Validation and no notice was served on late Perka Durgaiah in such proceedings if any and after knowing about the same, the plaintiff No.5 approached the Revenue Divisional officer,

Peddapalli and filed an application before him in the year 1997 complaining about said fabrication of records and requested him to take action and to restore the possession ofr the suit land to the legal heir of Late Perka

Durgaiah and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally himself did not make any enquiry upon the said representation, without any notice to the plaintiffs, he called for the report from Mandal revenue officer, the defendants 1 to 3 and later Nadiveddi Laxmi Rajam won over the MRO

Peddapalli and got a false report sent to the Revenue Divisional officer in their favour on 22.08.1998, basing on the said report the application filed by them was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional officer Peddapalli on 3.11.2000 in File No. B/3112/08 and the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the said order dt; 3.11.2000 before the Collector, Karimnagar which is still pending in the file No. F1/50/2000. He further stated that the defendants are denying the title of the plaintiffs and their father over the suit land, and the Revenue officers are not competent to decide the question of title, and they approached this court for the redressal of their grievance. Late

Nadiveddi Laxmi Rajam died during the pendency of the said appeal before the collector, the defendants No.4 to 6 are his sons and legal representatives therefore they are impleaded in this suit. The name of the pattedar of the suit land is being recorded as ‘Perka Durgaiah s/o Pochaiah” in all the 24 OS No. 43 of 2008 pahanies continuously from 1955-56 till now. Only from the year 1995-96 the name of the defendant No.2 “Chirra Ram Linga Reddy” is being added along with Perka Dugaiah as pattedar, surreptitiously in the pahanies from the year 1995-96 onwards. The names of the defendants No.3 to 6 or late

Nadiveedi laxmi Rajam are not recorded as pattedars of suit land in any pahani till now and the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land described in the plaint schedule. The defendants have no rights or title therein and the suit land has been follow since last more than 40 years. The possession recorded in the pahani patrikas for the village is not true and genuine, such possession, if any, is only permissive possession as late Perka Durgaiah originally mortgaged the suit land with the defendant No.1 and his brother late Vaida Veeraiah about 43 to 44 years back and the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the reliefs that they are owners of the suit land and for recovery of possession of the suit land. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant No.1 to 9 have sold away suit properties in favour of the defendant No.10 to 62, immediately on coming to know about the illegal sales by the defendant NO.1 to 9, they filed the petition i.e., IA.No.

69 of 2009 for impleading the subsequent purchasers i.e., defendants No.10 to 62.

19.The evidence of PW-2 discloses that the plaintiffs are his agnates. Peruka Dugaiah was the owner and an illiterate person belonging to Madiga community and the suit land was unfertile and was not deriving any produce from the suit land and he and his family members were facing starvation and on that he obtained a loan of Rs. 300/- and seven bags of paddy, 3 bags of maize of from D1 and his brother late Vaida Veeraiah who were members of joint family by mortgaging the suit land about 44 years back and the said Perka Durgaiah executed a mortgage deed in favour of

Vaida Veeraiah as kartha of family in the presence of Perka Pedda Narsaiah,

Perka Hanmaiah and Mamidipalli Lingaiah of Rangampalli village and after five years of mortgage, Peruka Durgaiah offered to repay the loan to D1 several times but he evaded to receive the money from him with a malafide 25 OS No. 43 of 2008 intention to grab the suit land and in the mean time Perka Durgaiah died without getting redemption of suit land from the mortgage of Vaida Veeraiah and the plaintiffs several time informed him that they are ready to repay the loan amount to D1 to get the suit land released from mortgage and the plaintiffs have approached D1 in the year 1996 with a request to receive the due amount from them and to release the mortgaged suit land in their favour and at that time, the plaintiffs learnt that D1 in collusion with his brother in law late Nadiveedi Laxmirajam and defendant Chirra Jaganmohan

Reddy fabricated some documents purporting to have been executed by late

Perka Durgaiah through which they alleged that said late Nadiveedi

Laxmirajam purchased Ac. 1-20 gts out of the suit land and Ac. 2-10 gts out of suit land in favour of D2, Ac. 1-00 in favour of D1, in fact late Perka

Durgaiah never sold any land to the defendants NO.1 to 3 and late

Nadiveedi Laxmiraj and he never executed any sale deed in their favour and the suit land is Inam land and it cannot be sold to any others and even if sold no title can pass to the purchasers and these documents are forged and created documents for the purpose of this suit for wrongful gain. The D2 went to abroad to USA in the year 1970 and came to India only in the year 1985 and as such the question of purchasing any land from late Perka

Durgaiah does not arise and the said Perka Durgaiah had no acquaintance with D2 and nadiveddi Laxmirajam who does not belongs to the village of plaintiffs, and D1 and D2 colluded with patwari of the village and tamper the entries in the pahani patrikas in the names of D1 to D3 and Laxmirajam in the possession column without any documentary proof for the purpose of this suit and the entire in pahani upto the year 1994-95 show that Peruka

Durgaiah was the pattedar of the suit land and D3 also managed to forge a false certificate forging the signature of Tahsildar, Peddapalli validating the sale of Ac. 2-20 gts in favour of D2 and PW-1 also submitted applications

before Tahasildar, Peddapalli in the year 1997 and 2000requesting that fake

and forged entries in the name of D1 to D3 and the RDO Peddapalli who went under the influence of D1 to D3 did not approve the action for the 26 OS No. 43 of 2008

Tahsildar and deleting such bogus entries. The plaintiffs have approached

Joint collector, Karimnagar with an appeal and again this RDO Peddapally happened to be the DRO Karimnagar and he disposed of the appeal of plaintiffs confirming his earlier orders and the matter was carried before the

Hon’ble High Court wherein the acts of RDO Peddapalli have been up held,

hence second appeal was preferred before Hon’ble High Court wherein it was ordered to approach Joint collector and to get the matter considered as the old RDO who also worked as DRO was changed and this appeal is still pending with Joint collector,Peddapalli, while the appeal is still pending

before Joint Collector, Pedapalli the said defendant No.1, Laxmirajam have

got ROR in their favour and it is not correct and when Durgaiah died in the year 1994, how can they get the ROR in the year 2003 which clearly shows that the ROR proceedings are fake.

20.The evidence of PW-3 discloses that he was the farm servant of

Chirra Ramalingareddy i.e.,D2 for long time, and defendant No.2 left for abroad for higher education in six-tees and remained there abroad for longer time and returned to India only in the yea 1997 and he never purchased any land including the suit land at any time and Vada Mallaiah, Chirra Jagan

Mohan Reddy also never purchased the suit land and in fact the suit land is an Inam land and Perka Durgaiah who worked as Sunkari got this land as

Sunkari inam land which can not be sold or purchased from such inam holders and till his death it was Perka Durgaiah who cultivated this land with the help of rain water and in other seasons the land used to be fallow and

Durgaiah died about 24 years back and after the death of Durgaiah, his children namely Mallaiah, Shankaraiah, Devaiah, Madunaiah and Ramaiah have been in possession of the suit land by inheritance and the Vaida

Mallaiah, Chirra Ramlingareddy, Chirra Jaganmohan Reddy, Nadiveddi

Laxmirajam were never purchased or never in possession of the suit land at any time.

21.The evidence of PW-4 discloses that he is the member of

Ambedkar Sangam of the village Rangampalli, when Vaida Mallaah, Chrra 27 OS No. 43 of 2008 jagan Mohan Reddy, Chirra Ramlingareddy and Nadiveddi Laxminarajam are forcibly trying to occupy the suit land, their sangam has conducted dharna at Peddapalli before the offices of MRO and RDO Peddapalli, since then this is case is being pending before various courts and these persons never purchased the suit land and the suit land is an inam land and Perka Durgaiah who worked as Sunkari got this land as Sunkari Inam land which cannot be sold by or purchased from such inam holders and till his death it was Perka

Durgaiah who cultivated this land with the help of rain water and in other seasons the land used to be fallow and Durgaiah died 24 years back and after the death of Durgaiah, his children Mallaiah, Shankaraiah, Devaiah,

Madunaiah and Ramaiah have been in possession of the suit land by inheritance and the said Vaida Mallaiah, Chirra Ramlingaeddy, Chirra

Jaganmohan Reddy, Nadiveddi Laxmirajam never purchased or never in possession of the suit land at any time.

22.The evidence of PW-5 discloses that when Durgaiah died about 24 years back he had supervised the cremation work of Durgaiah’s dead body and the suit land measuring 4 acres 30 gts was the land got by Perka

Durgaiah towards Sunkari Inam and he never sold this land to any one and after his death his sons namely Perka Mallaiah, Shankaraiah, Devaiah, madunaiah and Ramaiah have succeeded to this land as legal heirs, since then they have in continuous possession of the said land and Vaida Mallaiah,

Chirra Ramlinga Reddy, Chirra Jaganmohan Reddy and Nadiveddi

Laxmirajam were never the owners or possessors of this land and these persons never purchased the suit land and the suit land is an inam land and

Perka Durgaiah who worked as Sunkari got this land as Sunkari Inam land which cannot be sold by or purchased from such inam holders and till his death it was Perka Durgaiah who cultivated this land with the help of rain water and in other seasons the land used to be fallow and Durgaiah died 24 years back and after the death of Durgaiah, his children Mallaiah,

Shankaraiah, Devaiah, Madunaiah and Ramaiah have been in possession of the suit land by inheritance. Vaida Mallaiah, Chirra Ramlingaeddy, Chirra 28 OS No. 43 of 2008

Jaganmohan Reddy, Nadiveddi Laxmirajam were never purchased or in possession of the suit at any time.

23.The evidence of PW-6 discloses that he is not a party to the suit and his wife was D-12 in the suit and they have compromised the suit with the plaintiffs. He had purchased the land to an extent of 210 Sq. yds in

SyNo. 21 in the name of his wife Gourisetti Bharathi for valuable consideration of Rs.95,000/- @ 450/- per Sq. yds through registered document bearing No. 1630/1969 dt: 13.5.2009, Baswaiah sold the land to his wife and having boundaries are East: land of K.Srinivas, West: Road,

North: land of others, South: land of Thota Shankar. Subsequently as per the terms of compromise dt: 13.8.2014 he had confirmed that the original pattedar of the suit land is one Perka Durgaiah father of plaintiff No.1 to 5.

Chirra Rama lingareddy never the owners of the suit land which was fraudulently sold to Baswaiah and others and they fraudulently sold the same to different persons on plot basis and as his enquiry revealed that

Perka Durgaiah was the original pattadar and he had compromised the suit and besides him, few other purchasers also purchased the land from

Baswaiah and others and they also compromise the suit with the plaintiffs realizing that it is Perka Durgaiah who was the pattedar of the suit land and his wife purchased the suit land from Baswaiah. Actually Baswaiah purchased from Chirra Ramlingareddy through agreement of sale cum power of attorney through registered document No. 1962/2005 dt: 28.4.2005 and after purchase, he pursued all the documents of Chirra Ramlingareddy in

Sy.No. 21 and found that there is no patta in the name of Chirra

Ramlingareddy and through him to their vendor Baswaiah and now two pass books are existing in the name of Chirra Ramlingareddy and title deed and they are canceled and Chirra Ramlingareddy also signed on the documents canceling the pattadar pass book and title deed in English but in the agreement of sale cum GPA, he put his thumb impression and did not sign and in the pahanies also the name of Chirra Ramlinga Reddy did not appear as owner, and pattadar. 50-B filed by Chirra Ramlingareddy is fake and not 29 OS No. 43 of 2008 genuine one and the original pattadar is only Perka Durgaiah and

Ramlingareddy cheated Basavaiah.

24.The evidence of PW-7 discloses that he had purchased the land to an extent of 231 Sq. yds in Sy.No. 21 through Registered document bearing No. 2986/2008 dt: 19.7.2008 from Manakonda Mallesham and another extent of 245 sq. yds in the same Surveynumber from Kalvala

Suryamaiah through document No. 909/2010 for valid consideration and his vendor who has received the sale consideration has put his wife in possession of the said land and since then they have been in possession and occupation of the same and they have constructed a house thereon with their own money and the house was allotted No. 2-5/8 by Grampanchayath,

Rangampalli. His wife received the court notices in this suit and they verified details about the sy.No. 21 in the MRO office, and various revenue authorities and the documents through which the land was sold to him on the basis of bogus documents brought into existence of Chirra

Ramlingareddy, Vaida malalaih and Naddiveddi Laxmirajam and as they have no other remedy, they have approached the family of the plaintiffs and compromised the suit matter with them and the compromise petition submitted by them before the court was recorded and he was cheated by the illegal acts of Vaida Mallaiah, Chirra Ramlingareddy and Nadiveddi

Laxmirajam and on his enquiry it was revealed that the original owner of this land was Perka Durgaiah and through him his sons Mallaiah, Devaiah,

Shankaraiah, Madunaiah, Ramaiah.

25.The evidence of PW-8 discloses that he know Perka Durgaiah who worked as Sunkari of the village and died about 24 yrs back and the land in Sy.No. 21 measuring 4-30 gts situated at Rangampalli village was given to him by the Government towards Sunkari inam and as far his knowledge goes, till today the suit land is in possession and enjoyment of the family members of Perka Durgaiah and during his life time he enjoyed the land and after his death his sons have succeeded to the same and in possession and enjoyment of the same. Vaida Mallaiah, Nadiveedi 30 OS No. 43 of 2008

Laxmirajam, Chira Ramlingareddy were never in possession of the suit land and there are no plots in the suit land except five houses and there is no road in the suit land and he know the same as his hotel is in front of the suit land.

26.The evidence of PW-9 discloses that he is the Upa Sarpach of the village and the land in Sy.No. 21 situated at Rangampalli to an extent of

Ac. 4.30 gts is held by the family of Perka Durgaiah who worked as sunkari and this land was given to him as sunkari inam by the Government and this land was not made into plots and there is no lay out for this land and also not useful for the purpose of agriculture and there is no permission for non agricultural land also from the Government and this Inam land of Perka

Durgaiah and he and his legal heirs namely plaintiffs have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land since long and the

MRO also conducted enquiry with regard to the ownership of the suit land and gave a report to the effect that this land is Inam land give in favour of

Perka Durgaiah long back and the said Perka Durgaiah died in the year 1994 and till his death he was in possession of the suit land and after his death, his sons have been in possession of the same and suit land was never made into plots and there is no lay out plan and no permission was given for layout.

27.The evidence of PW-10 discloses that the land in Sy.No.21 situated at Rangampalli to an extent of 4.30 gts is the land held by the family of Perka Durgaiah who worked as sunkari and this land was given to him as sunkari inam by the Government and this land was not made into plots and there is no lay out for this land and also not useful for the purpose of agriculture and there is no permission for non agricultural land also from the Government and inam land of Perka Durgaiah and he and his legal heirs namely plaintiffs have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land since long and the MRO also conducted enquiry with regard to the ownership of the suit land and gave a report to the effect that suit land is an inam land given in favour of Perka Durgaiah long back and the said Perka 31 OS No. 43 of 2008

Durgaiah died in the year 1994 and till his death he was in possession of the suit land. He further stated that the said Vaida Mallaiah, Nadiveedi

Laxmirajam, Chira Ramlingareddy were never in possession of the suit land.

28.PW-11 is 44th defendant in this suit. But he remained exparte and gave evidence as PW-11 and his evidence discloses that the land in

Sy.No.21 situated at Rangampalli to an extent of 4.30 gts is the land held by the family of Perka Durgaiah who worked as sunkari and this land was given to him as sunkari inam by the Government and he had purchased an extent of 273 sq. yds out of this land through registered document from Baswaiah

D-47 and subsequently he received court summons and on that he enquired with his vendor about the land sold to him and during his enquiries he came to know that the land originally belongs to Perka Durgaiah and after his death, his sons Mallaiah, Shankaraiah, Devaiah, Ramaiah and Madunaiah have succeeded to the said land and his vendor and his vendor have no right to sell this land to him, as such the advise of law knowing persons and advocates, he had compromised the matter with the plaintiffs and stated that Vaida Mallaiah, Ramlingareddy, Nadiveddi Laxmirajam have no right or interest to sell this land to Baswaiah and had no title to sell the same to him, after purchase, he raised construction of his house over this land house number was also alloted to him after two years of construction and the

Grampanchayath people initially refused to accord permission for construction in his favour on the ground that this land belong to Perka

Durgaiah by way of Inam.

29.The evidence of PW-12 discloses that he is the sarpanch of the village and the land in Sy.No.21 situated at Rangampalli to an extent of 4.30 gts is the land held by the family of Perka Durgaiah who worked as sunkari and this land was given to him as sunkari inam by the Government. Even till date the suit land is called as inam land of Perka Durgaiah, and this land was not made into plots and there is no lay out for this land and the land originally belongs to Perka Durgaiah and after his death, his sons Mallaiah,

Shankaraiah, Devaiah, Ramaiah and Madunaiah and further stated that 32 OS No. 43 of 2008

Vaida Mallaiah, Chirra Ramlingareddy and nadiveedi laxmirajam were never in possession ofl this land at any time as per his knowledge.

30.The documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs are Ex-

A1 to Ex.A32. Ex.A-1 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1955-56. 1956-57 and 1957-58. Ex.A-2 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1984-85. Ex.A-3 is the CC of

Pahani for the year 1990-91. Ex.A-4 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1991-92. Ex.A-5 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1994-95. Ex.A-6 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2000-01. Ex.A-7 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2001-02. Ex.A-8 is the death certificate of Perka Durgaiah Issued by

Tahsildar, Peddapally, dt. 22.01.2017. Ex.A-9 is the Memo Issued by

Tahsildar, Peddapally, dt. 01-02-2018 in No.Record/62/2018. Ex.A-10 is the

Memo issued by Tahsildar, Peddapally, dt. 01.02.2018 in No. Record- 63/2018. Ex.A-11 is the certified copy of judgment and decree in OS 42/2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, date. 06-12-2004. Ex.A-12 is the certified copy of the registered gift settlement deed bearing document

No.1574/2003. Ex.A-13 is the signature of DW2 on the vakalath in file

No.D1/1847/2017. Ex.A-14 is the signature of DW2 on the counter in file

No.D1/1847/2017. Ex.A-15 is the true copy of registered agreement of sale cum GPA bearing document No. 1962/2005. Ex.A-16 is the true copy of registered supplementary agreement of sale cum GPA bearing document No.

150/2010. Ex.A-17 to Ex.A-23 are the attested copies of pahanies for the year 1958-89, 1959-60, 1961-62, 1972-73, 1977-78, 1982-83, 1986-87 respectively. Ex.A-24 to Ex.A-30 are the attested copies of pahanies for the year 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2014-15 respectively. Ex.A-31 is the attested copy of memo No. 482/2005, dated.

08-08-2005. Ex.A-32 is the letter received from Panchayath Secretary,

Gramapanchayath, Rangampalli.

31.As against the evidence of PW-1 to 12 coupled with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A32, the defendants got examined as DW-1 to DW-6 and got marked

Ex.B1 to Ex.B64 on his behalf.

33 OS No. 43 of 2008 32.As seen from the record, DW-1/Defendant No.65, DW-3 did not turn up for cross examination and their counsel prays to close the evidence of DW-1 as he did not turn up for continuation of chief examination and for cross examination and hence the evidence of DW-1 is closed. DW-3 also not turn up for cross examination and their counsel filed a memo stating that

DW-3 refused to come to the court as he was won over by the plaintiffs and hence the evidence of DW-3 also closed. The evidence of DW-1 and DW-3 which is incomplete and without cross examination has no value in the eye of law and hence their evidence need not be looked in to.

33.The evidence of DW-2/defendant No.2 in the suit discloses that the plaintiffs filed the suit with false and baseless allegations even though they are not having any right over the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs have mislead the court by showing the suit land as vacant land, in fact part of the suit land is covered by houses constructed by the purchasers and the entire suit property is converted into house site plots by formation of internal roads and construction of drainages and he further stated that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have already executed regd.

Sale deed in favour of PW-3 as such they have no right to proceed with the suit and the plaintiffs made a false claim in the suit stating that the suit land measuring ac. 4-30 gts in Sy.No.21 was mortgaged with his father and his junior paternal uncle Vaida Veeraiah about 44 years back under a mortgage deed as a security for the loan obtained by them and it is also incorrect to state that after 5 years of said mortgage Perka Durgaiah offered to repay the loan amount to his father for which he did not agree and subsequently, the legal heirs of said Perka Durgaiah offered to pay the amount but even then his father did not receive the amount and his father, defendants No.2, 3 and father of D4 to D7 fabricated the revenue records and got their names entered in respect of the suit schedule property are false and created for the purpose of this suit.

34.He further stated that the defendant No.1 was the owner and possessor of Ac. 1-00 gts of land in Sy.No. 21 having purchased the same 34 OS No. 43 of 2008 from Perka Durgaiah under a simple sale deed, dt: 30.04.1966 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,350/-, the said Durgaiah put him in possession of the same and having acquired the property under an unregistered document, the defendant No.1 submitted a claim before the M.R.O., Peddapalli under

R.O.R., Act to record his name by regularizing the purchase made by him.

Accordingly, the MRO., Peddapalli conducted enquiry in the said claim vide

File No. ROR/45/89 and allowed the claim on 06.11.2003 by collecting stamp duty and penalty from him and basing on that the M.R.O., Peddapalli issued

Certificates U/sec. 13-B and 13-C of R.O.R. Act and subsequently, the defendant No.1 was issued pattadar passbook and title deed book with patta

No. 69. The name of the defendant No.1 has been shown in the possession column of the pahanies since the date of purchase by him and the proceedings under R.O.R. Act became final and the plaintiffs did not challenge the same by filing appeal or revision till today. They further contends that the defendant No.2 Chirra Ramalinga Reddy purchased land measuring Ac. 2-10 gts, in Sy.No. 21 from Perka Durgaiah under a simple sale deed, dt: 19.3.1967 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,400/- by delivering possession to him and the purchase of the said land was regularized under sub section 2 of Sec. 50 (B) of A.P. Telangana and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 by collecting required stamp duty and penalty from him vide proceedings issued in File No. D.Dis.No. B2/7716/70, dt: 08.10.1971 by the then Tahsildar, Peddapalli, basing on the said document, the name of the defendant No.2 was recorded in the revenue records and he was issued with pattadar passbook and title deed book and the said proceedings became final and the plaintiff and Perka Durgaiah did not challenge them by filing appeal or revision. Likewise, Nadiveddi Laxmirajam, who is the ancestor of defendants No.4 to 9, purchased an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts, of land in Sy.No.

21 from Perka Durgaiah under a simple sale deed, dt: 22.9.1961 for a sale consideration of Rs. 500/- and the said Perka Durgaiah having received the sale consideration executed the same by delivering possession of the said land to Laxmirajam and since then he has been in possession and 35 OS No. 43 of 2008 enjoyment of it till his death. The said Laxmirajam filed a claim before the recording Authority, i.e., M.R.O., Peddapalli under the provisions of R.O.R. Act in R.O.R. file No. 46/89 to record his name in the revenue records basing on the said simple sale deed. The MRO Peddapalli made enquiry into the claim and issued certificates U/sec. 13-B and 13-C of ROR Act dt: 6.1.2003 by collecting required stamp duty and penalty and issued pattadar passbook and title deed book No. 314094 with patta No. 234 and the name of the said laxmirajam is recorded in the pahanies since the date of purchase and after his death, the defendants No.4 to 9 succeeded to the said property and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and for the last more than 45 years the suit land has never been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs or their ancestors and Perka Durgaiah delivered possession of the same about 45 years back.They further stated that the plaintiffs made an application to the RDO., Peddapalli in file No. B/31/2/98 stating that these defendants and Ram Linga Reddy managed to get their names entered in the pahanies by fabricating some documents and on the said application, the RDO., called for report from the MRO., Peddapalli who gave his report stating that Perka Durgaiah sold the suit land to the defendants NO.1 and 2 and Laxmirajam by executing simple sale deeds in their favour long back and their names are recorded in the pahanies in the occupant column. Basing on the said report, the RDO., dismissed the claim made by the plaintiffs on 3.11.2000 and against the dismissal of the said claim, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector,

Karimnagar in File No. F1/50/2000 challenging the said orders. After hearing both sides the learned Joint Collector, Karimnagar was pleased to dismiss the said appeal confirming the orders passed by the RDO., Peddapalli holding that the defendants NO.1 and 2 and Laxmirajam purchased the property for valuable sale consideration and the plaintiffs made a false claim

before the authority. Against the said orders also, the plaintiffs filed a writ

petition before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 19175/2003 which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of 36 OS No. 43 of 2008

AP against which, the plaintiffs filed writ appeal bearing No. 434/2005 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Chief

Justice of High Court of AP and Hon’ble Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy on 5.3.2005 confirming the orders of the Joint collector, Karimnagar. Having lost the litigations filed by them for the last more than ten years, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit with a malafide intention to claim rights over the property. He further stated that N.Laxmirajam and one Vaida

Nambaiah are owners of land to an extent of Ac. 3-00 gts, in Sy.No. 22 of

Rangampalli village. The suit Sy.NO. And Sy.No. 22 adjoins each other and form one compact plot, therefore, the defendant No.1, 2 Laxmirajam and

Vaida Nambaiah have prepared a Layout demarcating (111) house sites plots in the total area of Ac. 7-30 gts., (Ac. 4-30 gts, + Ac. 3-00 gts) by forming internal roads, which is duly approved by the Sarpanch,

Grampanchayath Rangampalli village and subsequently they have sold away the said plots to different persons by executing registered sale deeds.

Some of the purchasers who purchased plots from them have already constructed houses in the plots which are now in existence on the plots. He further stated that the plaintiffs are never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for the last more than 45 years and the claim that the defendants have illegally occupied the same is created for the purpose of filing the suit.

35.DW-4 stated in his evidence that himself, Mudurkolu Rajaiah and

Podila Venkatesham jointly purchased house site plot measuring 472.50 sq.yds in Suy.No. 21 situated at Rangampally village of peddapally mdl from

Vaida mallaiah (D1) under Regd. Sale deed No. 304/2005 dt: 28.1.2005 by paying valuable sale consideration and that originally the land in Sy.No. 21 to an extent of Ac. 4-30 gts was owned and possessed by Vaida mallaiah,

Chirra Ramalinga Reddy and Nadiveddi Laxmirajam who purchased the same from Perka Durgaiah about 50 yrs back and subsequently the said extent of Ac. 4-30 gts along with the land in Sy.No.22 was converted into house site plots by formation of internal roads and now at present the entire 37 OS No. 43 of 2008 extent is converted into house site plots more than 12 years back and it is not an agricultural land and his vendors obtained approved lay out for formation of house site plots from the Gram panchayath, Rangampally and some of the purchasers already constructed building in the plots purchased by them. The revenue court held that during the life time of Perka Durgaiah he sold away the entire land of Ac. 4-30 gts to defendant NO.1 to 3 by delivering possession of them and only to extract money from him and other purchasers the plaintiffs filed the present suit and during pendecny of the suit they threatened the purchasers for implicating in criminal case under

SCs & STs Act to extract money from them and several criminal cases are also filed against the plaintiff as they damaged the property of the purchasers.

36.DW-5 stated in his evidence that he purchased the land measuring Ac. 2-10 gts equalent to 10,890 sq. yds in Sy.No. 21 situated at

Rangampally village of Peddapalluy mdl from Chira Ramlinga Reddy (D2) under regd. Agreement of sale cum GPA No. 1962/2005 dt: 28.4.2005 by paying valuable sale consideration and his vendor delivered the possession of the said land to him by receiving sale consideration and subsequently, himself and the owners of the land in Sy.No.22 by name Nadiveddi laxmirajam who is also owning land in Sy.No.21 converted the entire land into house site plots by demarcating internal roads and thereafter they named the colony as Ganehsnagar. He further stated that the land in

Sy.No.21 to an extent of Ac. 4-30 gts was owned and possessed by Vaida

Mallaiah, Chirra Ramalinga Reddy and Bnadiveddi Laxmirajam who purchased the same from Perka Durgaiah about 50 years back and subsequently, the said extent of Ac. 4-30 gts along with the land in Sy.No.22 was converted into house site plots and formation of internal roads and now at present the entire extent is converted into house site plots more than 12 years back and it is not an agricultural land and his vendors obtained approved lay out for formation of house site plots from the Gram panchayath, Rangampally and some of the purchasers already constructed 38 OS No. 43 of 2008 building in the plots purchased by them. The revenue court held that during the life time of Perka Durgaiah he sold away the entire land of Ac. 4-30 gts to defendant NO.1 to 3 by delivering possession of them and only to extract money from him and other purchasers the plaintiffs filed the present suit and during pendency of the suit they threatened the purchasers for implicating in criminal case under SCs & STs Act to extract money from them and several criminal cases are also filed against the plaintiff as they damaged the property of the purchasers.

37.DW-6 stated in his evidence that he purchased plot measuring 210 sq. yds from the legal heirs of Nadiveddi Laxmirajam under Regd. Sale deed No. 313/2005 dt: 28.5.2005. Subsequently, he constructed building which is assigned door No. 2-5/5 of Rangampally village and thereafter he sold the said house to one Chittimalla Srinivas by executing a regd. Sale deed. He further stated that the land in Sy.No.21 to an extent of Ac. 4-30 gts was owned and possessed by Vaida Mallaiah, Chirra Ramalinga Reddy and Bnadiveddi Laxmirajam who purchased the same from Perka Durgaiah about 50 years back and subsequently, the said extent of Ac. 4-30 gts along with the land in Sy.No.22 was converted into house site plots and formation of internal roads and now at present the entire extent is converted into house site plots more than 12 years back and it is not an agricultural land and his vendors obtained approved lay out for formation of house site plots from the Gram panchayath, Rangampally and some of the purchasers already constructed building in the plots purchased by them. The revenue court held that during the life time of Perka Durgaiah he sold away the entire land of Ac. 4-30 gts to defendant NO.1 to 3 by delivering possession of them and only to extract money from him and other purchasers the plaintiffs filed the present suit and during pendecny of the suit they threatened the purchasers for implicating in criminal case under SCs & STs

Act to extract money from them and several criminal cases are also filed against the plaintiff as they damaged the property of the purchasers.

39 OS No. 43 of 2008 38.In a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession based on title, it is for the plaintiffs to prove her title and satisfy the court that they, in law, are entitled to dispossess the defendants from their possession over the suit property for the possession to be restored with them. In a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiffs have been able to create a high decree of probability, so as to shift the onus to the defendant. The plaintiffs are expected to stand on the strength of their own case but not on the weakness of the defendants case.

