1 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP
IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA
PRESENT: Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar, B.Com, B.L.,
XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka
FAC VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Gajuwaka
Monday, this the 20 th day of January, 2020
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 20/2008
BETWEEN:
1.Punyapu Venkata Rao, S/o. Late Mangayya aNaidu, Hindu, Aged 85 Years, Retired MES, C/o. P. Venkata Rao, D.No.20-62-1, Opp. to AVN College, Out Gate, Visakhapatnam-1. (Died)
2.Busi Padmini, W/o. B. Rama Rao, Hindu, Aged 54 Years, C/o. P. Venkata Rao, D.No.20-62-1, Opp. to AVN College, Out Gate, Visakhapatnam-1 (Died)
3.Devireddy Nagaratnam, w/o. Late Palguna Rao, Hindu, Aged 76 Years, Housewife, R/O. Trilekya Residency, Plot No.F-2, D.No.43-12-3, Subbalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam-16. (Died)
4.Vadali Venkata Rao, S/o V.V.S. Narayana, Hindu aged about 72 years, Residing at D.No. 22-71-20/A, Near Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Temple, Visakhapatnam.
5.Mangipudi Padmavathi, W/o. Late Mangipudi Sithapathi Rao, Hindu, Aged 64 Years, Housewife, C/o. VLN Sarma, Pearl Residency, Baji Junction, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
6.Golusu Rajulamma, W/o G.Venkata Rao, Hindu aged about 65 years, Residing at D.No.30-1-201/1, South Jail Road, Visakhapatnam.
7.Palaka Lakshmi Kantham,D/o Krishna Rao, Hindu aged about 63 years, Residing at D.No.30-1-201/1, South Jail Road, Visakhapatnam.
8.Muntha Suryavathi, W/o Late Satya Prakasa Rao, Hindu aged about 63 years, C/o M. Bhavani Prasad, D.No.39-21-26, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam.
9.Nanduri Seshavataram, S/o. Narasimha Charyulu, Hindu, Aged 56 Years, S/o. M. Bhavani Prasad, D.No.39-21-26, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam-7. (Died)
10.Siddireddy Satyanarayana, S/o Late Gurumurthy, Hindu aged about 56 years, Service, Residing at D.No.25-40-22, Ganugulavari Street, Visakhapatnam.
11.Pentapati Uday Shankar, S/o P. Balakrishna, Hindu aged about 52 years Residing at D.No. 50-1-45/16, Alluri Seetharama Nagar, APSEB Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.
12.Ravuri Haribabu, S/o Sambaiah, Hindu aged about 39 years, Residing at House No.B-22, Sheela nagar, Visakhapatnam.
13.Ravuri Suresh Babu, S/o Sambaiah, Hindu aged about 42 years, Residing at House No.B-22, Sheela nagar, Visakhapatnam.
2 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP
14.Nittala Srinivas Satyanarayana, S/o N.V.Bhaskar Rao, Hindu aged about 41 years, Residing at Flat No.5, Iswarya Apartments, Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam.
15.Nittala Sridhar Rao, S/o N.V.Bhaskar Rao, Hindu aged about 39 years, Residing at Flat No.5, Iswarya Apartments, Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam.
16.Dharmala Jayalakshmi, W/o D.Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu aged about 30 years, Residing at D.No.45-46-9/6, Srinivasa Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.
17.Kamineni Gnana Murali Krishna, S/o Durga Prasa, Hindu aged about 41 years, C/o V. Ravi, Residing at D.No.32-10-37, Allipuram, Opp to Rathod Sons, Visakhapatnam.
18.Mantri Sundara Lakshmi, W/o Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Residing at Meher Nagar. Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam rep by her G.P.A Holder, Sri Mondiyeddula Govinda Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, Hindu aged 58 years, Residing at D.No.21-17-2, Seetha Nagaram, Pedagantyada, R.H.Colony, Visakhapatnam.
19.Yellymanhanti Kusuma Devi, W/o Somasekhar Rao, Hindu aged about 75 years, Residing at Meher Nagar. Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam rep by her G.P.A Holder, Sri Mondiyeddula Govinda Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, Hindu aged 58 years, Residing at D.No.21-17-2, Seetha Nagaram, Pedagantyada, R.H.Colony, Visakhapatnam.
