/1/
IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NARSAPUR,
WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
Present : Smt.P.VIJAYA DURGA
X Additional District Judge, Narsapur
Monday, this the 19th day of June 2023
O.S.No.21/2017
&
O.S.No.22/2017
&
O.S.No.23/2017
O.S.No.21/2017
Between : Osuri Aswathama Naidu (died), S/o.Late 1. Narasimha Murthy, Hindu, Male, Aged 81 years, Lands, r/o.Door No.61149, Main Road, Narasapur, Narasapur mandal, West Godavari District, NPJCJC Guddati Anand Kumar, S/o.Late Bhanumurthy, 2. Hindu, male, Aged 40 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.61148, Main road, Narasapur, Narasapur mandal, West Godavari District, NPJCJC. Guddadi Shesha Rama Krishna Prasad, 3. S/o.Late Bhanumurthy, Hindu, Male, Aged 44 years, Cultivation, R/o.Door No.61148, Main road, Narasapur, Narasapur mandal, West ……Plaintiffs Godavari District, NPJCJC. (2nd plaintiff is recognized as L.R. of deceased 1st plaintiff as per memo dated 25012018) (3rd plaintiff added as party to the suit as per orders in I.A.188/2018, dated 11102018
and
Karicherla Mohana Rao, S/o.Maheswara Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 35 years, Business, Narasapur, Narasapur mandal.
O.S.No.22/2017
Between : Osuri Aswathama Naidu (died), S/o.Late 1. Narasimha Murthy, Hindu, Male, Aged 81 years, Lands, r/o.Door No.61149, Main Road, Narasapur, Narasapur mandal, West Godavari District, NPJCJC Guddati Anand Kumar, S/o.Late Bhanumurthy, 2. Hindu, male, Aged 40 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.61148, Main road, Narasapur, /2/
Narasapur mandal, West Godavari District, NPJCJC. Guddadi Shesha Rama Krishna Prasad, 3. S/o.Late Bhanumurthy, Hindu, Male, Aged 44 years, Cultivation, R/o.Door No.61148, Main road, Narasapur, Narasapur mandal, West ……Plaintiffs Godavari District, NPJCJC.
(2nd plaintiff is recognized as L.R. of deceased 1st plaintiff as per memo dated 25012018) (3rd plaintiff added as party to the suit as per orders in I.A.190/2018, dated 11102018
and
Chaganti Gopi Krishna, S/o.Yesu Naidu, Hindu, Male, Aged 31 years, Cultivation, R/o.Chaganti vari meraka, Lakshmaneswaram village, Narasapur, Narasapur mandal.
…..Defendant.
O.S.No.23/2017
Between :
Osuri Aswathama Naidu, S/o.Late Narasimha 1. Murthy, Hindu, Male, Aged 81 years, Lands, r/o.Door No.61149, Main Road, Narasapur, Narasapur mandal, West Godavari District, NPJCJC (died) Guddati Anand Kumar, S/o.Late Bhanumurthy, 2. Hindu, male, Aged 40 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.61148, Main road, Narasapur, Narasapur mandal, West Godavari District, NPJCJC. Guddadi Shesha Rama Krishna Prasad, 3. S/o.Late Bhanumurthy, Hindu, Male, Aged 44 years, Cultivation, R/o.Door No.61148, Main road, Narasapur, Narasapur mandal, West ……Plaintiffs Godavari District, NPJCJC.
(2nd plaintiff is recognized as L.R. of deceased 1st plaintiff as per memo dated 25012018) (3rd plaintiff added as party to the suit as per orders in I.A.192/2018, dated 11102018
and
Gubbala Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Jagannadham, Hindu, Male, Aged 55 years, Cultivation, R/o.Kavitam, Poduru mandal, West Godavari District, PJCJC.
…..Defendant.
/3/
These suits are coming is appeal has come on 19062023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.Krishna Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs in O.S.No.21/2017, O.S.22/2017 and O.S.23/2017 and of Sri
P.Surya Chandra Rao, advocate for the defendant in O.S.No.21/2017 and
O.S.No.22/2017 and Sri T.Venkateswara Rao, advocate for defendant in
O.S.No.23/2017 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this
Court delivered the following:
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
O.S.No.21/2017
1. The plaintiffs filed the suit to cancel the sale deed dated 2909 2014 under Doc.No.7569/2014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of Item Nos.1 (a) (b) and (c) of plaint schedule property; cancelling the sale deed dated 29092014 under Doc.No.7570/2014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of Item Nos.2 (a) and (b) of plaint schedule property and send copy of it to the office of Bhimavaram Sub
Registrar to note the same for cancellation and for costs.
2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:
(a). The 1st plaintiff is permanent resident at Door No.61149,
Main road, Narsapur and he the only son of Osuri Narasimha Murthy and Sitha Mahalakshmi. The 1st plaintiff's father died when he was aged about 2 years. Since the death of the father the 1 plaintiff and his mother used to live in the above said house and G.Krishna Murthy who is the brother of Sitha Mahalakshmi and maternal uncle of 1st plaintiff used to look after their welfare. Unfortunately, in the year 1996 the 1st plaintiff's mother also died. The 1st plaintiff remained unmarried and since the death of his mother the 1st plaintiff leads lonely, desolate and detached life and he is being looked after, after the death of his maternal uncle by
Guddati Bhanumurthy S/o.G.Krishna Murthy and after the death of the said Guddati Bhanumurthy by his son the 2nd plaintiff herein and the 2nd /4/ plaintiff is also his executor. The house of 2nd plaintiff is situated adjacent to the house of 1st plaintiff.
(b). The 1st plaintiff is having considerable properties. The plaint schedule property and some other properties belong to the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff got the said properties as per the final decree dt.17 032009 passed in I.A.No.2022/2007, in O.S.No.13/2000 on the file of court of Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. The 1st plaintiff alone is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and his other properties.
(c).The defendant and one Chaganti Gopikrishna have got landed property near the lands of the 1st plaintiff and they know that the said lands of 1st plaintiff are very valuable. Both of them know about the family of 1st plaintiff and also about the management of the properties by the 2nd plaintiff and above all about the lonely and desolate life that the 1st plaintiff is leading. The defendant, one Karimsetti Kalyan Kumar
S/o.Kurma Varaprasad of Lakshmaneswaram village, Vegi Venugopala
Krishna S/o.China Satyam of Narsapur, Avisetti Krishna Kumar
S/o.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana of Lakshmaneswaram, Gubbala
Venkateswara Rao S/o.Jagannadham of Kavitam, Poduru mandal,
Chaganti Gopikrishna S/o.Yesunaidu of Lakshmaneswaram, Gadhi
Ramakrishna S/o.Subbarao of Narsapur, Chaganti Venkateswara Rao,
Chaganti Muralikrishna, Mucherla Ravi Prasad and Smt.Chaganti
Vijayalakshmi who are close relations and associates and who are all hereinafter referred to as defendant and his coterie cast their evil eye on the properties of 1st plaintiff and all of them conspired together and planned to grab the properties of 1st plaintiff unlawfully taking advantage of his weakness of leading lonely, desolate and detached life.
/5/
(d).The defendant and his coterie in execution of their evil design, in the first instance brought into existence the letter dt.04092014 forging the signature of the 1st plaintiff, addressed to SubRegistrar,
Narsapur with a request to attend the 1st plaintiff's house at Door No.17 1160/5. The reason alleged for private attendance of the SubRegistrar was mentioned in the said letter as that the 1st plaintiff was not in a position to walk that he was not doing well that he wants to execute sale deed and mortgage deed. It was also mentioned in the said letter that one
Karimsetti Kalyan Kumar who is one of the members of the coterie pay the attendance fee and submit Doctor certificate etc., The said Karimsetti
Kalyan Kumar also submitted medical certificate dt.02092014 brought into existence by him and his other members of coterie forging the signature of Dr.K.Venugopal of Janaki Hospital, Narsapur. The said letter dt.04092014 is a rank forgery and the signature thereon is not that of 1st plaintiff at all and the medical certificate which was pressed into service was not given by Dr.K.Venugopal. Even though the said
Karimsetti Kalyan Kumar paid the attendance fees etc., ultimately somehow or other the defendant and his coterie gave up their initial plan perhaps suspecting that if the registrations have to take place at
Narsapur it will be known to others. One of the members of the coterie
Karicherla Mohana Rao is a notorious criminal and is involved in several criminal cases and a rowdy sheet vide 121 of 2006 of Narsapur Town
P.S. is also opened against him.