39.PW-1 in his cross examination stated that he filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit-A schedule property and stated that he does not know the total extent of land owned by his father late Durgaiah and he knows only with regard to the suit A-

Schedule property and further stated that he did not file the family members certificate or legal heir certificate issued by Tahasildar to show that he and other plaintiffs are the LRs of the late Durgaiah. He deposed that there are no structures in the suit A-schedule property and denied that there are about 30 to 35 houses in the suit A-schedule property and again stated there are 6 houses in the suit A-schedule property. He himself admitted that the suit schedule property was converted into house plots and houses are got constructed, roads are laid and electrical polls are erected in the suit property and again stated that he does not know that the land in suit Sy.No.

21 and adjacent Sy.No. 22 was converted into house plots and defendant

No.1 to 4 approved lay out from the Grampanayhath Ragampally village and stated that does not remember that the present suit was filed in the year 2008. He admitted that there are two criminal cases filed against him and other plaintiffs for demolishing the constructions made in the suit property and further admitted that one Thatipalluy Anudeep purchased RCC building in an extent of 210 Sq. yds from out of the suit land B.Door No. 2-5/5 in an auction conducted by Indian Bank, Peddapally branch. He admitted that they filed a criminal case for the offence U/sec. SC/ST Act against one

Naolmasu Sriramulu who is the subsequent purchaser of the said house 40 OS No. 43 of 2008

B.No. 2-5/5.

40.The evidence of PW-1 reveals that he had not filed any proof to show that his father Durgaiah mortgaged the suit schedule property to the said Veeraiah and either himself or other plaintiffs or their father issued any legal notice tot he said Vaida Veeraiah, first defendant stating that they are ready to repay the mortgage loan taken by them. He further stated that they did not issue any legal notice to the said Vaida Veeraiah or his LRs with a request to hand over the mortgage deed alleged to be handed over to said

Vaida Veeraiah. He stated that he does not know the date of the said mortgage and that his father died in the year 2004. He admitted that his father did not file any civil suit against anybody in respect of the suit schedule property. He admitted that it is mentioned in his chief affidavit that about 43 or 44 years back, his father borrowed money from the first defendant and his brother Vaida Veeraiah by mortgaging the suit land and admitted that it is also mentioned in his chief affidavit that four or five years after the said mortgage, his father Durgaiah offer to pay the loan obtained by him to the first defendant several times towards discharge of the said mortgage debt, but the first defendant did not receive the amount by saying

Vaida Veeraiah was not available in the village. He stated that he does not know that his father ought to have filed a suit for redemption of mortgage debt about 39 years back and the first defendant alleged to have refused to receive the said mortgage loan amount for releasing the mortgaged property. They did not file any suit for redemption of mortgage deed borrowed by their father from the first defendant and Vaida Veeraiah.

41.He admitted that in Ex.A5 pahani, the names of D1, D2 and father of D4, D5 namely Laxmirajam is mentioned as possessors in respect of the land in suit A-schedule property survey number and further admitted that in Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 pahanies, the name of D2 is mentioned in pattedar column and names of D3, father of D4, D5 namely Laxmirajam and 1st defendant is mentioned as possessors in respect of land in suit A-schedule property Sy.No.21 to an extent of Ac. 4.20 gts. He further admitted that he 41 OS No. 43 of 2008 and his brothers submitted an application before RDO, Peddapalli, dt.

26.12.1997 for correction of entries in the revenue record and hand over the possession of suit A-schedule property to them and also sought for cancellation of pattedar passbooks issued in favour of D1, D2 and father of

D4, D5 in respect of suit A-schedule property and the same was dismissed by RDO, Peddapalli on 03-11-2000 and further admitted that he preferred an appeal against the proceedings of RDO, Peddapalli before Joint Collector,

Karimnagar and same was dismissed on 19-05-2003 after making enquiry and confirmed the proceedings issued by Peddapalli. He admitted that he filed writ petition before Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 19175/2003 against the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar and further admitted that they filed writ appeal No. 434/2005 against the orders passed in the writ petition. He denied that, the said writ appeal filed by them was also dismissed. But no proof was filed by the plaintiffs that the said writ appeal was allowed and possession of suit schedule property was delivered to them.

42.PW1 in his cross examination admitted that he did not seek any relief for cancellation of registered sale deeds executed by D1 to D3 and the legal heirs of laxmi Rajam who was the father of D4 and D5 in favour of D10 to D62. He admitted that he and other plaintiffs compromised the matter with defendants No.10,12, 16, 27, 30, 33, 35 to 37, 44, 52 by taking money from them and the present suit was dismissed as compromised against them and stated that he does not know that in the said compromise petition, they relinquished their rights in respect of the some of the suit schedule property purchased by the defendants No.10,12, 16, 27, 30, 33, 35 to 37, 44, 52 and he again admitted that he and other plaintiffs executed registered relinquishment deed in favour of the said defendants by relinquishing their rights in respect of part of suit schedule property purchased by them. But they did not take any steps to amend the plaint A-

Schedule by deleting the part of suit schedule property in respect of which they relinquished their right and they proceeded in respect of the entire 42 OS No. 43 of 2008 extent of suit schedule property even though, they relinquished their right in respect of part of the suit schedule property. His evidence discloses that they did not exclude the property from out of the suit schedule property which was sold away to the defendant Nos.10, 12, 16, 27, 30, 33, 35 to 37, 44, 52 in terms of compromise during the pendency of the present suit and there is also no mention in the plaint specifically as to what is the extent and boundaries of the land which is in possession and enjoyment of defendant

No.10 to 16 who are added subsequently.

43.He further stated that the brother of the first defendant Vaida

Veeraiah was died about 20 years back and his wife also died and to his knowledge the said Vaida Veeraiah is having one daughter and stated that he did not implead the daughter of Vaida Veeraiah as a party to the present suit. He stated that the first plaintiff was his elder brother and he died leaving behind his wife Shanthamma, sons namely Eeshwar, Sampath,

Shankar and daughter namely laxmi as his legal heirs and they are not brought on record as parties after the death of first plaintiff. He admitted that second plaintiff Shankaraiah was his elder brother and he died leaving behind two sons and one daughter Anjaiah and admitted that they have not impleaded the said Anjamma as a party to the present suit and further admitted that the third plaintiff Devaiah died leaving behind his wife

Durgamma and three sons and said Durgamma is alive but they had not shown her as a party to the present suit.

44.He stated that they have not filed the legal heir certificate or family members certificate to show that he and the other plaintiffs are the only legal heirs to their father Durgaiah and admitted that they questioned

before RDO, Peddapally and Joint collector, Karimnagar about the issuance

of 50-B certificate under the provisions of Telangana Area tenants Act in favour of D1 to D3 and father of D4 to D6 namely laxmirajam and also challenged the simple sale deeds executed in their favour. Ex.A9 and

Ex.A10 memos issued by the Tahasildar Peddapalli does not contain the official seal of the issuing authority and stated that he obtained Ex.A9 and 43 OS No. 43 of 2008

Ex.A10 from MRO office personally and stated that Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 does not reveal that they are addressed to him and handed over to him. He admitted that it is mentioned in Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 that presently the records relating to 50-B certificates and simple sale deed copies are not available in their office. He stated that he know that Form 50-B and simple sale deed relating to the defendants 1 to 3 and father of D4 to D6 are already filed in the present suit in the year 2005 itself. Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 does not contain any dispatch number to show that they are issued to him by the

Dy.Tahasildar Peddapalli and also does not contain the signature of the record keeper that they verified the records and there is no specific reason for not filing Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 at the time of filing of present suit.

45.PW-1 stated that he know the contents of Ex.A17 to Ex.A32 and admitted that in Ex.A17 to Ex.A23 the names of D1, D2 and father of D4 to

D7 was shown in possessory column in respect of suit schedule property and in Ex.A24 to Ex.A30 also the names of D1, D2 and father of D4 to D7 was shown in pattadar and possessory column in respect of suit schedule property. He admitted that in the pahanies filed by him, the suit schedule property is shown as patta land. He stated that he had not filed the application submitted by plaintiff No.7 as mentioned in Ex.A32 and in Ex.A32 letter, it is mentioned that some persons obtained permission from

Grampanayhat in Sy.No. 21 and 22. Ex.A31 is the attested copy of memo

No. 482/2005, dated: 08.08.2005. DW-2 in his cross examination stated that

Ex.A11 is the certified copy of judgment and decree in OS 42/2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, dated 06.12.2004 and his daughter namely Vajrala Ramadevi filed the said suit against D2, D3, Chirra Ravinder

Reddy and Sunnam Uma Devi and the same was ended in compromise.

Ex.A11 reveals that the plaintiffs not pressed the suit against D1 and D4 and compromised the suit with D2 and D3 therein.

46.The cross-examination of PW-11/D-44 reveals that, after receiving of the summons from the court, he did not enter his appearance and not filed any written statement stating that D47 sold plot No. 81 to him 44 OS No. 43 of 2008 without having any title over the same and the Gramapanchayat,

Rangampalli gave permission for construction of the house in his plot No. 81 and he had not obtained any registered document from the plaintiffs in respect of his house plot No. 81 after his compromised in the matter with them and stated that he gave Rs. 2 Lakhs to the plaintiffs for compromising the matter with them. He stated that the house of one person in the suit schedule was demolished but he does not know who demolished the said house and also does not know that the criminal case was filed against the plaintiffs and their supporters in PS Peddapalli for demolishing the structures constructed by the one of the purchasers of the house plots in the suit schedule property and stated that the house one Nalamasu Sriramulu is located after 10 houses from his house and he does not know that the plaintiffs filed SC/ST case against the said Nalamasu Sriramulu. He admitted that his plot No.81 is part and parcel of suit schedule property.

47.Ex.B1 is the Mee Seva copy of Registered sale deed No.

559/2017. PW-1/plaintiff No.5 in his cross examination admitted that plaintiff NO.6 to 11 executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.

559/2017, dt: 23.12.2016 in favour of himself and four plaintiffs in respect of the land to an extent of 15,730 square yards in Sy.No. 21 of Rangampalli village within the boundaries of North: land of Jagan Mohan Reddy, South:

Others land in Sy.No.22, East: others land in Sy.No.20, West: land of Kishan

Reddy and added that as they have injunction orders and High Court orders, but there is no title deed in their favour in respect of suit schedule property, he and the fourth plaintiff obtained said registered sale deed bearing document No. 559/2017 as the police insisted them to show their title document in respect of suit schedule property, so that they will not interfere in respect of the suit schedule property and he know that the injunction orders obtained by them in the present suit are vacated as per orders in IA 45/2008, dt: 29.9.2009. He admitted that in Ex.B1 it is mentioned that he and the fourth plaintiff paid a sale consideration of Rs. 1,57,30,000/- to the plaintiff 6 to 11 and other obtained the said registered sale deed document 45 OS No. 43 of 2008 and it is also mentioned in Ex.B1 that possession of the property covered there under is delivered to him and fourth plaintiff. Ex.B1 is dated 23.12.2016. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs as indigent persons in

OP.No. 478 of 2005 on 25.07.2005 by stating that they are not in a position

to pay the required court fee and the said petition was allowed permitting the petitioners/plaintiffs to present the suit under forma pauperies and the same is numbered as O.S.No. 43 of 2008 on 31.10.2008. In the suit in para

No.11 of the plaint, it is mentioned that the possession recorded in pahani pathrikas of the village is not true and genuine and such possession, is only permissive possession as late Perka Durgaiah originally mortgaged the suit land with the defendant No.1 and his brother later Vaida Veeraiah about 43 or 44 years back and hence they are entitled to claim the reliefs that they are the owners of the suit land and for recovery of possession of the suit land. Whereas, in Ex.B1 it is mentioned that the possession of the property thereunder was delivered to them earlier. Admittedly the plaintiffs are not in a possession of the suit schedule property and the question of delivery of the suit schedule property under Ex.B1 does not arise. It is also mentioned that it is patta land of the Perka Durgaiah. When the suit is pending for declaration of title over the suit schedule property and recovery of possession, there is no convincing explanation as to how they sell the property during the pendency of the present suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property.

48.Ex.B2 is the true copy of Registered sale deed No. 1630/--, Ex.B3 is the True copy of registered sale deed No. 2986/2008, Ex.B4 is the Treu copy of registered sale deed No. 909/2010, Ex.B5 is the Layout plan of suit schedule property, Ex.B6 is the title deed of N.Laxmirajam, Ex.B7 is the Title deed of first defendant, Ex.B8 is the form-13-B certificate issued by MRO,

Peddapalli in favour of first defendant dt: 06.11.2003 of ROR No. 45/89,

Ex.B9 is the form-13-C1.2003 of ROR No. 45/89, Ex.B10 is the form-13-B certificate issued by MRO, Peddapalli in favour of first defendant dt:

06.11.2003 of ROR No. 46/89, Ex.B11 is the form-13-C certificate issued by 46 OS No. 43 of 2008

MRO, Peddapalli in favour of first defendant dt: 06.11.2003 of ROR No.

46/89, Ex.B12 is the proceedings of Tahsildar, Peddapally dt: 08.10.1971 in

Dis.No. B2/7716/1971, Ex.B13 is the proceedings No. B/3112/98 of the RDO,

Peddapalli dt: 3.11.2000, Ex.B14 is the Memo No. C/record/1/2001, dt: Nil- 06-2001 issued by MRO, Peddapalli, Ex.B15 is the certified copy of orders passed by Hon’ble High Court of AP at Hyderabad in WP.No. 19175/2–3, dt:

17.03.2004.

49.Ex.B16 to Ex.B20 are the CC of pahanies for the year 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71. Ex.B21 to Ex.B30 are the CC of pahanies for the year 1971-72, 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977- 78, 1978-79, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-083. Ex.B31 to Ex.B40 are the CC of pahanies for the year 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988- 89, 1989-90, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93. Ex.B41 to Ex.B51 are the CC of pahanies for the year 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998- 99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05. In Ex.B20 pahani for the year 1970-71, Ex.B21 to Ex.B30 i.e., CC of pahanies for the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-083, Ex.B31 to Ex.B41 i.e., CC of pahanies for the year 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, the name of Perka Durgaiah was reflected as pattadar in respect of suit land in Sy.No. 21. Whereas, in

Ex.B42 to Ex.B50 i.e.,CC of pahanies 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, the name of second defendant and the Perka Durgaiah is shown as pattedars in respect of suit land in Sy.No.21 and in Ex.B51 pahani for the year 2004-05, the names of

D1, D2 and Laxmi Rajam was shown as pattedars and possessors in respect of suit land in Sy.No. 21. DW-2 admitted that in Ex.B17 to Ex.B21 the name of Chirra Ram Reddy was shown as possessor in Suit Survey number and in

Ex.B26 his name was shown as possessor in the suit Survey number and the name of D2 was shown as possessor in suit Survey number in Ex.B27 to

Ex.B31, in Ex,B32 the possessory column is kept blank in Ex.B35 the name 47 OS No. 43 of 2008 of Chirra Ramreddy was mentioned as possessor in respect of suit survey number. In Ex.B36 the name of Laxmirajam i.e., father of D4 to D7 is shown in possessory column in suit survey number and in Ex.B37 the names of D1 and D2 was mentioned in possessory column in suit survey number and in

Ex.B38 and Ex.B39 the possessory column was kept blank. Ex.B40 to

Ex.B43 the names of D1 to D3 was mentioned in possessory column in suit survey number and in Ex.B44 to Ex.B51 the name of D1 to D3 and father of

D4 to D7 namely Laxmirajam was mentioned in possessory column in suit survey number.

50.Ex.B52 is the mee seva copy of registered certificate of sale bearing document No. 5104/2015, Ex.B53 is the Mee Seva copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 97/2016, Ex.B54 is the Mee Seva copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 5-44/2009, Ex.B55 is the

Mee seva copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 313/2005,

Ex.B56 is the CC of pahani for the year 2014-15, Ex.B57 is the Mee Seva copy of adungal pahani dated 07.08.2017 for the fasli 1427, Ex.B58 is the

Mee Seva copy of adungal pahani dated 02.03.2018 for the fasli 1421,

Ex.B59 is the Mee Seva copy of adungal pahani dated 02.03.2018 for the fasli 1420, Ex.B60 is the Mee Seva copy of adungal pahani dated 02.03.2018 for the fasli 1422.

51.The evidence of PW-2 discloses that he knows both the parties to the suit and father of the plaintiffs namely Durgaiah worked as village

Sunkar of Rangampali village and he was owning 0.35 gts of land in

Rangampalli village and he came to know through PW-1 that about 44 years back, his father borrowed an amount of Rs.300/-, 7 bags of paddy, and 3 bags of maize from D1 and his brother. He further stated that he does not know personally about the execution of mortgage deed by father of PW-1 in favour of Vaida Veeraiah and he had not seen the alleged mortgage deed and also does not know the date, month and year when the alleged mortgage deed was executed by the father of PW-1 and he came to know through PW-1 that the alleged mortgage deed was lying with the said 48 OS No. 43 of 2008

Veeraiah. He stated that the plaintiffs or their father did not file any case against the Vaida Veeraiah for redemption of alleged mortgage or for release of alleged mortgaged property. He admitted that he was 11 years old when the alleged mortgage deed executed by Durgaiah and he was not present at the time of execution of alleged mortgage deed and he has no personal knowledge that after 7 years of alleged mortgage, the father of PW-1 namely Durgaiah offered to pay the loan amount to D1 and D1 evaded to receive the said money as stated in his chief affidavit and further stated that the plaintiffs did not take any steps against the defendants for release of the alleged mortgage property i.e., suit land after death of Durgaiah.

52.PW-2 evidence further reveals that he is no way concerned with the suit land and the plaintiffs did not seek any relief for redemption of mortgaged suit land in the present suit. He admitted that the names of D1 to D3 and father of D4 to D6 is reflected in the pahanies in revenue records since 1956 to till date. He denied that D2 did not go to USA in the year 1970 as alleged and he purchased the suit schedule land from late Durgaiah with his money. He stated that there is no proof to show that D2 went to

USA in the year 1970 and returned to India in the year 1985. He further stated that the plaintiffs did not give any complaint against defendant No.3 for the alleged forgery of signature of Tahsildar Peddapalli on 50-B certificate and admitted that the RDO Peddapalli dismissed the claim application filed by the plaintiffs against defendant No.1 to 3 in the suit schedule land by holding that suit schedule land is patta land and the same was sold away by father of PW-1 in favour of D1 to D3 and father of D4 to D6. He admitted that the appeal preferred by them before Joint collector against orders passed RDO was also dismissed by confirming the orders passed by RDO

Peddapally and admitted that the writ petition preferred by them before

Hon’ble High Court was also dismissed by confirming the orders passed by

the Joint collector, Karimnagar and RDO Karimnagar. He admitted that criminal cases are filed against the plaintiffs when they tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the defendants over suit land in 49 OS No. 43 of 2008

Peddapally police station. He admitted that the suit schedule land was converted into house plots by D1 to D3 and father of D4 to D6 and named it as Ganeshnagar. He admitted that the plaintiffs herein compromised with 16 defendants who purchased the house plots in the said Ganeshnagar.

53.The evidence of PW-3 reveals that he is the villager of

Rangampalli where the suit land is situated and he worked as farm servant under one Chirra Ramreddy for a period of one or two years about 22 to 30 years back and he is no more and the said Chirra Ramreddy is having two sons namely Ram Linga Reddy and Jagan Mohan Reddy. He further stated that he does not know the names of their villagers who purchased the land and who never purchased the land and he does not remember that the father of PW-1 namely Durgaiah worked as village sunkari and stated that the said Durgaiah was given the land to an extent of Ac. 4-30 gts in Sy.No.

21 of Rangampalli village by the Government and he does not know in which year the said land was given to the said Durgaiah by the Govt. and stated that the suit property is under cultivation and there are no house plots therein.

54.The evidence of PW-4 discloses that he is villager of Rangampalli wherein the suit land is situated and he worked as Secretary of Ambedkar

Sangam of Rangampalli village and he does not know the extent of the land owned by the defendants and in the year 2004, their sangam people conducted darna before the offices of MRO Peddapalli on the ground that the defendants 1 to 3 and father of D4 to D6 namely laxmirajam are trying to occupy the suit schedule property. He further stated that he does not know the names of the villagers who purchased the land and who never purchased the land in Rangampalli village and he came to know through plaintiffs that there are civil disputes pending in various courts in respect of the suit schedule property and he does not know in which year the father of the plaitniff namely Durgaiah worked as village sunkari and in which year the suit schedule land was given to Durgaiah by the Government. He further stated that there are two or three houses constructed in the suit 50 OS No. 43 of 2008 schedule property but there are no roads are formed in the suit land and stated that suit schedule property in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs filed the present suit as the defendants are interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

55.The evidence of PW-5 discloses that he is villager of Rangampalli wherein the suit land is situated and he worked in Peddapalli railway station as Gangman and he does not know about the particulars of all the properties owned by father of plaintiff namely Perka Durgaiah and he does not know in which year the said Durgaiah worked as village Sunkari of Rangampalli village and he does not know in which year the Government assigned land the said Durgaiah and stated that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and suit schedule property is Inam patta land of Perka Durgaiah. The evidence of PW-5 further reveals that he had not seen any document of said Perka Durgaiah to show that the suit schedule property is land assigned to the said Durgaiah by the Government.

He stated that he had no acquaintance with the defendant No.1 to 3 and father of D4 to D6 namely Laxmirajam and he does not know that in the year 1961 the said Perka Durgaiah sold away part of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts to the father of D4 to D6 namely

Laxmirajam under simple sale deed and delivered possession of the same to him and also does not know that in the year 1966 the said Perka Durgaiah sold away part of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac. 1-00 to the first defendant under simple sale deed and delivered the possession of the same and he does not know that since the date of purchase, the defendants

No.1 to 3 and father of D4 to D6 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till date. He stated that there are four or five houses in the suit schedule property and he does not know that the entire suit land was converted into house site plots and named as Ganeshnagar locality of

Rangampalli village. He admitted that the criminal case was registered against the plaintiffs and members of the Ambedkar sangam as they 51 OS No. 43 of 2008 attacked on the purchasers of the house plot in the suit land and also does not know that the plaintiffs entered into compromise with 16 defendants by taking money from them and withdraw the present suit against them.But the evidence of PW-1/5th plaintiff itself discloses that the suit schedule property is converted into house plot and houses are got constructed, roads are laid and electrical poles are erected in the suit schedule property.

56.The evidence of PW-6 discloses that defendant No.12 is his wife and they compromise the suit with the plaintiffs. His evidence reveals that they purchased the land to an extent of 210 sq. yds in Sy.No. 21 in the name of his wife Bharathi under registered sale deed dt: 13.5.2009 and he does not know the plot number of the land purchased by him in the name of D12 and it was sold by one kamatala Basvayya s/o Narayana i.e., D47 herein and he did not make any enquiry about the title of D47 in respect of the land purchased by him in the name of D12. Ex.B2 is the true copy of registered sale deed B.doc.No. 1630 of 2009 and the rough sketch annexed to Ex.B2 shows that the plot purchased by him in plot No.61 and roads are reflected in rough sketch. He stated that he got constructed house in the plot purchased by him under Ex.B2 by obtaining permission from G.P. Rangapalli and he does not know whether there was approved lay out in respect of plot purchased by him under Ex.B2 in suit survey number.

57.PW-6 in his cross examination stated that he did not make enquiry about the title of D47 in respect of the property covered under

Ex.B2 before purchase and subsequently, he collected the link document of his vendor in respect of the property covered under Ex.B2 and as per the link document of Ex.B2, his vendor i.e., D47 purchased the land to an extent of 10890 sq.yds in Sy.No. 21 under agreement of sale cum GPA from second defendant herein. He admitted that in the link document of his vendor, it is mentioned that the vendor of the D47 was the pattadar and possessor of the land to an extent of 10890 sq. yds equivalent to Ac. 0-90 gts i.e.,

Ac.2.10 gts in suit survey number. He stated that in the year 2013 after receiving suit summons from the court, he came to know that the second 52 OS No. 43 of 2008 defendant without having any title over the plot purchased by him in suit survey number sold the same to D47 and who in turn sold the same to him under the original of Ex.B2. He stated that at the time of purchase of property under Ex.B2, he did not give any paper publication in any news paper calling for objection from any persons in respect of the property purchased by him under Ex.B2 and he does not know about the pendency of the present suit till he received summons in the year 2013. He stated that his wife/D12 did not file any written statement in the present suit and she was remained exparte. He stated that he had seen the pahanies in respect of the land in suit Survey number and they are in the name of Perka

Durgaiah and name of D2 is not reflected. Ex.A5 pahani for the year 1994- 95 reflects in the name of Perka Durgaiah as pattedar and the name of D1,

D2, father of D4 to D6 namely Laxmirajam as possessor in respect of land in

Sy.No. 21 to an extent of Ac. 4-30 gts.

58.The evidence of PW-6 further discloses that he had not filed any suit or criminal case against D47 or D2 for the execution of original of Ex.B2 and its link document stating that they sold the property without having any title covered there under. He stated that he had not seen 50-B certificate issued in favour of D2 in respect of suit Sy.No.21. He stated that he paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the sons of late Perka Durgaiah and compromise the suit and as such the plaintiffs not pressed the suit against him. He stated that the house of one Ramoji Devendramma i.e., D10 herein in the land in Suit Sy.No. Was demolished and denied that after the demolition of the house of D10, he compromised the matter with the plaintiffs due to fear.

59.The evidence of PW-7 discloses that he had purchased an extent of 231 sq. yds in Sy.No.21 under registered sale deed dt: 19.7.2008 from

Manakonda Mallesham and 245 sq.yds the same survey number from

Kalvala Shyamaiah under registered sale deed and took deliver of possession. He admitted that before purchasing of any immovable property one has to verify the title of his vendor. He admitted that he signed as a witness on the said sale deeds. Ex.B3 is the true copy of registered sale 53 OS No. 43 of 2008 deed B.doc.No. 2986 of 2008 and Ex.B4 is the true copy of registered sale deed B.doc.No. 909 of 2010. Ex.B3 reveals that plot No. 94 was purchased by D16 from Markonda Mallesh and Ex.B4 reveals that plot No.93 was purchased by D16 from D38 Syamaiah. He stated that after construction of house in both the plots 93 and 94, he obtained permission from GP

Ramgampalli and stated that he did not verify the title of their vendor under

Ex.B3 and B4 before purchase and he did not issue any paper publication

before purchase of said property calling any objections from persons

interested in the said property.

60.He further stated that in the pahanies verified by him, he found the name of Chirra Ram Linga Reddy i.e., D2 as possessor in respect of the land in Suit Survey number but the title deed is in the name of Perka

Durgaiah. He stated that according to him the passports of D2 and father of

D4 to D6 namely Laxmirajam and D1 are bogus documents. But he stated that they have not filed any documents or proceedings of MRO to show the pass ports of D1 to D3 and D4 to D6 are bogus documents and that they are canceled. He stated that they have not purchased the property under Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 from D1 to D3 and said Laxmirajam and there is no direct sale transactions in between them and D1 to D3 and said Laxmirajam and they have not filed any criminal case against the said Laxmirajam for the alleged cheating stated in his chief affidavit. He admitted that they obtained the permission from GP Rangampalli by submitting Ex.B3 and B4 documents and they have not filed any civil suit against D1 to D3 and said laxmirajam and hjis vendors for cancellation of Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 and they have not obtained any relinquishment deed from the plaintiffs. He stated that at present there is no name as Ganeshnagar locality in the suit Suy.No. 21 in which he purchase the plots under Ex.B3 and Ex.B4.

61. The evidence of PW-8 reveals that he know Peruka Durgaiah and stated that he is running a hotel by the side of Rajiv Rahadari at

Rangampalli outskirts since 15 years and stated that the suit schedule property is an extent of Ac. 4.00 and odd situated in Sy.No. 21 of 54 OS No. 43 of 2008

Rangampalli village and there are 4 of 5 house in the suit schedule property but he does not know to whom the said houses belongs to and also does know that PW-6 and PW-7 owns one house in suit Sy.No. 21 and there is some land of Gramapanchayat in between suit Sy.No. 21 and Rajiv Rahadari but he does not know the Sy.No. Which belongs to the Government in

Rangampalli village. He further stated that he had not seen any document to show that the suit schedule property is a Sunkari Inam land and stated that the suit schedule is still in possession of Peruka Durgaiah as on this date and it is a fallow land and there is no road formed in suit Sy.No. 21 except the road laid by the house owners in the said survey number. He further stated that he had not seen any document of Peruka Durgaiah to show that the suit schedule property is a Sunkari Inam land.

62.The evidence of PW-9 discloses that, he is the upasurpanch of the Rangampalli village since 2013 and stated that he does not know the particulars of the government land and it survey number in Rangampalli village and he had no idea about the survey number of government land that was assigned to the Villagers of the Rangampalli by the government. He stated that if any person constructs any house within the limits of

Gramapanchayat, Rangampalli, he has to obtain permission from the gramapanchayat and after completion, the gramapanchayat will assess the property tax by allotting door number to the house concerned and stated that there are 4 or 5 houses in the suit schedule property. He admitted that the gramapanchayat will allot door number and asses the property tax even though the permission was not obtained for construction of the houses within their limits. He stated that he had no idea that PW-7/Madasu

Veershwar Rao got constructed a house in the suit schedule property and

Gramapanchayat allotted house number as 2-5/8 and also he have no idea as to who are the owners of the houses constructed in the suit schedule property and that PW-6/Gourishetty Dayakar made an application before

Gramapanchayat Rangampally and Gramapanchayat Rangampalli had obtained opinion from the government pleader, Karimnagar and granted 55 OS No. 43 of 2008 permission to PW-6 and gramapanchayat allotted house No. 2-5/16 to the building constructed by PW-6 in the suit schedule property.

63.PW-9 in his cross examination admitted that generally after converting the agricultural land in to house site plots, the gramapanchat will give permission to them for construction of the houses. He stated that the sons of late Peruka Durgaiah filed the present suit by claiming title over the suit schedule property stating that it is a Inam land and to his knowledge the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He further stated that the layout plan in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., Ex.B5 contains the signature of the then Surpanch of the Rangampalli village namely Kondi Kanakaiah. He stated that he does not know that the defendants 1 to 3 and father of D4 to D6 namely Laxmi Rajam purchased the suit schedule property from Peruka Durgaiah under simple sale deed and they converted the suit schedule land into house plots and obtained layout and sold out the house plots to other defendants.