20.Busi Rama Rao, S/o Late B. Appala Swamy, Hindu aged about 71 years, Residing at D.No.10-106, MIG-1-98, Ratnagiri Colony, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam.
21.Busi Sai Deep, S/o B. Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 36 years, Residing at D.No.10-106, MIG-1-98, Ratnagiri Colony, P.M. Palem, Visakhapatnam.
22.Busi Bindu Sagar, S/o B. Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 32 years, Residing at D.No.10-106, MIG-1-98, Ratnagiri Colony, P.M. Palem, Visakhapatnam.
23.Muddana Meenakshi, W/o M.V.E.Ratna Rao, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Residing at QTR.No. M.I.G B-131, A-Zone, Sujathanagar, Chinamusidiwada Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
24.Muddana Krishna Kanth, S/o M.V.E.Ratna Rao, Hindu, aged about 20 years, Residing at QTR.No. M.I.G B-131, A-Zone, Sujathanagar, Chinamusidiwada Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
25.Pothula Paravathi, W/o Somanadham, Hindu aged about 56 years, Residing at D.No.154, Krishnarayapuram, N.A.D Colony, Chinamusidiwada post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
26.Batthula Revathi Kumari, W/o Late B. Malleswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Residing at 2nd Floor, F-1, Miracle Home, Siddharthanagar, near Sai Degree College, Vizianagaram.
27.Chalasani Varalakshmi, W/o CH.S.Ramakrishna, Hindu aged about 53 years, Residing at D.No.49-19-14, Lalitha Nagar, Near Tondam Vinayaka Temple, Visakhapatnam.
3 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP
28.Pendyla Girija Kumari, W/o P. Rama Rao. Hindu aged about 50 years, Residing at QTR.No.49/1, Type-2, Railway Colony, Near Railway Station, Near Parcel Office, Durg Dist. Chhattisgath State.
29.Vemuri Rama Devi, W/o Lakshmi Narayana Sharma, Hindu aged about 54 years, Residing at Flat No. G-2, D.No.1-173, Pearl Residency, Susarla Colony, Bajji Junction, Gopalapatnam Post, Visakhapatnam.
30.Kotikalapudi Chandrakala, W/o Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu aged about 51 years, Residing at Flat No. G-2, D.No.1-173, Pearl Residency, Susarla Colony, Bajji Junction, Gopalapatnam Post, Visakhapatnam.
31.Nanduri Mangamma, W/o Late Seshavataram, Hindu aged 60 years, Residing at Flat No.A2, Krishna Enclave, 5th Cross, L.B Shastri Nagar, HAL Post , Bangalore.
32.Nanduri Revathi Novel, D/o Late Seshavataram, Hindu aged 35 years, Residing at Flat No.A2, Krishna Enclave, 5th Cross, L.B Shastri Nagar, HAL Post , Bangalore.
33.Nandduri Anil, S/o Late Seshavataram, Hindu aged 32 years, Residing at Flat No.A2, Krishna Enclave, 5th Cross, L.B Shastri Nagar, HAL Post , Bangalore.
……..Plaintiffs
A N D :
1.Gompa Appanna, S/o. Late Gompa Chinnayya, Hindu, Aged 81 Years, Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
2.Kona Appala Narasamma, W/o Konna Appala Naidu, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
3.Palla Tatamma, W/o Palla Chinnodu, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
4.Madisi Chinna Thalli, W/o Madisi Apparao, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
5.Urukuti Appala Narasamma, W/o Urukuti Appala Swamy, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
6.Gompa Ramulamma, W/o Late Appanna, Hindu, aged about 70 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
7.Madisa Appala Konda, W/o Demudu, D/o Late Appanna, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
(Defendants No.6 & 7 are added as per order of this Court in I.A.No.17/2019) ……Defendants
This suit has come up on 24-12-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Eswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri M.
Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
4 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed for declaration that the partition deed dated 12-10-2007 standing in the name of defendants 1 to 5 is sham, nominal, void and unenforceable in respect of the plaint schedule property and also for cancellation of said partition deed dated 12-10-2007 and also for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property, and for costs of the suit.