(e). After the above abortive attempt of bringing false documents into existence, the defendant and his coterie conspired to kidnap the 1st plaintiff, wrongfully confine him in a house at a different place, getting /6/ signatures forcibly under threat to life and bringing to existence sale deeds fraudulently and under coercion
(f).The 1st plaintiff is in the habit of going outside early in the morning about 4:30 or 5:00 a.m. for taking tea. This fact is very well known to the defendant and his men of coterie. On 29092014 when the plaintiff went to the R.T.C bus stand at Narsapur where at the coffee hotel is situated for taking tea, two persons came on a motor cycle and highhandedly and forcibly lifted the 1st plaintiff and took him on the motor cycle to a distance of about 30 km and from there he was forcibly pushed into a taxi and was taken to some other place and even by that time three other persons were present in the taxi with lotties. The 1st plaintiff was taken to Ravulapalem and was kept in a building and he was forced to subscribe his signatures on a number of blank Non
Judicial stamp papers containing written matter (computerized), on some blank papers affixed with Revenue stamps and some blank promissory notes on which Revenue stamps were affixed and nearly about 40 signatures were forcibly obtained. The 1st plaintiff refused to subscribe his signatures but ultimately subscribed his signatures under threat to his life. Later the 1st plaintiff was taken from Ravulapalem to
Karukuwada Bethapudi village, Bhimavaram Mandal. At Karukuwada
Bethapudi village the 1st plaintiff was wrongfully confined at the house bearing D.No.3140 and there the 1st plaintiff was forced to subscribe his signatures on several papers on which matter was computerized already besides on some blank papers and blank promissory notes affixed with revenue stamps etc., The recitals of the documents were not read over to the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff does not also know about the nature of those documents.
/7/
(g).The defendant and his coterie prearranged the presence of
Akasam Sarada Devi working as Joint SubRegistrar of Bhimavaram to be at Karukuwada Bethapudi to register the documents on which the signatures of the 1st plaintiff were already forcibly obtained by defendant and his coterie. For the presence of the Sub Registrar the 1st plaintiff did not give any requisition to the SubRegistrar for her private attendance at
Karukuwada Bethapudi. The plaintiffs understand that defendant and his coterie forged a medical certificate as if given by Dr.S.D.K.Sastry of
Shriya Hospital, Bhimavaram to the effect that the 1st plaintiff who was a resident of KarukuwadaBethapudi was suffering from viral fever and that the said certificate was pressed into service and an application forging the signature of the 1st plaintiff was submitted to the Joint Sub
Registrar, Bhimavaram for her private attendance to register documents.
The said Dr.S.D.K.Sastry never treated the 1st plaintiff at any time and the certificate stating that the 1st plaintiff's residence is Karukuwada
Bethapudi is utterly false and the plaintiffs have come to learn that the said Dr.S.D.K.Sastry also denied that he ever treated the 1st plaintiff and that he has ever given any medical certificate.
(h). The Joint SubRegistrar Akasam Sarada Devi who was managed by defendant and his coterie chose to be present at the house bearing Door No.3140 of Karukuwada Bethapudi to register the documents without verifying the facts and she registered four sale deeds as if executed by the 1st plaintiff without following the procedure prescribed under the Registration Act, the rules framed there under and the circulars issued. The registration of the documents began after 7:00 p.m. and the signatures of the 1st plaintiff were obtained in the said documents by coercion and the 1st plaintiff subscribed his signatures /8/ under the threats issued by the defendant and his coterie by showing deadly weapons, and threatening that unless the 1st plaintiff subscribes his signatures on the documents at places shown by them that he would be killed. The 1st plaintiff subscribed his signatures on the documents out of fear psychosis.
(i).On 2992014 itself the 2nd plaintiff gave a report to the police stating that the 1st plaintiff was missing. The police registered a case under Cr.No.188/2016 at the first instance. As the police have not taken immediate action and as the matter is being prolonged the 2nd plaintiff filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Naraspur. Basing on the said complaint the police registered another case in Cr.No.205/2014 U/s.364(A), 365, 342, 465, 468, 307 and 370 read with 149/120D of I.P.C and Sec.81 of the Registration Act and took up investigation. During investigation the police personal obtained the copies of four documents and came to know that the defendant and his coterie obtained four registered sale deeds, two registered sale deeds were obtained in the name of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule properties and one registered sale deed in favour of Chaganti
Gopi Krishna and the remaining sale deeds in favour of one Gubbala
Venkateswara Rao S/o.Jagannadham of Kavitam village. The two alleged vendees are also men of defendants' coterie.
(j).Out of the four sale deeds that were registered by the Joint
Registrar, Bhimavaram at KarukuwadaBethapudi village on 29092014 at the house bearing Dr.No.3140 two sale deeds bearing
Doc.Nos.7569/2014 and 7570/2014 SubRegistrar Office, Bhimavaram
dated 29092014 were obtained in the name of defendant. The
registered sale deed dated29092014 under Doc.No.7569/2014 relates /9/ to Item No.1, (a), (b) and (c) and the other sale deed Doc.No.7570/2014 relates to Item No.2 (a) and (b) of the plaint schedule.
(k).Out of the remaining two sale deeds one bearing
No.7568/2014 was got registered in the name of Gubbala Venkateswara
Rao and the remaining sale deed bearing Doc.No.7571/2014 was obtained in the name of Chaganti Gopikrishna. All the four documents were brought into existence on the same day at the same time with false recitals. The purposes mentioned in the sale deeds for which the sales were executed are uniformly the same in all the documents and the purpose that the sale deeds were being executed i.e. to meet the family expenses of the 1st plaintiff and to utilize the sale proceeds for other development purposes are utterly false. In fact the 1st plaintiff has no family at all and he has no dependents to be looked after or maintained.
He lives a frugal life. He has no need to sell the properties for development purpose and what that alleged development purpose is also unknown. All the properties covered by the above said sale deeds or in possession of the 1st plaintiff only. The recitals in the documents that possession of the properties was delivered to the vendees are absolutely false.
(l).The 1st plaintiff has no need or necessity to sell any of his properties. In fact not a single pie was received from the vendees under the documents towards consideration. Moreover the vendees were also not financially sound to purchase property even at the rates mentioned in the documents. Even the sale considerations mentioned in the documents are even far below the rates mentioned by the Government for purpose of stamp duty and registration (basic value register) and in fact /10/ the market values of the properties covered by the said documents are far more than the values mentioned in the documents.
(m).The registered sale deeds dated 29092014 bearing
Doc.Nos.7569 and 7570 of 2014 which relate to the plaint schedule properties and the other two sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.7568 and 7571 of 2014 are vitiated by fraud and coercion. The defendants and his coterie have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, forgery for purpose of cheating, wrongful confinement, extortion and putting the 1st plaintiff in fear of death.
(n).The Joint SubRegistrar who registered the documents while registering the documents also violated the procedure prescribed under the Registration Act, its rules and regulations and the circulars issued in this regard and thus committed offence U/s.166 of I.P.C and Sec.81 of
Registration Act. Even though under the Registration Rule 41 an application for attendance at a private residence shall be in writing and shall in all possible cases be signed by the person on whose behalf attendance is required. But unfortunately the application was received from the agent on behalf of the executant without any special cause or reason. The Joint SubRegistrar also violated the procedure prescribed under section 31 of Registration Act and standing orders 659, 661, 662A, 663A etc., It is also unfortunate that the Joint SubRegistrar registered the documents without proper identity of the executant.
(o). The 1st plaintiff was not a resident of KarukuwadaBethapudi village at all. If he genuinely wants to sell away his property and execute and register sale deeds he would have done at Narsapur itself. There is no need to go all the way to KarukuwadaBethapudi village and he has no relations, nor has he got any property at Karukuwada Bethapudi /11/ village. The house bearing D.No.3140 of KarukuwadaBethapudi village at which the crimes have been committed and documents registered belongs to one Samatham Ramesh who is also one of the members of the coterie and who is also the brotherinlaw of Chaganti Gopikrishna who obtained one of the registered sale deeds i.e. the sale deed bearing
Doc.No.7571/2014. So all these facts clearly go to prove that the defendant and his coterie in collusion and active assistance of the Joint
Sub Registrar Akasam Sarada Devi brought into existence the four sale deeds under Doc.Nos.7568, 7569, 7570 and 7571 by playing fraud, coercion. As already stated the 1st plaintiff even though refused to sign in the beginning ultimately succumbed under fear psychosis.
(p). The present suit is filed for cancellation of the two Regd. Sale
Deeds dt.2992014 bearing Doc.Nos.7569/2014 and 7570/2014 Sub
Registrar Office, Bhimavaram which relate to the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs filed separate suits in respect of cancellation of the remaining two sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.7568/2014 and 7571/2014 that were obtained in the names of Gubbala Venkateswara
Rao and Chaganti Gopikrishna respectively.
(q). By the time the registration was completed it was about 8:30 p.m. and the 1st plaintiff was brought back to Narsapur and was dropped near Locks and the 1st plaintiff narrated whatever that happened to the 2nd plaintiff and after enquiries found that the registrations were clandestinely done at KarukuwadaBethapudi and the plaintiffs applied for public copies and thus came to know about the details of the sale deeds.
(r). The 2nd plaintiff gave police report on 29092014 itself after having come to know that the 1st plaintiff was kidnapped and the police /12/ investigated into the matter and arrested the accused who were later enlarged on bail and the Sessions Case No.196/2016 against the defendant and other members of the coterie is pending on the file of court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District.