64.PW-10 who was the Upa Surpancha of Rangampalli village for the period from 2001 to 2011 in his cross examination stated that he is an agriculturist and he does not know the particulars of the government land and it survey number in Rangampalli village and he had no idea about the survey number of government land that was assigned to the Villagers of the

Rangampalli by the government. He stated that if any person constructs any house within the limits of Gramapanchayat, Rangampalli, he has to obtain permission from the gramapanchayat and after completion, the gramapanchayat will assess the property tax by allotting door number to the house concerned. He further stated there are 6 houses in the suit schedule property but he had no idea when they were constructed.

65. PW-10 in his cross examination admitted that PW-6 and PW-7 got constructed houses in the suit schedule property but he had no idea about the names of the other persons who got constructed in the suit schedule property and he does not know that PW-6 and PW-7 got constructed their houses in the suit schedule property by obtaining permission from 56 OS No. 43 of 2008

Gramapanchayat, Rangampalli and allotted house numbers as 2-5/8 and 2- 5/16. He admitted that generally after converting their agricultural land in to house plots, the gramapanchayat will give permission to them for construction of the houses and he had not seen the proceedings issued by the government by assigning the suit schedule property as Sunkari Inami land to the said Peruka Durgaiah and stated that to his knowledge the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he does not know about the alleged conducting of enquiry and giving report by MRO and he had no personal knowledge about the same. He stated that he does not know that the defendants 1 to 3 and father of D4 to D6 namely

Laxmi Rajam purchased the suit schedule property from Peruka Durgaiah under simple sale deed and they converted the suit schedule land into house plots and obtained layout and sold out the house plots to other defendants.

66.PW-11 who is the defendant No.44 in the present suit in his evidence stated that he had purchased the house plot to an extent of 273

Sq.yrds. From D-47/Basavaiah in the year 2005 under registered sale deed and he does not remember the sale consideration paid by him to his vendor and he had not verified the title of his vendor i.e., D47 before he purchase of the said house plots. He stated that his plot number is 81 in Sy.No.21 and he got constructed the house in said plot No. 81 about 10 year back and he residing in the said plot and the house number is 2-5/7 and he is paying property tax to the gramapanchayat, Rangampalli. He further stated by the date of purchase of the said plot No.81, there are no civil disputes in respect of the land purchased by him and in the year 2006, he came to know that the suit schedule propery in Sy.No. 21 was assigned to Peruka Durgaiah but he had not seen any proceedings to show that the suit schedule property was assigned to Peruka Durgaiah. He further stated that he had not obtained any bank loan by mortgaging his house plot and he had not collected the link document of his vendor and he had not filed any suit and not issued any legal notice to D47/his vendor by questioning him as to why 57 OS No. 43 of 2008 he sold the Inam land to him and stated that his claiming his title basing on the document executed by D47 in his favour. He stated that he does not know that D1 to D3 and father of D4 to D6 namely Laxmi Rajam purchased the suit schedule property from Peruka Durgaiah in the year 1961 and 1967 and they are having absolute right and title over the suit schedule property and they sold away the same to D47 and others and D47 inturn sold the plot

No.81 to him.

67.PW-12 who is the sarpanch of Rangamapalli village since 2013 in his cross examination stated that the government land in Rangampalli village is situated in survey Nos. 22, 44, 88, 98, 145, 235 and out the said survey numbers, the government assigned the land in survey number 98 to weaker section people as house site plots, the land in survey number 235 was given to substation of Rangampalli village. He stated that there are five of six houses in survey number 21 of Rangampalli village i.e., suit schedule property and their gramapanchayat allotted door numbers to them and collecting the property tax and he does not know whether the houses in the suit schedule property were constructed after obtaining permission from the

Gramapanchayat, Rangampalli. He stated that he came to know through their villagers that the suit schedule property was allotted to Peruka

Durgaiah as Inam land and stated that the Ex.B5 layout land shown to him was issued by Grampanchayat, Rangampalli in respect of land in Sy.No. 21 and 22.

68.PW-12 in his cross examination further stated that the present suit as the defendants are interfering in their possession over the suit schedule property and he does not know that the criminal case was registered against the plaintiffs in PS Peddapally for demolishing the house property of Nalamasu Sriramulu and he also does not know that the plaintiifs filed a criminal case for the offence under SC/ST Act against one Nalamasu

Sriramulu and that there are about 60 registered documents registered in sub registrar office, Peddapally in respect of land in suit survey number 21.

he admitted that out of the stamp duty paid by the purchasers in respect of 58 OS No. 43 of 2008 the property in Rangampally Gramapanchayat, their Gramapanchayat will receive share in the stamp duty and stated that he does not know that the plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs. 9,44,000/- towards stamp duty for execution of Ex.B1 in respect of the suit schedule property and stated that he did not address any letter to the register office, Peddapalli with request not to register the documents in respect of the suit schedule property as it is an

Inam land and he had seen the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property and he does not know names of defendants 1 to 3 and father of D4 to D6 namely Laxmirajam reflected in the pahanies as owners and pattedars in respect of the suit schedule property. He further stated that there are 1 to 305 survey numbers in their village.

69.DW-2/3rd defendant in his cross examination stated that his father namely Chirra Ramredy purchased the properties in Rangampalli village and he purchased land to an extent of Ac. 05-13 guntas in his name,

Ac. 05-13 guntas in the name of D2 in Sy.No. 19 of Rangampalli village under registered sale deeds and also purchased the land to an extent of Ac.

2.10 guntas in the name of D2 in the suit survey number under simple sale deed and mutation was effected in the name of D2 in the year 1971 and patta was issued in his favour. He deposed that he submitted the simple sale deed before Tahsildar office, Peddapalli at the time of mutation and his name is entered as pattedar in pahanies and there is 50-B certificate issued in favour of D2 in respect of suit land.

70.The evidence of DW-2 further reveals that, in Ex.B20 pahani for the year 1970-71, the name of Peruka Durgaiah was reflected as pattedar in respect of suit land in Sy.No. 21 and so also in Ex.B21 to Ex.B41. Ex.B42 to

Ex.B50 the name of D2 and Peruka Durgaiah was shown as pattedars in respect of suit land in Sy.No. 21 and admitted that Ex.B51 pahani, the names D1, D2 and Laxmi Rajam was shown as pattedars and possessors in respect of suit land in Sy.No. 21. But he had not filed the original of pattedar passbooks of D2 and D2 was died on 18-03-2007 and his educational qualification B.E. MS., P.hd in U.S.A and he worked as Professor in U.S.A. on 59 OS No. 43 of 2008

North Western state University and also worked in India in Deccan

Engineering College, Hyderabad. He admitted that he gifted the land to an extent of Ac. 2.10 guntas in suit survey No. 21 in favour of his son under registered gift deed bearing document No. 1574/2003, dt. 08-04-2003 and his elder brother i.e., D2 was present at the time of execution of gift deed in favour of his son and his name is mutated in respect of the land in suit survey number. He stated that his daughter namely Vajrala Rama Devi filed a Civil suit in O.S. No. 42/2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Peddapalli on the same is ended in compromise. Ex.A11 is the certified copy of Judgment decree in the said O.S. No. 42/2003, dt. 06-12-2004.

71.DW-2 admitted that he was having only Ac. 2.10 guntas of land in suit survey number and admitted that Ex.B17 to Ex.B21 the name of

Chirra Ramreddy i.e., his father was shown as possessor in suit survey number and also admitted that in Ex.B26 his name was shown as possessor in suit survey number and D2 name was shown as possessor in suit survey number Ex.B27 to Ex.B31 and in Ex.B32 the possessor column is kept blank and the name of D2 was not mentioned in possessory column in Ex.B33 and

Ex.B34. He stated that in Ex.B35 the name of his father was mentioned as possessor in respect of suit survey number and in Ex.B36 the name of either himself or D2 is not mentioner in possessor column and stated that the name of Laxmi Rajam i.e., father of D4 to D7 is shown in possessory column in suit survey number. In Ex.B37 the name of D1, D2 was mentioned in possessory column in suit survey number, in Ex.B38, Ex.B39 the possessory column was kept blank, in Ex.B40 to Ex.B43 the names of D1 to D3 was mentioned in possessory column in suit survey number and in Ex.B44 to

Ex.B51 his name, D1, D2 and father of D4 to D7 namely Laxmi Rajam was mentioned in possessory column in suit survey number. He stated that he does not know that PW-1 submitted an application in the year 1997 before

RDO Peddapalli with a request to delete the names of D1 and D2 and father

D4 to D7 in revenue records in respect of suit Sy.No. under Ex.B13 proceedings.

60 OS No. 43 of 2008 72.DW-2 further stated in his cross examination that they had also submitted simple sale deed dt: 16.3.1967 at the time of obtaining Form 50-B certificate before Tahasildar, Peddapalli and he executed original of Ex.A12 gift deed in favour of his son on the instructions of second defendant

B.Doc.No. 1574/2003. He stated that he does not know that Perka Ramaiah preferred a revision against the proceeding under Ex.B13 before Joint

Collector, Karimnagar and the same was dismissed and also does not know that the said Perka Ramaiah again filed writ petition before Hon’ble High

Court against the orders of the Joint Collector, Karimnagar and the same was dismissed and also does not know that the said Perka Ramaiah filed a writ appeal before Hon’ble High Court in WA.No. 434/2005 and the same was allowed directing the Joint collector to take the application from Perka

Ramaiah and other concerned and issue proceedings as per procedure and he also does not know that the said Perka Ramaiah submitted an application

before Joint Collector to reconsider his application. He denied that he

engaged an advocate by name P.Kiran Kumar Singh as his counsel before

Joint Collector, Peddapalli. He himself stated that Ex.A13 signature shown to him on the vakalath in file No. D1/1847/2017 belongs to him and Ex.A14 is his signature on the counter in file No.D1/1847/2017. He stated that he does not know when the first defendant obtained ROR Proceedings and he know that the first defendant purchase Ac. 1-00 of land from Perka Durgaiah in the year 1966 in suit Survey number under simple sale deed and he does not remember the exact sale consideration of the said Ac. 1-00 of land and he also did not sign as a witness on the simple sale deed of D1 and also does not know the names of the witnesses of the said simple sale deed and he does not know the boundaries of the said Ac.1-00 of land.

73.DW-2 in his cross examination stated that he does not know the family members particulars of the Laxmi Rajam but he purchased Ac. 1 ½ of land in suit survey number from Perka Durgaiah under simple sale deed and he is not a witness for the same. He does not know the total extent of land purchased by one Chittmallu Srinivas under Ex.B54 and one Thota 61 OS No. 43 of 2008

Shankar/D50 purchased the land to an extent of Ac. 01.20 gts from D4 to D7 under Ex.B55 but he is not a witness to Ex.B55. He stated that he does not know it is mentioned in his written statement that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but not shown as pattedar in the pahanies. He stated that he know the contents of Ex.B62 to Ex.B64. D2 purchase the property in the year 1967. D1 purchase the property in the year 1966 and father of D4 to D7 purchase the property in the year 1961.

he stated that D50 filed an application before the court for impounding

Ex.B62 to Ex.B64. D50 and 54 paid the stamp duty penalty before District

Registrar Karimnagar and he does not know in whose name the said stamp duty and penalty paid and he does not know that District Registrar send the notices to D1, D2, father of D4 to D7 and father of plaintiffs and he does not know whether he received the notice issued to the D2 and also does not know as to how he got Ex.B63. He stated that he does not as to how they got Ex.B62 to 64 original documents when they are already submitted to the

Tahasildar Peddapalli at the time of ROR. He added that by replacing the xerox copies, they obtained the originals i.e., Ex.B62 to Ex.B64 and in

Ex.B62 to Ex.B64 does not contain the seal of RDO or MRO.

74.DW-4/defendant No.54 in his cross examination stated that he knows defendants 1 to 3 and Laxmi Rajam purchased the property in suit survey number from Peruka Durgaiah under simple sale deed before his purchase and stated that he purchased the land in suit survey number from 1st defendant but he had not filed his document in to the court and he does not know the total extent of the land in suit survey number 21 and also does not know the total extent of land owned by Defendant No.2 and 3 in suit survey number 21 and also does not know the total extent of the land owned by the father of D4 to D7 namely Laxmi Rajam. He further stated that he does not remember the date of his registered document and its number under which he purchased the land from D1 and he also does not remember his plot number. He stated that he had not filed any document to show that the land in survey number 21 and 22 situated in Rangampalli 62 OS No. 43 of 2008 village was converted in to plots and also does not know that in the year 2003, the 1st defendant obtained ROR in respect of the suit schedule property without the presence of the said Peruka Durgaiah and the said

Peruka Durgaiah was died in the year 1994.

75.DW-5/defendant No.47 in his cross examination admitted that he purchased his property i.e., land to an extent of Ac. 2.10 guntas in suit survey number from 2nd defendant under registered sale deed bearing document No. 1962/2005. Ex.A15 is the true copy of the registered agreement of sale cum GPA under which he purchased and it contains the photo of D2 and he is an engineer.

76.DW-6/defendant No. 50 in his evidence stated that he purchased the plot measuring 210 Sq.Yds from the legal heirs of Laxmi Rajam under registered sale deed bearing document No. 313/2005, dt. 28-05-2005 and stated that there is no mention about the layout number and date in his registered sale deed and he got constructed the house in the land purchased by him by obtaining permission from Gramapanchayat,

Rangampalli but he had not filed the same in to the court. He further stated that he sold away the said house to one Chittamalla Srinivas in the year 2009 under registered document. He stated that he came to know by seeing pass books of father of D4 to D7 namely Laxmi Rajam that

Defendants No. 1 and 2 and Laxmi Rajam purchased the land in suit survey number from one Peruka Durgaiah about 50 years back. He stated that he does not know that the Peruka Durgaiah was the original pattedar of the suit schedule property and does not know that the plaintiffs submitted application before MRO, Peddapalli to delete the names of the D1, D2 and father of D4 to D7 as possessor of suit schedule property and also does not know that MRO, Peddapalli submitted a report to RDO, Peddapalli and the

RDO, Peddapalli after enquiry dismissed the application submitted by the plaintiffs and on that the plaintiffs preferred a Revision before Joint Collector,

Karimnagar and the same was dismissed and on that the plaintiffs filed writ petition before Hon’ble High Court and the said writ petition was disposed 63 OS No. 43 of 2008 off with a direction to Join Collector, Peddapalli for re-trial. He stated that he does not know the names of the persons who purchased the plots in suit

Sy.No. 21 and stated that there are houses constructed in suit survey number 21. He further stated that he does not know the criminal case number that was filed against the plaintiff stated in his chief affidavit and also does not know the names of the defendants who compromised the matter with the plaintiffs and he also does not know that some of the defendants compromised the matter with the plaintiffs as they are the original owners of the suit schedule property and he also does not know that

MRO, Peddapalli issued a memo stating that D1, D2 and father of D4 to D7 are not the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property.

77.PW-1 himself admitted in his cross examination that suit schedule property is converted into house plots and houses are got constructed, roads are laid and electrical poles are erected in the suit property. Therefore, the extent of the suit land i.e., Ac. 4-30 gts in Sy.No. 21 is converted into residential plots and there are houses constructed by the purchasers and roads are laid by the Grampanchayath Rangampalli. PW-1 himself stated in his cross examination that they did not sought for any relief for cancellation of registered sale deed executed by D1 to D3 and the legal heirs of Laxmirajam who was the father of D4 and D5 in favour of D10 to D62. The defendants got impleaded the defendant No.10 to 67 on the ground that they purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deeds. In the said registered sale deeds, rough sketch map shows demarcation of house site plots, formation of internal roads in the suit land.

During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs got dismissed the suit against

D10, D12, D16, D27, D30, D33, D35 to D37, D44, D52 and others on the ground that they are compromised the suit claim with them, but they did not get the suit schedule amended to delete the extent of the land purchased by the said defendants and continued to proceed with the suit for the total extent of the land. The above said persons purchased their plots from D47 and others who purchased the same from defendant No.1, 2 and Nadiveddi 64 OS No. 43 of 2008

Laxmirajam. The plaintiffs did not file any suit against Vaida Veeraiah or his legal heirs with regard to the redemption of alleged mortgage deed and no document is filed before the court to show that they mortgaged the suit schedule property to Vaida Veeraiah.

78.Ex.B61 is the lay out plan in respect of Sy.No.21 and 22 of

Rangampalli village. Ex.B62 is the simple sale deed, dt: 30.04.1966 along with telugu translation (duly impounded), Ex.B63 is the simple sale deed,

dt:16.03.1967 along with telugu translation (duly impounded), Ex.B64 s the

simple sale deed, dt: 22.09.1961 along with telugu translation (duly impounded). The simple sale deeds relied on by the defendants was neither stamped nor registered and they got the same impounded by paying stamp duty and penalty. The Proviso to Sec. 49 of the Registration Act makes it evident that it is only with reference to the transaction effecting the immovable property. Under the Law, a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. An unregistered sale deed which was duly impounded can be relied upon for limited purpose showing that the possession of the vendee is lawful possession or as evidence of some collateral transaction. Though Ex.B62 to

Ex.B64 are simple sale deeds, it is for the plaintiffs to show their right and title over the suit schedule property and they are expected to stand on the strength of their own case. The evidence of DW-2 reveals that D2 purchased the property in the year 1967, father of D4 to D7 purchase the property in the year 1961 and D1 purchased the property in the year 1966. He stated that Defendant No.50 and 54 paid the stamp duty and penalty before

District Registrar Karimnagar. He denied that Ex.B62 to Ex.B64 are fabricated documents.

79.In Ex.B1 it is mentioned that the 5th plaintiff and 4th plaintiff paid a consideration of Rs. 1,57,30,000/- to the plaintiffs No.6 to 11 and others and obtained the said registered sale deed. PW-1 in his cross examination stated that it is also mentioned in Ex.B1 that the possession of the property covered thereunder is delivered to him and 4th plaintiff. He denied that he 65 OS No. 43 of 2008 and other plaintiffs or their father are never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since about 57 years and they have no title over the suit schedule property and also denied that the alleged claim of mortgage is false and they contacted false story for the purpose of this suit and their father Perka Durgaiah already sold away the suit schedule property long back and they have no right and possession over the suit schedule property and they have no right to file the present suit and the same is not maintainable.

80.The doctrine of lispendens provides no fixed property can be transferred while an action relating to it is pending before a court of law. The doctrine of lispendens embodied in Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act effectively provides that during the pendency of the suit in which any right to immovable property is in question, the property cannot be transferred by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of other parties. Therefore, the property which is in dispute, should not be either sold or otherwise dealt in by any party to the dispute pendentlite. Here in the present case, the 4th plaintiff and 5th plaintiff purchased the part of property under Ex.B1 from the plaintiffs No.6 to 11 and others and obtained the said registered sale deed on 23.12.2016 i.e., during the pendency of the present suit which was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Therefore, the sale of the said property made by the plaintiffs No.6 to 11 in favour of 4th and 5th plaintiffs during pendency of the suit was hit by doctrine of lispendens.

81.When the evidence of PW-1 to 12 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A32 and answers elicited in their cross examination and the evidence of DW-2,

DW-4 to 6 coupled with Ex.B1 to Ex.B64 and for the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they got absolute right and title over the suit schedule property and therefore they are not entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for.

66 OS No. 43 of 2008

82. ISSUE NO. 2:-

In the present suit, there are to main reliefs viz one for declaration of title and the other for recovery of possession. For a suit for declaration of title, the limitation is three years under Article 58 of Limitation

Act and the time from which the period of limitation begins to run is the time when the right to sue first accrues. For a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property or any interest there on based on title, the limitation is 12 years under Article 65 of the limitation Act and the time from which the period of limitation begins to run is the time when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs.

83.According to the plaintiffs, their father Perka Durgaiah borrowed a loan of Rs. 300/-, seven bags of paddy and (3) bags of maize from the defendant No.1 and his brother late Vaida Veeraiah who were the members of joint family, by mortgaging the suit land in their favour about 43 to 44 years back and said Perka Durgaiah executed a mortgage deed in the name of Vaida Veeraiah who was the elder brother and as kartha of the family, in the presence of perka Pedda Narsaiah, Perka Hanmaiah and Mamidipelli

Lingaiah of Rangampalli village and said mortgage deed was handed over to late Vaida Veeraiah and is in possession of the defendants. Later the said

Perka Durgaiah offered to repay the said mortgage loan to the defendant

No.1 several times but he evaded to receive the same by stating that his brother Vaida Veeraiah was not available in the village and later the said

Perka Durgaiah died without redeeming the mortgage made by him and however, the plaintiffs are ready to pay the mortgage amount if the court directs and they further contends that in the year 1996, they offered to repay the loan to the first defendant and demanded him to return the mortgage deed but he refused to do so. If it is really so, the father of the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs ought to have filed the said mortgage deed when the first defendant alleged to have refused to receive the said mortgage loan amount for releasing the mortgage property. They did not file any suit for redemption of mortgage deed against the first defendant and said Vaida 67 OS No. 43 of 2008

Veeraiah. PW-1 in his cross examination stated that he had not filed any proof to show that his father Durgaiah mortgage the suit schedule property to the first defendant and said Vaida Veeraiah and they have not issued any legal notice to them stating that they are ready to repay the mortgage loan taken by their father. He further stated that he did not issue any legal notice to the said Vaida Veeraiah or his LRs with a request to hand over the mortgage deed alleged to be handed over to said Vaida Veeraiah and stated that he does not know even the date of said mortgage. He admitted that his father did not file any civil suit against anybody in respect of suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, the said mortgage is not redeemed by their father Perka Durgaiah during his life time and so also the plaintiffs also not redeemed the mortgage.

84.In the cause of action para in the plaint, it is mentioned that the cause of action for the suit arose in the month of 1998 when the defendants appeared before MRO., Peddapalli during enquiry in file No. B/3112/1998. In para No.4 of the plaint it is mentioned that about 43 or 44 years back, the father of the plaintiff namely Perka Durgaiah obtained loan from the defendants and 5 years thereafter, their father offered to repay the loan to the defendant but he did not receive the same. The said Perka Durgaiah was died in the year 1992. But the plaintiffs did not file any suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property against the defendants No.1, 2 and the Laxmirajam by stating that they are in illegal occupation of the suit schedule property. There is no convincing explanation from the plaintiffs for not filing the suit for redemption for all these period.

85.For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, and as seen from the plaint averments and answers elicited in the cross-examination of

PW-1 to 12 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A32, I am of the considered opinion that the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered.

86. ISSUE No.4:- 68 OS No. 43 of 2008

The onus to prove issue No.4 is on the plaintiffs. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs as indigent persons in OP.No. 478 of 2005 on 25.07.2005 by stating that they are not in a position to pay the required court fee and the said petition was allowed permitting the petitioners/plaintiffs to present the suit under forma pauperis and the same is numbered as O.S.No. 43 of 2008 on 31.10.2008. The plaintiffs mentioned the valuation of the suit in para No.15 of the plaint. The plaintiffs has valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.35,62,500/- for the relief of possession and declaration. On perusal of the record and as per office note, though they filed the suit in forma pauperis, subsequently they paid the court fee as per orders in I.A.No. 528 of 2017 dt: 21.12.2017.

Accordingly, the issue No.4 is answered.

87. ISSUE NO.5:-

In view of the above finding on issue No.1 to 3, I find that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly the issue No.5 is answered.

88. ISSUE NO.6:-

In view of the above finding the issue No.1 to 5, the suit has to be dismissed. But under circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

In the result, suit is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 6 th day of August, 2020.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT- CUM-

ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: FOR THE DEFENDANTS

P.W.1 : Perka RamaiahDW1 : Vaida Mohan @ Monaiah

P.W.2 : Perka LingaiahDW2 : Chirra Jagan Mohan Reddy

P.W.3 : Irugurala RajaiahDW3 : Kondi Kankaiah

P.W.4 : Mamidipalli RajeshamDW4 : Podila Kumaramaswamy 69 OS No. 43 of 2008

P.W.5 : Dadidara MuthaiahDW5 : Kamutala Basavaiah

P.W.6 : Gourisetti DayakarDW6 : Thota Shankar

P.W.7 : Madasu Veereshwar Rao

P.W.8 : Mohd. Hussain

P.W.9 : Vemula Raju

P.W.10 : Vaida Venkataiah

P.W.11 : Payyala Sammaiah

P.W.12 : Pudari Mahender

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:-

Ex.A-1 : CC of Pahani for the year 1955-56. 1956-57 and 1957-58. Ex.A-2 :CC of Pahani for the year 1984-85. Ex.A-3 : CC of Pahani for the year 1990-91. Ex.A-4 : CC of Pahani for the year 1991-92. Ex.A-5 : CC of Pahani for the year 1994-95 Ex.A-6 :CC of Pahani for the year 2000-01 Ex.A-7 :CC of Pahani for the year 2001-02. Ex.A-8 :Death certificate of Perka Durgaiah Issued by Tahsildar, Peddapally, dt. 22.01.2017. Ex.A-9 :Memo Issued by Tahsildar, Peddapally, dt. 01-02-2018 in No.Record/62/2018. Ex.A-10 :Memo issued by Tahsildar, Peddapally, dt. 01.02.2018 in No. Record-63/2018. Ex.A-11 :Certified copy of judgment and decree in OS 42/2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, date. 06-12-2004. Ex.A-12 :Certified copy of the registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.1574/2003. Ex.A-13 : Signature of DW2 on the vakalath in file No.D1/1847/2017. Ex.A-14 : Signature of DW2 on the counter in file No.D1/1847/2017. Ex.A-15 :True copy of registered agreement of sale cum GPA bearing document No. 1962/2005. Ex.A-16 :True copy of registered supplementary agreement of sale cum GPA bearing document No. 150/2010. Ex.A-17 Attested copies of pahanies for the year 1958-89, 1959-60, to Ex.A-231961-62, 1972-73, 1977-78, 1982-83, 1986-87 respectively. Ex.A-24 toAttested copies of pahanies for the year 2005-06, 2007-08, Ex.A30 :2008-09, 2010-11, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2014-15 respectively. Ex.A-31 :Attested copy of memo No. 482/2005, dated. 08-08-2005. Ex.A-32 :Letter received from Panchayath Secretary, Gramapanchayath, Rangampalli.

70 OS No. 43 of 2008

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:-

Ex.B1 : Mee Seva copy of Registered sale deed No. 559/2017, Ex.B2 : True copy of Registered sale deed No. 1630/2009, Ex.B3 : True copy of registered sale deed No. 2986/2008, Ex.B4 : Truecopy of registered sale deed No. 909/2010, Ex.B5 : Layout plan of suit schedule property, Ex.B6 : Title deed of N.Laxmirajam, Ex.B7 : Title deed of first defendant, Ex.B8 : Form-13-B certificate issued by MRO, Peddapalli in favour of first defendant dt: 06.11.2003 of ROR No. 45/89, Ex.B9 : Form-13-C1.2003 of ROR No. 45/89, Ex.B10 : Form-13-B certificate issued by MRO, Peddapalli in favour of first defendant dt: 06.11.2003 of ROR No. 46/89, Ex.B11 : Form-13-C certificate issued by MRO, Peddapalli in favour of first defendant dt: 06.11.2003 of ROR No. 46/89, Ex.B12 :Proceedings of Tahsildar, Peddapally dt: 08.10.1971 in Dis.No. B2/7716/1971, Ex.B13 :Proceedings No. B/3112/98 of the RDO, Peddapalli dt: 3.11.2000, Ex.B14 :Memo No. C/record/1/2001, dt: Nil-06-2001 issued by MRO, Peddapalli, Ex.B15 :Certified copy of orders passed by Hon’ble High Court of AP at Hyderabad in WP.No. 19175/2–3, dt: 17.03.2004, Ex.B16 CC of pahanies for the year 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969- to 70, 1970-71. Ex.B20: Ex.B21 CC of pahanies for the year 1971-72, 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975- to 76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-083. Ex.B30 : Ex.B31 CC of pahanies for the year 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986- to 87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, Ex.B40 :1992-93. Ex.B41 CC of pahanies for the year 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997- to 98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, Ex.B51 :2004-05. Ex.B52 :Mee seva copy of registered certificate of sale bearing document No. 5104/2015, Ex.B53 :Mee Seva copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 97/2016, Ex.B54 :Mee Seva copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 5- 44/2009, Ex.B55 :Mee seva copy of registered sale deed bearing docum,ent No. 313/2005, Ex.B56 : CC of pahani for the year 2014-15, Ex.B57 :Mee Seva copy of adungal pahani dated 07.08.2017 for the fasli 1427, Ex.B58 :Mee Seva copy of adungal pahani dated 02.03.2018 for the fasli 1421, Ex.B59 :Mee Seva copy of adungal pahani dated 02.03.2018 for the fasli 71 OS No. 43 of 2008 1420, Ex.B60 :Mee Seva copy of adungal pahani dated 02.03.2018 for the fasli 1422, Ex.B61 :Lay out plan in respect of Sy.No. 21 and 22 of Rangampally village. Ex.B62 :Simple sale deed, dt: 30.04.1966 along with telugu translation (duly impounded), Ex.B63 :Simple sale deed, dt:16.03.1967 along with telugu translation (duly impounded), Ex.B64 :Simple sale deed, dt: 22.09.1961 along with telugu translation (duly impounded).

Judge, Family Court-cum-

Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar.

1 A.S.No. 69 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Smt. P.V.P. Lalitha Siva JyothiSmt. P.V.P. Lalitha Siva Jyothi

Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl.

Dist. & Sessions Judge,

K A R I M N A G A R.

Thursday, this the 5th day of March, 2020.

A.S. No. 69 of 2017

Between : - Burudaganti Shamadattu, w/o Nagelli Gattaiah, age: 49 yrs, occ: Govt. Teacher, r/o H.No. 3-7-165 Vavilalapally locality of Karimnagar city & district, presently residing at H.No. 10-4- 332/2, Vavilalapally locality of Karimnagar city & district.

.....Appellant/Plaintif

And

Burugula Swaroopa, w/o Ramana, age: 26 yrs, occ: House hold r/o H.No. 10-4-100/1 Vavilalapally locality of Karimnagar city & district.

