O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.1 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI
PRESENT: P. VIVEK VARDHAN,
I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
TENALI.
MONDAY, THIS THE 4 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
O.S.No.130/2018
Between:
1Papineni Vijayalakhsmi, D/o.Venkata Subbarao, aged 66 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.7-149/B, Opp:Brahmamgari Temple, Angalakuduru. 2Papineni Padma Kumari, D/o.Venkata Subbarao, aged 58 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.7-149/B, Opp:Brahmamgari Temple, Angalakuduru. … Plaintiffs
and
Papineni Rambabu, S/o.Venkata Subba Rao, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Retired Employee, Residing at H.No.8/45, Angalakuduru Village, Tenali Mandal. … Defendant
This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 16.06.2025 in the presence of Sri M.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri K.Venkat Rao, Advocate for defendant, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following judgment:
JUDGMENT
01.Plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendant for permanent injunction for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and followers from in anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
02.The brief averments of the plaint as follows:
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.2 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
Originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the mother of the plaintiffs by virtue of registered gift deed dt.5.6.1957 vide document NO.1623/57 SRO, Tenali executed by Musunuri Ramaiah and his son Venkateswarlu respectively. The said Papineni Venkata
Subbamma got mutated her name in the revenue records and obtained pattadar passbook and land ownership title deed and used to pay land cist to the plaint schedule property. The mother of the plaintiffs i.e.,
Venkata Subbamma suffered from brain tumour and the first plaintiff only looked after the said Venkata Subbamma at that stage. During her life time, the said Papineni Venkata Subbamma executed a Will dt.18.08.2011 in a sound and disposing state of mind, bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. The said Venkata
Subbamma died on 8.3.2012 testate at Angalakuduru Village and after her death, the said will came into force and the plaintiffs became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.
b)Plaintiffs applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records and it is under process. Thus, the plaintiffs are in actual, physical possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, by paying land cist etc., to the schedule land plaintiffs used to cultivate the land peacefully and uninterruptedly. There are some civil disputes between the defendant, his father and brothers in respect of family properties.
Previously, the defendant filed a suit against the plaintiffs and other family members in respect of some other properties in OS.No.187/2005 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tenali and the said suit was dismissed on merits, after elaborate enquiry on 16.03.2012. He also preferred
AS.No.84/2014 on the file of Hon’ble XI ADJ, Tenali against the said
decree and judgment passed in the above suit. The said appeal also dismissed on merits on 04.04.2016. The defendant did not prefer any second appeal against the judgment passed in the first appeal. The schedule property mentioned in the above suit is totally different to the
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.3 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
present plaint schedule property. Further, it is submitted that the defendant having no other go, since few days trying to occupy the plaint schedule property. In fact, the defendant has no manner of right in the plaint schedule property. He worked as RTC employee and retired two years back. He do not know the cultivation. But, the defendant taking advantage of that the plaintiffs are women only, threatening them with dire consequences.
c)Since one week, the plaintiffs are ploughing the plaint schedule property by engaging coolies, two days back, all of sudden, the defendant along with his henchmen came to the plaint schedule property land and demanded the plaintiffs to vacate the plaint schedule property.
Plaintiffs refused for it. The defendant warned the plaintiffs and tried to dispossess them. At the intervention of some persons, the defendant went away, by proclaiming that he will not allow the plaintiffs to cultivate the schedule land. The plaintiffs are innocents and the defendant is a powerful man and he can muster strength. Plaintiffs are apprehending that the defendant will dispossess them from the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file this suit against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and other reliefs. Hence, the suit.
3.THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS 1 to 4:
The plaintiffs has suppressed the fact about a partition suit
OS.No.43/2018, filed by the children of the defendant, pending on the file
of XI ADJ, Tenali which is being contested by the plaintiffs and in which suit schedule properties herein are also subject matter to the said partition suit filed against the defendant, plaintiffs, Papineni Vijay Kumar and Papineni Ravindra Babu and their father Papineni Venkata Subba
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.4 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
Rao and the said suit is under contest. The alleged cause of action is nothing but a cooked up story, same is fabricated for the purpose of the suit and to harass the defendant for having an unlawful gain by causing huge loss to the defendant. The plaintiffs are not having absolute rights over the suit schedule properties and also very clear that both the plaintiffs and the defendant along with other family members are equal right and possession in respect of the suit schedule properties and further clear that the plaintiffs have approached the Hon’ble Court with unclean hands by making untenable and unlawful claim over the suit schedule properties and as such, suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
05.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled by predecessor for trial :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?
2.To what relief?