2.In a nut-shell, the facts of the plaint can be noted as follows :
(a)The plaintiffs are the owners of plant B schedule property, the land of
Ac.3.96 cents covered by Survey No.96/1 in Jaggarajupeta village Gajuwaka is the ancestral property of Sativada people, they alienated the said land in the year 1966. Subsequently, the vendors of Sativada people also sold the land, finally the total land of Ac.3.96 cents was acquired by B. Ramachandra Raju and
V. Tatayamma who developed said land into house sites and sold the same to the various people. The plaintiffs are the some of the purchasers of B schedule properties. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 acquired Ac.0.16 cents covered by Plot No.74 under a registered sale deed dated 09-09-1981 from Viyyapu Tatayyamma, their vendor purchased the same Namburu Sanyasi under registered sale deed dated29-09-1966 and the vendor’s vendors purchased the same Sativada people under registered sale deed dated 04-07-1961.
b)The 3rd plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of 506 and 588 sq.yards covered by Plot No.58 and 61 by means of registered sale deed dated 21-09- 1974 Doc No. 4503/74 from Budda Raju Ramachandra Raju and he purchased from Madisa Yerukulamma under registered sale deed dated 05-07-1971 and she inturn purchased from Namburu Sanyasi under registered sale deed dated 29-09-1966 and the vendor’s vendors purchased the same Sativada people under registered sale deed dated 04-07-1961.
c)The 4th plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of 459.8 sq.yards covered by Plot No.55 by means of registered sale deed dated 28-08-1971 under 5 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP Document No.4344/71 from Budda Raju Ramachandra Raju and inturn he purchased from Madisa Yerukulamma under registered sale deed dated 18-06- 1971 and she inturn purchased from Namburu Sanyasi under registered sale deed in the year 1966 who purchased the same Sativada people under registered sale deed in the year 1961.
d) The 5th plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of 333 sq.yards covered by Plot No.48 by means of registered sale deed dated 28-08-1971 from Budda
Raju Ramachandra Raju and he purchased from Madisa Yerukulamma under registered sale deed dated 30-06-1971 and he inturn purchased from Sativada people under registered sale deed in the year 1961.
e) The 6th plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of Ac.12 cents covered by Plot No.70 by means of registered sale deed dated 09-09-1981 under doc
No. 7199/81 from Viyyapu Tatayamma and she purchased from Namburu
Sanyasi under registered sale deed dated 29-09-1966 and he inturn purchased from Sativada people under registered sale deed in the year 1961.
f)The 7th plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of Ac.14 cents covered by
Plot No.77 by means of registered sale deed dated 09-09-1981 from Viyyapu
Tatayamma and she purchased from Namburu Sanyasi under registered sale deed dated 29-09-1966 and he inturn purchased from Sativada people under registered sale deed in the year 1961.
g)The 8th plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of Ac.10 cents covered by
Plot No.77 by means of registered sale deed dated 09-09-1981 under doc No.
7198/81 from Viyyapu Tatayamma and she purchased from Namburu Sanyasi under registered sale deed dated 29-09-1966 and he inturn purchased from
Sativada people under registered sale deed in the year 1961 soon after the same was incorporated in the revenue records by paying tax .
h)The 9th plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of Ac.10 cents covered by
Plot No.72 by means of registered sale deed dated 09-09-1981 under doc No.
7202/81 from Viyyapu Tatayamma and she purchased from Namburu Sanyasi under registered sale deed dated 29-09-1966 and he inturn purchased from 6 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP Sativada people under registered sale deed in the year 1961 soon after the same was incorporated in the revenue records by paying tax .
i)The 10th plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of Ac.10 cents covered by Plot No.68 by means of registered sale deed dated 09-09-1981 from Viyyapu
Tatayamma and she purchased from Namburu Sanyasi under registered sale deed dated 29-09-1966 and he inturn purchased from Sativada people under registered sale deed in the year 1961.