(s).The registered sale deed dated 29092014 under
Doc.Nos.7569 and 7560/2014 SubRegistrar Office, Bhimavaram have no legal validity are vitiated and are voidable in nature and the plaintiffs reasonably apprehend that serious injury if the said instruments being left outstanding, hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 29092014 under Doc.No.7569 and 7570 of
SubRegistrar Office, Bhimavaram executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant.
3. The defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations in the plaint and he submit as follows:
(a).The 2nd plaintiff is not an executor to the first plaintiff and there is no document to show that the 2nd plaintiff is the executor of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff is having considerable properties and the plaint schedule property and some other properties belongs to the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff get the said properties as per the final decree dated 17032009 passed in I.A.No.2022/2007 in O.S.No.13/2000 on the file of Additional District Judge, West Godavari District Eluru and this defendant is not aware about the possession and enjoyment of the other properties of the first plaintiff.
(b). The defendant purchased the plaint schedule property for valuable consideration after paying the necessary stamp duty by depositing the same into the bank that itself shows the property was /13/ purchased for valuable consideration and they never harassed and illtreated or used any criminal force or used any unethical methods for registering the document against the 1st plaintiff.
(c).The 2nd plaintiff is not an executor and moreover he is the person who fought with the 1st plaintiff and obtained share in his property without any proof by deceiving the 1st plaintiff and he having a big family. There is no any document executed by the 1st plaintiff and he appointed the 2nd plaintiff as his executor, absence of any document the 2nd plaintiff cannot be turned as an executor or legal representative of the 1st plaintiff. After death of 1st plaintiff the succession open and his nature heirs as per the succession act are having right to continue the proceedings. The 2nd plaintiff has no right to claim he is the executor or legal representative of the deceased 1st plaintiff.
(d).If the document is obtained by way of coercion or fraud the 1st plaintiff ought to have filed the suit himself in view of his past experience of litigation in fighting with the 2nd plaintiff and his family. So that fact itself shows the present litigation is a brain child of the alleged executor 2nd plaintiff to knock away the properties of the defendant to gain unlawfully himself and to cause wrongful loss to the defendant.
(e).The presentation of the plaint is only just prior to his death as per the memo filed by the plaintiff that the 1st plaintiff died on 1511 2017 so it is clear that at the time of filing the suit, the 1st plaintiff is sick and he never intended to file any suit against the defendant as the sale deed was executed on his free will and after receiving the consideration from the defendant.
/14/
(f).If really any illegality was done against the 1st plaintiff he will not kept quite till the expiry of the limitation as he is not an illiterate and he knows the litigation and Court cases as he already party in
O.S.No.13/2000 as mentioned in the plaint.
(g).The 2nd plaintiff claiming to be the executor of 1st plaintiff who is the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant in the year 2000 and he fought with him and forcibly took the properties from the 1st plaintiff now he claiming that he is the executor or legal representative of the 1st plaintiff which is strange that itself clearly shows the greediness of the 2nd plaintiff on further shows that he is the man behind the present litigation and further shows his character and conduct.
(h).The defendant defend the suit filed by the 2nd plaintiff and others clearly shows that he is not an illiterate and he knows the litigation and how to defend his personal properties and there is no question of succumbed to fear psychosis as he is a heir of a jamindari family of Narasapur. The 1st plaintiff is having number of cousins in
Narasapur with his own surname only to knock away the properties of the 1st plaintiff, the 2nd plaintiff created the present litigation to knock away the properties of the 1st plaintiff taking advantage of his illhealth by suppressing his successors who are entitled for the shares of the properties of the 1st plaintiff as per succession.
(i).The defendant would file additional written statement after obtaining the certified copies and other documents in O.S.No.13/2000 on the file of Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru and final decree copies. The giving report by 2nd plaintiff and filing the private complaint by the 2nd plaintiff clearly shows the greediness of the /15/ 2nd plaintiff in filing the present suit after the 1st plaintiff at the verge of death. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and the valuation shown for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is not correct and the present suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff has no right to seek for cancellation of the documents which are supported by consideration and valid registration, hence pray to dismiss the suit.
4. The defendant filed additional written statement in additional to the previous written statement as follows:
Neither the 2nd plaintiff nor the 3rd plaintiff are the attestors of the 1st plaintiff and the alleged Will dated 19072016 is rank forged and is not valid under law. The property mentioned in the Will are not self acquired properties of 1st plaintiff so that he is not having any right to execute the alleged Will dated 19072016. There are earlier litigation between the 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 and 3 with regard the properties of mother of 1st plaintiff and there are no talking terms between the 1st plaintiff and 2 and 3 plaintiffs so that the alleged Will dated 19072016 is a rank forgery. The contents of the Will are false and not got drafted by the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 have no right to continue the proceedings and the sale transaction between the 1st plaintiff and this defendant is genuine one and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 to knock away the properties fabricate the Will and implead as plaintiffs in the suit in a clandestine and fraudulent manner who fought with the 1st plaintiff for his properties in earlier litigation. Therefore that itself clearly shows that the alleged execution of the Will by the 1st plaintiff in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 cannot be believed and it is forged and fabricated one, hence pray to dismiss the suit with costs.
/16/
5. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial: (1). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 29092014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of Item No.1 (1), (b) and (c) of plaint schedule property?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled the relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 29092014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of Item No.2(a), (b) of plaint schedule property?
(3) Whether defendant obtained sale deeds document
No.7569/2014 and 7570/2014, dated 29092014 from 1st plaintiff by fraud and coercion?
(4) Whether Will dated 19072016 is forged one?
(5) Whether 1st plaintiff has got right to execute Will dated 1907 2016 in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 in respect of proposed party under Will?
(6) To what relief?
O.S.No.22/2017
6. The plaintiffs filed the suit to cancel the sale deed dated 2909 2014 under Doc.No.7571/2014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of plaint schedule property and send copy of it to the office of
Bhimavaram SubRegistrar to note the fact for cancellation and for costs.
7. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:
(a). The 1st plaintiff is permanent resident at Door No.61149, Main road, Narsapur and he the only son of Osuri Narasimha Murthy and
Sitha Mahalakshmi. The 1st plaintiff's father died when he was aged about 2 years. Since the death of the father the 1 plaintiff and his mother used to live in the above said house and G.Krishna Murthy who is the /17/ brother of Sitha Mahalakshmi and maternal uncle of 1st plaintiff used to look after their welfare. Unfortunately, in the year 1996 the 1st plaintiff's mother also died. The 1st plaintiff remained unmarried and since the death of his mother the 1st plaintiff leads lonely, desolate and detached life and he is being looked after, after the death of his maternal uncle by
Guddati Bhanumurthy S/o.G.Krishna Murthy and after the death of the said Guddati Bhanumurthy by his son the 2nd plaintiff herein and the 2nd plaintiff is also his executor. The house of 2nd plaintiff is situated adjacent to the house of 1st plaintiff.
(b). The 1st plaintiff is having considerable properties. The plaint schedule property and some other properties belong to the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff got the said properties as per the final decree dt.17 032009 passed in I.A.No.2022/2007, in O.S.No.13/2000 on the file of court of Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. The 1st plaintiff alone is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and his other properties.
(c).The defendant and one Karicherla Mohana Rao have got landed property near the lands of the 1st plaintiff and they know that the said lands of 1st plaintiff are very valuable. Both of them know about the family of 1st plaintiff and also about the management of the properties by the 2nd plaintiff and above all about the lonely and desolate life that the 1st plaintiff is leading. The defendant, one Karicherla Mohana Rao,
Karimsetti Kalyan Kumar S/o.Kurma Varaprasad of Lakshmaneswaram village, Vegi Venugopala Krishna S/o.China Satyam of Narsapur, Avisetti
KrishnaKumarS/o.VeeraVenkataSatyanarayanaof
Lakshmaneswaram, Gubbala Venkateswara Rao S/o.Jagannadham of
Kavitam, Poduru mandal, Gadhi Ramakrishna, S/o.Subbarao of /18/
Narasapur, Chaganti Venkateswara Rao, Chaganti Muralikrishna,
Mucherla Ravi Prasad and Smt.Chaganti Vijayalakshmi who are close relations and associates and who are all hereinafter referred to as defendant and his coterie cast their evil eye on the properties of 1st plaintiff and all of them conspired together and planned to grab the properties of 1st plaintiff unlawfully taking advantage of his weakness of leading lonely, desolate and detached life.