05.During trial, on behalf of plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff herself examined as PW.1. Exs.A.1 to A.9 are marked through PW.1. 2nd plaintiff was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A.10 to A.12 are marked through PW.2 and one Pitla Rama Murthy Reddy was examined as PW.3. On behalf of the defendant, defendant himself examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked.
06.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.
07.The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiffs are the sisters of the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property, they derived the plaint schedule property through a Will executed by her mother i.e., Venkata Subbamma in favour of the both the plaintiffs and the mother disposed the Will dt.18.8.2011 in a sound and disposing state of mind and subsequently, the mother died testate on 8.3.2012. Later, plaintiffs applied for mutation of their names in the revenue record and it is under process. Plaintiffs are in actual
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.5 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
possession, physical and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by paying land cist etc., to the suit schedule property and also cultivating the land peacefully and uninterruptedly. The plaintiff claimed that since one week, while plaintiffs are ploughing the plaint schedule property by engaging coolies two days back all of sudden, the defendant along with his henchmen tried to dispossess them and interfering with the peaceful possession of plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit was filed against them.
08.The case of the defendant is that the said Venkata
Subbamma has not died testate and did not execute the alleged Will as pleaded by the plaintiffs, alleged Will is nothing but a ranked forged document purposefully to defeat the rights of the defendant and other family members. The defendant admits his mother i.e., Venkata
Subbamma derived the plaint schedule property by virtue of gift deed bearing No.1623/1957 dt.5.5.1957 from her parents. Further, defendant stated she was died on 8.3.2012 by leaving the defendant, plaintiffs,
Papineni Vijay Kumar, Papinneni Ravindra Babu and their father Papineni
Venkata Subbarao as her only legal heirs. The defendant also alleges that plaintiffs are not having absolute rights over the suit schedule properties and both the plaintiffs, the defendant along with other family members are having equal rights and possession in respect of suit schedule property. Hence, to dismiss the suit.
09.Initially, the burden is always on the plaintiff to prove the averments of the plaint as per Sec.101 of Indian Evidence Act 1972. As the nature of proof in civil cases is by preponderance of probabilities.
Therefore, the 1st plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 reiterating the same averments of the plaint in her chief affidavit and Ex.A.1 was marked on his behalf i.e., registered gift deed vide document No.1623/1957 SRO,
Tenali executed by Musunuri Ramaiah and another in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the plaint schedule property (original) and Ex.A2 is
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.6 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
Will executed by mother of the plaintiffs bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiffs (original). Ex.A.3 was Land ownership title deed issued by MRO, Tsunduru in the name of Papineni Venkata
Subbamma regarding the plaint schedule property. Exs.A4 to A.8 are the land cist receipts issued by VAO, Yadlapalli in the name of Papineni
Venkata Subbamma regarding the plaint schedule property for the different years i.e., 1975, 1996, 2010, 2012 and Ex.A.9 is death certificate of Papineni Venkata Subbamma.
10. 2nd plaintiff examined herself as PW.2 reiterating the same averments of the plaint in her chief affidavit and Exs.A10 to A.12 land cist receipts issued by VAO, Yadlapalli, Tsunduru Mandal for the different years i.e., 2016, 2019, 2021.
11.During the cross-examination, PW.1/plaintiff has denied all the negative suggestions put by the learned counsel for the defendant, she stated defendant is her younger brother and also admitted children of the defendant filed a suit in OS.NO.43/2018 against her, her father and other family members before Hon’ble XI Addl. District Court for partition of the family property. She denied the suggestion that the plaint schedule property herein was not part of the schedule property in the partition suit. She denied that she created a Will as if her mother executed the same in her favour and in the favour of 2nd plaintiff. She also admitted Exs.A3 to A.8 are stands in the name of her mother
Papineni Venkata Subbamma. She also admitted she has no other document on her name to show that she is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
12.PW.1 admitted that the Will is unregistered one and one
Reddygaru scribed Ex.A2 Will, her father and two attestors signed on
Ex.A2 Will. She deposes that the scribe and attestors of Ex.A2 will are no more. She denied the suggestion that at the time of execution of Ex.A2 her father and her mother were suffering from ill-health and her mother
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.7 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
is not in good conscious state of mind and not in position to understand on which document they were signed. She stated that she do not know the reason for not getting registration of Ex.A2 as her father looked after the said transaction. She denied the plaint schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of herself, 2nd plaintiff, defendant, Papineni
Ravindra and Papineni Vijay Kumar. She denied her mother died intestate and Ex.A2 will is fabricated one.