j)The 11th plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of Ac.10 cents covered by Plot No.76 by means of registered sale deed dated 09-09-1981 under doc
No. 7204/81 from Viyyapu Tatayamma and she purchased from Namburu
Sanyasi under registered sale deed dated 29-09-1966 and he inturn purchased from Sativada people under registered sale deed in the year 1961 soon after the same was incorporated in the revenue records by paying tax .
k)The 12th and 13th plaintiffs have acquired a site in an extent of 944 sq.yards covered by Plot No.52 and 53 by means of registered sale deed dated 24-05-2004 under doc No. 2571/04 from Gandikota Viswanadham and his father purchased from Buddaraju Ramachandra Raju under registered sale deed
dated 19-06-1971 and he inturn purchased from Madisa Pydalu people under
registered sale deed dated 11-03-1970.
l)The 14th plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of 500 sq.yards covered by Plot No.59 and 53 by means of registered sale deed dated 29-03-2007 under doc No. 3162/07 from Gunturu Subba Lakshmi and he purchased from Ch.
Chinna Subba Rao under registered sale deed dated 02-06-2005 soon after the same was incorporated in the revenue records by paying tax .
m)The 15th plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of 500 sq.yards covered by Plot No.60 and 53 by means of registered sale deed dated 29-03-2007 under doc No. 2368/07 and 3163/07 from Gunturu Subba Lakshmi and Uddraraju
Lakshmi Parvathi under 2 sale deeds and he purchased from D. Subrahmanyam under registered sale deed dated 02-06-2005 soon after the same was incorporated in the revenue records by paying tax.
7 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP
n) The 16th plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of 250 sq.yards covered by Plot No.43A by means of registered sale deed dated 30-12-2006 under doc
No. 1437/07 from Kandregula Surya Rao and also a site of 250 sq.yards covered by Plot No.43B by means of registered sale deed dated 25-11-2005 under 2 sale deeds and he purchased from Buddaraju Ramachandra Raju under registered sale deed dated 09-07-1971.
o)The 17rd plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of 180 and 150 sq.yards covered by Plot No.40 and 44 by means of registered sale deed dated 10-01- 2007 from Vedula Savitri and Ayyala Somayajula Lakshmi Narasamma and they purchased from Buddaraju Ramachandra Raju under registered sale deed dated 09-07-1971.
p)The 18rd plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of 225 sq.yards covered by Plot No.69 by means of registered sale deed dated 27-08-1979 from V.
Tatayamma.
q)The 19rd plaintiff has acquired a site in an extent of 225 sq.yards covered by Plot No.69 by means of registered sale deed dated 27-08-1979 from V.
Tatayamma.
r)None of said plot owners constructed house for want of amenities like drainage, water supply, electricity etc., and the plots were kept vacant. The defendants are the family members and they claim to be the legal heirs of
Gompa Chinnayya and they have no any job or avocation and they are land grabbers. The plaintiffs also got a paper notification issued on 18.09.2007 in this regard and they also reported to SHO Gajuwaka Police Station, but police did not take any action on the ground that the dispute is of civil nature. The defendants have no right title or possession over suit properties. Hence, the suit.
3. A contrario sensu, the 2nd defendant filed his written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and also putting the plaintiffs to strict proof and inter-alia contending as follows :
8 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and also for non-joinder of necessary parties. The court fee is incorrect. Even according to the plaint, the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the land of Ac.3.96 cents situated in S.No.
96/01. The single suit for declaration is also not maintainable, since the plaintiffs purchased the different properties on different dates from different persons with different schedules. The ancestors of Sativada people are not in revenue records since they already alienated the land in the year 1966, entire land of Ac.3.96 cents was acquired by B, Ramachandra Raju and V. Tatayyamma who developed the land into the house sites as agricultural operations were seized. They sold said land to various people and the plaintiffs are some of the purchasers of B schedule property. Said Sativada people and B. Ramachandra
Raju have nothing to do with the plaint A schedule property. The allegations of the plaintiff as to the alleged purchasers under various registered sale deeds are false. The allegation that none of the plot owners constructed houses for want of amenities is also false. The plaintiffs have no right to question the partition deed dated 12-10-2007. The documents filed by the plaintiffs are fictitious. The plaintiffs or the predecessors have no right, title, possession and enjoyment of the plaint B schedule property. The first defendant and his family members are enjoying suit schedule property by raising the various crops including plantation of palmariah tress. The suit land is cultivable. The plaint A schedule property was never converted into house plots. The extent, boundaries, plots numbers of plaint B schedule property are highly imaginary.