(d).The defendant and his coterie in execution of their evil design, in the first instance brought into existence the letter dt.04092014 forging the signature of the 1* plaintiff, addressed to SubRegistrar,
Narsapur with a request to attend the 1st plaintiff's house at Door No.17 1160/5. The reason alleged for private attendance of the SubRegistrar was mentioned in the said letter as that the 1st plaintiff was not in a position to walk that he was not doing well that he wants to execute sale deed and mortgage deed. It was also mentioned in the said letter that one
Karimsetti Kalyan Kumar who is one of the members of the coterie pay the attendance fee and submit Doctor certificate etc., The said Karimsetti
Kalyan Kumar also submitted medical certificate dt.02092014 brought into existence by him and his other members of coterie forging the signature of Dr.K.Venugopal of Janaki Hospital, Narsapur. The said letter dt.04092014 is a rank forgery and the signature thereon is not that of 1st plaintiff at all and the medical certificate which was pressed into service was not given by Dr.K.Venugopal. Even though the said
Karimsetti Kalyan Kumar paid the attendance fees etc., ultimately somehow or other the defendant and his coterie gave up their initial plan perhaps suspecting that if the registrations have to take place at
Narsapur it will be known to others. One of the members of the coterie /19/
Karicherla Mohana Rao is a notorious criminal and is involved in several criminal cases and a rowdy sheet vide 121 of 2006 of Narsapur Town
P.S. is also opened against him.
(e). After the above abortive attempt of bringing false documents into existence, the defendant and his coterie conspired to kidnap the 1st plaintiff, wrongfully confine him in a house at a different place, getting signatures forcibly under threat to life and bringing to existence sale deeds fraudulently and under coercion
(f).The 1st plaintiff is in the habit of going outside early in the morning about 4:30 or 5:00 a.m. for taking tea. This fact is very well known to the defendant and his men of coterie. On 29092014 when the plaintiff went to the R.T.C bus stand at Narsapur where at the coffee hotel is situated for taking tea, two persons came on a motor cycle and highhandedly and forcibly lifted the 1st plaintiff and took him on the motor cycle to a distance of about 30 km and from there he was forcibly pushed into a taxi and was taken to some other place and even by that time three other persons were present in the taxi with lotties. The 1st plaintiff was taken to Ravulapalem and was kept in a building and he was forced to subscribe his signatures on a number of blank Non
Judicial stamp papers containing written matter (computerized), on some blank papers affixed with Revenue stamps and some blank promissory notes on which Revenue stamps were affixed and nearly about 40 signatures were forcibly obtained. The 1st plaintiff refused to subscribe his signatures but ultimately subscribed his signatures under threat to his life. Later the 1st plaintiff was taken from Ravulapalem to
Karukuwada Bethapudi village, Bhimavaram Mandal. At Karukuwada
Bethapudi village the 1st plaintiff was wrongfully confined at the house /20/ bearing D.No.3140 and there the 1st plaintiff was forced to subscribe his signatures on several papers on which matter was computerized already besides on some blank papers and blank promissory notes affixed with revenue stamps etc., The recitals of the documents were not read over to the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff does not also know about the nature of those documents.
(g).The defendant and his coterie prearranged the presence of
Akasam Sarada Devi working as Joint SubRegistrar of Bhimavaram to be at Karukuwada Bethapudi to register the documents on which the signatures of the 1st plaintiff were already forcibly obtained by defendant and his coterie. For the presence of the Sub Registrar the 1st plaintiff did not give any requisition to the SubRegistrar for her private attendance at
Karukuwada Bethapudi. The plaintiffs understand that defendant and his coterie forged a medical certificate as if given by Dr.S.D.K.Sastry of
Shriya Hospital, Bhimavaram to the effect that the 1st plaintiff who was a resident of KarukuwadaBethapudi was suffering from viral fever and that the said certificate was pressed into service and an application forging the signature of the 1st plaintiff was submitted to the Joint Sub
Registrar, Bhimavaram for her private attendance to register documents.
The said Dr.S.D.K.Sastry never treated the 1st plaintiff at any time and the certificate stating that the 1st plaintiff's residence is Karukuwada
Bethapudi is utterly false and the plaintiffs have come to learn that the said Dr.S.D.K.Sastry also denied that he ever treated the 1st plaintiff and that he has ever given any medical certificate.
(h). The Joint SubRegistrar Akasam Sarada Devi who was managed by defendant and his coterie chose to be present at the house bearing Door No.3140 of Karukuwada Bethapudi to register the /21/ documents without verifying the facts and she registered four sale deeds as if executed by the 1st plaintiff without following the procedure prescribed under the Registration Act, the rules framed there under and the circulars issued. The registration of the documents began after 7:00 p.m. and the signatures of the 1st plaintiff were obtained in the said documents by coercion and the 1st plaintiff subscribed his signatures under the threats issued by the defendant and his coterie by showing deadly weapons, and threatening that unless the 1st plaintiff subscribes his signatures on the documents at places shown by them that he would be killed. The 1st plaintiff subscribed his signatures on the documents out of fear psychosis.
(i).On 2992014 itself the 2nd plaintiff gave a report to the police stating that the 1st plaintiff was missing. The police registered a case under Cr.No.188/2016 at the first instance. As the police have not taken immediate action and as the matter is being prolonged the 2nd plaintiff filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Naraspur. Basing on the said complaint the police registered another case in Cr.No.205/2014 U/s.364(A), 365, 342, 465, 468, 307 and 370 read with 149/120D of I.P.C and Sec.81 of the Registration Act and took up investigation. During investigation the police personal obtained the copies of four registered sale deeds executed by 1st plaintiff, one sale deed
dated 29092014 bearing Doc.No.7571/2014 of SubRegistrar Office,
Bhimavaram in favour of the defendant, two sale deeds of the same date bearing numbers 7569 and 7579 of 2014 in favour of Karicherla Mohan
Rao and one sale deed of the same date bearing Doc.No.7568/2014 in favour of one Gubbala Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Jagannadham of Kavitam /22/ village. The vendees under document Nos.7568, 7569 and 7570 are also men of defendants’ coterie.
(j).Out of the four sale deeds that were registered by the Joint
Registrar, Bhimavaram at KarukuwadaBethapudi village on 29092014 at the house bearing Dr.No.3140 one sale deed bearing
Doc.Nos.7571/2014 SubRegistrar Office, Bhimavaram dated 2909 2014 was obtained in the name of defendant. The registered sale deed
dated 29092014 under Doc.No.7571/2014 obtained in the name of the
defendant relates to the plaint schedule property.
(k).Out of the remaining three sale deeds one bearing
No.7568/2014 was got registered in the name of Gubbala Venkateswara
Rao and the remaining two sale deeds bearing Doc.No.7569/2014 and 7570/2014 were obtained in the name of Karicherla Mohana Rao. All the four documents were brought into existence on the same day at the same time with false recitals. The purposes mentioned in the sale deeds for which the sales were executed are uniformly the same in all the documents and the purpose that the sale deeds were being executed i.e.
to meet the family expenses of the 1st plaintiff and to utilize the sale proceeds for other development purposes are utterly false. In fact the 1st plaintiff has no family at all and he has no dependents to be looked after or maintained. He lives a frugal life. He has no need to sell the properties for development purpose and what that alleged development purpose is also unknown. All the properties covered by the above said sale deeds or in possession of the 1st plaintiff only. The recitals in the documents that possession of the properties was delivered to the vendees are absolutely false.
/23/
(l).The 1st plaintiff has no need or necessity to sell any of his properties. In fact not a single pie was received from the vendees under the documents towards consideration. Moreover the vendees were also not financially sound to purchase property even at the rates mentioned in the documents. Even the sale considerations mentioned in the documents are even far below the rates mentioned by the Government for purpose of stamp duty and registration (basic value register) and in fact the market values of the properties covered by the said documents are far more than the values mentioned in the documents.
(m).The registered sale deeds dated 29092014 bearing
Doc.Nos.7571 which relate to the plaint schedule properties and the other three sale deeds are vitiated by fraud and coercion. The defendant and his coterie have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, forgery for purpose of cheating, wrongful confinement, extortion and putting the 1st plaintiff in fear of death.
(n).The Joint SubRegistrar who registered the documents while registering the documents also violated the procedure prescribed under the Registration Act, its rules and regulations and the circulars issued in this regard and thus committed offence U/s.166 of I.P.C and Sec.81 of
Registration Act. Even though under the Registration Rule 41 an application for attendance at a private residence shall be in writing and shall in all possible cases be signed by the person on whose behalf attendance is required. But unfortunately the application was received from the agent on behalf of the executant without any special cause or reason. The Joint SubRegistrar also violated the procedure prescribed under section 31 of Registration Act and standing orders 659, 661, 662A, /24/ 663A etc. It is also unfortunate that the Joint SubRegistrar registered the documents without proper identity of the executant.
(o). The 1st plaintiff was not a resident of KarukuwadaBethapudi village at all. If he genuinely wants to sell away his property and execute and register sale deeds he would have done at Narsapur itself. There is no need to go all the way to KarukuwadaBethapudi village and he has no relations, nor has he got any property at Karukuwada Bethapudi village. The house bearing D.No.3140 of KarukuwadaBethapudi village at which the crimes have been committed and documents registered belongs to one Samatham Ramesh who is also one of the members of the coterie and who is also the brotherinlaw of defendant. So all these facts clearly go to prove that the defendant and his coterie in collusion and active assistance of the Joint Joint Sub Registrar Akasam Sarada
Devi brought into existence the four sale deeds under Doc.Nos.7568, 7569, 7570 and 7571/2014 by playing fraud, coercion. As already stated the 1st plaintiff even though refused to sign in the beginning ultimately succumbed under fear psychosis.