13.The suit filed by the plaintiffs is that asking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant basing on the documents of unregistered Will i.e., Ex.A2 and Exs.A.3 to A8 i.e., land cist receipts which is in the name of her mother, Venkata Subbamma.
14.On careful perusal of the Ex.A1 i.e., how the mother of the plaintiffs obtained the property i.e., through gift deed vide document
No.1623/1957 executed by Musunuri Ramaiah and another in favour of mother of plaintiffs dt.5.6.1957. However, this is not in dispute as the defendant also is in consonance with the document of Ex.A1. Therefore, it is not in dispute how the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant obtained the property from the Musunuri Ramaiah and another.
15.The plaintiffs asserted the possession of plaint schedule property based on a alleged will i.e., Ex.A2 executed by her mother in 2011, which is unregistered one. In a suit for permanent injunction, the primary requirement is to prove possession not necessarily the ownership. When the title is in serious dispute, the plaintiff shall either establish better title or seek declaration.
16.As the initial burden is always on the plaintiffs, and when the defendant raises serious objections as to will is forged and fabricated one, then burden is on plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 to prove either by oral or documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A2, the alleged will has to be proved by bringing the one of the attestors for the purpose of proving its execution.
As can be seen from the testification of PW.1, she stated attestors are no
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.8 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
more when there are no attestors for the alleged will under Ex.A2, it has to be proved through other evidence either through hand writing expert and the other procedure laid down as per Sec.67 to 73 of Indian Evidence
Act which deals with the proof of genuineness of the document.
17.Here in the present case, the plaintiff/PW.1 relies on Ex.A2
Will which is material for her case to prove the possession as per Sec.63 (1) of Indian Succession Act says that Will should be attested by atleast by two witnesses. Therefore, as per Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the geniuses of attested document must be proved by calling to the court atleast one of the attesting witnesses. Therefore, plaintiffs failed to bring one of the attesting witnesses nor proved through other evidence when the attesting witnesses are no more.
18.PW.1 also relied on Exs.A.3 to A.8 which are land cist receipts of several years i.e., 1975, 1996, 2010, 2012. On careful perusal and examination of land cist receipts, they are stands in the name of her mother i.e., Venkata Subbamma. In a permanent injunction suit, if a possession has to be proved there shall be clear title on the name of person who desires to give judgment in his favour. However, in the present case, the land cist receipts are in the name of her mother
Venkata Subbamma, but does not stand in the name of PW.1 and PW.2.
Therefore, Exs.A3 to A8 does not support the case of the plaintiffs/PW.1 in their favour to prove possession. This is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs.
19.PW.1 in her plaint mentioned that plaintiffs applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records and it is under process. It is clearly evident that the plaintiffs have not mutated the property in their names even after 5 years of their mother’s death and the property still continues to stand in the name of deceased mother. It is a settled law that revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership, they are relevant to prove possession. As such, what made the plaintiffs delaying
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.9 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
in mutating the plaint schedule property on their names. This is not proved by the plaintiff as such. Therefore, this is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs.
20.PW.2 who is also examined in chief and cross through advocate commissioner reiterating the same averments of the plaint in her chief affidavit and Exs.A10 to A.12 land cist receipts issued by VAO,
Yadlapalli, Tsunduru Mandal for the different years i.e., 2016, 2019, 2021. PW.2 also stands in the same footing of PW.1 as being the sister of
PW.1. Therefore, careful examination of Exs.A10 to A.12 the land cist receipts the servey number of plaint schedule property, Ex.A1 and
Exs.A10 to A.12 are tallies, however the 2nd column it is mentioned as “katha number mariyu pattadar peru mariyu athanu baduluga chelinchina vaikthi okka peru” and under this column the name of
Papineni Vijaya Lakshmi and Papineni Padma Kumari is endorsed on the land cist receipts. Even though, the names of the plaintiffs mentioned in the cist receipts belongs to the plaint schedule property, the cist may be paid by them and it can be paid by any person on behalf of the original land holder. Therefore, it is evidence plaintiffs/PWs.1 and 2 paid the house tax receipts (cist receipts) on behalf of their deceased mother.
This is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs.