There are no roads of land in the B schedule property. The plaintiffs are staying in different places and they were never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The allegation that they setup a person as watchman is also false. The partition deed entered between the defendants is valid, the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by time. There is no cause of action for the suit, the plaintiffs are trying to grab the schedule property with the aid of rowdy elements and real estate brokers, the injunction cannot not be granted against the real owner. The plaintiffs have no approached the court with clean hands.
9 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP The plaintiffs made attempts to evict the defendants by brutal force, thus he prays to dismiss the suit.
4)The defendants 1,3,4,5,6 and 7 have filed memos adopting the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant.
5)The defendants have filed additional written statement submitting that the newly added plaintiffs have to prove that they are related to the deceased plaintiffs and that the newly added plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule property.
6) Basing on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor framed the following issues :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek relief of declaration that the registered partition deed dated 12-10-2007 among the defendants is sham, nominal and unenforceable in respect of plaint “A” Schedule property?
2. Whether the registered partition deed dated 12-10-2007 is valid or liable for cancellation as contented by the plaintiffs ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of “B” schedule property ?
4. Whether the suit is maintainable for cancellation of the registered partition deed dated 12.10.2007 ?
5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
6.Whether there is any nexus of “B” Schedule property with registered partition deed dated 12.10.2007 ?
7. To what relief ?
7)During the course of trial, the plaintiffs got himself examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and also got Exs.A1 to A51 and in the cross examination of
PW-2, Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendants 2 and 3 got themselves examined as DWs 1 and 2 respectively and they also examined DW3 to DW5 who are 3rd parties to the suit and also got
Exs.B2 to B4 marked on behalf of defendants.
8)I heard both sides. Plaintiff and defendants filed their written arguments.
Plaintiff also filed reply written arguments.
10 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP
9)Issue No.5 : The date of execution of original of Ex.A.4 partnership deed against which the suit is filed for declaration that it is sham, nominal and unenforceable in respect of Plaint "A" Schedule property, is 12-10-2007. The suit at hand was filed on 25.01.2008. So, it is needless to note that the suit at hand has been filed within the period of three years from the date of original of
Ex.A.4 dated 12.10.2007 is well within the period of limitation. So, there is no difficulty at all to hold that the suit is not barred by time.
10)Therefore, Issue No.5 is straight away held in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
11)Issues 1 to 4 and 6: The point of controversy involved in all these issues is almost one and the same. Therefore, I permit myself to take up all these issues together for answering to avoid repetition of facts and law.
Learned counsel of plaintiffs adroitly submits in vehemence that the plaintiffs sought the suit reliefs as per section 31 of Specific Relief Act and that the plaintiffs filed the suit since they have apprehension that if original of Ex.A.4 certified copy of partnership deed dated 12.10.2007 is left outstanding, may cause them serious injury and that therefore, this court has got ample power to order cancellation of said document and to send a copy of its decree to the registering authority for noting the same on the copy of the instrument by the registering authority. But, this court may straight away say that it is well settled in law that a party to any deed should seek for the relief of cancellation of document and a 3rd party to any deed should seek for declaration that said deed is not binding on him. However, in the suit reliefs, the plaintiffs seek for declaration that said Ex.A.4 is in valid in law and they also seek for cancellation.
But, it itself cannot be a ground to non suit the plaintiffs. It is for this court to grant apt relief that serves ends of justice for both the parties.
12)To boot, learned counsel of plaintiffs also adroitly submits in vehemence that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the plaint 'B' schedule properties as they purchased the house plots in a layout which was laid by the B.
Ramachandraraju and Viyyapu Thatamma and originally Sativada Chinnayya 11 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP and his family members had the property for an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.