.... Respondent /Defendant

(On Appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Senior Civil

Judge, Karimnagar in O.S. No.163 of 2004 dated 01.06.2017 )

Between : - Burudaganti Shamadattu, w/o Nagelli Gattaiah, age: 49 yrs, occ: Govt. Teacher, r/o H.No. 3-7-165 Vavilalapally locality of Karimnagar city & district, presently residing at H.No. 10-4- 332/2, Vavilalapally locality of Karimnagar city & district. ..... Plaintiff

And

Burugula Swaroopa, w/o Ramana, age: 26 yrs, occ: House hold r/o H.No. 10-4-100/1 Vavilalapally locality of Karimnagar city & district.

..Defendant

APPEAL FILED UNDER ORDER 41 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

This Appeal coming before me on 10.02.2020 for final hearing in the presence ofSri M.R.K.Chary,Advocate for the Appellant/plaintif and Sri P.Lachi Reddy, advocate for the respondent/Defendant, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: - 2 A.S.No. 69 of 2017

- : : J U D G M E N T : : -

The Appellant/plaintif preferred this appeal against the

Judgment and Decree passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in

O.S. No. 163 of 2004 dated 01.06.2017 and the factual matrix leading

to the filing of the appeal is as follows:-

2. The case of the plaintif in O.S. NO. 163 of 2004 as could be seen from the plaint averments in brief is that the defendant agreed to sell H.No. 10-4-100/1 with land comprised in Sy.No. 1327/AB to an extent of 242 Sq.yds situated at Vavilapally of Karimnagar town and district, which is fully described in schedule annexed tot he plaint to the plaintif on 13.05.2004 for a consideration of Rs.3,35,000/- and having received Rs.5,000/- on the same day executed agreement of sale on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- and as per this agreement the defendant has agreed to execute a register sale deed in favour of plaintif or his nominee whenever the balance consideration amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- is paid by the plaintif and she is ready to perform her part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.3,30,000/- but the defendant expressed his unwillingness and finally on 20.07.2004 to execute a registered sale deed by performing his part of contract on the ground that the defendant denied and refused to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintif and on finally the plaintif got issued a

Legal Notice through his counsel on 27.7.2004 demanding the defendant for receive the balance sale consideration and to execute register sale deed in her favour and the said notice was served on defendant on 03.08.2004, but the defendant neither given reply nor executed registered sale deed in favour of plaintif. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the material averments in the plaint and stated that 3 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 she is the owner of the suit property i.e., house bearing No. 10-4-191 corresponding to its old No. 10-4-100/1 with a total area of 242 Sq.

yards in Sy.No. 1327/AB situated at Vavilalapalli having purchased the same from one Pattem Swamy through a registered sale deed Doc.No.

3381/02 dt: 12.06.2002 and the defendant was in urgent necessity of money in the month of May & June, 2004 to a tune of Rs. 50,000/- to meet her liabilities hence she approached her cousin by name K.Mallik with regard to money and said Mallik took her to one N.Gattaiah, advocate i.e., husband of plaintif regarding arrangement of money and said N.Gattaiah when noticed that the defendant owning a suit property, asked and convinced to execute agreement of sale to give money, in fact the defendant was having no intention to sell her house and her cousin and another M.Komuraiah also convinced to her to sell her house and to execute agreement of sale to get money fixing the value of suit property as Rs.3,40,000/- which is much lesser to the then existing market value, accordingly on 13.5.2004 an agreement was drafted in favour of plaintif and obtained the signatures of defendant and she does not know the plaintif personally and never entered into an agreement with her and after executing the agreement, said

N.Gattaiah paid only Rs.5,000/- stating that agreement is drafted for the same and failed to give Rs.50,000/- stating that he had no money and promised to arrange the entire amount within 10 days period, but in the agreement the time is fixed for payment of balance amount of

Rs. 3,35,000/- on or before 13.06.2004 and the said Gattaiah, husband of the plaintif or plaintif failed to pay any amount to her inspite of several requests made by her and the husband of plaintif was postponing the payment stating that he or his wife have no money and soon he will arrange the consideration amount by obtaining loan, but failed to pay any amount within stipulated period and the defendant 4 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 sold her land worth of Rs.1,50,000/- at Gatla Narsingapur village which she got through her mother and fulfilled her urgent necessities. On 15.6.2004 the defendant and her cousin Mallik went to N.Gattaiah told him that the agreement is canceled as he has not paid the consideration amount and the advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- is forefieted, but said Gattaiah requested to return the money for which she refused. Clause (3) of agreement reads “That the vendee shall not paid the remaining sale consideration of Rs.3,35,000/- with the stipulated time to the vendors, the agreement sale will be null and void and the advanced amount of Rs. 5,000/- will be forfeited.” Hence the agreement is terminated on 13.6.2004 by which date said N.Gattaiah or plaintif failed to pay any amount and on 15.5.2004 personally informed the same and later said N.Gattaiah used to threaten the defendant to return Rs. 5,000/- along with interest but when she refused the present suit is filed with false allegations and said Gattaiah, advocate issued a notice dt: 27.7.2004 after the agreement is canceled and after receipt of legal notice the defendant and Mallik went to him and told him that they will return back him Rs.5,000/- with an intention to avoid disputes but he demanded Rs.25,000/- , as the dispute regarding return of money of Rs.5,000/- is pending said Gattaiah got filed the present suit through his wife i.e., plaintif. The defendant has made additional construction to the suit house by raising bathrooms and compound wall and made finished work to the walls with cement plastering by investing Rs. 75,000/- and the said Gattaiah came to the defendant when she is making additional construction to the suit house, and abused and threatened to kill the defendant on 17.12.2004, hence the defendant made a complaint against him before the II town police,

Karimnagar and Cr.No. 391/2004 U/sec. 290 and 506 IPC was registered against him. The plaintif or her husband never ready to perform their 5 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 part of agreement as alleged as per the conditions and in view of the facts, the plaintif is not entitled to seek specific performance of contract and the suit agreement is already canceled, hence there is no cause of action to file the suit. The time is essence of the contract and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the lower Court:-

1. Whether the suit agreement is true and supporting consideration?

2.Whether the plaintif is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale as prayed for ?

3.To what relief?

5. During trial, the plaintif herself got examined as Pw-1 and others as PW-2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A18 on his behalf and DW-1 to DW-3 are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendant. Ex,X1 and Ex.X2 are marked.

6.The trial Court on conclusion of trial and on hearing both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit without costs.

7.Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the plaintif preferred the appeal contending inter alia that the lower court under appeal is erred in law in dismissing the suit seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dt: 13.5.2004/Ex.A13 in respect of plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs.3,40,000/- by paying

Rs.5,000/- towards part of sale consideration in view of the fact that the name of the respondent was not mutated in the Municipal records of

Municipality Karimnagar in respect of plaint schedule property purchased by the respondent and unless the name of the respondent is mutated in the Municipal records in respect of plaint schedule property and property mentioned in Ex.A13, and unless property tax is paid by 6 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 obtaining the receipt therefore, the registering authorities will not register the sale deed unless the receipt of property tax is mentioned in the said sale deed to be registered, therefore, PW-3 the husband of plaintif made eforts by taking steps by spending his amounts to mutate the name of the respondent in Karimnagar Municipal records as is evident from Ex.A2, dt: 5.6.2004 and the husband of the plaintif paid amounts in Ex.A3 to Ex.A5 the Miscellaneous receipts issued by

Municipality Karimnagar and Ex.A6 is the Municipal commissioner proceedings dt: 22.6.2004 along with plan of sanction and the suit is filed on 24.9.2004 within a period of 4 months 11 days from Ex.A13 agreement of sale deed dt: 13.5.2004 and the defendant admitted the execution of Ex.A13 and further, plaintif/appellant got issued legal notice dt: 27.7.2004 in Ex.A18 to the defendant requesting her to execute the register sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,35,000/- pleading that the plaintif is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract in Ex.A13 as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and the said legal notice in Ex.A18 dt:

27.7.2004 was received by the defendant under postal acknowledgement is Ex.A14, DW1 admitted in her cross examination that she had not issued any reply notice to the legal notice issued by the plaintif which shows the conduct of the defendant and her failure to give reply would only to go show that it was against the conduct of the defendant.

The appellant submits that PW-3, who is the husband of the plaintif made eforts in obtaining Ex.A2 to A6 by spending amounts from his pocket as is evident from Ex.A3 to Ex.A5 would show that the plaintif has been ready and willing and is ready and willing to perform her part of contract under Ex.A13 seeking the relief of specific performance and it further proved that the plaintif has kept the 7 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 agreement of sale in Ex.A13 subsisting with preparedness to fulfill the obligation under Ex.A13 agreement of sale as required under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act.It is submitted that explanation 1 of

Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act provides that:

“(i) Where a contract involves the payment of money is not essential for the plaintif to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court and money except when so directed by the court.”

It is submitted that the plaintif is ready and willing to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.3,35,000/- to the credit of suit in OSNo. 163 of 2004 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar and for the same, the appellant will file an application in the Hon’ble court after appearance of respondent under the provisions of section 16(c) explanation (1) to prove the ready and willingness of the plaintif. She further stated that the defendant/DW-1 in her cross examination to the efect that:

“In Municipal records my name was not thereby the date of

Ex.A13, though there is Registered sale deed. It is true that the husband of the plaintif got mutated my name in the Municipal records.”

The appellant further stated that the plaintif as PW-1, PW-2 and

PW-3 went to the house of DW-1 at Mankammathota in Karimnagar town on 12.6.2004 pleading with defendant that balance of sale consideration would be paid to her on 13.6.2004 at the time of registration of register sale deed in the office of Registering Authority, but the defendant did not came to the registering authority, Karimnagar for receiving balance of sale consideration of Rs.3,35,000/- and to execute the register sale deed in favour of plaintif and the defendant submitted a Notarized affidavit dt: 3.6.2004 in Ex.A16 to issue House owner certificate in respect of H.No. 10-4-100/1 (old), 10-4-191 (New) at 8 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 Vavilalapally locality of Karimnagar and that the appellant may be permitted to raise and urge such other grounds at the time of hearing of appeal. Hence this appeal.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for considerations are “Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court in OS 163 of 2004 dated 01-06-2017 is sustainable?” 10.In a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, the plaintif should allege that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The law is well settled the suit for specific performance has to comply the requirement prescribed in Sec. 16-C of specific relief Act.

11.The present suit is filed for specific performance by the plaintif seeking the relief that defendant may be directed to execute register sale deed in her favour by receiving balance sale consideration.

12.The evidence of PW-1/plaintif discloses that the defendant agreed to sell H.No. 10-4-100/1 with land comprised in Sy.No. 1327/AB to an extent of 242 Sq.yds situated at Vavilapally of Karimnagar town and district, and on 13.05.2004 for a consideration of Rs.3,35,000/- and having received Rs.5,000/- on the same day executed agreement of sale on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- and as per this agreement the defendant has agreed to execute a register sale deed in favour of plaintif or his nominee whenever the balance consideration amount of

Rs. 3,30,000/- is paid by the plaintif and she is ready to perform her part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration amount of

Rs.3,30,000/- but the defendant expressed his unwillingness and finally on 20.07.2004 to execute a registered sale deed by performing his part of contract on the ground that the defendant denied and refused to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintif and on finally the plaintif got issued a Legal Notice through his counsel on 27.7.2004 9 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 demanding the defendant for receive the balance sale consideration and to execute register sale deed in her favour and the said notice was served on defendant on 03.08.2004, but the defendant neither gave reply nor executed registered sale deed in favour of plaintif. He further stated that there were some defects in the title in respect of the suit house and therefore her husband being an advocate and herself enquired in the Municipal office and found that the suit house not transferred in her name and her husband deposited an amount of

Rs.500/- and obtained National Saving Certificate to mutate the name of the Defendant and paid Rs. 1905/- in the name of defendant in the

Municipality for development charges and Rs.250/- mutation fee and got mutated the name of defendant in Municipal records in respect of the suit house and spend huge amount to clear her title in Municipal records for which she agreed to deduct the same from the balance consideration amount and also agreed to execute registered sale deed and she always ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount but the defendant avoided to receive the balance sale consideration amount and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- more as the title cleared in

Municipal records and the defendant after receipt of the legal notice neither given any reply nor received balance sale consideration and failed to executed registered sale deed in her favour in the respect of suit house and further stated that the defendant admitted execution of agreement of sale dt: 13.5.2004 and receiving of Rs. 5,000/- towards earnest amount from her and denied the averments of plaint with created story to avoid the execution of registered sale deed in her favour.

13.The evidence of PW-2 discloses that the husband of plaintif is his close friend since long time and they both belongs to same mandal and the defendant approached him and stated that he intends 10 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 to sell her house bearing No. 10-4-100/1 old 10-4-191 new comprised in

Sy.No. 1327/AB to an extent of 242 sq.yrds situated at Vavilalapalli locality of Karimnagar town and that he along with defendant went to the house of plaintif on 12.5.2004 and informed to the plaintif that the defendant intends to sell her house and on 13.5.2004 the defendant, the plaintif and her husband went to the suit schedule property and saw the same and the plaintif agreed to purchase the said house and the consideration was decided for Rs. 3,40,000/-. He further stated that on 13.5.2004 itself himself, the plaintif and her husband went to registration office and purchased NJ stamps, after purchasing the same, they went to the house of defendant and husband of plaintif expressed to scribe document, but the brother-in-law of defendant and the defendant stated that they would prepare the document by consulting with their advocate and therefore, they entrusted the NJ stamps to the defendant and left the house of defendant and the brother-in-law of defendant namely Komuraiah and defendant that stated that they would call them after preparation of document and in the evening on the same day, defendant called them over phone and asked them to come to her house and the plaintif paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant towards earnest money and he attested the document as a witness along with one Komuraiah and plaintif and defendant. On 13.6.2004, the plaintif and her husband asked the defendant to receive the balance consideration amount and to execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintif, but the defendant refused to do so and demanded excess amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground that the title is cleared in Municipal records.

14.PW-3 who is the husband of plaintif discloses that on 12.5.2004 defendant along with PW-2 came to his house and ofered to sell her house i.e., suit property to him, accordingly his wife stated that 11 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 after visiting the suit house, they will come to her house and on 12.5.2004 himself, plaintif and PW-2 went to the suit house situated at

Vavilalapalli and saw the house and after seeing the house the value of the property was finalized at Rs.3,40,000/-. On 13.5.2004 they went to registration office and purchased NJ stamps and went to defendant house and he expressed his intention to scribe the document, but the brother-in-law of defendant and the defendant stated that they would prepare the document by consulting with their advocate and stated that after preparation of document they would call them and on the same day evening called them over phone and asked them to come to her house and they went to the house of defendant and the defendant got prepared the document wherein it is mentioned that balance amount shall be paid within one month or whenever demanded by the defendant and he and plaintif paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the defendant towards earnest money and put their signatures on the document, since the suit house was not mutated in the name of the defendant, he being the advocate got mutated the name of defendant in Municipal records in respect of the suit house by paying house tax mutation and other expenses from his pocket and the defendant agreed to deduct the said expenditure from the balance consideration of amount. On 2-6-2004 PW-1 went to the house of defendant but she was not present, therefore, they made a phone call to defendant, then he asked them to come to the Registration office by getting the document prepared in the name of plaintif and on 13.6.2004 himself,

PW-2 and plaintif went to Registration office, but the defendant did not come to the registration office as promised, they waited for till 2-00 pm,

PW-2 went to the house of defendant and asked her to come to registration office, then the defendant demanded Rs.1,00,000/- in excess for executing a registered sale deed and since the suit property 12 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 was mutated in her name and refused to execute a registered sale deed and therefore they again went to the house of the defendant and demanded to execute a registered sale deed in respect of suit property in favour of the plaintif, but she refused to do so and therefore, the plaintif got issued a legal notice to the defendant, through the said notice was served on the defendant, she did not give any reply or come forward to execute a registered sale deed in respect of suit property in favour of plaintif and on the other hand, taking advantage that her mother is working as a Home guard in the house Circle Inspector of police, the defendant lodged a false complaint against him on 17.12.2004 to threaten them to withdraw the civil suit.

15.The documentary relied upon by the plaintif are Ex.A1 to

Ex.A18. Ex.A1 is the ownership certificate dt: 08.06.2004 issued by

Commissioner, Karimnagar, Ex.A2 is the proceedings of the commissioner dt: 5.6.2004, Ex.A3 to Ex.A5 are the Miscellaneous receipts, Ex.A6 is the Municipal Commissioner proceedings dt:

22.6.2004 along with plan, Ex.A7 is the FDR from postal department bearing No. 31BB 234250, Ex.A8 is the EC, Ex.A9 is the CC of sale deed stands in the name of Burugula Swaroopa, Ex.A10 is the Registration extract of the sale deed bearing doc. No. 4069/76 dt: 9.9.1976 stands in the name of Ragi Kumaraswamy and Bachi Bhumaiah, Ex.A11 is the

Registration of sale deed dt: 9-9-1976 stands in the name of Bachu

Bhumaiah, Ex.A12 is the Registration extract of the GPA dt: 5.2.1982 executed by Bachu Bhoomaiah, Ex.A13 is the Agreement of sale dt:

13.5.2004 which is in between plaintif and Burgula Swaroopa, Ex.A14 is the Postal acknowledgment, Ex.A15 is the Postal receipt, Ex.A16 is the representation of application of B. Swaroopa of Vavilalapalli

Karimnagar to the Municipal Commissioner, Karimnagar, Ex.A17 is the

NSC certificate issued by Sub Post Office Jawarnagar, Karimnagar 13 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 bearing No. 29BB 870179, Ex.A18 is the copy of the legal notice dt: 27- 7-2004 issued to Burugula Swaroopa.

16.As against the evidence of PW-1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A18, DW-1 to DW-3 were examined and Ex.X1 and Ex.x2 are marked on their behalf. Ex.x1 is the CC of FIR in Cr.No. 391/04, Ex.X2 is the CC of Charge sheet in CC.No. 169/06.

17.The evidence of DW-1/defendant discloses that she is the owner of the suit property i.e., house bearing No. 10-4-191 corresponding to its old No. 10-4-100/1 with a total area of 242 Sq.

yards in Sy.No. 1327/AB situated at Vavilalapalli having purchased the same from one Pattem Swamy through a registered sale deed Doc.No.

3381/02 dt: 12.06.2002 and the defendant was in urgent necessity of money in the month of May & June, 2004 to a tune of Rs. 50,000/- to meet her liabilities hence she approached her cousin by name K.Mallik with regard to money and said Mallik took her to one N.Gattaiah, advocate i.e., husband of plaintif regarding arrangement of money and said N.Gattaiah when noticed that the defendant owning a suit property, asked and convinced to execute agreement of sale to give money, in fact the defendant was having no intention to sell her house and her cousin and another M.Komuraiah also convinced to her to sell her house and to execute agreement of sale to get money fixing the value of suit property as Rs.3,40,000/- which is much lesser to the then existing market value, accordingly on 13.5.2004 an agreement was drafted in favour of plaintif and obtained the signatures of defendant and she does not know the plaintif personally and never entered into an agreement with her and after executing the agreement, said

N.Gattaiah paid only Rs.5,000/- stating that agreement is drafted for the same and failed to give Rs.50,000/- stating that he had no money 14 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 and promised to arrange the entire amount within 10 days period, but in the agreement the time is fixed for payment of balance amount of

Rs. 3,35,000/- on or before 13.06.2004 and the said Gattaiah, husband of the plaintif or plaintif failed to pay any amount to her inspite of several requests made by her and the husband of plaintif was postponing the payment stating that he or his wife have no money and soon he will arrange the consideration amount by obtaining loan, but failed to pay any amount within stipulated period and the defendant sold her land worth of Rs.1,50,000/- at Gatla Narsingapur village which she got through her mother and fulfilled her urgent necessities.

18.She further stated that on 15.6.2004 the defendant and her cousin Mallik went to N.Gattaiah told him that the agreement is canceled as he has not paid the consideration amount and the advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- is forefieted, but said Gattaiah requested to return the money for which she refused. Clause (3) of agreement reads “That the vendee shall not paid the remaining sale consideration of

Rs.3,35,000/- with the stipulated time to the vendors, the agreement sale will be null and void and the advanced amount of Rs. 5,000/- will be forfeited.” Hence the agreement is terminated on 13.6.2004 by which date said N.Gattaiah or plaintif failed to pay any amount and on 15.5.2004 personally informed the same and later said N.Gattaiah used to threaten the defendant to return Rs. 5,000/- along with interest but when she refused the present suit is filed with false allegations and said

Gattaiah, advocate issued a notice dt: 27.7.2004 after the agreement is canceled and after receipt of legal notice the defendant and Mallik went to him and told him that they will return back him Rs.5,000/- with an intention to avoid disputes but he demanded Rs.25,000/-, as the dispute regarding return of money of Rs.5,000/- is pending said

Gattaiah got filed the present suit through his wife i.e., plaintif and she 15 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 has made additional construction to the suit house by raising bathrooms and compound wall and made finished work to the walls with cement plastering by investing Rs. 75,000/- and the said Gattaiah came to the defendant when she is making additional construction to the suit house, and abused and threatened to kill the defendant on 17.12.2004, hence the defendant made a complaint against him before the II town police, Karimnagar and Cr.No. 391/2004 U/sec. 290 and 506

IPC was registered against him. The plaintif or her husband never ready to perform their part of agreement as alleged as per the conditions and in view of the facts, the plaintif is not entitled to seek specific performance of contract and the suit agreement is already canceled, hence there is no cause of action to file the suit.

19.The evidence of DW-2 discloses that he know the defendant and husband of plaintif. The defendant was in need of money of

Rs.50,000/- and she was taken to the house of plaintif namely

N.Gattaiah, advocate by one Mallik for the purpose of loan, the defendant was not having any intention to sell her house property but

N.Gattaiah asked her to execute an agreement and on 13.5.2004 said

Gattaiah came to his house with an agreement prepared and asked the defendant to sign the agreement brought by him and obtained signature of the defendant on the agreement and gave Rs.5,000/- only and when the defendant asked about the amount of Rs.50,000/-, he said that agreement was prepared only for Rs.5,000/- and he is not having fifty thousand with him and he attested the said document and the consideration for the suit property was unilaterally fixed by

N.Gattaiah and the plaintif was not present during the said transaction and in fact the prevailing the then market value was Rupees four lakhs per gunta, said Gattaiah promised to arrange the amount within ten days but the date for payment is noted in agreement as 13.6.2004, 16 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 subsequently the said Gattaiah did not pay the amount as promised and told him that he will pay the consideration amount after obtaining the loan and defendant sold her land at Gatlanarsingapur village and fulfilled her necessity and the husband of plaintif who managed the entire transaction dominating the defendant and he is at fault in creating agreement.

20.The evidence of DW-3 discloses that he know the plaintif’s husband and defendant and defendant is his relative and the defendant was in need of money of Rs.50,000/- and requested him to arrange the same from anyone, as he know Gattaiah, advocate, he took the defendant to him and he advised to sell the house owned by the defendant and convinced to execute agreement of sale to meet her necessity of money and later he came to know said Gattaiah got executed an agreement of sale on 13.5.2004 in respect of the defendant’s house in the name of his wife unilaterally fixing the consideration of house and paid only Rs.5,000/- to defendant and the defendant fulfilled her necessity by selling her land at Gatlanarsingapur village. On 15.6.2004 he along with defendant went to the house of

N.Gattaiah, told him that the agreement is canceled and the amount of

Rs.5,000/- paid by him is forfeited but said Gattaiah to return advance amount paid by him for which the defendant refused to pay and the defendant himself does not know the plaintif and the agreement is already terminated with N.Gattaiah, as the advance amount is not refunded, the said Gattaiah got issued a legal notice on 27.7.2004 and after issuing the legal notice herself and defendant went to N.Gattaiah’s house and told him to receive the advance amount to avoid dispute but he demanded Rs. 25,000/- which the defendant refused to pay and in view of the said dispute got filed the present suit through his wife.

17 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 21.As seen from the record, the case of the plaintif is that, the defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintif and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of

Rs.3,40,000/- and plaintif paid an advance amount of Rs.5,000/- and defendant received the same and that he is ready to perform his part of contract by paying balance sale consideration and the defendant failed to perform her part of contract inspite of legal notice got issued by him.

22.According to the defendant, he is the owner of the suit schedule property and that he was an urgent necessity of money in

May and June, 2004 to a tune of Rs. 50,000/- to meet her liabilities and she approached her cousin K.Mallik who took her to one Gattaiah, advocate i.e., husband of the plaintif for arrangement of money and the said Gattaiah convinced her to execute an agreement of sale to give money and in fact she has no intention to sell the house and her cousin and one Komuraiah also convinced her to execute the agreement of sale to get money by fixing the value of the suit property @ Rs.3,40,000/- and accordingly on 13.5.2004 an agreement was drafted in favour of the plaintif and obtained her signatures and she does not know the plaintif personally and never entered into an agreement with the plaintif and after executing the said agreement,

N.Gattaiah, advocate paid only Rs.5,000/- and in agreement the time is fixed for payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.3,35,000/- on or

before 13.6.2004 but the said Gattaiah, advocate failed to pay the said

balance amount inspite of several requests made by her and postponed the same and there is a clause (3) of agreement “That if the vendee shall not paid the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 3,35,000/- with the stipulated time to the vendors, the agreement sale will be null and void and the advanced amount of Rs. 5,000/- will be forfeited.” and as such the agreement is terminated on 13.6.2004 as they failed to pay 18 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 the balance sale consideration and she personally inform the same to them and the plaintif or her husband were never ready to perform their part of agreement as per the conditions stipulated therein and the suit agreement is already canceled and there is no cause of action to file the suit.

23.On perusal of the evidence of PW-1 to 3, it could be seen that the defendant entered into Ex.A13 an agreement of sale with the plaintif and agreed to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of

Rs.3,40,000/- and the plaintif paid an advance of Rs.5,000/- and the defendant received the same and subsequently, the defendant failed to register the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintif though she is ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Whereas the evidence of DW-1 to 3 reveals that when the defendant is in need of

Rs.50,000/-, she approached the DW-3 who took her to PW-3 and convinced her to execute the sale deed and obtained her signatures on the document and paid only Rs.5,000/- and agreed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- within 10 days, but he did not pay the said Rs.50,000/- or the balance sale consideration as mentioned under Ex.A13 and as per the terms of the Ex.A13 agreement, the balance amount should be made within one month or otherwise the agreement shall stand canceled and advance amount shall be forfeited and the plaintif is not entitled for specific performance of agreement.

24.DW-1/defendant admitted the execution of Ex.A13 agreement and receiving of an advance amount of Rs.5,000/- but contends that the plaintif herself has fixed the sale consideration amount and induced her to sign on the said document by stating that they will pay Rs.50,000/- within 10 days and the remaining amount within one month, but failed to pay balance sale consideration as per terms and conditions of the said agreement and as per clause (3) of 19 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 Ex.A13, itself stand canceled and advance amount paid by the defendant will be forfeited and the plaintif is not entitled for the relief specific performance of agreement. It was pleaded by the defendant that it was the plaintif who was guilty of breach of contract.

25.In a suit for specific performance a proposed purchaser must necessarily prove his financial capacity and which is a sine qua non as per Sec. 16 (3) of Specific Relief act. Sec. 16 (3) of Specific

Relief Act requires that a proposed purchaser must always be and continue to be ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

Readiness has been interpreted to mean financial capacity. Financial capacity must exist to pay the balance sale consideration right from time of entering into the agreement to sell till the disposal of the suit.

This is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P.

Thirugnanam (D) by L.Rs Vs. Dr. R.Jagan Mohan Rao and others (1955) 5 SCC 115.

26.The burden lies on the plaintif not only prove the execution of agreement of sale and also her entitlement for relief thereunder.

Mere proof of agreement by itself does not entitle for grant of relief. The plaintif has not filed any income tax returns or any bank account or proof of any other asset or any other evidence to show the financial capacity of the plaintif to pay the balance sale consideration. There is no single piece of paper on record or any credible evidence which proves the financial capacity of the plaintif.

27.The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a citation reported in 2012 (3) ALD 690 (para 17) of A.P. High court between

Chama Radhamma Vs. Chama Venugopal Reddy, whereas it was held that, “The material on record does not disclose that Sri Chama

Narsimha Reddy failed to perform his contract and that he had 20 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 requested to cancel the agreement, except self serving statement of defendant No.1 in reply notice as well as in the written statement. It is more so in the light of nothing being said in Ex.A5 about the advance payment of sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid to defendant No.1 by deceased Sri Chama Narsimha reddy under the agreement of sale.

It is settled proposition of law that escalation of real estate price is not a ground to deny the specific relief. So far as readiness, willingness and capacity of the plaintifs are concerned, this court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that the plaintifs are ever ready and willing to perform their part of contract and that they have capacity to pay the balance sale consideration particularly having regard to the fact that they have deposited balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,060/- into the court. ”

Another citation reported in 2015 (5) S.C.C.223 between

Rathnavathi and another Vs. Kavita Ganashamdas, wherein it was held that, “In a contract for sale of immovable property for consideration, if a seller fails to transfer the title to the purchaser, for any reason, on receipt of consideration towards the sale price then a seller has no right to retain the sale consideration to himself and he has to refund the same to the purchaser. When the contract fails then parties to the contract must be restored to their respective original position which existed prior to execution of contract as far as possible provided there is no specific term n the contract to the contrary. The contract between defendant 2 and defendant 1 i.e., owner and subsequent purchaser, stands frustrated due to impugned judgment/decree because now defendant 2 would not be in a position to sell the suit house to defendant 1 though she has received Rs 4 lakhs 21 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 from defendant 1 for such sale of the suit house in her favour. It is for this reason, defendant 2 is liable to refund rs. 4 lakhs to defendant 1.” “In fact, the intention of the parties to the agreement as we can make out from the contents thereof as summarized by the learned trial Judge is that the urgency was on the part of the plaintif to take possession of suit schedule properties on April 30, 1981, paying major part of the balance of consideration. The sale deed was to be executed within six months therefrom. Therefore, it is clear that time was not the essence of contract except in regard to the payment of Rs. 5,000/- agreed to be paid on or before April 30, 1981.”

Another citation reported in AIR 2014 SC 1582 between

Biswanath Ghosh Vs. Cobinda Ghosh Alias Gobindha Chandra Ghosh, wherein it was held that, “It is well settled proposition of law that in a suit for specific performance the plaintif must be able to show that he is ready and willing to carry out those obligations which are in fact part of the consideration for the undertaking of the defendant. For the compliance of Section 16(c) of the Act. It is the necessary for the plaintif to aver in the same words used in the section i.e., ready and willing to perform the contract. Absence of the specific words in the plaint would not result in dismissal of the suit if sufficient fact and evidence are brought on record to satisfy the court the readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.” “That the plaintifs-appellants were always ready and willing to discharge their obligation and perform their part of the agreement.