(p). The present suit is filed for cancellation of the two registered sale deeds dt.2992014 bearing Doc.Nos.751/2014 SubRegistrar Office,
Bhimavaram which relate to the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs filed separate suits in respect of cancellation of the remaining two sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.7568/2014 and 7569/2014 and 7570/2104 that were obtained in the names of Gubbala Venkateswara Rao and the remaining in the name of Karicherla Mohan Rao respectively.
(q). By the time the registration was completed it was about 8:30 p.m. and the 1st plaintiff was brought back to Narsapur and was dropped near Locks and the 1st plaintiff narrated whatever that happened to the /25/ 2nd plaintiff and after enquiries found that the registrations were clandestinely done at KarukuwadaBethapudi and the plaintiffs applied for public copies and thus came to know about the details of the sale deeds.
(r). The 2nd plaintiff gave police report on 29092014 itself after having come to know that the 1st plaintiff was kidnapped and the police investigated into the matter and arrested the accused who were later enlarged on bail and the Sessions Case No.196/2016 against the defendant and other members of the coterie is pending on the file of court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District.
(s).The registered sale deed dated 29092014 under
Doc.Nos.7571 SubRegistrar Office, Bhimavaram has no legal validity is vitiated and is voidable in nature and the plaintiffs reasonably apprehend that serious injury if the said instruments being left outstanding, hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed
dated 29092014 under Doc.No.7571/2014 of SubRegistrar Office,
Bhimavaram executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant.
8. The defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations in the plaint and he submit as follows:
(a).The 2nd plaintiff is not an executor to the first plaintiff and there is no document to show that the 2nd plaintiff is the executor of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff is having considerable properties and the plaint schedule property and some other properties belongs to the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff get the said properties as per the final decree dated 17032009 passed in I.A.No.2022/2007 in O.S.No.13/2000 on the file of Additional District Judge, West Godavari District Eluru and this /26/ defendant is not aware about the possession and enjoyment of the other properties of the 1st plaintiff.
(b). The defendant purchased the plaint schedule property for valuable consideration after paying the necessary stamp duty by depositing the same into the bank that itself shows the property was purchased for valuable consideration and they never harassed and ill treated or used any criminal force or used any unethical methods for registering the document against the 1st plaintiff.
(c).The 2nd plaintiff is not an executor and moreover he is the person who fought with the 1st plaintiff and obtained share in his property without any proof by deceiving the 1st plaintiff and he having a big family. There is no any document executed by the 1st plaintiff and he appointed the 2nd plaintiff as his executor, absence of any document the 2nd plaintiff cannot be turned as an executor or legal representative of the 1st plaintiff. After death of 1st plaintiff the succession open and his nature heirs as per the succession act are having right to continue the proceedings. The 2nd plaintiff has no right to claim he is the executor or legal representative of the deceased 1st plaintiff.
(d).If the document is obtained by way of coercion or fraud the 1st plaintiff ought to have filed the suit himself in view of his past experience of litigation in fighting with the 2nd plaintiff and his family. So that fact itself shows the present litigation is a brain child of the alleged executor 2nd plaintiff to knock away the properties of the defendant to gain unlawfully himself and to cause wrongful loss to the defendant.
(e).The presentation of the plaint is only just prior to his death as per the memo filed by the plaintiff that the 1st plaintiff died on 1511 /27/ 2017 so it is clear that at the time of filing the suit, the 1st plaintiff is sick and he never intended to file any suit against the defendant as the sale deed was executed on his free will and after receiving the consideration from the defendant.
(f).If really any illegality was done against the 1st plaintiff he will not kept quite till the expiry of the limitation as he is not an illiterate and he knows the litigation and Court cases as he already party in
O.S.No.13/2000 as mentioned in the plaint.
(g).The 2nd plaintiff claiming to be the executor of 1st plaintiff who is the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant in the year 2000 and he fought with him and forcibly took the properties from the 1st plaintiff now he claiming that he is the executor or legal representative of the 1st plaintiff which is strange that itself clearly shows the greediness of the 2nd plaintiff on further shows that he is the man behind the present litigation and further shows his character and conduct.
(h).The defendant defend the suit filed by the 2nd plaintiff and others clearly shows that he is not an illiterate and he knows the litigation and how to defend his personal properties and there is no question of succumbed to fear psychosis as he is a heir of a jamindari family of Narasapur. The 1st plaintiff is having number of cousins in
Narasapur with his own surname only to knock away the properties of the 1st plaintiff, the 2nd plaintiff created the present litigation to knock away the properties of the 1st plaintiff taking advantage of his illhealth by suppressing his successors who are entitled for the shares of the properties of the 1st plaintiff as per succession.
/28/
(i).The defendant would file additional written statement after obtaining the certified copies and other documents in O.S.No.13/2000 on the file of Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru and final decree copies. The giving report by 2nd plaintiff and filing the private complaint by the 2nd plaintiff clearly shows the greediness of the 2nd plaintiff in filing the present suit after the1 st plaintiff at the verge of death. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and the valuation shown for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is not correct and the present suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff has no right to seek for cancellation of the documents which are supported by consideration and valid registration, hence pray to dismiss the suit.
9. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial: (1). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 29092014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of plaint schedule property?
(2) Whether the defendant obtained sale deed dated 29042014 vide Doc.No.7571/2014 by fraud and coercion?
(3) To what relief?
O.S.No.23/2017
10.The plaintiffs filed the suit to cancel the sale deed dated 29 092014 under Doc.No.7568/2014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of plaint schedule property and send copy of it to the office of Bhimavaram SubRegistrar to note the fact for cancellation and for costs.
11. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows: /29/
(a). The 1st plaintiff is permanent resident at Door No.61149, Main road, Narsapur and he the only son of Osuri Narasimha Murthy and
Sitha Mahalakshmi. The 1st plaintiff's father died when he was aged about 2 years. Since the death of the father the 1 plaintiff and his mother used to live in the above said house and G.Krishna Murthy who is the brother of Sitha Mahalakshmi and maternal uncle of 1st plaintiff used to look after their welfare. Unfortunately, in the year 1996 the 1st plaintiff's mother also died. The 1st plaintiff remained unmarried and since the death of his mother the 1st plaintiff leads lonely, desolate and detached life and he is being looked after, after the death of his maternal uncle by
Guddati Bhanumurthy S/o.G.Krishna Murthy and after the death of the said Guddati Bhanumurthy by his son the 2nd plaintiff herein and the 2nd plaintiff is also his executor. The house of 2nd plaintiff is situated adjacent to the house of 1st plaintiff.
(b). The 1st plaintiff is having considerable properties. The plaint schedule property and some other properties belong to the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff got the said properties as per the final decree dt.17 032009 passed in I.A.No.2022/2007, in O.S.No.13/2000 on the file of court of Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. The 1st plaintiff alone is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and his other properties.
(c).The defendant and one Karicherla Mohana Rao have got landed property near the lands of the 1st plaintiff and they know that the said lands of 1st plaintiff are very valuable. Both of them know about the family of 1st plaintiff and also about the management of the properties by the 2nd plaintiff and above all about the lonely and desolate life that the 1st plaintiff is leading. The defendant, one Karicherla Mohana Rao, /30/
Chaganti Gopikrishna, Karimsetti Kalyan Kumar S/o.Kurma Varaprasad of Lakshmaneswaram village, Vegi Venugopala Krishna S/o.China
Satyam of Narsapur, Avisetti Krishna Kumar S/o.Veera Venkata
SatyanarayanaofLakshmaneswaram,GadhiRamakrishna,
S/o.Subbarao of Narasapur, Chaganti Venkateswara Rao, Chaganti
Muralikrishna, Mucherla Ravi Prasad and Smt.Chaganti Vijayalakshmi who are close relations and associates and who are all hereinafter referred to as defendant and his coterie cast their evil eye on the properties of 1st plaintiff and all of them conspired together and planned to grab the properties of 1st plaintiff unlawfully taking advantage of his weakness of leading lonely, desolate and detached life.
(d).The defendant and his coterie in execution of their evil design, in the first instance brought into existence the letter dt.04092014 forging the signature of the 1* plaintiff, addressed to SubRegistrar,
Narsapur with a request to attend the 1st plaintiff's house at Door No.17 1160/5. The reason alleged for private attendance of the SubRegistrar was mentioned in the said letter as that the 1st plaintiff was not in a position to walk that he was not doing well that he wants to execute sale deed and mortgage deed. It was also mentioned in the said letter that one
Karimsetti Kalyan Kumar who is one of the members of the coterie pay the attendance fee and submit Doctor certificate etc., The said Karimsetti
Kalyan Kumar also submitted medical certificate dt.02092014 brought into existence by him and his other members of coterie forging the signature of Dr.K.Venugopal of Janaki Hospital, Narsapur. The said letter dt.04092014 is a rank forgery and the signature thereon is not that of 1st plaintiff at all and the medical certificate which was pressed into service was not given by Dr.K.Venugopal. Even though the said /31/
Karimsetti Kalyan Kumar paid the attendance fees etc., ultimately somehow or other the defendant and his coterie gave up their initial plan perhaps suspecting that if the registrations have to take place at
Narsapur it will be known to others. One of the members of the coterie
Karicherla Mohana Rao is a notorious criminal and is involved in several criminal cases and a rowdy sheet vide 121 of 2006 of Narsapur Town
P.S. is also opened against him.