21.The plaintiffs also examined PW.3 in their favour. PW.3 stated that he is cultivating the plaint schedule property by engaging the coolies on behalf of plaintiffs since 10 years. Plaintiffs are in possession of the schedule land. Later, at about 4 years back, the defendant came to the schedule land and demanded to vacate the plaintiffs. Therefore, through cross examination of PW.3, it is revealed that PW.3 is tenant former as alleged and he knows PW.1, PW.2 since 10 years, but no documents filed in his favour to show that he is cultivating the land on behalf of PWs.1 and 2. On careful perusal of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs, they stated since one week, the defendant has interfering with
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.10 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
the possession of the plaintiffs while cultivating the land and here PW.3 states that at about 4 years ago, there is a quite contradiction as to time of the interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and also it is evident that on careful perusal of the plaint in the 9th para, plaintiffs are ploughing the plaint schedule property by engaging coolies, however, PW.3 testification reveals that PW.3 is cultivating the land on behalf of PWs.1 and 2. It is also a contradiction of the claim made by the plaintiffs/PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, the evidence of
PW.3 cannot be believable and trustworthy and through mere oral evidence of PW.3, the court cannot come to conclusion, PWs.1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
22.Therefore, oral evidence, documentary evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not sufficient to believe as a like an ordinary prudent man also believes in the circumstances, the existence of that fact that the PW.1 and PW.2 are the owners of the plaint schedule property, having possession and enjoyment of the schedule without proving the alleged will under Ex.A2. This is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs.
23.The defendant examined himself as DW.1 reiterating the same averments of the written statement in his chief affidavit, deposed that said Venkata Subbamma has not died testate and did not execute the alleged Will as pleaded by the plaintiffs, alleged Will is nothing but a ranked forged document purposefully to defeat the rights of the defendant and other family members. The defendant admits his mother i.e., Venkata Subbamma derived the plaint schedule property by virtue of gift deed bearing No.1623/1957 dt.5.5.1957 from her parents. Further, defendant stated she was died on 8.3.2012 by leaving the defendant, plaintiffs, Papineni Vijay Kumar, Papinneni Ravindra Babu and their father
Papineni Venkata Subbarao as her only legal heirs. The defendant also alleges that plaintiffs are not having absolute rights over the suit
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.11 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
schedule properties and both the plaintiffs, the defendant along with other family members are having equal rights and possession in respect of suit schedule property.
24. The defendant also failed to take sufficient steps to prove that the alleged will under Ex.A2 is ranked and forged one. However, he filed an application for sending Ex.A2 will for the expert for determining the writing and signature on Ex.A2 is forged or not. However, the same petition was dismissed by the court as he filed the said petition at the stage of arguments and with a motive intent to delay the suit.
25.The defendant who was worked as Driver in APSRTC Depot and who is younger brother of the plaintiffs cleared some of the issues that are in doubt before the court that other family members are also the legal heirs for the deceased mother i.e., Papineni Venkata Subbamma. In view of other legal heirs, without any undivided share in the plaint schedule property how come plaintiffs get the right if the deceased mother died intestate, as the plaitniffs have failed to prove the alleged will under Ex.A.2 by examining the attestors and in place if no attestors through other evidence procedure laid down under Sec.67 to 73 of Indian
Evidence Act with the proof of genuineness of the document.
26.Therefore, plaintiffs failed to prove the settled or exclusive possession through alleged will under Ex.A.2 and also no documentary proof of possession filed by the plaintiffs to prove that they are in settled possession of plaint schedule property and also plaintiffs/PWs.1 and 2 failed to mutate the plaint schedule property on their name. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.2
27. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of August, 2025.
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.12 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
TENALI.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined
For the plaintiff: PW.1 : Papineni Vijaya Lakshmi. PW.2 : Papineni Padma Kumari. PW.3 : Pitla Sri Rama Murthy Reddy. For the defendant: DW.1 : papineni Rambabu
Documents marked
On behalf of plaintiffs :
Ex.A.1 : Registered gift deed vide document No.1623/1957 SRO, Tenali executed by Musunuri Ramaiah and another in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the plaint schedule property (original) dt.5.6.1957.
Ex.A.2 : Will executed by mother of the plaintiffs bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiffs (original) dt.18.08.2011.
Ex.A.3 : Land ownership title deed issued by MRO, Tsunduru in the name of Papineni Venkata Subbamma regarding the plaint schedule property.
Ex.A.4 : Land cist receipt No.71415 issued by VAO Yadlapalli in the name of Papineni Venkata Subbamma regarding the plaint schedule property dt.22.4.1975.
Ex.A.5:Land cist receipt No.71028 issued by VAO Yadlapalli in the name of Papineni Venkata Subbamma regarding the plaint schedule property dt.22.4.1975.
Ex.A.6:Land cist receipt No.256159 issued by VAO Yadlapalli in the name of Papineni Venkata Subbamma regarding the plaint schedule property dt.25.1.1996.
Ex.A.7:Land cist receipt No.474001 issued by VAO Yadlapalli in the name of Papineni Venkata Subbamma regarding the plaint schedule property dt.17.3.2010.