In our considered opinion, the undisputed facts and events referred to herein above shall amount to sufficient compliance of the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.” 22 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 Another citation reported in AIR (BOM) 2005 0 98 between

Sau. Savitabai, Nilkanth Chavan Vs. Anant Waman Desai, wherein it was held that, “Contention on behalf of the respondent for refusing grant of specific relief and which has found favour with the courts below is that the appellant plaintif had no money and therefore, it must be held that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Under the explanation to section 16(c) of Specific Relief act, the requirement of payment of money only arises if the court directs deposit and the plaintif fails to tender. In that context let us examine the judgment in the case of N.P.Thirugnanam Vs. R.Jagan Mohan Rao AIR 1996 supreme court 116. In that case on evidence it was held that the plaintif was never ready with resources and money to fulfill his part of contract and in that context suit was dismissed. But the judgment makes it clear that this was when the plaintif was asked to deposit the consideration or furnish bank guarantee as per the directions of the trial court. The dismissal of the suit on those findings of fact was upheld. In his

Holiness acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji vs. Shri. Sita Ram thapar, AIR 1992 SC 2095 the Apex Court was observed that the readiness and willingness to perform has to be inferred from the conduct of the part and attending circumstances. In that case the purchaser did not have enough funds to pay consideration and on the facts of the case held that the plaintif was not ready to perform his part of the contract. In the instant case, we have noted in the notice itself, the plaintif had intimated to the defendant his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.”

Another citation reported in ALD (SC) 2014 6 196 between

K.Prakash Vs. B.R.Sampath Kumar, wherein it was held that, 23 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 “Indisputably, remedy for specific performance is an equitable remedy. The court while granting relief for specific performance exercise discretionary jurisdiction. Section 20 of the Act specifically provides that the court’s jurisdictin to grant decree of specific performance is discretinoary but not arbitrary. Discretion must be exercised in accordance with the sound and reasonable judicial principles.” “As contemplated under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, that a party is not entitled to get a decree for specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. Nevertheless once an agreement to sell is legal and validly proved and further requirements for getting such a decree is established then the court has to exercise its discretion in favour of granting relief for specific performance.” “it is true that grant of decree of specific performance lies in the discretion of the court and it is also well settled that it is not always necessary to grant specific performance simply for the reason tht it is legal to do so. It is further well settled that the court in its discretion can impose any reasonable condition including payment of an

additional amount by one party to the other while granting or refusing

decree of specific performance. Whether the purchaser shall be directed to pay an additional amount to the seller or converse would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a case. Ordinarily, the plaintif is not to be denied the relief of specific performance only on account of the phenomenal increase of price during the pendency of litigatin. That may be, in a given case, one of the considerations besides many others to be taken into consideratin for refusing the decree of specific performance. As a general rule, it cannot be held that ordinarily the plaintif cannot be allowed to have, for her alone, the entire benefit of phenomenal increase of the value of the property 24 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 during the pendency of the litigation. While balancing the equities, one of the considerations to be kept in view is as to who is the defaulting party. It is also to be borne in mind whether a party is trying to take undue advantage over the other s also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing specific performance. There may be other circumstances on which parties may not have any control.

The totality of the circumstances required to be seen.”

The facts of the case are not similar to the present case on hand. Here in the present case, the plaintif paid only nominal advance amount of Rs.5,000/- out of Rs.3,40,000/- and she failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated under Ex.A13.

28.The reason why the plaintif is not entitled to specific performance inasmuch as the plaintif paid only a nominal amount of

Rs.5,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 3,40,000/- i.e., about less than 2% of the total sale consideration. The grant of specific performance is a discretionary relief and this has been so held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of judgments and one such judgment

being the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of

Saradamani kandappan Vs. S.Rajalakhmi 2011 (12) SCC 18. Ex.A13 agreement of sale is dt: 13.5.2004.

29.Every suit for specific performance need not be decreed merely because it is filed within the period of limitation by ignoring the time limits stipulated in the agreement. The facts of the present case dis entitle the plaintif to the relief of specific performance. The reason is that Hon’ble Supreme Court has now on repeated occasions held that unless substantial sale consideration is paid out of the total amount of sale consideration, the courts would lean against granting the specific performance inasmuch as by loss of time, is not sufficient to enable the proposed seller to by an equivalent property which could have been 25 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 bought from the sale consideration, if the same was paid on the due date. The contention of the defendant is that she has not voluntarily executed Ex.A13 and she was under necessity due to her financial problem as she was in need of money of Rs.50,000/- and PW-3 induced her to enter into an agreement and paid only Rs.5,000/- and agreed to pay the remaining amount within 10 days but not paid the amount, and also not paid balance amount under Ex.A13.

30.Sec.16(c) of the Special Relief Act, 1963 mandates “readiness and willingness” on the part of the plaintif and it is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of specific performance. It is also clear that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintif must allege and prove a continuous “readiness and willingness” to perform the contract on his part from the date of contract. The onus is on the plaintif.

In Pukhraj D.Jain vs. G.Gopal Krishna (2004) 7 SCC 251 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that not only should there be an averments in the plaint that the plaintif was ready and willing to perform his part of contract but surrounding circumstances must also indicate that the readiness and willingness continued from the date of contract till hearing the suit.

31.From the above decision, it would be quite clear that in order to satisfy the requirements of Sec. 16 (c) of Specific relief act, mere plea though specifically made in the suit for specific performance that the plaintif was ready and willing would not be sufficient. But, that must be proved by acceptable evidence.

32.It has not been stated in the plaint when or in what manner the demands were made by the plaintif for execution and registration of the sale deed. In a specific performance of contract, the plaintif has to prove that she wants to rely upon the contract and that for the 26 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 performance of the contract, she made a demand for specific performance. The plaintif did not produce any single document to show that she was having money of balance sale consideration as on 13.6.2004. PW-1 to 3 in their evidence stated that the plaintif is having balance amount with her as on 13.6.2004. If it is really so, that should some document to show that the plaintif is having that much amount on the day of registration but not filed any single document prove the same. The plaintif not taken this plea either in the plaint or in the legal notice and it is nothing but an after thought which is not believable. Sec 16(c) of the Act mandates that the plaintif to ever in plaint and establish by adducing evidence that she has always ready and willing to perform her part of contract. But the averments mentioned in the plaint does not reveal that she is ready to perform her part of contract on the specified dates mentioned in the agreement and as such the subsequent pleas taken by the plaintif at the time of evidence, cannot be taken into consideration to come to conclusion that the plaintif is always ready and willing to perform her part of contract.

It is specifically mentioned in Ex.A13 that the defendant is in need of money and one month time is fixed for payment of balance sale consideration. But the plaintif not produced any material to show that on or before 13.6.2004, she demanded the defendant to execute the sale deed in her favour. Ex.A18 legal notice was got issued by the plaintif on 27.7.2004 and in the plaint it is mentioned that on 20.7.2004 the defendant refused to register the suit schedule property.

It itself shows that there was no demand on or before 13.6.2004 and therefore, the presumption is that plaintif is not ready and not taken any steps till 27.7.2004 to perform her part of contract.

33.The learned counsel for the appellant relief upon a decision reported in LAWS (APH) 2003 12 118 in between Indian Bank, Chittoor 27 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 Vs. V.R. Venkataraman. The facts of the case are not similar to the present case on hand. Admittedly the defendant, did not got issue any reply to the legal notice issued by the plaintif. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintif has to establish her case by adducing oral and documentary evidence, but she cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendant case. PW-3 is none other than the husband of PW-1.

34.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that she got mutated the name of the defendant in Municipal records. Ex.A2 to

Ex.A6 and Ex.A16 shows that the plaintif has taken steps to mutate the name of the defendant in Municipal records. The document shows that

PW-3 deposited an amount of Rs.500/- and obtained National Saving certificate to mutate the name of the defendant and paid Rs.1905/- in the name of the defendant in the Municipality for development charges and Rs. 250/- for mutation fee and got mutated the name of the defendant in the Municipality. The document shows that he spent only

Rs. 2,000/- for mutation of the name of the defendant. But the sale consideration amount is of Rs.3,35,000/- out of which he spends only

Rs.2,000/-. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintif is ready to perform his part of contract. Admittedly, the plaintif agreed to pay the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 3,35,000/- to the defendant on or before 13.6.2004 and shall get the registration in the registration office, Karimnagar. But the plaintif did not produce any material to show that she was ready to perform her part of contract within one month as agreed and she also not mentioned anywhere in her pleadings that on 13.6.2004, they went to the registration office with balance amount. But PW-1 to 3 at the time of their evidence stated that they went to the registration office but the defendant refused to register the suit house. As seen from the record, the plaintif not even issued any notice within the stipulated period of time that she is ready 28 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 and willing to perform her part of contract with balance sale consideration. There is a clause stipulated in Ex.A13 i.e., clause (3) that if the vendee not pays the remaining sale consideration within the stipulated time to the vendor, the agreement of sale will become null and void and the advance amount of Rs.5,000/- will be forfeited.

35.The plaintif did not even file copy of her bank account statement or any other proof to show that she was having an amount of

Rs.3,35,000/- before the expiry of stipulated period. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintif is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. The evidence of

PW-1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 clearly discloses that she approached the defendant after expiry of stipulated period which shows that she was not ready and willing to perform her part of remaining contract. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that she was ready with the balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,35,000/- within the stipulated period of Ex.A13. For enforcement of specific performance of agreement of sale, there must be averment and proof by the plaintif that she was always ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. But this is clearly absent in the present case.

36.When the evidence of PW-1 to 3 coupled the Ex.A1 to

Ex.A18 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 and the evidence of DW-1 to 3 and in view of the submissions made by both the counsels for the appellant and respondent, I am of the considered view, that the trial court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintif and the defendant and the submissions made by them has rightly appreciated the evidence and dismissed the suit for specific performance. The trial court rightly came to conclusion that the appellant/plaintif was not ready and willing to perform her part of 29 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 contract under Ex.A13 agreement of sale and committed the breach of terms of Ex.A13 agreement of sale and rightly dismissed the suit for specific performance. Viewed from any angle, the judgment and decree of the trial court is on correct lines. In the above said circumstances, there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Accordingly the point is answered.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court in OS No. 163 of 2004, dt:

01.06.2017 passed by learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 5th day of March, 2020.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS

JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined --None--

Exhibits marked --- Nil---

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS

JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR.

30 A.S.No. 69 of 2017 31 A.S.No. 69 of 2017

1 OS No. 95 of 2014

COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT -CUM- ADDITIONAL DIST. &

SESSION JUDGE, AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: Smt. P.V.P. Lalitha Siva Jyothi,

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

ADDL.DISTRICT&SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Tuesday this the 4th day of February, 2020

O.S.NO. 95 OF 2014

Between:-

Thakkallapally Vashistavardan Rao @ Sahith Rao, age: 10 years, s/o late Venkateshwar Rao, occ: student(minor), being minor represented by his natural mother and guardian, Smt. Takkallapally Sushma, age: 30 yrs, w/o late Venkateshwar Rao, occ: Household, r/o H.No. 9-1-160,. Bhagathnagar, Karimnagar.

...Plaintiff.

And

1.Thakkallapally Satyanarayana Rao, age: 65 yrs, s/o late Dharma Rao, occ: agriculture.

2.Thakkallapally Vijaya, age: 60 yrs, w/o Satyanarayana Rao, occ: housewife,

3.Thakkallapally chander Rao, age: 40 yrs, s/o Satyanarayana Rao, occ: agriculture,

4.Gaddam Kanaka Laxmi, age: 40 yrs, w/o Mallaiah, occ: Housewife. The defendants NO.1 to 4 are r/o Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam mandal, Karimnagar district.

5.Kalakuntla Vimala, age: 63 yrs, w/o Jagannatha Rao, occ: Housewife, r/o Flat No. 302, sai kurpa Apartments, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad.

6.Kalakuntla Padma, age: 39 yrs, d/o Jagannatha rao occ: doctor r/o H.No. 1-10-40/47, Flat No. 302, Sai Krupa apartment, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad.

7.Gundavaram Rama Rao, age: 42 yrs, s/o Gopal Rao occ: business, r/o H.no. 9-4-261, Srinagar colony, Karimnagar.

8.Mohd. Rizwana, age: 39 yrs w/o Rafi, occ: housewife, r/o H.No. 8-3- 564/1, Bhagathnagar, Kattarampur, Karimnagar

9.Noor Mohammad, age: 45 yrs, s/o Lal Mohammad, occ; Plumber, r/o Chandrampet village of Sircilla mandal, Karimnagar district.

10.Ayesha Siddikha, age: 34 yrs, w/o Mohammad Khaja Hafizuddin, occ: Housewife, r/o H.no. 9-3-57, Mominpura, Karimnagar.

11.Khaja Ibrahim, age: 42 yrs, s/o Khaja Nizamuddin, occ: Govt. employee, r/o H.no. 7-4-84, SBS Functin hall area, Kashmeergadda, Karimnagar.

12.Sahera Begum, age: 46 yrs, w/o Chand Khan, occ: House wife, r/o H.No. 5-1-82, Osmanpura, Jagtial town and proper, Karimnagar district.

... Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 26.12.2019for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Prabhakara Sharma, counsel for the Plaintif, and Defendant No.1 to 12 remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following: - 2 OS No. 95 of 2014

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

The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share, in suit schedule ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘D’ to ‘H’ properties, i.e., wet agricultural lands, in Sy.No.109/B, admeasuring 0-26 guntas and 110/B, admeasuring 0-16 guntas, as it is compact block, totaling Ac.1-02 guntas;

Sy.No.142/F, admeasuring 0-10 guntas; Ac.4-18 guntas, in Sy.No.296/D; land, in Sy.No.320/B, admeasuring Ac.4-04 guntas, Sy.No.348/D, admeasuring

Ac.1-30 guntas and Sy.No.348/E, admeasuring 0-17 guntas, as it is compact block, totaling Ac.2-07 guntas; as well as House Nos.2-98, admeasuring plinth area 648 Sq.fts and House No.2-99, admeasuring plinth area 648

Sq.fts along with open space 1210 Sq.yds, compact block, situated at

Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District and residential plot No.17, admeasuring 420 Sq.yds, in Sy.No.972, situated at

Ramnagar (Shanthinagar), present locality is known as Bhagathnagar,

Karimnagar proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District as well as Declaration, declaring the plaintiff as owner and possessor, in respect of ‘C’ schedule land, admeasuring Ac.2-09 guntas, in Sy.No.296/D, situated at Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District and declaration, declaring the Regd. Sale deed, dt.15-07-2010, vide Document No.3267 of 2010, Book No-I, registered before Sub-Registrar, Huzurabad, as executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5, in respect of ‘A’ schedule lands, in Sy.No.109/B, admeasuring 0-26 guntas and 110/B, admeasuring 0-16 guntas, as it compact block Ac.1-02 guntas, situated at Eradapally village of

Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District, as sham, bogus, fraudulent, illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and declaration, declaring the Gift settlement deed, dt.05-01-2011, vide Document No.42 of 2011, Book No – I, registered before Sub-Registrar, Huzurabad, as executed by defendant No.5, in favour of defendant No.6, in respect of ‘D’ schedule land, as sham, bogus, fraudulent, illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; declaration, declaring the Regd. Agreement of sale – cum – 3 OS No. 95 of 2014 irrevocable General Power of attorney, dt.21-04-2010, vide Document

No.3560/2010, Book No-I, registered before Joint Sub-Registrar - I,

Karimnagar, as executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.7, in respect of schedule ‘H’ residential plot bearing No.17, in Sy.No.972, admeasuring 420 Sq.yds, equivalent to 352.80 Sq.mts, situated at

Ramnagar (Shanthinagar), presently covered under Bhagathnagar locality,

Karimnagar proper, as sham, bogus, fraudulent, illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff as well as declaration, declaring the Regd. Sale deed, dt.20-05-2010, vide Document No.4361/2010, Book No – I, registered

before Joint Sub-Registrar – I, Karimnagar, as executed by defendant No.1,

through his G.P.A holder defendant No.7, in favour of defendant No.8, in respect of part of ‘H’ schedule plot No.17 to an extent of 180.37 Sq.yds, in

Sy.No.972 and the same is fully described in ‘I’ schedule, as sham, bogus, fraudulent, illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; declaration, declaring the Regd. Sale deed, dt.11-06-2010, vide Document

No.4911/2010, Book No – I, registered before Joint Sub-Registrar – II,

Karimnagar, as executed by defendant No.1, through his G.P.A holder defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.9, in respect of part of ‘H’ schedule plot No.17 to an extent of 111.88 Sq.yds, in Sy.No.972 and the same is described in ‘J’ schedule; declaration, declaring the Regd. Sale deed, dt.17-07-2010, vide Document No.6044/2010, Book No – I, registered before

Joint Sub-Registrar – I, Karimnagar, as executed by defendant No.1, through his G.P.A holder defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.10, in respect of part of ‘H’ schedule plot No.17, to an extent of 90.77 Sq.yds, in Sy.No.972 and the same is described in ‘K’ schedule; declaration, declaring the Regd.

Sale deed, dt.20-05-2011, vide Document No.4592/2011, Book No – I, registered before Joint Sub-Registrar - I, Karimnagar, as executed by defendant No.9, in favour of defendant No.11, in respect of ‘J’ schedule plot, i.e., part of plot No.17, admeasuring 111.88 Sq.yds, in Sy.No.972 and declaration, declaring the Regd. Sale deed, dt.29-07-2011, vide Document

No.7227/2011, Book No – I, registered before Joint Sub-Registrar – II, 4 OS No. 95 of 2014

Karimnagar, as executed by defendant No.10, in favour of defendant No.12, in respect of ‘K’ schedule, i.e., part of plot No.17, in Sy.No.972, admeasuring 90.77 Sq.yds, equivalent to 76.24 Sq.mts, situated at Ramnagar (Shanthinagar), presently covered under Bhagathnagar locality of

Karimnagar, are all as sham, bogus, fraudulent, illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

2. The case of the plaintiff as could be seen from the plaint averments in brief is that the plaintiff is paternal grandson of defendants

No.1 and 2, through their younger son, late Venkateshwar Rao and the defendant No.3 is his senior paternal uncle. The defendant No.5 is illegal purchaser of suit schedule ‘A’ lands, in Sy.Nos.109/B, admeasuring 0-26 guntas, Sy.No.110/B, admeasuring 0-16 guntas, totaling Ac.1-02 guntas, situated at Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal and Karimnagar

District, from the defendant No.1, whereas, the defendant No.6 is the donee of defendant No.5, in respect of the above said lands. In the same way, the defendant No.7 is also illegal purchaser, in respect of schedule ‘H’ schedule plot No.17, admeasuring 420 Sq.yds, in Sy.No.972, situated at Ramnagar (Shanthinagar), presently known as Bhagathnagar proper of Karimnagar town and the defendants No.8 to 10 are his vendees to different extents viz; 180.37, 111.88 and 90.77 Sq.yds, respectively, out of 420 Sq.yds of plot

No.17, in Sy.No.972, whereas, the defendants No.11 and 12 are the vendees of defendants No.9 and 10 hereunder, in respect of their extent of land, admeasuring 111.88 and 90.77 Sq.yds in Sy.No.972, i.e., part of ‘H’ schedule land. Originally, one Thakkallapally Mangamma, the great paternal grandmother of plaintiff and natural mother of defendant No.1 was absolute owner and possessor of agricultural lands, in Sy.No.23/I, admeasuring 0-37 guntas, 27/D, admeasuring Ac.2-06 guntas, 109/B, admeasuring 0-26 guntas, 110/B, admeasuring 0-16 guntas, 142/F, admeasuring 0-10 guntas, 286/C, admeasuring Ac.3-29 guntas, 291/B, admeasuring Ac.2-26 guntas, 320/B, admeasuring Ac.4-04 guntas, 348/D, admeasuring Ac.1-30 guntas, 415/F, admeasuring 0-33 guntas and 419/D, admeasuring 0-09 guntas, 5 OS No. 95 of 2014 situated at Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar

District and she had enjoyed the above said lands, by raising different crops, such as, paddy, maize and millet etc and said Mangamma got two sons, through her husband, Dharma Rao, viz; 1) Satyanarayana Rao and 2) Anjan

Rao and out of the two sons, in the year 1988, the younger son, Anjan Rao died intestate, by leaving his wife, Sulochana and sole son, Venkateshwar

Rao and Thakkallapally Mangamma, the great paternal grandmother of plaintiff had cultivated the above said lands, throughout her life, without any interruption, from any corner and in the year 1996, Mangamma died intestate, by leaving her husband, 1) Dharma Rao, 2) Satyanarayan Rao (defendant No.1) and 3) Sulochana (predeceased son’s wife) and 4)

Venkateshwar Rao (predeceased son’s son) and immediately, after the death of Mangamma, the above said properties got divided among her husband, 1) Dharma Rao, 2) elder son, Satyanarayan Rao (defendant No.1) and 3) Sulochana (predeceased son’s wife) and 4) Venkateshwar Rao (predeceased son’s son) and in pursuance of the same, Dharma Rao, the husband of Mangamma was allotted with ‘A’ schedule agricultural lands, in

Sy.No.109/B, admeasuring 0-26 guntas and 110/B, admeasuring 0-16 guntas and land, in Sy.No.142/F, admeasuring 0-10 guntas, situated at Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District and the defendant

No.1 was allotted with the lands, in Sy.No.23/I, admeasuring 0-18½ guntas; 291/B, admeasuring Ac.2-26 guntas, 320/B, admeasuring Ac.4-04 guntas, 348/D, admeasuring Ac.1-30 guntas, 415/F, admeasuring 0-16½ guntas, 419/D, admeasuring 0-04½ guntas, totaling Ac.9-19½ guntas, situated at

Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District.

Whereas, Sulochana (predeceased son’s wife) and Venkateshwar Rao (predeceased son’s son) were jointly allotted with the lands, in Sy.No.23/I, admeasuring 0-18½ guntas, 27/D, admeasuring Ac.2-06 guntas, 286/C, admeasuring Ac.3-29 guntas, 415/F, admeasuring 0-16½ guntas, 419/D, admeasuring 0-04½ guntas, totaling Ac.6-34½ guntas, situated at

Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District. It is not 6 OS No. 95 of 2014 out of place to plead here that, as on the date of partition, both the sons of defendant No.1, namely, 1) Chander Rao and 2) Venkateshwar Rao were already born and alive.

3.The plaintiff further contends that, the defendant No.1 had performed the marriages of his two sons and on 18-05-2003, the marriage of his younger son namely Venkateshwar Rao was solemnized with Sushma, who is mother of plaintiff and in the said marriage, the maternal grandparents of plaintiff had presented a cash gift of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees

Four lakhs only) towards dowry, Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) worth of gold jewellery and house hold articles worth of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees

Seventy thousand only) and immediately, after marriage, Sushma, the mother of plaintiff had joined the society of Venkateshwar Rao and lead happy marital life, only for a period of six months and in the mean while, the real colours of the father of plaintiff came out and by nature, he was heavy drunker and adopted bad habit of coming in the late night hours and at that stage, he used to scold and beat the mother of the plaintiff to bring

additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs only) and he never

cared to look after the welfare of the mother of plaintiff and the mother of plaintiff had borne all of the unwarranted attitude of Venkateshwar Rao, by hoping that, he may change his attitude, in near future, but in vain and on 06-07-2004, the plaintiff was born in the house of maternal grandparents, at

Karimnagar, after three months of her delivery, the mother of the plaintiff along with the plaintiff had joined the society of Venkateshwar Rao and even the birth of plaintiff also did not make any change, in the attitude of

Venkateshwar Rao and he has become wilder than the earlier and started to beat the mother of plaintiff to bring additional dowry from her parents place, as the parents of the mother of the plaintiff not so affluent, and not in a position to meet the demand of Venkateshwar Rao, as such, she declined to bring any amount, due to which, several quarrels took place between

Sushma and Venkateshwar Rao, i.e., the parents of plaintiff and to the utter 7 OS No. 95 of 2014 surprise of the mother of plaintiff, the defendants No.1 to 3 as well as

Kavitha (wife of defendant No.3) and one Kalakuntla Hanumantha Rao (the maternal uncle of Venkateshwar Rao) had encouraged Venkateshwar Rao to demand the mother of plaintiff to bring additional dowry, as the mother of plaintiff did not heed to the false demand of Venkateshwar Rao and his parents, they had kicked out the mother of the plaintiff along with the plaintiff from his house, by forcibly taking away all the gold ornaments, worth of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) and as such, there is no other alternative, the mother of plaintiff had joined the society of her parents. The parents of the mother of plaintiff held a panchayat between Venkateshwar

Rao and the mother of plaintiff and by hearing the versions of both the couple and by finding fault with Venkateshwar Rao and advised him to lead proper marital life, by taking paramount consideration of the welfare of plaintiff, but in vain. On 15-08-2005, the mother of plaintiff lodged complaint with P.S., Huzurabad against her husband, Thakkallapally

Venkateshwar Rao, father-in-law, Satyanarayana Rao and mother-in-law,

Vijaya and in turn, the Police registered a case in Crime No.160 of 2005, under Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered and subsequently, after filing charge sheet, a calendar case as C.C.No.216 of 2008 has been registered and the same is pending, for its disposal, before

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad and In the mean while, in the year 2005, Dharma Rao, the paternal grandfather of plaintiff died intestate, by leaving the plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 3, as his legal heirs, in respect of ‘A’ schedule land, in Sy.No.109/B, admeasuring 0-26 guntas and 110/B, admeasuring 0-16 guntas, totaling Ac.1-02 guntas and ‘B’ schedule land, in

Sy.No.142/F, admeasuring 0-10 guntas, situated at Eradapally village of

Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District. The plaintiff further contends that, while the CC. No.216 of 2008 is pending, the defendants No.1 to 3 came to the parent’s place of mother of plaintiff and got convinced them and assured that, Venkateshwar Rao would lead happy marital life and asked the mother of plaintiff to join his society, at Hyderabad, by 8 OS No. 95 of 2014 withdrawing the criminal case and above said convincing activities, the mother of plaintiff had joined the society of Venkateshwar Rao, at

Hyderabad, without withdrawing the criminal case, but the attitude of

Venkateshwar Rao had become worse than the earlier and in turn, he accelerated his teasing and torturing activities against the mother of the plaintiff to bring additional dowry and in the mean while, on 23-09-2008, the mother of plaintiff filed domestic violence case, in D.V.C.No.9 of 2009, on the file of Addl. Judl Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar against, 1)

Thakkallapally Venkateshwar Rao, 2) Thakkallapally Satyanarayana Rao, 3)

Thakkallapally Vijaya, 4) Thakkallapally Chander Rao (Opposite parties No.2 to 4 are defendants No.1 to 3 herein), 5) Kavitha (W/o Chander Rao) and 6)

Kalakuntla Hanumantha Rao (maternal uncle of Venkateshwar Rao) and in which, the plaintiff along with his mother have demanded Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each per month, for their maintenance and apart from the above said relief, the mother of plaintiff also sought the relief of return back the dowry amount of Rs.8,15,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs fifteen thousand only) and also pay Rs.30,000/- per year towards house rent, school fee and tuition fee of plaintiff and the same is pending, for its disposal, on the file of Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (PCR), Karimnagar and on 05-12- 2012, to the unfortunate of the plaintiff his father Venkateshwar Rao died intestate, by leaving his 1/3rd interest, in the suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘H’ properties, in favour of plaintiff, as he is his sole legal heir and to the surprise and shock of plaintiff as well as his mother, the defendants No.1 to 3 did not inform the death of Venkateshwar Rao to the mother of plaintiff herein, for which, the reasons are best known to the Defendants No.1 to 3 only, but, later it was coming to the notice of the mother of plaintiff that,

Venkateshwar Rao was killed by the defendants No.1 to 3 and by confirming the same, from the villagers, the mother of plaintiff had reported the same to the P.S., Keshavapatnam, with a request to investigate in to the suspicious death of Venkateshwar Rao, as the police did not come forward to investigate the matter, the mother of the plaintiff reported to the 9 OS No. 95 of 2014

Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Karimnagar and also brought her grievance to the District Legal Service Authority,

Karimnagar, against the defendants No.1 to 3, for which, the District legal service authority got issued notices to the Dy. Superintendent of Police,

Huzurabad to investigate in to the death of Venkateshwar Rao. But, the

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Huzurabad, instead of investigating in to the cause of the death of Venkateshwar Rao and with an intention to make escape the liability got falsely reported to the District legal service authority that, there are several cases pending between the mother of plaintiff and

Venkateshwar Rao as well as defendants No.1 to 3 and the relationship between the mother of plaintiff and Venkateshwar Rao, were bitterly strained and moreover, he died due to heavy consumption of liquor, he slipped on the road and received head injury and died on the spot, in spite of no panchanama or postmortem was conducted, by any of officer or

Doctor, on the dead body of Venkateshwar Rao, as if, postmortem is conducted, on the dead body, he came to conclusion that, he died due to heavy consumption of liquor, which is something fishy. The report of Sub –

Divisional Police Officer, Huzurabad clearly speaks that, the dead body of

Venkateshwar Rao was cremated (in fact his dead body was burnt on the holy pyre) and if that is the case, he would have conducted post mortem or collected ash and bones, if the dead body is burning and the non-conducting of the post mortem is itself clearly reveals that, the Police Officer did not investigate the matter and simply filed the report that, the deceased died due to felling on the road, in drunken state and as a dutiful wife, on the tenth day, with an intention to bestow peace to the soul of her husband, she gathered bones and ash of her husband from the graveyard and taking the holy Ganges, nearby Dharmapuri pilgrimage and diluted the same in to holy waters. Apart this, the mother of plaintiff made the plaintiff to conduct 11th and 12th Karmakandas, in ‘Padmanayaka Orphanage Home’, in Irukulla village of Karimnagar Mandal and District.