No.96/1, Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam and their names was incorporated in the Revenue Records under Fair Adangal which was marked as
Ex.A.1 and inturn Sativada Chinnayya and his family members sold away the property for an Ac.3.96 cents to the Yeduru Appayya and Nambaru Sanyasi vide document Nol.1829/1961 under Ex.A.40 and subsequently, Nambaru Sanyasi sold away the property for an extent of Ac.1.97 cents to the Viyyapu Thatamma vide document No. 2669/1996 under the Ex.A.38 and Madisa Yerukalamma vide
Document No.2004/1966 under the Ex.A.2 and yeduru Appayya sold away the property to Gompa Appanna and others for an extent of Ac.1.97 cents vide
Document No. 2005/1966 under Ex.A.43 and also Gompa Appanna and others sold away their purchased property to Madisa Pydalu for an extent of Ac.1.49 cents vide document No. 884/1970 under Ex.A.44 and also sold to Madisa
Simhachalam for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents vide document No.3233/1966 under Ex.A.45 and Madisa Yerakulamma sold away the property to B.
Ramachandraraju for an extent of Ac.1.00 cents vide document No.2881/1971 under Ex.A.37 and subsequently, Madisa Pydalu and Madisa Simhachalam sold away their properties to B.Ramachandraraju vide documents No.2278/1971 and document No.2891/1971 i.e. Ex.A.36 and A.35 respectively.
13) To boot, learned counsel of plaintiffs also adroitly submits in vehemence that B. Ramachandraraju laid the layout by dividing the plots and Viyyapu
Thatamma who purchased the property vide document No.2669/1966 under the Ex.A.38 also divided her site into plots and the said Buddaraju
Ramachandraraju and said Viyyapu Thatamma sold their plots to some of the plaintiffs and their vendors. the plaintiffs No.1, 2, 6 to 11, 18 and 19 have purchased their property from Viyyapu Thatamma under Ex.A.39, A.31, A.30,
A.28, A.29, A.27, A.11, A.10 and subsequently, the plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 9 have demised and the plaintiffs No.20 to 22, 31 to 33 were added as a legal heirs of the plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 9, the plaintiffs No.3 to 5 have purchased their property from B. Ramachandraraju under Ex.A.34, A.33, and A.32 and 12 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP subsequently, the plaintiffs No.3 and 5 have demised and the plaintiffs No.23 to 30 were added as legal heirs of the plaintiffs No.3 and 5, the plaintiffs No.12 and 13 have purchased the property from their vendor under Ex.A.25 and inturn the vendor's father purchased the property from B.Ramachandraraju under Ex.A.24 and subsequently, the plaintiffs No.12 and 13 have regularized the document under Ex.A.25 i.e., G.P.A. cum Sale Agreement as sale deed i.e.,
Ex.A.46, the plaintiff No.14 purchased the property from G. Subba Lakshmi under Ex.A.23 and inturn his vendors purchased the property under Ex.A.22 and A.21, the plaintiff No.15 purchased the property from G. Subba Lakshmi under Ex.A.20 and inturn his vendors purchased their property under Ex.A.19 and A.18, the plaintiff No.16 purchased the property from Kandregula Surya Rao and Viswanadha Narasimha Murthy under Ex.A.17 and Ex.A.15 and inturn her vendors purchased the property under Ex.A.14, A.16, the plaintiff No.17 purchased the property from Vedula Savitri and Ayyala Somayajula Lakshmi
Narasamma under Ex.A.13 and 12, the defendants created sham and nominal partition deed among themselves to knock away the 'B' schedule property of the plaintiffs.