(e). After the above abortive attempt of bringing false documents into existence, the defendant and his coterie conspired to kidnap the 1st plaintiff, wrongfully confine him in a house at a different place, getting signatures forcibly under threat to life and bringing to existence sale deeds fraudulently and under coercion
(f).The 1st plaintiff is in the habit of going outside early in the morning about 4:30 or 5:00 a.m. for taking tea. This fact is very well known to the defendant and his men of coterie. On 29092014 when the plaintiff went to the R.T.C bus stand at Narsapur where at the coffee hotel is situated for taking tea, two persons came on a motor cycle and highhandedly and forcibly lifted the 1st plaintiff and took him on the motor cycle to a distance of about 30 km and from there he was forcibly pushed into a taxi and was taken to some other place and even by that time three other persons were present in the taxi with lotties. The 1st plaintiff was taken to Ravulapalem and was kept in a building and he was forced to subscribe his signatures on a number of blank Non
Judicial stamp papers containing written matter (computerized), on some blank papers affixed with revenue stamps and some blank promissory notes on which revenue stamps were affixed and nearly about 40 signatures were forcibly obtained. The 1st plaintiff refused to subscribe /32/ his signatures but ultimately subscribed his signatures under threat to his life. Later the 1st plaintiff was taken from Ravulapalem to
KarukuwadaBethapudi village, Bhimavaram Mandal. At Karukuwada
Bethapudi village, the 1st plaintiff was wrongfully confined at the house bearing D.No.3140 and there the 1st plaintiff was forced to subscribe his signatures on several papers on which matter was computerized already besides on some blank papers and blank promissory notes affixed with revenue stamps etc. The recitals of the documents were not read over to the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff does not also know about the nature of those documents.
(g).The defendant and his coterie prearranged the presence of
Akasam Sarada Devi working as Joint SubRegistrar of Bhimavaram to be at Karukuwada Bethapudi to register the documents on which the signatures of the 1st plaintiff were already forcibly obtained by defendant and his coterie. For the presence of the Sub Registrar the 1st plaintiff did not give any requisition to the SubRegistrar for her private attendance at
Karukuwada Bethapudi. The plaintiffs understand that defendant and his coterie forged a medical certificate as if given by Dr.S.D.K.Sastry of
Shriya Hospital, Bhimavaram to the effect that the 1st plaintiff who was a resident of KarukuwadaBethapudi was suffering from viral fever and that the said certificate was pressed into service and an application forging the signature of the 1st plaintiff was submitted to the Joint Sub
Registrar, Bhimavaram for her private attendance to register documents.
The said Dr.S.D.K.Sastry never treated the 1st plaintiff at any time and the certificate stating that the 1st plaintiff's residence is Karukuwada
Bethapudi is utterly false and the plaintiffs have come to learn that the /33/ said Dr.S.D.K.Sastry also denied that he ever treated the 1st plaintiff and that he has ever given any medical certificate.
(h). The Joint SubRegistrar Akasam Sarada Devi who was managed by defendant and his coterie chose to be present at the house bearing Door No.3140 of Karukuwada Bethapudi to register the documents without verifying the facts and she registered four sale deeds as if executed by the 1st plaintiff without following the procedure prescribed under the Registration Act, the rules framed there under and the circulars issued. The registration of the documents began after 7:00 p.m. and the signatures of the 1st plaintiff were obtained in the said documents by coercion and the 1st plaintiff subscribed his signatures under the threats issued by the defendant and his coterie by showing deadly weapons, and threatening that unless the 1st plaintiff subscribes his signatures on the documents at places shown by them that he would be killed. The 1st plaintiff subscribed his signatures on the documents out of fear psychosis.
(i).On 2992014 itself the 2nd plaintiff gave a report to the police stating that the 1st plaintiff was missing. The police registered a case under Cr.No.188/2016 at the first instance. As the police have not taken immediate action and as the matter is being prolonged the 2nd plaintiff filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Naraspur. Basing on the said complaint the police registered another case in Cr.No.205/2014 U/s.364(A), 365, 342, 465, 468, 307 and 370 read with 149/120D of I.P.C and Sec.81 of the Registration Act and took up investigation. During investigation the police personal obtained the copies of four registered sale deeds executed by 1st plaintiff, one sale deed
dated 29092014 bearing Doc.No.7568/2014 of SubRegistrar Office,
/34/
Bhimavaram in favour of the defendant, two sale deeds of the same date bearing numbers 7569 and 7570 of 2014 in favour of Karicherla Mohan
Rao and one sale deed of the same date bearing Doc.No.7571/2014 in favour of one Chaganti Gopi Krishna. The vendees under document
Nos.7569, 7570 and 7571 are also men of defendants’ coterie.
(j).Out of the four sale deeds that were registered by the Joint
Registrar, Bhimavaram at KarukuwadaBethapudi village on 29092014 at the house bearing Dr.No.3140 one sale deed bearing
Doc.Nos.7568/2014 SubRegistrar Office, Bhimavaram dated 2909 2014 was obtained in the name of defendant. The registered sale deed
dated 29092014 under Doc.No.7568/2014 obtained in the name of the
defendant relates to the plaint schedule property.
(k).Out of the remaining three sale deeds one bearing
No.7571/2014 was got registered in the name of Chaganti Gopi Krishna and the remaining two sale deeds bearing Doc.No.7569/2014 and 7570/2014 were obtained in the name of Karicherla Mohana Rao. All the four documents were brought into existence on the same day at the same time with false recitals. The purposes mentioned in the sale deeds for which the sales were executed are uniformly the same in all the documents and the purpose that the sale deeds were being executed i.e.
to meet the family expenses of the 1st plaintiff and to utilize the sale proceeds for other development purposes are utterly false. In fact the 1st plaintiff has no family at all and he has no dependents to be looked after or maintained. He lives a frugal life. He has no need to sell the properties for development purpose and what that alleged development purpose is also unknown. All the properties covered by the above said sale deeds or in possession of the 1st plaintiff only. The recitals in the documents that /35/ possession of the properties was delivered to the vendees are absolutely false.
(l).The 1st plaintiff has no need or necessity to sell any of his properties. In fact not a single pie was received from the vendees under the documents towards consideration. Moreover the vendees were also not financially sound to purchase property even at the rates mentioned in the documents. Even the sale considerations mentioned in the documents are even far below the rates mentioned by the Government for purpose of stamp duty and registration (basic value register) and in fact the market values of the properties covered by the said documents are far more than the values mentioned in the documents.
(m).The registered sale deeds dated 29092014 bearing
Doc.Nos.7568 which relate to the plaint schedule property and the other three sale deeds are vitiated by fraud and coercion. The defendant and his coterie have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, forgery for purpose of cheating, wrongful confinement, extortion and putting the 1st plaintiff in fear of death.
(n).The Joint SubRegistrar who registered the documents while registering the documents also violated the procedure prescribed under the Registration Act, its rules and regulations and the circulars issued in this regard and thus committed offence U/s.166 of I.P.C and Sec.81 of
Registration Act. Even though under the Registration Rule 41 an application for attendance at a private residence shall be in writing and shall in all possible cases be signed by the person on whose behalf attendance is required. But unfortunately the application was received from the agent on behalf of the executant without any special cause or reason. The Joint SubRegistrar also violated the procedure prescribed /36/ under section 31 of Registration Act and standing orders 659, 661, 662A, 663A etc. It is also unfortunate that the Joint SubRegistrar registered the documents without proper identity of the executant.
(o). The 1st plaintiff was not a resident of KarukuwadaBethapudi village at all. If he genuinely wants to sell away his property and execute and register sale deeds he would have done at Narsapur itself. There is no need to go all the way to KarukuwadaBethapudi village and he has no relations, nor has he got any property at Karukuwada Bethapudi village. The house bearing D.No.3140 of KarukuwadaBethapudi village at which the crimes have been committed and documents registered belongs to one Samatham Ramesh who is also one of the members of the coterie and who is also the brotherinlaw of Chaganti Gopi Krishna who obtained one of the registered sale deeds i.e, the sale deed bearing
Doc.No.7571/2014. So all these facts clearly go to prove that the defendant and his coterie in collusion and active assistance of the Joint
Sub Registrar Akasam Sarada Devi brought into existence the four sale deeds under Doc.Nos.7568, 7569, 7570 and 7571/2014 by playing fraud, coercion. As already stated the 1st plaintiff even though refused to sign in the beginning ultimately succumbed under fear psychosis.