10 OS No. 95 of 2014 4.The plaintiff further contends that, on 04-01-2013, after first monthly ceremony of her husband, she demanded the defendants No.1 to 3, to effect partition and separate possession, in respect of ‘A’ to ‘H’ properties, for which, they postponed the same, on some or other pretext and out of the ‘A’ to ‘H’ properties, the defendant No.1 had directly succeeded agricultural lands, in Sy.No.109/B, admeasuring 0-26 guntas and

Sy.No.110/B, admeasuring 0-16 guntas and Sy.No.142/F, admeasuring 0-10 guntas, situated at Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal,

Karimnagar District, as covered under ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties, from his father,

Dharma Rao and agricultural lands, in Sy.No.320/B, admeasuring Ac.4-04 guntas, as covered in suit schedule ‘E’ and Ac.1-30 guntas land, in

Sy.Nos.348/D and admeasuring 0-17 guntas, in Sy.No. 348/E, totaling Ac.2- 07 guntas, covered under schedule ‘F’ properties had been succeeded by defendant No.1 from his mother Mangamma and in which, the plaintiff has 1/3rd interest. Besides, the above said lands covered under schedule ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘E’ and ‘F’, the defendant No.1 got purchased suit schedule ‘C’ land, to an extent of Ac.2-09 guntas, in Sy.No.296/D, in the name of Venkateshwar Rao, out of the dowry amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only), as presented by his in-laws. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 got mutated the name of Venkateshwar Rao, in respect of Ac.2-09 guntas of land, in

Sy.No.296/D and while so, he had purchased Ac.1-04½ guntas land, in the name of his wife, Vijaya (defendant No.2) and Ac.4-18 guntas of land in

Sy.No.296/D, in the name of defendant No.3, out of the income source of schedule ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ lands. It came to know that, the defendant No.1 got inducted the defendant No.4, in respect of ‘F’ schedula land, admeasuring Ac.1-30 guntas in Sy.No.348/D and 0-19 guntas in Sy.No.348/E, with the sole intention to deprive the legitimate share of plaintiff. While so, out of the income of the ancestral properties, as succeeded by the defendant No.1, he got purchased a residential plot to an extent of 0-11 guntas and 20 Sq.yds, situated at Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam

Mandal, Karimnagar District and in which, he got constructed two houses 11 OS No. 95 of 2014

No.2-98 and 2-99, in an area of 1296 Sq.fts, while keeping 1210 Sq.yds, as vacant land, which is covered under schedule ‘G’. While things stood so, on 08-02-2002, out of the sale proceeds of ancestral land, admeasuring Ac.7-26 guntas, in Sy.No.291/B, situated at Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam

Mandal, Karimnagar District, as sold out by him, through Regd. Sale deed, dt.24-08-2000, vide Document No.1536 of 2000, in favour of Borra

Lachamma, the defendant No.1 got purchased residential plot No.17, admeasuring 420 Sq.yds, in Sy.No.972, situated at Ramnagar (Shanthinagar), presently Bhagathnagar locality of Karimnagar. As such, all the suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘H’ properties are joint family properties and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of defendants No.1 to 3 and father of plaintiff, i.e., Venkateshwar Rao. Apart from the above, Venkateshwar Rao, the father of plaintiff purchased a residential plot in Hayathnagar area of

R.R. District and also independent building, in Hyderabad and their particulars are presently not known to the plaintiff herein. Due to which, on 16-03-2013, the mother of plaintiff got filed her application with the

Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam, with a request to mutate her name, in the revenue records, in respect of schedule ‘C’ land. The influenced revenue authorities did not mutate the name of the mother of plaintiff and made her to wander here and there, for a period of six months and finally, refused to mutate her name, in the revenue records, in respect of schedule ‘C’ land, by stating that, an objection letter, dt.25-03-2013, as filed by defendant No.1 was pending and in which, he requested revenue authorities and not to mutate the name of the plaintiff and by bringing the same, he advised the mother of plaintiff to make a fresh application, on behalf of the plaintiff, to mutate his name, in the revenue records. Due to which, the mother of the plaintiff has filed separate application, on behalf of minor plaintiff, to mutate his name, in the revenue records, in respect of the land, as standing in the name of Venkateshwar Rao. The mother of plaintiff demanded the defendants No.1 to 3, to effect partition and separate possession, in respect of ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘D’ to ‘H’ properties, but the defendants No.1 to 3 did not come 12 OS No. 95 of 2014 forward to effect partition. As, the said suit lands and houses are the result of ancestral nucleus/income of agricultural lands and they are joint family properties and they are liable to be partitioned among the legal heirs.

5.The plaintiff further contends that, on 12-12-2013, the mother of plaintiff demanded the defendants No.1 to 3 to allot 1/3rd share of plaintiff, in suit schedule ‘A’, ‘B’; ‘D’ to ‘H’ properties, for which, they stated that, out of the suit lands, the schedule ‘A’ lands, in Sy.No.109/B, admeasuring 0-26 guntas and 110/B, admeasuring 0-16 guntas, totaling Ac.1-02 guntas and situated at Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar

District were already sold away, in favour of defendant No.4, through Regd.

Sale deed, dt.15-07-2010, vide Document No.3267 of 2010 and the defendant No.4 got gifted 0-26 guntas of land, in Sy.No.109/B and 0-16 guntas, in Sy.No.110/B, covered under ‘A’ schedule through Gift settlement deed, dt.05-01-2011, vide Document No.42 of 2011, in favour of her daughter, i.e., defendant No.5 and also sold away of entire residential plot

No.17, admeasuring 420 Sq.yds, in Sy.No.972, situated at Ramnagar (Shanthinagar), presently known as Bhagathnagar, Karimnagar, in favour of defendant No.7, through Agreement of sale – cum- irrevocable General

Power of Attorney, dt.21-04-2010, vide Document No.3560/2010, registered

before Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar and subsequently, the defendant

No.7 got executed three Regd. Sale deeds, 1) dt.20-05-2010, vide Document

No.4361/2010, 2) Dt.11-062010, vide Document No.4911/2010 and 3) Dt.17- 07-2010, vide Document No.6044 of 2010, for different extents, such as 180.37 Sq.yds, 111.88 Sq.yds and 90.77 Sq.yds, in favour of defendants

No.8 to 10 hereunder, respectively and out of the defendants No.8 to 10, the defendants No.9 and 10 got sold out their respective extent of land, through two Regd. Sale deeds, 1) 20-05-2011, Vide Document No.4592 of 2011 and

2) 29-07-2011, vide Document No.7227 of 2011, in respect of ‘J’ and ‘K’ plots, as such, they are not available for partition and however, they have agreed to effect partition, in respect of ‘B’ to ‘H’ properties, within six 13 OS No. 95 of 2014 months. On schedule ‘A’ and ‘H’ are joint family properties, the defendant

No.1 has no any exclusive right to alienate the same, except his 1/3rd interest. As such, the Regd. Sale deed, dt.15-07-2010, vide Document

No.3267 of 2010, in respect of ‘A’ schedule lands, as executed by defendant

No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 and subsequent gifting of the same by defendant No.4, in favour of defendant No.5 are liable to be declared, as illegal, without any authority, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

In the same way, the Regd. Agreement of Sale – cum- G.P.A, dt.21-04-2010, vide Document No.3560 of 2010, in respect of ‘H’ schedule plot No.17, admeasuring 420 Sq.yds, in Sy.No.972, situated at Ramnagar (Shanthinagar), Karimnagar, as executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.7 and his subsequent execution of three Regd. Sale deeds, 1) dt.20-05-2010, vide Document No.4361 of 2010, 2) dt.11-06-2010, vide

Document No.4911 of 2010 and 3) dt.17-07-2010, vide Document No.6044 of 2010, for different extents 180.77, 111.88 and 90.77 Sq.yds, in favour of defendants No.8 to 10 and further the execution of two Regd. Sale deeds, 1) dt.20-05-2011, vide Document No.4592 of 2011 to an extent of 111.88 and

2) dt.29-07-2011, vide Document No.7227 of 2011 to an extent of 90.77 sq.yds, by the defendants No.9 and 10, in favour of defendants No.11 and 12 are liable to be declared as illegal, without any exclusive right, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plot in Hayathnagar area of Ranga

Reddy District and independent building in Hyderabad, are purchased by the father of plaintiff are still not known to him and if they are traced out, he will seek the relief of amendment of plaint pleading, for incorporation of the same, in the schedule of properties, for partition. The plaintiff further contends that on 01-05-2014, the mother of plaintiff has demanded the defendants No.1 to 3 to effect partition, in respect of suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘H’ properties, by taking steps, for cancellation of the Agreement of Sale – cum-

G.P.A, dt.21-04-2010, vide Document No.3560 of 2010, in respect of ‘H’ schedule plot No.17, admeasuring 420 Sq.yds, in Sy.No.972, as executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.7 and his execution of subsequent 14 OS No. 95 of 2014 three Regd. Sale deeds, 1) dt.20-05-2010, vide Document No.4361 of 2010,

2) dt.11-06-2010, vide Document No.4911 of 2010 and 3) dt.17-07-2010, vide Document No.6044 of 2010, as executed by defendant No.7, in favour of defendants No.8 to 10 and subsequent execution of two Regd. Sale deeds, 1) dt.20-05-2011, vide Document No.4592 of 2011 and 2) dt.29-07- 2011, vide Document No.7227 of 2011, by the defendants No.9 and 10, in favour of defendants No.11 and 12 and also for the Regd. Sale deed, dt.15- 07-2010, vide Document No.3264 of 2010, as executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4, in respect of ‘A’ schedule lands and her subsequent execution of Gift settlement deed, dt.05-01-2011, vide

Document No.42 of 2011, as executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5, in respect of ‘A’ schedule lands, for which, they bluntly rejected to effect any partition, by saying that, entire ‘A’ to ‘H’ properties are not ancestral properties and the plaintiff has no right to demand for partition. In addition to the above, the mother of plaintiff demanded the defendants No.4 and 5, 7 to 12 to disown the ‘A’ and ‘H’ as well as ‘I’ to ‘K’ properties, for which, they did not respond. As such, as there is no other alternative, the plaintiff has approached this Hon’ble Court, for partition and separate possession as well as declaration of entire decuments executed by defendant No.1, in favour of defendants No.4 and 7 and subsequent documents executed by defendant No.4, in favour of defendant No.5 and execution of Regd. Sale deeds, by the defendant No.7 in favour of defendants No.8 to 10 and execution of defendants No.9 and 10 in favour of defendants No.11 and 12 as illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 are Hindus, governed under ‘Mithakshara’ school and properties are ancestral and in which, the father of plaintiff had 1/3rd share and he died by leaving 1/3rd interest, in favour of plaintiff herein. Hence the suit.

6.The defendants No.1 to 12 remained exparte.

7.On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are 15 OS No. 95 of 2014 settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule property as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration in respect of suit ‘C’ schedule property as prayed for?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration by declare Ex.A13 to Ex.A22 as null and void and not binding on him?

5. To what relief?

8. ISSUE NO. 1 to 3:-

The plaintiff in support of his case got examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs. A1 to A35. The mother of the plaintiff got herself examined as PW-1 and her brother-in-law got examined as PW-2 and they filed their chief affidavits in lieu of their chief examination and they reiterated the plaint averments.

9.The evidence of PW-1 & 2 reveals that the plaintiff is the paternal grand son of defendant No.1 & 2 through their younger son late

Venkateshwar Rao and defendant No.3 is his senior paternal uncle. One

Thakkallapalli Mangamma w/o Dharma Rao was the great paternal grand mother of the plaintiff and natural mother of the defendant No.1 and she was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule A, B, D to H properties. The said Mangamma got two sons i.e., first defendant and Anjan

Rao and the said Anjan Rao died intestate in the year 1988 by leaving his wife Sulochana and one son namely Venkateshwar Rao. The said

Mangamma died intestate in the year 1996 by leaving her husband

Dharmarao, D1, Sulochana and Venkateshwar Rao and the properties are divided among her husband namely Dharmarao, 2) elder son namely

Sathyanarayana rao, (1st defendant), 3) Sulochana (predeceased son’s wife),

4) Venkateshwar Rao (predeceased son’s son). They further stated that

Dharma Rao was allotted A-Schedule agricultural land and the defendant

No.1 was allotted with the lands, in Sy.No.23/I, admeasuring 0-18½ guntas; 291/B, admeasuring Ac.2-26 guntas, 320/B, admeasuring Ac.4-04 guntas, 16 OS No. 95 of 2014 348/D, admeasuring Ac.1-30 guntas, 415/F, admeasuring 0-16½ guntas, 419/D, admeasuring 0-04½ guntas, totaling Ac.9-19½ guntas, situated at

Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District.

Whereas, Sulochana (predeceased son’s wife) and Venkateshwar Rao (predeceased son’s son) were jointly allotted with the lands, in Sy.No.23/I, admeasuring 0-18½ guntas, 27/D, admeasuring Ac.2-06 guntas, 286/C, admeasuring Ac.3-29 guntas, 415/F, admeasuring 0-16½ guntas, 419/D, admeasuring 0-04½ guntas, totaling Ac.6-34½ guntas, situated at

Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District and as on the date of partition, both the sons of defendant No.1, namely, 1) Chander

Rao and 2) Venkateshwar Rao were already born and alive. The marriage of

Venkateshwar Rao was performed with Sushma i.e., mother of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is the son of the Venkateshwar Rao. In a year 2005, the said Dharmarao was died intestate by leaving the plaintiff, defendant No.1 & 3 as his legal heirs in respect of A and B – schedule lands. Subsequently on 5.12.2012, the father of the plaintiff namely Venkateshwar Rao died intestate by leaving his 1/3rd interest in suit schedule A to H properties in favour of the plaintiff. The evidence of PW-1 & 2 reveals that defendant

No.1 to 3 did not inform to them about the death of Venkateshwar Rao and subsequently it is came to their notice that the said Venkateshwar Rao was killed by defendant No.1 to 3 and inspite of complaint given by them to the police, no action was taken against them.

10.The evidence of PW-1 & 2 further reveals that PW-1 demanded the defendants No.1 to 3 for partition, but they post poned the same on one pretext or other. Besides that, the defendant no.1 got purchased suit schedule ‘C’ land to an extent of Ac. 2-09 gts in Sy.No. 296/D in the name of father of the plaintiff with the dowry amount given by his in-laws and defendant No.1 got mutated the name of Venkateshwar rao in respect of Ac.

02-09 gts of land in Sy.No. 296/D and he had purchased land in the name of his wife (second defendant) and in the name of D3 out of the income source of the schedule – A, B, E and F lands and he got inducted the defendant 17 OS No. 95 of 2014

No.4, in respect of ‘F’ schedule land with an intention to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff and out of the income of the ancestral properties, he got purchased residential plot shown in ‘D’ land and on 08.02.2002out of the sale proceeds of ancestral land, admeasuring Ac. 07- 26 gts in sy.No. 291/B situated at Eradapally village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district as sold by him under registered sale deed

B.No. Doc.No. 1536 of 2000 in favour of Burra Lachamma and D1 got purchased residential plot No. 17,. admeasuring 420 Sq.yds, in sy.No. 972, situated at Ramnagar (Shanthinagar), presently Bhagathnagar locality of

Karimnagar and all the suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘H’ properties are joint family properties and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the defendants

No.1 to 3 and the father of the plaintiff. They further stated that the father of the plaintiff purchased a residential plot in Hayathnagar area of R.R.

District and also independent building at Hyderabad and mother of plaintiff got file the application with Tahasildar, Shankarapatnam with a request to mutate her name in respect of schedule ‘C’ land but they did not do so and on that she filed separate application on behalf of the plaintiff to mutate name in revenue records and even then they did not mutate the name of the plaintiff. They further stated that the suit lands and houses are the result of ancestral nucleus of agricultural land and their family properties and that plaintiff is having 1/3rd share in suit ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘D’ to ‘H’ properties. The defendant has no exclusive right to alienate the same and as such registered sale deed B.doc.No. 3267 of 2010 in respect of ‘A’ land executed by D1 in favour of D4 and subsequently gifting of the same by D4, in favour of D5 are to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and registered agreement of sale B.doc.No. 3560/2010 in respect of ‘H’ schedule plot No.4 executed by D1 in favour of D7 and his subse3quent execution of three registered sale deeds B./No. 4361/2010, 4911/2010 and 6044/2010 in favour of Defendant No. 8 to 10 and further the execution of two registered sale deed B.doc.No. 4592 of 2011 to an extent of 111.88 and doc.b.No. 7227 of 2011 to an extent of 90.77 sq.yds, by D9 and D10 in 18 OS No. 95 of 2014 favour of D-11 and D12 are to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. They further stated that the plaintiff had no other remedy except to approach the court.

11.The documents relied on by the plaintiffs are Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-35.

Ex.A1 and Ex.A12 are the Mee Seve copies of Adangal pahanies, Ex.A13 is the Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 1536 of 2000, Ex.A14 is the Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 670 of 2002,

Ex.A15 is the Mee seva copy of sale agreement cum irrevocable General

Power of Attorney document No. 3560 of 2010, Ex.A16 is the Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4361 of 2010, Ex.A17 is the Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4911 of 2010,Ex.A18 is the Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 6044 of 2010, Ex.A19 is the

Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4592 of 2011, Ex.A20 is the Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 7227 of 2011, Ex.A21 is the Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 3267 of 2010,Ex.A22 is the Mee seva copy of gift settlement deed bearing document

No. 42 of 2011, Ex.A23 is the Certificate issued by Panchayath Secretary,

Eradapalli village, Shankarapatnam mandal, Karimnagar district, Ex.A24 is the CC of pahani for the year 1991-92, Ex.A25 is the CC of pahani for the year 1994-95, Ex.A26 is the CC of pahani for the year 1996-97, Ex.A27 is the

CC of pahani for the year 2000-01, Ex.A28 is the CC of pahani for the year 2004-05, Ex.A29 is the CC of pahani for the year 2006-07, Ex.A30 is the CC of pahani for the year 2007-08, Ex.A31 is the CC of pahani for the year 2010-11, Ex.A32 is the CC of pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A33 is the

Death certificate of father of the plaintiff, Ex.A34 is the ownership certificate issued by panchayath secretary, Grampanchayath, Eradapalli dt: 17.8.2019,

Ex.A35 is the ownership certificate issued by panchayath secretary,

Grampanchayath, Eradapalli dt: 17.8.2019.

12.As seen from the record, the defendants No.1 to 12 did not enter appearance and not filed written statement inspite of giving sufficient ample opportunities and were set exparte. Till date no steps were taken by the 19 OS No. 95 of 2014 defendants No.1 to 12 to enter their appearance and to contest the suit by filing written statement.

13.In a suit for partition, the plaintiff has to establish that he and the defendants No.1 to 3 constitutes joint Hindu family and that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral joint family property and that they and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that he is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. At the first stage, the point to be considered is whether the plaintiff has a share in the suit property and is entitled to division and separate possession. In a citation unreported of our Hon’ble Apex Court in

Uttam Vs. Saubhag Singh and others dt: 2-3-2016. Wherein it was observed that “Section 8 lays down the general rules of succession that the property of a male dying intestate devolves according to the provisions of the

Chapter as specified in Clause (1) of the Schedule. In the Schedule appended to the Act, natural sons and daughters are placed as Class 1 heirs but a grandson, so long as father is alive, has not been included. Section 19 of the Act provides that in the event of succession by two or more heirs, they will take the property per capita and not per stripes, as also tenants-in- common and not as joint tenants.” 14.Here in the present case, the plaintiff through the evidence of

PW-1 and 2, coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A35 established that the plaintiff and

D1 to D3 are members of Hindu Joint Family and the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and they are not partitioned. The evidence of PW- 1 & 2 reveals that the suit ‘C’ schedule property was admittedly purchased by D1 in the name of the father of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff failed to prove that it was purchased by D1 in the name of his father with the dowry amount given by parents of the PW-1 and that his father got exclusive right and title over the suit ‘C’ schedule property. When the unchallenged evidence of PW-1 and 2 coupled the Ex.A1 to Ex.A35 is put together, it could see that the plaintiff established that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 constitute of Hindu joint family and all the suit schedule properties are 20 OS No. 95 of 2014 the joint family properties and no partition took place and as such the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the plaint A to H schedule properties and as such plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 3 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration as he failed to show that he is owner and possessor of the suit ‘C’ schedule land. Accordingly issue

NO.1 to 3 is answered.

15.ISSUE NO.4:-

In view of the above finding on issue No.1 to 3, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration declaring that Ex.A13 to A22 as null and void to the extent of the share of the plaintiff only. Accordingly the issue No.4 is answered.

16.ISSUE NO.5:-

In view of the above finding on issue No.1 to 4, the suit has to be preliminarily decreed in part and plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in plaint

A to H schedule properties and Ex.A13 to Ex.A22 are declared as null and void to the extent of the share of the plaintiff. Accordingly the issue No.5 is answered.

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed in part and the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 3 are allotted 1/3rd share each in the suit

A to H schedule properties and the originals of Ex.A13 to Ex.A22 registered sale deeds are declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of the share of the plaintiff. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by personal assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 4 th day of February, 2020.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT- CUM-

ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

21 OS No. 95 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: FOR THE DEFENDANTS P.W.1 : Thakkallapally Sushma --None-- P.W.2 : Joginapally Chandrashekar Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:- Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 are the Mee Seve copies of Adangal pahanies, Ex.A13 : Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 1536 of 2000, Ex.A14 : Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 670 of 2002, Ex.A15 : Mee seva copy of sale agreement cum irrevocable General Power of Attorney document No. 3560 of 2010, Ex.A16 : Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4361 of 2010, Ex.A17 : Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4911 of 2010, Ex.A18 : Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 6044 of 2010, Ex.A19 : Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4592 of 2011, Ex.A20 : Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 7227 of 2011, Ex.A21 : Mee seva copy of sale deed bearing document No. 3267 of 2010, Ex.A22 : Mee seva copy of gift settlement deed bearing document No. 42 of 2011, Ex.A23 : Certificate issued by Panchayath Secretary, Eradapalli village, Shankarapatnam mandal, Karimnagar district, Ex.A24 : CC of pahani for the year 1991-92, Ex.A25 : CC of pahani for the year 1994-95, Ex.A26 : CC of pahani for the year 1996-97, Ex.A27 : CC of pahani for the year 2000-01, Ex.A28 : CC of pahani for the year 2004-05, Ex.A29 : CC of pahani for the year 2006-07, Ex.A30 : CC of pahani for the year 2007-08, Ex.A31 : CC of pahani for the year 2010-11, Ex.A32 : CC of pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A33 : Death certificate of father of the plaintiff, Ex.A34 : Ownership certificate issued by panchayath secretary, Grampanchayath, Eradapalli dt: 17.8.2019, Ex.A35 : Ownership certificate issued by panchayath secretary, Grampanchayath, Eradapalli dt: 17.8.2019

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:- --NIL--

Judge, Family Court-cum-

Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar.

22 OS No. 95 of 2014

1 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Smt. P.V.P. Lalitha Siva JyothiSmt. P.V.P. Lalitha Siva Jyothi

Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl.

Dist. & Sessions Judge,

K A R I M N A G A R.

Monday, this the 15 th day of March, 2021.

A.S. No. 171 of 2018

Between : -

Arelli Shankaraiah @ Sharabaiah, s/o Narayana, age: 68 yrs, occ: Rtd SCCL Employee, r/o Rachapalli village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.

.....Appellant/Plaintif

And

1.Arelli Shankaraiah, s/o Ramachandru, age: 48 yrs, occ: Toddy Tapper,

2.Kancharla Bhadraiah, s/o Mallaiah, age: 32 yrs,occ: Agriculture,

3.Kancharla Mallaiah, s/o Komuraiah, age: 56 yrs, all are r/o Rachapalli v/o Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.

.....Respondents/Defenedants

(On Appeal against the Judgment and decree dt:04.07.2018 in O.S. No. 27 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad )

Between : -

Arelli Shankaraiah @ Sharabaiah, s/o Narayana, age: 68 yrs, occ: Rtd SCCL Employee, r/o Rachapalli village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district. .....Plaintif

And

1Arelli Shankaraiah, s/o Ramachandru, age: 48 yrs, occ: Toddy Tapper, 2Kancharla Bhadraiah, s/o Mallaiah, age: 32 yrs,occ: Agriculture, 3Kancharla Mallaiah, s/o Komuraiah, age: 56 yrs, all are r/o Rachapalli v/o Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.

.....Defendants

APPEAL FILED UNDER ORDER 41 Rule 1 & 2 OF C.P.C.

2 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018

This Appeal coming before me on 04.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rama Krishna Chary, Advocate for the Appellant/plaintiff and Sri J.Venugopal Rao, advocate for the Respondents/defendants, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: -

- : : J U D G M E N T : : -

The Appellant/plaintiff preferred this appeal against the

Judgment and Decree passed by Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad in O.S.

No. 27 of 2010 dated 04.07.2018 and the factual matrix leading to the filing of the appeal is as follows:-

2. The case of the plaintiff in O.S. NO. 27 of 2010 as could be seen from the plaint averments in brief is that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit land in Sy.No. 308/B to an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts dry land situated in Rachapalli village shivar of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule land from its previous owner Arelli Shankaraiah (D-1) under registered sale deed vide document No. 4622/09 dt: 07.09.2010 and after purchase, the D1 had inducted the plaintiff into possession of the schedule property and since the purchase the plaintiff has been in enjoyment of schedule property, after that the plaintiff applied for mutation of the schedule property before revenue authorities and the same is pending

before mandal revenue authorities, as and when he receive the

mutation certificate he will submit the same before this court. That the previous owner (D-1) and plaintiff are agnates and the previous owner (D-1) succeeded Ac.1-20 gts and the plaintiff inherited Ac. 1-27 gts in the suit survey number, the suit land is abutting to the land of the plaintiff Ac. 1-27 gts. The D1 for his family legal necessities intended to sell the suit land to the plaintiff on his persistent requests and as it is more convenient to the plaintiff he purchased the suit land for valid 3 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 consideration under Registered Sale deed document No. 4622/2009 dt:

07.09.2009 and at the time of said Registration inadvertently the southern side boundary was wrongly mentioned as “the land of Venkata chary” instead of “the land of the plaintiff”. Being the plaintiff an illiterate man at the time registration, he could not notice the said boundary and later the plaintiff noticed the same and requested the D- 1 for rectification of southern side boundary on several occasions but the D1 bluntly refused to do so and he recently came to know that the

D1 has executed another Regd. Sale deed to D2 vide document No.

5005/2009 dt: 09.10.2009 i.e., one month after the purchase of the plaintiff, and the defendant No.2, having knowledge about the sale deed of the plaintiff got registered the suit land in favour of D2 and the

CC of the same is filed through list and D1 intentionally registered the suit land in favour of D2 and cheated the plaintiff and the said document is null and void in the eye of Law and it is liable to be cancelled. The plaintiff further contends that the D1 is the previous owner and D2 who got impugned sale deed and the D3 are strangers to the suit schedule land, and they had no title or possession over the suit schedule land at any point of time and therefore, the D1 to D3 in collusion with each other and by taking the advantage of sale deed in favour of the D2 and by showing the same are demanding the plaintiff to leave the suit land to them and as the plaintiff refused to do so, the defendants are trying to interfere and occupy the suit schedule land in order to grab it and int his connection the defendants on 12.4.2010 came to the suit schedule land and tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiff by interfering and to occupy the suit schedule land but the plaintiff resisted them with great difficulty as such they did not succeed and returned from the suit schedule land by declaring that they will not allow him to hold and enjoy suit land peacefully and at any time they 4 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 will dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and the defendants are having money and muscle power including political and police influence, therefore the plaintiff apprehends danger to his possession over suit schedule land in the hands of defendants. Hence the suit.

3.The defendants No.1 to 3 entered appearance and denying material averments of the plaint and filed written statement stating that the defendant No.3 who is the father of D2. The D1 is the son of late Arelli Ramchandru and Lachamma. The D1 and Lachamma succeeded the suit land under suit boundaries after the demise of the

Arelli Ramchandru and the revenue authorities had recorded the D1 as owner of the suit land. The D1 and wife of Ramchandru intended to sell the schedule property, by knowing the same the D3 who is the father of

D1 had entered into an agreement of sale dt: 04.12.2009 for a valuable consideration, immediately after the agreement of sale the defendant

No.1 and Arelli Lachamma had inducted the defendant No.2 into possession of the schedule property and thereafter after paying the entire sale consideration the Arelli Lachamma and D1 had executed a simple sale deed dt: 26.5.2007 in favour of D3, thereafter the same was registered in the name of his son of D3 i.e., D2 by D1 vide document

No. 5005/2009 dt: 09.10.2009. in fact the defendant No.3 purchased the suit land on 4.12.2006 itself, the D2 and D3 being illiterates could not validated the simple sale deeds under R.O.R. proceedings and could not mutated their names in the concerned revenue records. They further contends that, the plaintiff being the adjacent land owner of the suit property and being agnate of the D1, several times demanded D1 and Lachamma who is the wife of Ramchandru to sell away the suit land to him for which they refused, mean while the D1 had sold away the suit land to D2, as such by keeping the same in mind, and with an ulterior movie had obtained the concocted document under death 5 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 threat and in intoxication of the defendant No.1, without any consideration vide document No. 4622/2009 dt: 07.09.2009 with an ulterior motive to evict the defendant No.2 from the suit land had obtained illegal document from the defendant No.1 which was already sold by away to the D3 and under the guise of concocted document the plaintiff filed the suit in order to evict the defendant No.2 from the suit, which is illegal. The D2 alone is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land from 04.12.2006 and the plaintiff has no right or title or possession over the suit land at any point of time and by suppressing all the above known and real facts filed the suit in order to achieve his prohibited goal and prays to dismiss the suit.

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the lower Court:-

1.Whether the plaintiffs is entitled for declaration of title over suit schedule properties ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties ?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for execution of rectification deed for southern boundary of suit schedule properties as the land of plaintiff as prayed for?

5.Whether the document No. 5005/2009 is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff?

6.To What relief ?

5. During trial, the plaintiff got examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A-6 on his behalf and DW-1 to DW-7 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 are marked on behalf of the defendants.

6.The trial Court on conclusion of trial and on hearing both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit without costs.

6 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 7.Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the plaintiff/appellant preferred the appeal contending inter alia that the appellant by examining PW-1 & 2 and marking the Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 proved that he is the owner and possessor of the suit land and he purchased the suit land from R1. Ex.A1 to A4 which shows that R1 is the pattadar and possessor of suit land. The learned trial court disbelieved the evidence adduced by him and did not accept the Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and dismissed the suit of plaintiff without any sound reasons, but the learned trial court believed the evidence of the respondents and accepted the documents filed by them and dismissed the suit.