14)To boot, learned counsel of plaintiffs also adroitly submits in vehemence that the defendants have not filed any documents establishing that they are the owners of the A schedule properties and moreover, no documents were filed before the Court regarding the right, title and possession over the A schedule properties and they are claiming that the properties under the succession but they have not filed any documents to establishing that how the
Gompa Chinnayya who is claimed as a father of the defendants got the property and that as such, the defendants have no right, title, and possession over the A Schedule properties but they created Ex.B.1 partition deed among themselves for the purpose of false claim with an evil intention to grab the properties of the plaintiffs mentioned in the B schedule properties and that
DW-1 to DW-5 categorically admitted that they did not file any documents to show that the A schedule properties belong to ancestors of the defendants and 13 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP moreover, they did not file any documents to show that Gompa Chinnayya is their father and DW-1 and 2 further admitted that they did not file any documents to show that their grandfather and father had possession over the schedule property and DW-1 and 2 admitted that among their brothers and sisters, sale deeds were executed. He also submits that DW-1 stated that one
Gompa Chinnayya is father of all the defendants and they succeeded the A schedule properties from the Gompa Chinnayya but the DW-2 stated that her father name is Saidu and 1st defendant is the son of her great uncle's son who is her cousin and the 1st defendant's mother's name is one Gompa
Venkayamma and all the sisters i.e., defendants 2 to 5 are the daughters of the
Saidulu and their mother name is Appiyamma and according to the DW-2's evidence, the entire property belongs to Gompa Saidulu and the 2nd defendant stated that the defendants 2 to 5 have a brother by name Gompa Appala
Swami and DW-2 again stated that the 5th defendant is a daughter of her father and elder brother but the DW-2, 3 and 4 contradicted the same and DW- 4 also stated that the 4th defendant is the daughter of the 1st defendant. He also submits that DW-2 further stated that the 2nd defendant i.e. DW-1's daughter got married to the son of Vurukuti Appalanarasamma who is the 5th defendant but the DW-1 contradicted the same and that accordingly, DW-5 he is the son of 2nd defendant and Gompa Saidulu is the maternal grandfather to him, but the DW-1 contradicted the same and that the defendants created a false document i.e. partition deed and are trying to grab the suit B schedule properties of the plaintiffs as they have no right or title over the suit schedule property and that as per the evidence of DW-3, he did not know anything in this case as he admitted that he does not know the contends of his chief affidavit except his signature and he admitted that he did not see any document regarding the property of the defendants and he does not know how the property was acquired by the ancestors of the defendants and that DW-3 admitted that the schedule property was divided into plots as per Ex.A.51 photographs and DW-4 admitted that there are Palmyra leaves sheds and 14 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP cement sheet sheds in the schedule property and that DW-3 does not know when the defendants have partitioned their properties and he also does not know whether the defendants are having the possession over A schedule properties or B schedule properties and DW-3 admitted that in the year 1966 the village president was Nammi Pentayya and DW-3 stated that the 1st defendant died in the year 1985 or 1986, but, DW-2 contradicted the same. He also submits that DW-4 stated that he is not the party to the suit but in 9th para of his chief affidavit, he states that he is the defendant in the suit and further stated that he does not know the name of father of the 1st defendant and he stated that the suit schedule property admeasures Ac.2.00 cents of land. He also submits that so it is contradictory to the defendant's case and that DW-4 further admitted that Gompa Sydulu is his maternal grandfather and the defendant No.5 Urukuti Appalanarasamma is his maternal aunt and that
DW-5 categorically admitted that he does not know transactions that took place in the year 1966 and 1970 and DW-5 has no personal knowledge over said transactions referred in his evidence affidavit, DW-5 categorically admitted that he knows the dispute involved in the suit and there is no document filed by him or his mother establishing that the suit A schedule properties belong to their maternal grandfather Sydulu since he acquired the same before long back, they have not filed any document showing their possession over the suit A schedule properties, DW-5 categorically admitted that in his evidence affidavit that they got direction from the Hon'ble High Court to the Special Officer and competent Authority and the witness adds that nothing like that happened and
DW-5 admitted that they have not filed any document showing that the suit land is given to security services but the defendants marked Ex.B.2 & B through
DW-1 but the DW-1 herself denied the same and contradicted the evidence of
DW-5. He also submits that as the partition deed was refused to be registered by the registering authority, the defendants approached Hon'ble High Court of
A.P. and showed plaint B schedule properties for the purpose grabbing it and that the right of the plaintiffs over the B schedule property is proved by Exs.A.1 15 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP to A.51 and admissions of the defendant and that plaint B schedule properties are part and parcel of A schedule properties.