(p). The present suit is filed for cancellation of the two registered sale deeds dt.2992014 bearing Doc.Nos.7568/2014 SubRegistrar
Office, Bhimavaram which relate to the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs filed separate suits in respect of cancellation of the remaining two sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.7571/2014 and 7569/2014 and 7570/2104 that were obtained in the names of Chaganti Gopi Krishna and the remaining in the name of Karicherla Mohan Rao respectively.
/37/
(q). By the time the registration was completed it was about 8:30 p.m. and the 1st plaintiff was brought back to Narsapur and was dropped near Locks and the 1st plaintiff narrated whatever that happened to the 2nd plaintiff and after enquiries found that the registrations were clandestinely done at KarukuwadaBethapudi and the plaintiffs applied for public copies and thus came to know about the details of the sale deeds.
(r). The 2nd plaintiff gave police report on 29092014 itself after having come to know that the 1st plaintiff was kidnapped and the police investigated into the matter and arrested the accused who were later enlarged on bail and the Sessions Case No.196/2016 against the defendant and other members of the coterie is pending on the file of court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District.
(s).The registered sale deed dated 29092014 under
Doc.Nos.7568 SubRegistrar Office, Bhimavaram has no legal validity is vitiated and is voidable in nature and the plaintiffs reasonably apprehend that serious injury if the said instruments being left outstanding, hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed
dated 29092014 under Doc.No.7568/2014 of SubRegistrar Office,
Bhimavaram executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant.
12. The defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations in the plaint and he submit as follows:
(a).The defendant is a bona fide purchaser for valid consideration of Rs.22,43,000/. The defendant aid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ at the time of settlement of bargain and the remaining balance Rs.19,43,000/ at the time of signing of the document by the 1st plaintiff. Hence, the 1st /38/ plaintiff having received the entire sale consideration from the defendant as mentioned above and as mentioned in the registered sale deed. The 1st plaintiff executed the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant with his own will and consent. The 1st plaintiff with his own will and consent subscribed 9 signatures on the documents with free will and consent. A perusal of the signatures and document will clearly establish that the 1st plaintiff executed the document with own will and consent.
The plaint schedule property was also delivered possession to the defendant by the 1st plaintiff with him own will and consent and eh has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
(b).The 2nd plaintiff is not at all L.R. of the 1st plaintiff and he has no right to prosecute the suit proceedings. The 2nd plaintiff is no way concerned or connected either with the 1st plaintiff or with his properties, as he is not L.R. or successor of heir to the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff is not at all executor of the 1stg plaintiff. Moreover even otherwise the executor is not the L.R. and he ahs no right to prosecute the proceedings. The memo filed by the plaintiffs on 25012018 is not at all maintainable. A perusal of the memo shows that the memo was filed by the plaintiffs. The question of filing memo by both the plaintiffs does not arise, as the 1st plaintiff died on 15112017. It is absurd to say that the deceased person seeking to recognize the 2nd plaintiff as his
L.Rs. without proving how the 2nd plaintiff is executor to the 1st plaintiff he cannot be recognized as L.R. of the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff even did not file any document to prove that he is executor of the 1st plaintiff.
This written statement is filed after amending the plaint and filing the neat copy.
/39/
(c).Actually as known to the defendant the grandfather, father and the 2nd plaintiff along with his brother are trying to grab away the property of the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff also knows very well about the putting the plaint schedule property for sale by the 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff and his brother obstructed the 1st plaintiff, but the 1st plaintiff did not agree for the same and sold the plaint schedule property to the defendant. The 2nd plaintiff having cast eye on the properties of the 1st plaintiff got filed this suit by forging the signatures of 1st plaintiff to gain unlawfully and to illegally avoid the sale of the plaint schedule property.
(d).The 2nd plaintiff also filed a private complaint against the defendant and others by forging the signatures of the 1st plaintiff and get it forwarded and having managing the police officials got registered crime and actually there are no substance in the complaint to register the crime.
(e).The plaintiff with a view to grab away the plaint schedule property, got forged signatures of 1st plaintiff and filed this suit with false allegations to gain unlawfully. The suit is barred by limitation and the suit is liable to be rejected at the threshold, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
13.On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial: (1). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 29092014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of plaint schedule property?
(2) Whether the defendant obtained sale deed dated 29042014 vide Doc.No.7568/2014 by fraud and coercion?
/40/ (3) To what relief?
14.The suits in O.S.No.22/2017 and 23/2017 are consolidated and recorded the common evidence in O.S.21/2017.
15.During trial, on behalf of plaintiffs P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 documents were marked. On behalf of defendant, none are examined and no documents are marked.
16.Heard counsel for plaintiffs and defendant. Perused the entire material on record.
Issue Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.21/2017, Issue Nos.1 and 2 in
O.S.No.22/2017 and Issue Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.23/2017
17.Since Issues are interrelated and the evidence to be discussed is common, the above issues are taken up together for consideration.
18.In the above suits, the plaintiff in O.S.No.21/2017 as examined as P.W.1, his evidence reveals that 1st plaintiff is the only son of Osuri Narasimha Murthy and Sitha Mahalakshmi. The 1st plaintiff's father died when he was aged about 2 years. Since the death of the father the 1st plaintiff and his mother used to live in the above said house and G.Krishna Murthy who is the brother of Sitha Mahalakshmi and maternal uncle of 1st plaintiff used to look after their welfare. In the year 1996 the mother of the 1st plaintiff died. The plaint schedule property and some other properties belong to the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff got the said properties as per the final decree dt.17032009 passed in
I.A.No.2022/2007 in O.S.No.13/2000 on the file of court of Additional
District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. To support, he filed Ex.A7
/41/ judgment and decree in O.S.No.52/2017 and final decree order under
Ex.A.8.
19.The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant and one Chaganti Gopikrishna have got landed property near the lands of the 1st plaintiff. The defendant, Chaganti Gopi Krishna, Karimsetti
Kalyan Kumar, Vegi Venugopala Krishna, Avisetti Krishna Kumar, Gadhi
Ramakrishna, Chagant, Chaganti Venkateswara Rao, Chaganti
Muralikrishna, Mucherla Ravi Prasad and Smt.Chaganti Vijayalakshmi are close relations and associates. The defendant and his coterie cast their evil eye on the properties of 1st plaintiff and all of them conspired together and planned to grab his properties unlawfully taking advantage of his weakness of leading lonely, desolate and detached life. They brought into existence the letter dt.04092014 forging the signature of the 1st plaintiff, addressed to SubRegistrar, Narsapur with a request to attend the 1st plaintiff's house at Door No.171160/5. As per the contents of the SubRegistrar, mentioned that the 1st plaintiff was not in a position to walk that he was not doing well that he wants to execute sale deed and mortgage deed. In the said letter further mentioned that
Karimsetti Kalyan Kumar who is one of the members of the coterie paid attendance fees and submitted the Doctor certificate. The said
Karimsetti Kalyan Kumar also submitted medical certificate dated 0209 2014 brought into existence by him and his coterie forging the signature of Dr.K.Venu Gopal of Janaki hospital, Narasapur. The said letter dated 04092014 is a rank forged one. Subsequently, the defendant and his coterie gave up their initial plan perhaps suspecting that if the registrations have to take place at Narasapur it will be known to others.
One of the members of the coterie the defendant criminal and is involved /42/ in several criminal cases and a rowdy sheet vide 121 of 2006 of
Narasapur Town police also opened against him.
20.The defendant and his coterie conspired to kidnap the 1st plaintiff, wrongfully confine him in a house at a different place, getting signatures forcibly under threat to life and bringing to existence sale deeds fraudulently and under coercion. The 1st plaintiff is in the habit of going outside early in the morning about 4:30 or 5:00 a.m. for taking tea.
On 29092014 when the plaintiff went to the R.T.C bus stand at
Narsapur where at the coffee hotel is situated for taking tea, two persons came on a motor cycle and highhandedly and forcibly lifted the 1st plaintiff and took him on the motor cycle to a distance of about 30 km and from there he was forcibly pushed into a taxi and was taken to some other place and even by that time three other persons were present in the taxi with lotties. The 1st plaintiff was taken to Ravulapalem and was kept in a building and he was forced to subscribe his signatures on a number of blank nonjudicial stamp papers containing written matter on some blank papers affixed with revenue stamps and some blank promissory notes on which revenue stamps were affixed and nearly about 40 signatures were forcibly obtained. The 1st plaintiff refused to subscribe his signatures but ultimately subscribed his signatures under threat to his life. Later the 1st plaintiff was taken from Ravulapalem to
Karukuwada Bethapudi village, Bhimavaram Mandal. There the 1st plaintiff was wrongfully confined at the house bearing D.No.3140 and he was forced to subscribe his signature on several papers on which matter was computerized already besides on some blank papers and blank promissory notes affixed with revenue stamp. The 1st plaintiff does not know the nature of those documents.
/43/
21.The defendant and his coterie prearranged the presence of Akasam Sarada Devi working as Joint SubRegistrar of
Bhimavaram to be at Karukuwada Bethapudi to register the documents on which the signatures of the 1st plaintiff were already forcibly obtained.