Admittedly the name of R1 is mutated in the revenue records as owner and possessor of the suit land. The appellant is the prior purchaser of the suit land and R3 is the subsequent purchaser and to nullify the regd. Sale deed of appellant i.e., Ex.A1 created Ex.B1 which is the simple agreement of sale and also created the Ex.B2 which is the simple sale deed dt: 26.5.2007 and the respondents are failed to prove their possession over the suit land and the appellant proved that he is in possession of the suit land, however the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant. The conclusions arrived by the learned trial court are based on presumptions and assumptions and in view of the above grounds the judgment and decree is liable to be set-aside and appeal is liable to be allowed and that he may be permitted to raise and urge such other grounds at the time of hearing of appeal. Hence this appeal.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the points for considerations are “Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court in OS 27 of 2010 dated 04.07.2018 is sustainable?” 7 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018

Point:

10.In a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, it is for the plaintiff to establish his case as set out in the plaint, irrespective of the fact whether the defendants had adduced any evidence in support of their contention to show that he is the exclusive owners and got absolute title and is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that there is an interference in such possession by the defendants.

11.The plaintiff in support of his case got examined himself as

PW.1 and also examined the village elder as PW-2. The evidence of PW- 1 and PW-2 discloses that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit land in Sy.No. 308/B to an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts dry land situated in

Rachapalli village shivar of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district and he purchased the same from its previous owner Arelli Shankaraiah (D-1) under registered sale deed vide document No. 4622/09 dt:

07.09.2010 and after purchase, the D1 had inducted him into possession of the schedule property and since then he has been in enjoyment of schedule property and he applied for mutation of the schedule property before revenue authorities and the same is pending

before mandal revenue authorities, as and when he receive the

mutation certificate he will submit the same before this court and the previous owner (D-1) and plaintiff are agnates and the previous owner (D-1) succeeded Ac.1-20 gtrs and he inherited Ac. 1-27 gts in the suit survey number, the suit land is abutting to the land of the plaintiff Ac.

1-27 gts. The D1 for his family legal necessities intended to sell the suit land to him on his persistent requests and as it is more convenient to him, he purchased the suit land for valid consideration under

Registered Sale deed document No. 4622/2009 dt: 07.09.2009 and at 8 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 the time of said Registration inadvertently the southern side boundary was wrongly mentioned as “the land of Venkata chary” instead of “the land of the Sharavaiah”. He being an illiterate man, he could not notice the same and later he noticed and requested the D-1 for rectification of southern side boundary on several occasions but the D1 bluntly refused to do so and he recently came to know that the D1 has executed another Regd. Sale deed to D2 vide document No. 5005/2009 dt:

09.10.2009 i.e., one month after his purchase and the defendant No.2, having knowledge about the sale deed of the plaintiff got registered the suit land and the CC of the same is filed through list and D1 is intentionally registered the suit land in favour of the D2 and cheated the plaintiff and the said document is null and void in the eye of Law.

He further stated that the D1 is the previous owner and D2 who got impugned sale deed and the D3 are strangers to the suit schedule land, and they had no title or possession over the suit schedule land at any point of time and therefore, the D1 to D3 in collusion with each other and by taking the advantage of sale deed in favour of the D2 and by showing the same are demanding to leave the suit land to them and as he refused to do so, the defendants are trying to interfere and occupy the suit schedule land in order to grab it and in this connection, the defendants on 12.4.2010 came to the suit schedule land and tried to disturb the possession by interfering and to occupy the suit schedule land but he resisted them with great difficulty and as such they did not succeed and returned from the suit schedule land by declaring that they will not allow him to hold and enjoy suit land peacefully and at any time they will dispossess him from the suit land and the defendants are having money and muscle power including political and police influence and he apprehends danger to his possession over suit schedule land in the hands of defendants.

9 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 12.The documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff are

Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. Ex.A1 is the Original Registered Sale Deed document

No. 4622/09 dt: 07.09.2010 of plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the C.C. pahani for the year 2000-2001, Ex.A3 is the CC pahani for the year 2003-2004, Ex.A4 is the Pahani Patrika for the year 2008-09, Ex.A5 is the CC of Registered sale deed vide document No. 5005/2009 of defendant No.2, Ex.A6 is the

Original market value certificate issued by the S.R.O. Huzurabad.

13.As against the evidence of PW-1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, the defendants got examined as DW-1 to 7 and got marked

Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 on their behalf. Ex.B1 is the original simple agreement of sale deed dt: 4.12.2006 Deficit stamp duty paid vide file No.

G1/2086/2017 dt: 29.12.2017, Ex.B2 is the original simple sale deed dt:

26.5.2007 deficit stamp duty paid vide file No. G1/2086/2017 dt:

29.12.2017, Ex.B3 is the Registered sale deed B.no. 5005 of 2009 dt:

09.10.2009, Ex.B4 is the Certified copy of pahanies for the year 2007- 2008, Ex.B5 is the original Order copy of Appeal No. D/1754/2012 dt:

29.06.2013 on the file of RDO Karimnagar. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08, Ex.B7 is the original revenue tax receipt

No. 6927626.

14.The evidence of DW-1/2nd defendant discloses that he is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of the suit land in Sy.No.

308/B to an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts situated at Rachapally village of

Jammikunta mandal within the following boundaries East: Agriculture land of Meenugu Sadi, West: agricultural land of Panjala Srinivas, North:

Agricultural land of Gudepu Rajakomuru and Gudepu Saraiah, South:

Agricultural land of Arelli Sharavaiah @ Sharabhaiah (plaintiff) and the plaintiff never purchased the suit land from D1, the alleged registered sale deed document No. 4622/09 dt: 07.09.2010 is a concocted document and without any consideration and with wrong boundaries 10 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 and D1 never inducted the plaintiff into possession of the suit property and he is possession of suit land since the date of agreement of sale dt:

04.12.2006, and he has been cultivating the suit land without any interruption till date. He further stated that originally one late Arelli

Ramchandru was the absolute owner of the suit land, after his demise the D1 who was his son, and Arelli Lachamma who was the wife of

Ramchandru had succeeded suit land and thereafter the D1’s name was entered as owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and

D1 and his mother intended to sell the schedule property, by knowing the same the D3 who is his father had entered into an agreement of sale dt: 04.12.2006 for a valuable consideration, immediately after the agreement of sale the D1 and Arelli Lachamma had inducted him and his father into possession of the suit schedule property and after paying the entire sale consideration, the Arelli Lachamma and D1 had executed a simple sale deed dt: 26.05.2007 in favour of his father ie.., defendant No.3, thereafter the same was got registered in his name by

D1 vide doc.No. 5005/2009 dt: 09.10.2009, in fact the D3 had purchased the suit land on 04.12.2006 itself, the D3 and he being illiterates could not validated the simple sale deed under R.O.R.

proceedings and could not mutate their names in the concerned revenue records. He further stated that the plaintiff being the adjacent land owner of the suit property and being agnate of the defendant

No.1, several times demanded the D1 and Lachamma to sell away the suit land to him for which they refused, meanwhile the D1 had sold away the suit land to him and his father, as such by keeping the same in mind, and with an ulterior motive he obtained the concocted document under death threat and in intoxication of D1, without any consideration vide document No. 4622/2009 dt: 07.09.2009 with an ulterior motive to evict him from the suit land had obtained illegal 11 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 document from the D1, which was already sold away to his father under simple sale deed dt: 26.05.2007 thereafter got registered in his name and the plaintiff filed the suit in order to evict him from the suit, which is illegal and he alone is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land from 4.12.2006 onwards and after purchase, the revenue authorities had also mutated his name in the possessory column, even till today his name has been recorded as possessory by virtue of sale, since then he has been paying the revenue tax also and also obtained crop loan from the Andhra Bank, Vavilala branch by pledging Pahani patrika, and revenue receipt. He further stated that the previous owner of suit land by name Arelli Lachamma and his father i.e., D3 got filed appeal No. D/1754/2012 before Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, against the orders of Tahasildar vide B/375/2011 dt: 12.09.2011, accordingly on thorough enquiry, the RDO set aside the order

B/375/2011 and ordered to issue mutation order in favour of him pertains to the suit schedule land.

15.The defendant No.1 got examined as DW2, his evidence discloses that the defendant No.3 i.e., Kancharla Bhadraiah is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of the suit land in Sy.No. 308/B to an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts situated at Rachapally village of

Jammikunta mandal within the following boundaries East: Agriculture land of Meenugu Sadi, West: agricultural land of Panjala Srinivas, North:

Agricultural land of Gudepu Rajakomuru and Gudepu Saraiah, South:

Agricultural land of Arelli Sharavaiah @ Sharabhaiah (plaintiff) and the plaintiff never purchased the suit land from him, the alleged registered sale deed document No. 4622/09 dt: 07.09.2010 is a concocted document and without any consideration and with wrong boundaries and he never inducted the plaintiff into possession of the suit property and he is possession of suit land since the date of agreement of sale dt:

12 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 04.12.2006, and he has been cultivating the suit land without any interruption till today. He further stated that originally one late Arelli

Ramchandru was the absolute owner of the suit land, after his demise he and Arelli Lachamma who is the wife of Ramchandru had succeeded suit land and thereafter his name was entered as owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he and his mother intended to sell the schedule property, by knowing the same the D3 who is his father had entered into an agreement of sale dt: 04.12.2006 for a valuable consideration, immediately after the agreement of sale he and Arelli

Lachamma had inducted him and his father into possession of the suit schedule property and after paying the entire sale consideration the

Arelli Lachamma and he had executed a simple sale deed dt:

26.05.2007 in favour of his father ie.., defendant No.3, thereafter the same was got registered in his name by him vide doc.No. 5005/2009 dt:

09.10.2009, in fact the D3 was purchased the suit land on 04.12.2006 itself, the D3 and he being illiterates could not validated the simple sale deed under R.O.R. proceedings and could not mutated their names in the concerned revenue records. He further stated that the plaintiff being the adjacent land owner of the suit property and being agnate of him, several times demanded him and Lachamma to sell away the suit land to him for which they refused, mean while he had sold away the suit land to him and his father, as such by keeping the same in mind, and with an ulterior motive and obtained the concocted document under death threat and in intoxication of him, without any consideration vide document No. 4622/2009 dt: 07.09.2009 with an ulterior motive to evict him from the suit land had obtained illegal document from him, which was already sold away to his father under simple sale deed dt:

26.05.2007 thereafter got registered in his name and under the guise of the concocted document the plaintiff filed the suit in order to evict him 13 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 from the suit, which is illegal and he is alone is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land from 4.12.2006 onwards and after purchase, the revenue authorities had also mutated his name in the possessory column, even till today his name has been recorded as possessory by virtue of sale, since then he has been paying the revenue tax also and also obtained crop loan from the Andhra Bank, Vavilala branch by pledging Pahani patrika, and revenue receipt. If the plaintiff is declared as owner, he will be put in irreparable loss.

16.The evidence of DW-3 to DW-6 reveals that the defendant

No.3 i.e., Kancharla Bhadraiah is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of the suit land in Sy.No. 308/B to an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts situated at Rachapally village of Jammikunta mandal within the following boundaries East: Agriculture land of Meenugu Sadi, West:

agricultural land of Panjala Srinivas, North: Agricultural land of Gudepu

Rajakomuru and Gudepu Saraiah, South: Agricultural land of Arelli

Sharavaiah @ Sharabhaiah (plaintiff) and the plaintiff never purchased the suit land from Arelli Shankaiah @ Shankari under registered sale dt:

04.12.2006, since then the Kancharla Bhadraiah has been cultivating the suit land without any interruption till today. They further stated that originally one late Arelli Ramchandru was the absolute owner of the suit land, after his demise his son Arelli Shankaiah @ Shankari and his wife

Arelli Lachamma had succeeded suit land and thereafter they intended to sell the schedule property, by knowing the same the D3 who is the father of D2 entered into an agreement of sale dt: 04.12.2006 for a valuable consideration of Rs.65,000/- and DW-3 is one of the witness to the said agreement of sale and D3 paid Rs. 8,000/- towards advance of the sale consideration immediately after the agreement of sale Arelli

Lachamma and Arelli Shankaraiah had inducted the D3 and D2 into possession of the suit schedule property and after paying the entire 14 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 sale consideration Arelli Lachamma and Arelli Shankariaiah had executed a simple sale deed dt: 26.05.2007 in favour of defendant

No.3, thereafter the same was got registered in his name of D3 by the

Arelli Shankaiah @ Shankari vide doc.No. 5005/2009 dt: 09.10.2009, in fact the D3 was purchased the suit land on 04.12.2006 itself, the D3 and D2 being illiterates could not validated the simple sale deed under

R.O.R. proceedings and could not mutated their names in the concerned revenue records. They further stated that the plaintiff being the adjacent land owner of the suit property and being agnate of Arelli

Shankaiah, several times demanded D1 and his other Lachamma to sell away the suit land to plaintiff for which they refused, mean while D1 had sold away the suit land to D2 and D3, as such by keeping the same in mind, and with an ulterior motive and obtained the concocted document under death threat and in intoxication of D1, without any consideration vide document No. 4622/2009 dt: 07.09.2009 with an ulterior motive to evict D1 from the suit land had obtained illegal document from D1, which was already sold away to his father under simple sale deed dt: 26.05.2007 thereafter got registered in the name of D2. Under the guise of the concocted document the plaintiff filed the suit in order to evict D3 from the suit land, which is illegal and D3 is alone is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land from 4.12.2006 onwards and after the purchase the revenue authorities had also mutated his name in the possessory column, even till today his name has been recorded as possessor by virtue of sale, since then he has been paying the revenue tax also.

17.The evidence of DW-7 discloses that he is having land towards Northern side of the suit land and stated that the Defendant

No.3 i.e., Kancharla Bhadraiah is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of the suit land in Sy.No. 308/B to an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts 15 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 situated at Rachapally village of Jammikunta mandal and the plaintiff never purchased the suit land from Arelli Shankaraiah @ Shankari, under registered sale deed and the plaintiff never in enjoyment of the suit schedule property and in fact Kancharla Bhadraiah has been in possession of the suit land since from the date of agreement of sale dt:

4.12.2006, since then the Kancharla Bhadraiah has been cultivating the suit land without any interruption till today. The defendant No.3 is the father of D2 purchased the suit land from Arelli Lachamma and Arelli

Shankaraiah and entered into an agreement of sale dt: 4.12.2006 for a valuable consideration of Rs.65,000/- and immediately after the agreement of sale the previous owners had inducted the D3 and D2 into possession of the suit schedule land and after paying the entire sale consideration Arelli Lachamma and Arelli Shankaraiah had executed a simple sale deed dt: 26.5.2007 in favour of D3 and thereafter the same was got registered in the name of D3 by the Arelli

Shankaraiah @ Shankari and n fact the D3 got purchased the suit land on 4.12.2006 itself, since then the D2 has been enjoying the suit land as absolute owner and plaintiff is no way concerned with suit land.

18.It is an admitted fact, that late Arelli Ramachandram was the original pattedar of the suit schedule property and one Lachamma was the wife of the Ramchandram and after the death of the Arelli

Ramachandram, the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of his wife by name Arelli Lachamma and D1. The evidence of PW-1 itself reveals that Lachamma is the legally wedded wife of the

Ramchandram. By the date of sale deed executed by D1, his mother

Lachamma is alive and the son of D1 and Lachamma did not come to registrar office. It is an admitted fact that the Ramachandram had no male issues through his wife Lachamma and he got five daughters through Lachamma.

16 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018

19.The evidence of PW-1 reveals that the mother of D1 namely

Shanthamma was already married another person prior to her marriage with Ramchandram. He denied that the said Shanthamma did not obtain divorce from her first husband and that Ramchandram kept her as his mistress only and he did not marry her and further denied that

D1 was not born due to wedlock of Shanthamma and Ramchandram.

The said Areli Lachamma and D3 filed an appeal before Revenue

Divisional Officer, Karimnagar against the plaintiff, D1 and Tahasildar

Jammikunta.

20. Ex.B5 is the order in appeal No.D/1764/2012, wherein the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar clearly mentioned that the said

Arelli Lachamma and Arelli Shankaraiah/D1 herein have already sold the suit land to Kancharla Mallaiah/D3 on 26.05.2007 through simple sale deed and since then the son of D3 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and subsequently the plaintiff herein had made mischief with D1 herein and got registered said land on 07.09.2009 in favour of plaintiff which is subsequent to the first sale transaction and is null and void baseless and illegal. It is also observed that the suit land was without any change or gift by the said Arelli Lachamma, it was changed in the revenue records in name of D1 herein which is also irregular. It is further mentioned that with an intention to grab the suit land, the plaintiff herein has managed and got registered the land by D1 herein and he was never in possession of the suit land. It is further mentioned that D1 herein subsequently has registered the said land in favour of

D2 herein vide doc.No. 5005/2009 dt: 09.10.2009 who is in possession and enjoyment of the said land on the basis of the simple sale deed dt:

26.05.2007 executed in favour of his father/D3 herein. The revenue

Divisional Officer allowed the said appeal and set aside the order issued by the Tahasildar Jammikunta vide No. B/375/2011, dt: 12.09.2011 and 17 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018

Tahasildar, Jammikunta was directed to issue mutation orders in favour of D2 herein, who is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts situated in Sy.No. 308/B situated at Rachapalli village. Ex.B4 is the pahani for the year 2007-08 which shows that D2 is in possession of the suit land.

21.As seen from the record, it is an admitted fact that late

Arelli Ramchandru was the original pattedar and his wife Arelli

Lachamma acquired the suit land after his death and they are having five daughters. DW1/2nd defendant evidence discloses that the defendant No.1 is his vendor of the suit land and D3 is his father and admitted that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of his vendor and he got mutated in his name and title deed and pattedar passbook were also issued in his name. He admitted that simple sale deed dt. 04-12-2006 and another simple deed dt.06-05-2007 are executed in favour his father/D3 by one Arelli Lachamma, W/o.

Ramchandram and D1 also signed as a witness on the said simple sale deeds and admitted that as on the date of execution of simple sale deed, the suit land was already mutated in the name of the 1st defendant. He admitted that on the southern side of the suit land there is land of plaintiff and he had seen the Ex.A1 registered sale deed of the plaintiff. He admitted that on the southern side boundary the name of

Venkatachary is mentioned and denied that the plaintiff is in possession of suit property and since the date of his purchase to till date the plaintiff is cultivating the suit land. He admitted that land to an extent of Ac.1.27 guntas which is adjacent to the suit land is belongs to the plaintiff.

22.The evidence of DW-2/1st defendant discloses that he is the vendor of the suit land to the 3rd defendant and he is son of 2nd defendant. He admitted that on 07-09-2009 he registered the suit 18 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 property in favour of plaintiff bearing document No.4622 of 2009, dt.07-09-2009 and stated that he already sold the suit property to defendant No.2 prior to selling the suit property to plaintiff. He stated that on 04-12-2006 his mother executed an agreement of sale to D2 and on 06-05-2007 his mother received the total consideration and executed sale deed in favour of D2 and he signed as witness to the sale deed executed by his mother. He admitted that the document dt.04-12-2006 and 06-05-2007 were executed by his mother in favour of defendant No.3 and also admitted that as on the date of execution of said documents, the suit property is already mutated in his name and pettedar passbooks and title deed passbooks are issued in his favour.

He admitted that the plaintiff is having Ac.1.27 guntas of land on the southern side of the suit property and further admitted that the southern side boundary mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiff instead of name of the plaintiff the name of one Venkatachary is mentioned and the plaintiff is seeking for rectification of that entry.

23.The evidence of DW-3 in his cross examination stated that he does not know whether one month prior to registering the suit property in the name of D2, the vendor of D2 registered the suit property in the name of the plaintiff and stated that he was present when D3 purchased the suit property from his vendor D1 and his mother by name Lachamma in the year 2006 through simple sale deed.

He further stated that only one simple sale deed is executed in his presence. He denied that Ex.B1 is created after filing of this case.

24. The evidence of DW-4 in his cross examination stated that to his knowledge the mother of D1 by name Lachamma has taken the entire sale consideration amount from D3 and executed sale deed in favour of D3 in the year 2007 and the suit land stands in the name of

D1 and his mother by name Lachamma. He further stated that after 19 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 the death of father of D1 the suit land is mutated in the name of D1 and his mother Lachamma and he does not know whether D1 executed registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff or any other person.

25. The evidence of DW-5 in his cross examination admitted that after the death of the father of D1 the suit property is mutated in the name of D1 and pattedar passbooks and title deeds are issued in the name of D1. He further stated that at first D1 registered the suit property in the name of plaintiff and D1 is an innocent person due to which he did the registration. He stated that he does not know who filed the case against whom and for what purpose and does not know the suit land survey number, extent and its boundaries.

26. The evidence of DW-6 who is the daughter of Arelli Lachamma and Ramchandru in her cross examination stated that except the fact that her mother sold the property to D2 she does not know any other facts about the suit she stated that she does not know who filed the case against whom and for what purpose and also does not know the suit land survey number, extent and its boundaries. The evidence of

DW-7 in his cross examination stated that after the death of father of

D1 the suit property was mutated in the name of mother of D1 but he does not know whether pattedar passbooks and title deeds are issued or not but to his knowledge D1 and his mother sold the property to D2 and D3 under simple sale deed dt.04-12-2006 and further stated that he know as per document dt.26-05-2007/Ex.B2 mother of D1 alone sold the suit property to D3 alone. He admitted that he know the D1 sold the suit property through registered sale deed to D2 but he does not know the date of sale transactions and also does not know whether prior to registering the suit property in the name of D2, D1 registered the same in the name of plaintiff through registered sale deed.

20 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 27.The evidence of PW1/Plaintiff reveals that the said Arelli

Lachamma is the legally wedded wife of the Ramachandram and mother of D1 namely Shanthamma married another person prior to her relationship with Ramachandram. Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed bearing document No.4622 of 2009 executed by D1 in favour of the plaintiff. Whereas Ex.B1 is the simple agreement of sale dt. 04-12-2006 and Ex.B2 is the original simple sale deed dt.26-05-2007 and they are duly impounded. The said Arelli Lachamma and D1 sold the suit property to D3 and D2 and D3 are in possession of the suit property even prior to the date of purchase of suit schedule property by the plaintiff. The evidence of DW2/1st defendant who is the vendor of the suit land to the 3rd defendant in his evidence clearly stated that he never inducted the plaintiff into possession of suit schedule property and plaintiff never in enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the 2nd defendant has been in possession of suit schedule property since the date of agreement of sale dt.04-12-2006 and has been cultivating the suit land without any interruption till date. The evidence of

DW1/2nd defendant reveals that after purchase, the revenue authorities had mutated his name in possessory column by virtue of sale and since then he has been paying the revenue tax and he stated that he had also obtained crop loan from Andhra Bank, Vavilala Branch by pledging the pahani patrika and revenue receipt.

28.On perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and the documents relied on the defendants, it could be seen that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and failed to establish that he is having absolute title and in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that there is an interference in such possession. The plaintiff failed to establish that his vendor/1st 21 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018 defendant was having absolute right and title over the suit schedule property as on the date of execution of Ex.A1.The plaintiff failed to prove that the suit land is his exclusive property and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and therefore he is not entitled for the relief of declaration. On perusal of the boundaries of the suit schedule property and boundaries of the plaintiff as stated by him, it could be seen that there is a difference on the southern boundary. Prior to Ex.A1 registered sale deed of the plaintiff, D2 is in possession of the suit property and as such 1st defendant is not having right to sell the property to the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and the plaintiff is not entitled for execution of rectification deed for the southern boundary of the suit schedule property as the land of plaintiff. Since the boundary mentioned in registered sale deed of D2/Ex.B3 document bearing

No.5005 of 2009 and the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed of plaintiff/Ex.A1 are different and for the reason set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Ex.B3 can not be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff as prayed for.

29.When the evidence of PW-1 and 2 coupled the Ex.A1 to

Ex.A6 and the evidence of DW-1 to DW-7 coupled the Ex.B1 to Ex.B7, and for the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the view, that the trial court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the defendants and the submissions made by them has rightly appreciated the evidence and dismissed the suit. The trial court rightly dismissed the suit.

Viewed from any angle, the judgment and decree of the trial court is on correct lines. In the above said circumstances, there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Accordingly the point is answered.

22 of 22 A.S.No. 171 of 2018

In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court in OS No. 27 of 2010,

dt:04.07.2018 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. No

costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 15th day of

March, 2021.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS

JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined --None--

Exhibits marked --- Nil---

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS

JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR.

1 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM ADDL. SESSIONS

JUDGE :: AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: P.V.P. Lalitha Siva Jyothi

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,-CUM-

ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Tuesday, this the 30th day of March, 2021

SESSIONS CASE No. 66 of 2020

(On the committal made by Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar in PRC No. 70/2019, Dt. 17.01.2020)

Nameofthe:The State through the Asst. commissioner of Complainant/StatePolice Karimnagar (Crime No.85/2019 of P.S. Karimnagar-III town.

Name of the Accused: A-1: Thadakamadla Abhishek Reddy s/o Muralidhar Reddy, 29 yrs, Reddy, Private employee r/o Pegadapalli village now at Navya Apartments, Plot No. 1010, Meharnagar, Karimnagar. A-2: Thadakamadla Sathavva @ Sathya @ Sthamma w/o Muralidhar Reddy, 50 yrs, Reddy, House wife r/o Pegadapalli village, now at Navya Apartments, Plot No. 101, meharnagar, Karimnagar. (died) (abated). A-3: Thadakamadla Muralidhar Reddy s/o Narayan Reddy, 55 yrs, Reddy, agriculture, r/o Pegadapalli village, now at Navya Apartments, plot No. 101, Meharnagar, Karimnagar. : ChargesU/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act Plea of the Accused::“Not guilty”

Finding of the Court::“Not guilty”

Sentence or order::In the result, the accused No.1 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP act and accordingly they are acquitted as per provisions U/sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution:: Sri P.V.Raj Kumar, conducted by Additional Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar.

Accused defended by::Sri D.V.Ramana Reddy, Advocate for accused.

2 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020

This case is coming on 25.03.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.V.Raj Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State-complainant and of Sri. D.V.Ramana Reddy, Advocatefor the accused No.1 and 3, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

The State represented by the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar division filed charge sheet in Crime No.85 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act against the accused

No.1 to 3.

2.The case of the prosecution against the accused in brief is that on 27.03.2019 at 1100 hours the complainant/Danapati Raji Reddy came to police station and gave written complaint in telugu stating that he is resident of

Rangasaipet village of Ramadugu and doing agriculture and he had a son and a daughter and about four years go he had performed the marriage of his daughter

Thadakamadla Jyothi, 26 yrs with one Thadakamadla Abhishekreddy of

Meharnagar Karimnagar (A1) and they were blessed with a girl child aged about 3 years and on 26.3.2019 at 1200 hours his daughter Jyothi along with his grand daughter Shivani went away from her in-law’s house due to squabble with her mother-in-law, immediately knowing the same, he came to Karimnagar and enquired about her missing and on enquiry, her in-laws informed that she went away from the house without informing to them. Basing on the complaint SHO

Karimnagar -III town registered a case in Cr.No. 85 of 2019 Under head of Woman & Girl Missing and issued FIR to all the concerned and secured the presence of

LW.1 D.Rajireddy, LW-2 D.Srikanth and LW-3 D.Vinodha, examined them and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of two mediators LW-26 V.Ravinder Reddy & LW-27 M.Prabhakar Reddy and drew the rough sketch of scene of offence and later issued look out notice and Radio 3 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 message to the neighbouring police stations in search of missing Woman and girl child. While investigation is in progress the Inspector of police, Karimnagar-III town received a CD file from CP Karimnagar which was transferred by SP Rajanna

Sircilla District pertains to Cr.No. 106 of 2019 U/sec. 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and

Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P Act of Vemulawada twon PS on the point of jurisdiction, upon which the LW-34/Inspector of police Karimnagar-III town altered the section of law from Woman & Girl Missing to 498-A, 304-B, Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act and issued express Memos to all the concerned and on receiving the express memo and CD file the ACP Karimnagar took up the investigation and verified the investigation conducted by LW-32/MD. Jaleelul Rahaman, ASI of police, Karimnagar-III town, LW- 33/N.Venkata Swamy,Inspector of police, LW-34/G.Vijay Kumar,Inspector of police,

LW-35/ N.Venkatramana, SDPO, Sircilla and LW-36/P.Venkatramana SDPO,

Vemulawada and found that on 31.3.2019 at 0900 hours the complainant

Donapati Raji Reddy went to Vemulawada town PS and submitted a complaint stating that he has one son and one daughter and on 21.2.2015 he performed the marriage of his daughter Jyothi with Thadakamadla Abhishek Reddy who is the son of Thadakamadla Muralidhar Reddy and Sathavva and at the time of marrige, he has gave ana mount of Rs. 24 lakhs besides 100 grams of gold jewels and other house hold articles towards dowry and his daughter was residing in Navya

Apartment at Mehar Nagar, Karimnagar and after 6 months of the marriage, his daughter’s husband and in-laws started harassment for additional dowry as demanded by the in-laws, he has gave Rs. 2 lakhs once and later another

Rs.2 lakhs to the in-laws in order to look after his daughter well being, inspite of fulfilling the additional dowry, they harassed his daughter both mentally and physically and about 3 years ago his daughter Jyothi blessed with daughter with physically handicapped child and panchayath was convened in the house of his daughter, in which the husband and in-laws of his daughter agreed to look after his daughter Jyothi well in the presence of elders but they never changed their 4 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 attitude and similarly pestered Jyothi and unable to bare the constant harassment on 26.3.2019 Jyothi took her 3 years old aged daughter Shivan, left her house from Navya apartment Karimnagar and went away from her house and missing case was registered at Karimnagar -III town PS I.e, present case. While so they came to know that one lady and one baby were found lying dead in the agricultural well at Vemulawada town, on that they went to Vemulawada on observing the clothes found on dead bodies, he identified the deceased persons are as his daughter and grand daughter and further stated that due to continuous harassment of husband Abhishek Reddy, Mother-in-law Sathavva and father-in-law

Muralidhar Reddy, his daughter Jyothi took her daughter Shivani came to Mula

Vaagu Vemulawada and threw her daughter Shivani into the well and she too jumped into the same well and committed suicide. On that complaint,

N.Venkataswamy/LW-33, Inspector of police, Vemulawada town police registered a case in Cr.No. 106/2019 U/sec. 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act and issued FIR and informed to his superior officers on cell phone and examined and recorded the statements of complainant and gave requisition to

LW-31/Thahasildar & EM Rudrangi, HAC of Vemulawada for holding inquest over the dead bodies of deceased No.1 & 2 and LW-35/Inspector of police Vemulawada visited the scene of offence situated at Mulavagu Vemulawada and examined the witnesses LW-1/D.Raji reddy, LW-2/D.Srikanth, LW-8/Sangam Murali, LW-9 Doomala

Narayana, LW-10/Kukala Suman, LW-11/Ch.Naresh and recorded their statements.