O.S.No.130/2018I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Page No.13 Judgment, dt. 04.08.2025Tenali.
Ex.A.8:Land cist receipt No.342101 issued by VRO Yadlapalli in the name of plaintiffs regarding the plaint schedule property dt.16.06.2012.
Ex.A.9:Death certificate of Papineni Venkata Subbamma (original)
Ex.A10: Land cist receipt No.3150792 in your name issued by VAO Yadlapalli regarding the plaint schedule property.
Ex.A11: Land cist receipt No.0217352 in your name issued by VAO Yadlapalli regarding the plaint schedule property.
Ex.A12: Land cist receipt No.0119701 in your name issued by VAO Yadlapalli regarding the plaint schedule property.
On behalf of defendant : Nil
I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
TENALI.
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI
PRESENT: P. VIVEK VARDHAN,
I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
TENALI.
MONDAY, THIS THE 4 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
O.S.No.130/2018
Between:
1Papineni Vijayalakhsmi, D/o.Venkata Subbarao, aged 66 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.7-149/B, Opp:Brahmamgari Temple, Angalakuduru. 2Papineni Padma Kumari, D/o.Venkata Subbarao, aged 58 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.7-149/B, Opp:Brahmamgari Temple, Angalakuduru. … Plaintiffs
and
Papineni Rambabu, S/o.Venkata Subba Rao, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Retired Employee, Residing at H.No.8/45, Angalakuduru Village, Tenali Mandal. … Defendant
Plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendant for permanent injunction for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and followers from in anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
Plaint presented on : 15.5.2018 Plaint filed on : 11.6.2018 CAUSE OF ACTION : Cause of action for the suit arose on 5.6.1957 when one Venkata Subbamma, i.e., mother of the plaintiffs obtained a gift deed from her father and brother, when the said Venkata Subbamma obtained pattadar pass book and land owner ship title deed for the plaint schedule property in her name, when she used to pay land cist, when she suffered brain tumour, when she executed a will dt.18.8.2011 bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs, on 8.3.2012 when she died testte and the said will came into force, when the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and they are in actual and physcial possession of the same, when the plaintiffs are paying land cist to the schedule property, when the defendant filed a suit OS.No.187/2005 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tenali and it was dismissed, when the defendant preferred AS.No.84/2014 on the file of XI ADJ, Tenali and it was dismissed, regarding some other properties, since one week, when the plaintiffs are ploughing the plaint schedule property, two days back when the defendant and his henchmen came to the plaint schedule property and tried to disposes them, at Yadlapalli Village where the plaint schedule property is situated at Angalakuduru where both the parties are residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. PARTICULARS OF SUIT CLAIM: Suit schedule property is valued at Rs.15,000-00 On which a court fee of Rs.1,086/- is deposited in Syndicate Bank, Guntur on 15.05.2018 under Sec.26 (c) of APCF and SV Act. VALUATION AND COURT FEE:
The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.15,000/-. On which a Court fee of Rs.1,086/- is paid herewith under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.
This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 16.06.2025 in the presence of Sri M.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri K.Venkat Rao, Advocate for defendant, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record, and having stood over for consideration to this day,doth order and decree as follows:
1.that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs;
2. That the plaintiffs do pay Rs.Nil to the defendants and do bear their own costs of Rs.4,238/- towards costs of the suit. (No Costs memo and Fee certificate is filed by the defendants) (Copy of Plaint schedule is hereby attached)
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 4th day of August, 2025.
I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
TENALI.
TABLE OF COSTS
For Plaintiffs For Defendant (No CM filed)
1. Stamps on vakalat: Rs. 2-00
2. Stamp on plaint: Rs1,086-00
3. Advocate fee : Rs.3,000-00--
4. Process: Rs. 100-00
5. Typing charges : Rs. 50-00 ----------------------------------------------------- Total Costs allowed at : Rs.4,238-00 NIL ----------------------------------------------------
I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
TENALI.
Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.
(Copy of Plaint schedule and plan are hereby attached) Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 5 th day of September, 2018.
I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
TENALI.
TABLE OF COSTS
For Plaintiffs : Rs. 2-00 : Rs.822-00 : Rs.1,000-00 : Rs. 200-00 : Rs. 20-00 ------------------- Total Costs allowed at : Rs.2,044-00 ------------------ For Defendants (No C.M & F.C. filed)
1. Stamps on vakalat
2. Stamp on plaint
3. Advocate’s Fee
4. Process
5. Typing Charges -- --------------------- Total costs allowed at – N I L - ----------------------