In the presence of the Sub Registrar, the 1st plaintiff did not give any requisition to the SubRegistrar for her private attendance at
Karukuwada Bethapudi. The defendants and their coterie forged a medical certificate as if given by Dr.S.D.K.Sastry of Shriya Hospital,
Bhimavaram to the effect that the 1st plaintiff who was a resident of
KarukuwadaBethapudi was suffering from viral fever. The said certificate was pressed into service and an application forging the signature of the 1st plaintiff was submitted to the Joint SubRegistrar,
Bhimavaram for her private attendance to register documents. The said
Dr.S.D.K.Sastry never treated the 1st plaintiff at any time and the certificate stating that the 1st plaintiff's residence is Karukuwada
Bethapudi are false. Dr.S.D.K.Sastry denied that he ever treated the 1st plaintiff.
22.The Joint SubRegistrar Akasam Sarada Devi was managed by defendants and their coterie at the house bearing Door
No.3140 of Karukuwada Bethapudi to register the documents without verifying the facts and she registered four sale deeds as if executed by the 1st plaintiff without following the procedure prescribed under the
Registration Act and rules.
23.The registration of the documents began after 7:00 p.m.
and the signatures of the 1st plaintiff were obtained in the said documents by coercion and the 1st plaintiff subscribed his signatures under the threats. All the documents are marked under Exs.A1 and A2 /44/ which are filed by the defendant and coterie from the 1st plaintiff by coercion and undue influence in respect of the schedule in
O.S.Nos.21/2017. Ex.A9 which is also obtained by coercion and undue influence by the defendant and coterie from the 1st plaintiff relating to the schedule property in O.S.No.22/2017. Ex.A10 is the sale deed obtained by 1st plaintiff by coercion and undue influence in respect of schedule property in O.S.No.23/2017.
24.On 2992014 the 2nd plaintiff gave a report to the police stating that the 1st plaintiff was missing, which the police registered a case under Cr.No.188/2016, as the police have not taken immediate action. P.W.1 filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Naraspur. Basing on the said complaint the police
registered another case in Cr.No.205/2014 U/s.364(A), 365, 342, 465, 468, 307 and 370 read with 149/120D of I.P.C and Sec.81 of the
Registration Act and took up investigation. During investigation the police personal obtained the copies of four documents under Exs.A1, A2,
A9 and A10 and came to know that the defendant and his coterie obtained four registered sale deeds in the name of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule properties in the above suits. The said four sale deeds were registered by the Joint Registrar, Bhimavaram at
KarukuwadaBethapudi village on 29092014 at the house bearing
Dr.No.3140 two sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.7569/2014 relating to Item
Nos.1(a)(b) and (c) and the other sale deed Doc.No.7570/2014 relates to
Item No.2 (a) and (b) of plaint schedule property. The remaining two sale deeds one bearing D.No.7568/2014 registered in the name of Gubbala
Venkateswara Rao and the remaining sale deed bearing D.No.7571/2014 obtained in the name of Chaganti Gopi Krishna. All the above /45/ documents are Exs.A1, A2, A9 and A10. All the documents were obtained by mentioning that 1st plaintiff was executed to meet his family expenses and to utilize the sale deeds for other development purpose. In fact the 1st plaintiff has no family at all and has no dependents to look after or maintained. He has no need to sell the properties for development purpose.
25.The plaintiff filed the F.I.R. in Cr.No.205/2014 in
S.C.No.196/2016 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasapur to show that a case was registered against the defendants and their coterie.
The SubRegistrar Office also violated the procedure prescribed under
Section 31 of Registration Act and standing orders 659, 661, 662A, 663A etc. The house bearing D.No.3140 of KarukuwadaBethapudi where the crime has been committed and the documents registered belongs to one
Samatam Rama Krishna who is also one of the members of coterie and brotherinlaw of Chaganti Gopi Krishna who obtained one of the registered sale deed vide Doc.No.7571/2014. The above sale deeds are obtained by fraud, coercion and undue influence. During the pendency of the suit, 1st plaintiff died on 15112017, the death certificate is Ex.A6.
26.To support the case of the plaintiffs, he got examined
P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the 3rd parties to the suit proceedings. They also stated as stated by P.W.1. As per their evidence, it reveals the defendants and their coterie committed the offences of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, forgery for the purpose of cheating, wrongful confinement extortion and putting the 1st plaintiff to fear of death and filed Exs.A1, A2, A9 and A10.
27.In this case, the defendant in O.S.No.21/2017, 22/2017 and the defendant in O.S.No.23/2017 did not crossexamine P.WS.1 to /46/
3. Except their filing written statement, they did not challenge and also not adduced any evidence to support of their written statement. The plaintiff proved the case by denying the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and the documents in Exs.A1, A2, A4 to A10. The defendant and coterie brought into existence the sale deed under Exs.A1, A2, A9 and A10 by playing fraud and coercion is answered in favour of plaintiffs.
Issue Nos.4 and 5 in O.S.No.21/2017:
28.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 reveals that during the lifetime of 1st plaintiff in a sound and disposing state of mind executed an unregistered Will dated 19072016 bequeathing all his properties in favour of P.W.1 and 3rd parties. As per the recitals of the Will, all his properties including the plaint schedule properties fell upon the plaintiffs 2 and 3 since the death of the 1st plaintiff, plaintiffs 2 and 3 have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The said
Willis marked as Ex.A3. P.W.3 who signed as 2nd attestor in Ex.A3 Will executed by Osuri Aswathama Naidu. His evidence further reveals that the 1st plaintiff signed under Will under Ex.A3 in the presence of P.W.3,
B.Chittibabu and G.Suribabu attested the Will and one Kollati
Venkateswaa Rao scribed the Will. P.Ws.2 and 3 also did not cross examined by the defendant. As per the plaintiffs, they proved the execution of the Will by examining P.WS.3 who is the attestor of Ex.A3
Will. As per the Will under Ex.A3, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since the date of death of 1st plaintiff, these issue are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
29.Under the above discussions, the suit is decreed and the issues in all the three suits are answered accordingly.
/47/
Issue Nos.6 in O.S.No.21/2017, Issue No.3 in O.S.22/2017 and Issue No.3 in O.S.No.23/2017:
30. In the result, the suit in O.S.No.21/2017 is decreed without costs cancelling the registered sale deed dated 29092014 under
Doc.No.7569/2014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of Item Nos.1(a) (b) and (c) of the plaint schedule property and cancelling registered sale deed dated 29092014 under
Doc.No.7570/2014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of Item No.2(a) and (b) of the plaint schedule property; the suit in O.S.No.22/2017 is decreed without costs cancelling registered sale deed dated 29092014 under Doc.No.7571/2014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property; the suit in O.S.No.23/2017 is decreed without costs and cancelling registered sale deed dated 29092014 under Doc.No.7568/2014 executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property.
The office is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Sub
Registrar Office Bhimavaram to note down the cancellation of registered sale deeds (1) dated 29092014 under Doc.No.7569/2014; (2) dated 29 092014 under Doc.No.7570/2014; (3) dated 29092014 under
Doc.No.7571/2014 and (4) dated 29092014 under Doc.No.7568/2014 respectively to enter into relevant records.
Partly dictated to the Stenographer GradeI on computer typed by him and other part in his shorthand book, transcribed him, corrected by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19 th of June, 2023.
X Additional District Judge, Narasapur.
/48/
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiffs:
P.W.1Guddati Anand Kumar
P.W.2Guddati Shesha Ram Krishna Prasad
P.W.3Guddati Madhusudana Swamy
For Defendant s : Nil
Exhibits Marked
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A1/ 29092014/ Registered extract of sale deed executed by 1st plaintiff in O.S.21/20178 in favour of defendant in respect of Item No.1 (a), (b) and (c) of plaint schedule property.
Ex.A2/ 29092014/ Registered extract of sale deed executed by 1st plaintiff in O.S.21/20178 in favour of defendant in respect of Item No.2 (a), 2(b) and (c) of plaint schedule property.
Ex.A3/ 19072016/ Original Will executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3.
Ex.A4/Certified copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.205/2014 filed in S.C.196/2016 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasapur
Ex.A5/Certified copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.205/2014 filed in S.C.196/2016 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasapur
Ex.A6/Original death certificate of 1st plaintiff
Ex.A7/Certifiedcopyofjudgmentin
O.S.No.52/2017 on the file of Additional
District Judge, Family Courtcum
Additional District Court, W.G.Dist., Eluru
Ex.A8/Certified copy of final decree passed in F.D.I.A.No.2022/2007 in O.S.No.13/2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge’s /49/
Court, Eluru, W.G.Dt.
Ex.A9/29092014/ Registration extract of registered sale deed executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of Chaganti Gopi Krishna who is defendant in
O.S.No.22/2017 in respect of plaint
schedule property.
Ex.A10/ 29092014/ Registration extract of registered sale deed executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of Gubbala Venkateswara Rao is defendant in
O.S.No.23/2017 in respect of plaint
schedule property.
For Defendant: NIL
Sd/Smt.P.Vijaya Durga
X Additional District Judge, Narasapur.