LW-31/MD.Tafaqul Hussain, Tahasildar secured the presence of three panch witnesses LW-23/ Dyava Ananth Reddy, LW-24/Mekala Sraswathi and LW- 25/I.Pragbhakar and got retrieved the dead bodies of deceased No.1 & 2 from the well with the help of LW-9/D.Narayana & LW-10/K.Suman and examined the dead bodies which were highly decomposed and swollen state, skin was peeled off and maggot were formed on the bodies, no external injuries are found on the body and held inquest over the dead body of deceased No.1 & 2 in the presence of 5 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 same panchas and shifted to the Government Mortuary, Sircilla for conducting post mortem examination and accordingly the LW-30/Dr.Ch.Prasunna conducted

PME over the dead bodies of D1 and D2 and issued PME report and also collected the diatoms and forwarded to RFSL for analysis and report and after receiving

RFSL report issued final opinion that the cause of death of deceased is due to “drowning”. The LW-35/N.Venkataramana, SDPO Sircilla prepared the CDF in the presence of mediators LW-24/ & 25 and draw the sketch map of scene and subsequently on 01.4.2019 the LW-36 took up investigation from LW-37 and found investigation on proper lines and on the point of jurisdiction he transferred the CD file to CP Karimnagar. LW-37 took up investigation and secured the presence of

LW-1 to 3, LW-5 to 7 and collected the wedding card of D1 and A1 and marriage photos, visited the scene of offence and secured LW-8 to LW-11 and examined.

While the efforts are under progress on 17.04.2019 at 1030 hours, the LW-34 apprehended A1 to A3 at their house at Navya Apartment at Meharnagar,

Karimnagar and produced before LW-37 office at 1100 hrs and on interrogated the accused A1 to A3 before mediators LW-28 & 29 and they confessed to have committed this offence and proceeded to their house at Navya apartment and seized the original land document No. 24/2018 in their presence under confession cum recovery panchanama and arrested them and send to judl. Remand. LW-37 addressed letters to the Managers of Telangana Grameena Bank, Ramadugu,

Gayathri Bank Karimnagar, Andhra Bank, Karimnagar and SBI Tellapur and with a request to furnish account opening form of LW-1, deceased No.1, A1 and LW-17 and their statements of accounts and accordingly they issued Bank statement and account opening form. The LW-37 examined the statements of the accounts of deceased No.1 and LW-1, it has revealed that, on 6.2.2017 the LW-1 deposited an amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- from his account B.No.79004318944 of Telangana

Grameena bank, Ramadugu to Deceased No.1 account B.No. 10040210403571 fo

Gayathri Bank, Karimnagar of D1, it proves that the A1 purchased the land with 6 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 the said amount and accused had utilized dowry amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- to purchase a piece of land Ac.01-16 ½ gts from LW-17. Hence the charge.

3.The present case is against accused No.1 to 3 and the casewas taken on file against them as PRC No. 70 of 2019 by the learned Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar U/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC

and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act against the A1 to A3. The A1 to A3 were furnished with all copies of the relevant documents as required u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C., The learned

Magistrate having found primafacie case against the accused No.1 to 3 for the

offence punishable U/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act, and as the offence U/sec. 304-B IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Karimnagar u/sec. 209 Cr.P.C.

4.The Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar has taken the case on file as SC. 66 of 2020 and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law. On 7.12.2020, the learned APP filed attested copy of death certificate of A2 stating that A2 was died on 19.05.2020 and therefore the case against A2 was abated on 07-12-2020 and proceeded against A1 and A3 only.

5. On appearance of the A1 & A3 before this Court, the learned Additional

P.P., and learned counsel for the accused were heard U/sec. 226 of CR.P.C. and on considering the material on record and as per Sec. 228 Cr.P.C., the charges U/sec.

498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act against the accused No.1 and 3 are framed and the charges have been read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined Pws 1 to 35 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-60 on behalf of prosecution.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 3 were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminatory evidence available against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they denied and reported no 7 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 evidence either oral or documentary on their behalf. Hence defence evidence is closed.

8. Heard arguments of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned

Defence counsel.

9. Now the point that arise for determinations is:- “Whether the prosecution had made out the guilt of the accused No.1 and 3 for the charges punishable U/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?” 10.To establish the charges U/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP

Act, the prosecution has to prove that A1 and A3 being the husband and father-in- law of deceased Jyothi harassed her both physically and mentally by demanding

additional dowry and due to the unbearable harassment made by A1 and A3 along

with A2, the said Jyothi committed suicide along with her daughter Shivani by jumping into the agricultural well and that her death was occurred with in 7 years of her marriage with A1 and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused No.1 and 3 along with A2 in connection with demand for dowry soon

before her death and that there was demand for dowry beyond all reasonable

doubt.

11.To prove the charges U/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act, the prosecution all together got examined 35witnesses out of 38 listed witnesses and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-60. Ex.P-1 is the Complaint in III town PS

Karimnagar dt: 27.3.2019, Ex.P-2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1, Ex.P-3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2, Ex.P-4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3,

Ex.P-5 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4, Ex.P-6 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW-5, Ex.P-7 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-6, Ex.P-8 is the photographs of dead bodies (6) in number, Ex.P-9 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-8, Ex.P-10 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-11, Ex.P-11 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-12,

Ex.P-12 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-13, Ex.P-13 is the requisition given by 8 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020

ACP, Karimnagar town dt: 15.4.2019, Ex.P-14 is the letter dt: 23.4.2019 addressed to the ACP, Karimnagar by enlcosing coy of account opening form of D.Jyothi and statement of account copy, Ex.P-15 is the letter dt: 30.7.2019 addressed to the

ACP enclosing (7) cheques, Ex.P-16 is the letter dt: 01.08.2019 addressed to ACP,

Karimnagar enclosing (1) cheque, (10) TDRs and (01) RTGS fund transfer application form, Ex.P-17 is the requisition letter given by the ACP to Telangana

Grameena Bank dt: 15.4.2019, Ex.P-18 is the copy of account opening form of

PW.1 along with statement of account for the month of February, 2017, Ex.P-19 is the requisition given by ACP to SBI Saifabad, dt: 15.4.2019, Ex.P-20 is the copy of statement of account of T.Padma from 1.10.2017 to 31.10.2017, Ex.P.21 is the requisition given by the ACP/LW37 to Union Bank of India, dt.15-04-2019. Ex.P.22 is the copy of SB account opening form of A1 along with statement of account of

A1 from 08-02-2017 to 28-04-2017, Ex.P-23 is the signature of PW-19 as first witness on the crime detail form dt. 27-03-2019, Ex.P-24 is the crime detail form

dt: 27.03.2019, Ex.P.25 is the requisition given by Inspector of Police, Vemulawada

Town P.S. dt.31-03-2019. Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.27 are the inquest panchanamas of deceased/Jyothi and deceased/Shivani dt.31-03-2019, Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.29 are

PW.22 signatures at Sl.No.1 on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Jyothi and

Shivani, Ex.P.30 is PW-23 signature on the confessional and recovery panchanama dt.17-04-2019, Ex.P.31 is PW-24 signature on the confessional and recovery panchanama dt.17-04-2019, Ex.P-32 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-25, Ex.P- 33 is the registered sale deed bearing document No. 24/2018, dt.03-01-2018,

Ex.P.34 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-12, Ex.P.35 to Ex.P.38 at Sl.No.2 are PW-27 signatures on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Jyothi dt.31-03-2019. Ex.P.39 to Ex.P.41 at Sl.No.2 are PW-27 signatures on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Shivani, dt.31-03-2019, Ex.P.42 is PW-27 signature as first witness on the crime detail form, dt.31-03-2019, Ex.P-43 is the FIR, Dt: 27.3.2019, Ex.P-44 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-29, Ex.P-45 is the complaint given by PW-1 dt:

9 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 31.3.2019, Ex.P-46 is the FIR dt: 31.3.2019, Ex.P-47 is the Crime detail form ,d t:

31.3.2019, Ex.P-48 is the signature of Dr.Ch.Prasunna on the PME report of deceased/Jyothi, dt: 31.3.32019, Ex.P-49 is the signature of Dr. Ch.Prasunna on the PME report of deceased/Shivani dt: 31.3.3019, Ex.P50 and Ex.P-51 are the signatures of Dr. Ch.Prasunna on the final opinion given by her on the cause of death of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani. Ex.P-52 is the alteration memo dt:

13.4.2019, Ex.P.53 is the wedding card of the deceased No.1 and A1. Ex.P.54 are the marriage photos of the deceased No.1 and A1 (05) in number, Ex.P.55 and

Ex.P.56 are the PME reports of deceased/Jyothi and Shivani, dt.31-03-2019.

Ex.P.57 is the FSL report dt.14-05-2019. Ex.P.58 and Ex.P.59 are the final opinion given by Dr. Prasunna/LW30. Ex.P.60 is the admissible portion of confession and recovery panchanama dt. 7-04-2019.

12.The learned APP submits that the prosecution had established the charge U/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act against A1 and A3 through the evidence of PW-1, PW-7, PW-9, PW-10, PW-13 to 21, PW-28, PW-30 to

PW-35 beyond all reasonable doubt. Whereas the learned counsel for the accused submits that almost all the material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and the prosecution failed to establish the charges U/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act against the accused No.1 & 3 beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, they are entitled to benefit of doubt.

13.To establish the charges U/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP

Act, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW-1 to PW-35.PW-1 is the complainant/father of deceased, PW-2 is brother of deceased, PW-3 is the mother of deceased, PW-4 to 6 are the panchayath elders, PW-7 is the photographer,

PW-8 is the watchman of Navyasri apartment, PW-9 is the who first seen the deceased No.1 & 2, PW-10 who is lifted the bodies from the well, PW-11 is secretary of the apartment, PW-12 and PW-13 are the neighbours of LW-1, PW-14 is the owner of well, PW-15 to 18 are the bank managers, PW-19 & PW-20 are the 10 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020

CDF panchas, PW-21 is the Tahasildar, PW-22 panch for inquest of D1 & D2, PW-23 & PW-24 are panch witnesses for confession and recovery, PW-25 is the elder of accused,PW-26 is Co-sister of A2, PW-27 is panch witness for inquest of D1 and

D2, PW-29 is the priest, PW-33 is the medical officer, PW-28, PW-30, PW-31,

PW-32, PW-34, PW-35 are the investigation officers.

14.PW-1 who is the complainant/father, PW-2 is the brother, PW-3 is the mother of the deceased Jyothi, PW-4 to 6 are the panchayath elders did not support the case of prosecution and stated that the bout 5 years back they performed the marriage of deceased No.1 Jyothi with A1 and after marriage, A1 and Jyothi lived happily and they blessed with one daughter namely Shivani and the Right eye of the said Shivani was not visible and her left leg was handicapped, and as such the deceased/Jyothi was suffered mental agony and about 2 years back, they came to know through A3 that deceased/Jyothi left the house of A1 along with her daughter/Shivani and then they came to the house of the accused and searched for Jyothi and grand daughter but in vain and the next day they went to III Town P.S., Karimnagar and lodged a complaint for missing of his daughter and grand daughter and after 4 days they came to know about tracing out (2) dead bodies one lady and child floating in the well in Mulawagu Village of

Vemulawada and then they went there along with the police and saw the dead bodies and identified as their daughter/Jyothi and grand daughter/Shivani and they are in decomposed stage and PW-1 gave a complaint to Vemulawada Town

P.S and the said deceased/Jyothi was committed suicide due to mental agony as her daughter/Shivani was an handicapped child and stated that no dowry was given to the accused at the time of marriage and the accused never harassed the deceased/Jyothi for dowry amount or additional dowry.

15.PW-7 is the photographer and in his evidence stated that on 31.3.2019 the police Vemulawada called him to the to the well situated in

Mulawagu of Vemulawada and as per their instructions, he had taken Ex.P-8 11 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 photographs (6) in number of the dead bodies of deceased/Jyothi and her daughter/Shivani and handed over the same to police along with CD.

16.PW-9 who has first seen the deceased No.1 & 2 and PW-10 who lifted the dead bodies of the deceased No.1 & 2 from the well in their evidence stated that on the request of police people and the parents of deceased Jyothi they lifted the dead bodies of deceased No.1 & 2 and both the dead bodies are in decomposed stage.

17.PW-11 to 13 are secretary and neighbours of PW-1 also did not support the case of prosecution and stated that there are no disputes between accused persons and deceased/Jyothi to my knowledge and they lived happily and to their knowledge, the deceased/Jyothi committed suicide due to mental agony as her daughter/Shivani was physically handicapped and she was mentally depressed.

18.PW-14 who is owner of the well at the place of offence in his evidence deposed that he engaged one farm servant namely Pochaiah in his fields and on 31-03-2019, the said farm servant informed to him that mother and child were died in his well, on that he went to the said well and found the dead bodies of the mother and child and the relatives of dead bodies also came there and he came to know that the names of the deceased were Jyothi and her daughter/Shivani and later the dead bodies of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani were lifted from the well and panchanama was conducted by the police and on his enquiry, he came to know the deceased/Shivani was a physically handicapped child and stated that he does not know as to why the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani were died.

19.PW-19 who is panch for CDF did not support the case of prosecution and stated that no panchanama was conducted and no rough sketch was drawn in his presence and he only identified his signature i.e., Ex.P-23 on Ex.P-24 CDF dt:

27.03.2019.

12 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020

20.PW-20 is the panch for CDF in his evidence deposed that about one and half year back in the afternoon, he went to the Navya Apartments in respect of the missing case of deceased/Jyothi and her daughter/Shivani and by that time police present and police observed the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence in their presence and read over the contents to them and later obtained their signatures on Ex.P-24 Crime detail form.

21.PW-21/Tahasildar deposed that on 31-03-2019 at about 9.30 AM he received requisition from Circle Inspector of Police, Vemulawada to conduct inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani. Immediately, he went to the scene of offence, Mulawagu well, Thippapur bridge and secured the presence of PW.22, PW-27 and LW25/Prabhakar and in their presence he held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani and also examined the blood relatives of the deceased and they opined that A1, A3 and wife of A3 harassed the deceased/Jyothi for additional dowry amount and due to unbearable harassment made by the accused persons, the deceased/Jyothi committed suicide along with her handicapped daughter by jumping into the

Mulawagu well and died and further stated that after read over the contents of inquest over dead bodies of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani, they obtained their signatures. Ex.P-26 and Ex.P-27 are the inquest panchanamas of deceased/Jyothi and Shivani.

22.PW-22 is the panch for inquest did not support the case prosecution and stated that no inquest was held over the dead bodies of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani in his presence and he only identified his Ex.P-28 and Ex.P-29 signatures on Ex.P-26 and Ex.P-27 inquest panchanamas.

23.PW-27 is the panch for inquest did not support the case prosecution and stated that about 2 years back, at about 10.00 a.m. police called her to the well under the bridge, Vemulawada and she went there and found two dead bodies of mother and child and police held inquest over the said two dead bodies 13 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 and she does not know whom the dead bodies belongs to and the police simply obtained her signatures on some papers and not read over the contents to her.

Ex.P-35 to Ex.P-39 at Sl.No.2 are her signatures on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Jyothi and Ex.P-39 to Ex.P-41 at Sl.No.2 are her signatures on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Shivani dt: 31.03.2019 and she further stated that she did not make any enquiry with the blood relatives of the deceased as to what is the reason for their death.

24.She further stated that no scene of offence was conducted and no rough sketch was drawn in the scene of offence and only identified her signatures

Ex.P-42 as her first witness on the crime detail form dt: 31.03.2019. she denied that she did not go to the scene of offence and no inquest was held in her presence and she signed on inquest and CDF dt: 31.03.2019 in the police station and she deposing falsehood at the instance of the police.

25.PW-23 and PW-24 who are panch witnesses to the confession and recovery panchanama did not support the case of prosecution and stated that nobody confessed any offence, and nothing was seized in their presence and not read over the contents to them and they only identified their signatures. Ex.P-30 and Ex.P-31 are the signatures of PW-23 and PW-24 on the confession and recovery panchanama dt: 17.04.2019.

26.PW-25 who is the elder and relative of the accused did not support the case of prosecution and stated that after marriage the deceased/Jyothi and A1 lived happily and blessed with one daughter Shivani and was handicappied by birth and further stated there are no disputes between accused and deceased/Jyothi and about 2 years back, she came to know that the deceased/Jyothi committed suicide along with her daughter/Shivani as the said

Shivani was handicapped.

27.PW-26 did not support the case of prosecution and stated that in the month of January, 2018, he sold Ac.1.16 ½ guntas of land situated at Pegadapally 14 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 village to A1 for Rs.3,57,000/- and executed a registered sale deed in his favour and A1 paid the total sale consideration of Rs.3,57,000/- to him on the date of the registration of the sale deed but she does not know as to how A1 secured the sale consideration. Ex.P-33 is the registered sale deed B.Doc.No. 24/2018.

28.PW-29 did not support the case of prosecution and stated that on 21- 02-2015, he had performed the marriage of A1 with deceased/Jyothi in Swagath

Function Hall, Karimnagar and at the time of marriage, no dowry or other lanchanalu were given to A1 by PWs1 to 3 and he only performed their marriage but he does not know about their family life subsequently and he came to know that the deceased/Jyothi was died by fall into a well and he does not know as to what was happened.

29.PW-33 medical officer in his evidence deposed that Dr. Ch. Prasunna worked as CAS in their hospital from 2018 to December, 2020 and he can identify the signature of Dr. Ch.Prasunna, and stated that the said Dr.Ch. Prasunna has conducted PME over the dead bodies of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani. The signatures shown to him on the PME reports of deceased/Jyothi and Shivani belongs to the said Dr.Ch. Prasunna. Ex.P.48 is the signature of Dr.Ch. Prasunna on the PME report of Deceased/Jyothi, dt.31-3-2019. Ex.P.49 is the signature of Dr.Ch.

Prasunna on the PME report of Deceased/Shivani, dt.31-3-2019. The sternum and the lungs of both deceased/Jyothi and Shivani are sent to RFSL, Karimnagar through the police and the said Dr.Ch. Prasunna gave final opinion about the cause of the death of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani was due to “Drowning” and the final opinion with regard to the cause of the death of the deceased/Jyothi and

Shivani shown to him contains the signatures of Dr. Ch. Prasunna and she handed over the same to the police.

30.PW-28, 30, 31, 32, 34 and 35 are the investigation officers and their evidence discloses with regard to the issuance of FIR and investigation. As seen from the record, except putting suggestions to PW-1 to 6, PW-8, PW-11 to 13, 15 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 nothing is elicited in their evidence to discredit their testimony or what is necessity for them to depose false hood before a court of law and to support accused.

31.In criminal proceedings, the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt to get him convicted for the offences alleged against them. In the present case, the cause of death of the deceased Jyothi and she was due to drowning and the death of the deceased Jyothi was occurred within 7 years of her marriage. It is not disputed that her death is not under normal circumstances. But the evidence of PW-1 to 3 who are the parents and brother of deceased Jyothi, PW-4 to 6, PW-8, PW-11 to 14, PW-19, PW-22 to 27,

PW-29 does not reveal anything against these accused No.1 & 3 that they harassed the deceased Jyothi both physically and mentally by demanding

additional dowry amount and that there was demand for dowry at the time of

marriage and that these accused were responsible for the death of the deceased

Jyothi and Shivani. The evidence of PW.1/complainant, PW.3, who are the parents and PW-2 brother of the deceased Jyothi does not reveal anything about the alleged commission of offences U/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act by these accused and that the accused NO.1 & 3 are responsible for the death of the deceased Jyothi and Shivani.

32.The learned counsel for the accused submits that Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-22 are the regular statement of accounts of A1, PW-1, deceased Jyothi and PW-6 and they are no way concerned with the present case and A1 purchased the land with his own money under Ex.P-33 and police seized Ex.P-33 only for the purpose of this case and deceased Jyothi committed suicide along with her daughter deceased No.2 Shivani with mental agony as the deceased No.2 Shivani was handicapped and A1, A3 are no way concerned for the death of the deceased. As seen from the record, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution deposed anything against the accused No.1 & 3 that they harassed the deceased 16 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020

Jyothi both physically and mentally by demanding dowry and additional dowry and are responsible for the death of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani.

33.PW-15 to 18 Bank Managers of Gayathri bank, Karimnagar, Telangana

Grameena Bank, Karimnagar, SBI, Tellapur branch and Andhra Bank, Karimnagar.

PW-15 in his cross examination admitted that an amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- was credited to the account of deceased Jyothi on 6.2.2017 and she invested 10,00,000/- in TDRs of Rs1,00,000/- each on 7.2.2017 and she has with drawl all the TDRs on 05.10.2017 and the said TDRs are in the name of the deceased. He admitted that deceased Jyothi gave cheques to A1 for Rs. 42,000/-, 49,000/- and

Rs.29,000/- on 10.04.2017, 15.04.2017 and 18.04.2017 respectively and she has with drawn Rs.2,30,000/- on 05.10,2017 and Rs. 2 lakhs on 06.10.2017. The evidence of PW-16 reveals only with regard to the opening of account by PW-1 on 09.07.2011. Ex.P-18 is the account opening form of PW-1 along with statement of account for the month of February, 2017. PW-17 evidence reveals on the requisition of ACP/PW-35 he furnished the Ex.P-20 statement of account of PW-26 from 01.10.2017 to 31.10.2017. The evidence of PW-18 reveals that A1 opened the saving bank account in their bank on 24.10.2014. Ex.P-22 is the copy of SBI account opening form of A1 along with statement account of A1 from 08.2.2017 to 28.4.2017. There is no cogent evidence on record to show that A1 purchased the land under Ex.P-33 by demanding money from the deceased Jyothi and her parents and with the money received from them, he purchased the property there under and not with his own money.

34.The evidence of PW-7 photographer, PW-21 Tahsildar and PW-33 medical officer, PW-15 to 18 who are the bank officials, PW-28, 30, 31, 32, 34 and 35 who are the investigation officers is not helpful to the case of prosecution as the material witnesses examined by them did not support to the case of prosecution with regard to the alleged commission of offences U/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act. PW-1/Complainant and father of deceased 17 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020

Jyothi in his cross examination stated that he is an illiterate man and Ex.P-1 complaint was written by somebody and so also the complaint given to PS

Vemulawada and he only put his thumb impression on the said two complaints and he does not know the contents of the said two complaints. PW-1 to 3 unequivocally stated that the deceased Jyothi committed suicide due to mental agony as her daughter/deceased Shivani was an handicapped person and stated no dowry was given to the accused No.1 and A3 at the time of marriage and the accused No.1 & 3 never harassed the deceased Jyothi either physically or mentally for dowry and additional dowry amount. They further stated that the deceased Jyothi suffered mental agony as her daughter Shivani/deceased No.2 was an handicapped person and she was always thinking about the future of her handicapped daughter and due to depression she committed suicide along with her daughter Shivani and A1 and A3 are no way responsible for the death of the deceased Jyothi and Shivani. The evidence of PW.4 to 6 also reveals the same.

The prosecution failed to establish the nexus between the accused and death of the deceased Jyothi and Shivani and that these accused persons are responsible for the death of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani and they committed the offences punishable Under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act.

35. It is settled law the criminal jurisprudence begins with the presumption that unless otherwise proved, the person facing the trial would be deemed to be innocent. The burden to prove the charges against the accused

No.1 and 3 are on the prosecution but not on the accused. There is no direct eye witness for the alleged commission of offences by the accused. The prosecution, if fails to connect the act of the accused with the ultimate crime and where the material links constituting the offence are found missing, then the benefit of the same goes in favour of the accused.

36.When the evidence of PW-1 to 35 coupled with the Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-60 s put together, nothing is elicited in their evidence to show that these accused No.1 18 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 and 3 harassed the deceased Jyothi both physically and mentally for additional dowry amount and due to the said unbearable harassment, the deceased Jyothi committed suicide along with her handicapped daughter/Shivani by jumping into the well and that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused

No.1 & 3 in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable U/sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP act beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore benefit of doubt can be given to the accused. Accordingly the point is answered.

Since there is no property, no property order was passed.

37.In the result, the accused No.1 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP act and accordingly they are acquitted as per provisions U/sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused

No.1 and 3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 30 th day of March, 2021.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-ADDL.

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Pw.1Donapati Raji Reddy --None Pw.2Donapati Srikanth Pw.3Donapati Vinodha Pw.4Gangasani Shyam Sunder Reddy Pw.5Donapati Prabhakar Reddy Pw.6Mukkisa Ramana Reddy Pw.7Ch.Naresh Pw.8Kolarnuri Shankaraiah Pw.9Sangam Murali Pw.10Doomala Narayana Pw.11Gurrapu Praneeth Pw.12Kore Gattaiah Pw.13Mekala Pochamma PW.14Boddu Bala Raju 19 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020

PW.15Gunnala Laxminarayana PW.16D.Hanmantha Rao PW.17Nithika Tripati PW.18K.narsinga Rao PW.19Vutukuri Ravinder Reddy PW.20Matta Prabhakar Reddy PW.21Md. Tafaqul Hussain PW.22Dyava Ananth Reddy PW.23Matta latha PW.24Mukkisa Latha PW.25Anireddy Vanaja PW.26Thadakamadla Padma PW.27Mekala Saraswathi PW.28MD.Jaleelul Rahaman PW.29Jagannatham Vishnu Vardhan Charyulu PW.30N.Venkata Swamy PW.31P.Venkatramana PW.32N.Venkatramana PW.33D.P.Raghu PW.34G.Vijay Kumar PW.35P.Ashok

EXHIBIT MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1Signature of PW-1 on the complaint. Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Ex.P.4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3 Ex.P.5161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4 Ex.P.6161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5 Ex.P.7161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6 Ex.P.8Photographs (6) in number Ex.P.9161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-8 Ex.P.10161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-11 Ex.P.11161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-12 Ex.P.12161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-13 Ex.P.13Requisition given by ACP, Karimnagar town dt: 15.4.2019, Ex.P.14Letter dt: 23.4.2019 addressed to the ACP, Karimnagar by enclosing coy of account opening form of D.Jyothi and statement of account copy Ex.P.15Letter dt: 30.7.2019 addressed to the ACP enclosing (7) cheques, Ex.P.16Letter dt: 01.08.2019 addressed to ACP, Karimnagar enclosing (1) cheque, (10) TDRs and (01) RTGS fund transfer application form, Ex.P.17Requisition letter given by the ACP to Telangana Grameena Bank dt: 15.4.2019, Ex.P.18Copy of account opening form of PW.1 along with statement of account for the month of February, 2017, Ex.P.19Requisition given by ACP to SBI Saifabad, dt: 15.4.2019, Ex.P.20Copy of statement of account of T.Padma from 1.10.2017 to 31.10.2017, Ex.P.21Requisition given by the ACP/LW37 to Union Bank of India, dt.15.04.2019 Ex.P.22Copy of SB account opening form of A1 along with statement of account of A1 from 08-02-2017 to 28-04-2017, Ex.P.23Signature of PW-19 as first witness on the crime detail form dt. 27-03- 20 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020 2019 Ex.P.24Crime detail form dt: 27.03.2019, Ex.P.25Requisition given by Inspector of Police, Vemulawada Town P.S. dt.31-03- 2019. Ex.P.26Inquest panchanamas of deceased/Jyothi and deceased/Shivani dt.31-03- 2019, Ex.P.27Inquest panchanamas of deceased/Jyothi and deceased/Shivani dt.31-03- 2019, Ex.P.28PW.22 signatures at Sl.No.1 on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Jyothi and Shivani, Ex.P.29PW.22 signatures at Sl.No.1 on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Jyothi and Shivani, Ex.P.30PW-23 signature on the confessional and recovery panchanama dt.17-04- 2019, Ex.P.31PW-24 signature on the confessional and recovery panchanama dt.17-04- 2019, Ex.P.32161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-25 Ex.P.33Registered sale deed bearing document No. 24/2018, dt.03-01-2018, Ex.P.34161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-26 Ex.P.35PW-27 signatures on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Jyothi dt.31- 03-2019. Ex.P.36PW-27 signatures on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Jyothi dt.31- 03-2019. Ex.P.37PW-27 signatures on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Jyothi dt.31- 03-2019. Ex.P.38PW-27 signatures on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Jyothi dt.31- 03-2019. Ex.P.39PW-27 signatures on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Shivani, dt.31-03-2019, Ex.P.40PW-27 signatures on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Shivani, dt.31-03-2019, Ex.P.41PW-27 signatures on the inquest panchanama of deceased/Shivani, dt.31-03-2019, Ex.P.42PW-27 signature as first witness on the crime detail form, dt.31-03-2019, Ex.P.43FIR, Dt: 27.3.2019, Ex.P.44161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-29, Ex.P.45Complaint given by PW-1 dt: 31.3.2019, Ex.P.46FIR dt: 31.3.2019, Ex.P.47Crime detail form ,d t: 31.3.2019, Ex.P.48Signature of Dr.Ch.Prasunna on the PME report of deceased/Jyothi, dt: 31.3.32019, Ex.P.49signature of Dr. Ch.Prasunna on the PME report of deceased/Shivani dt: 31.3.3019, Ex.P.50Signatures of Dr. Ch.Prasunna on the final opinion given by her on the cause of death of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani. Ex.P.51Signatures of Dr. Ch.Prasunna on the final opinion given by her on the cause of death of the deceased/Jyothi and Shivani. Ex.P.52Alteration memo dt: 13.4.2019, Ex.P.53Wedding card of the deceased No.1 and A1. Ex.P.54Marriage photos of the deceased No.1 and A1 (05) in number, Ex.P.55PME reports of deceased/Jyothi and Shivani, dt.31-03-2019. Ex.P.56PME reports of deceased/Jyothi and Shivani, dt.31-03-2019. Ex.P.57FSL report dt.14-05-2019. Ex.P.58Final opinion given by Dr. Prasunna/LW30.

21 Of 21

S.C.No.66/2020

Ex.P.59Final opinion given by Dr. Prasunna/LW30. Ex.P.60Admissible portion of confession and recovery panchanama dt. 7-04- 2019.

FOR THE DEFENCE

Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECT

---Nil--

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-ADDL.

DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.