15.A contrario sensu, learned counsel of defendants also adroitly submits in vehemence that in her cross examination, PW-1 categorically admits that she does not know the boundaries of the property covered by A schedule, she is post graduate in arts, she filed this suit against 19 persons, 10 plaintiffs died, she does not remember their names, she can't say the property particulars of the deceased plaintiffs, she does not know the said deceased 10 plaintiffs and they purchased what property from whom and on what dates and their vendees and she does not know who attested the sale deeds of deceased plaintiffs or who scribed the sale deeds and the value of the stamps or registration charges and that she did not state in her chief affidavit about the particulars of the 10 deceased plaintiffs or serial numbers of the plaintiffs and she further admitted that she does not know how said Chinnayya got the said land and that she filed some documents into this court obtained from the Sub Registrar regarding the right of the said Chinnayya and that she can't say the nature of the said document and she has not filed revenue and cist records standing in the name of said Chinnayya and she purchased the suit property having verified the plan approved by the panchayat and that she can't say on which date the said plan was approved and that she has not filed the said plan into the court, 64 plots approved by the panchayat plan, witness again says 71 plots were approved".
basing on the admissions made by the PW-1 the suit is liable for dismissal as the legal heirs of the plaintiffs are not brought on record and other plot owners are not shown as plaintiffs; hence the suit is straight away liable for dismissal for declaration.
16.To boot (paiga in Telugu), learned counsel of defendants also adroitly submits in vehemence that in the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others (Vs.) Yelamarti Satyam and others reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1865
Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere marking of a document as an exhibit does
not dispense with its proof.
16 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP
17.To boot (paiga in Telugu), learned counsel of defendants also adroitly submits in vehemence that in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar (Vs.) Mohamed
Haji Latif and others reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1413 Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the court should draw adverse inference under section 114(g) and 103 of Evidence Act when the party fails to produce the best evidence which is in his possession. In this regard, he also submits that the plaintiffs have not filed approved plan and the sale deeds of Pathiwada Chinnayya and others and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed and that he admittedly, the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the plaint A schedule property and the plaintiffs are unable to say extent of each plot B schedule and its measurements were not mentioned in the sale deeds of the plaintiffs, except square yards and cents and that PW-1 also admits that she had not filed any tax receipts and she does not know the particulars of tax receipts and there are no roads in the suit schedule land but previously roads were in existence and their sale deeds do not contain the boundary of roads and she stated in her evidence affidavit that the defendants are in possession of suit schedule property and she also pleaded the same in the plaint. He also submits that therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed as there is no proof of title in respect of B schedule property. He also submits that in his cross examination, PW-2 also categorically admits that they have nothing to do with plaint A schedule property and they have no right title and possession over plaint A schedule property and they got the roads laid after the purchased the land and there are no existing Thar Roads and he does not know who are the persons and possession and enjoyment of land in Survey No.96/1 and he cannot say the extent and that they have not filed the suit for declaration and eviction of the defendants and the defendants occupied the same and laid temporary sheds in the land in Sy. No.96/1. He also submits in vehemence that in the case of Union of India and others (Vs.) Vasavi Co.Op. Housing Society Ltd., and others reported in AIR 2014 SC (Civil) 613 Hon'ble Apex Court held that in a suit for 17 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP declaration plaintiffs cannot succeed on weakness of defendants case. He also submits in vehemence that the entries in revenue records cannot prove title.
18.Whatever might be the above noted contentions and rival contentions of both the parties, it is the thumb rule of evidence that he who seeks must prove and that in a suit for declaration, it is for the plaintiffs to discharge their heavy burden without depending on the weakness of defendant’s case but it is made out from the above contentions and rival contentions of both the parties that there is no clarity to them regarding the burden of proof. As is known to all, burden of proof is of two kinds, (1) burden of proving a fact which is called legal burden and which is found embodied under section 101 of The Indian Evidence
Act, (2) burden of adducing evidence which is called evidential burden and which is found embodied under section 102 of The Indian Evidence Act and the vital difference between the two is legal burden will never shift, but it is important to keep it in mind that burden of proof pales into insignificance when both parties have adduced their evidence. Dealing with the limited evidence in the typical cases which is not covering all vital aspects of the case, the golden principle in civil law that a court of civil law does not insist any party before it to prove absolute title but, it examines as to which one of the parties before it is having better right and title over the suit schedule property is to be kept in mind. That is in that context the above noted contentions and rival contentions of both the parties are to be considered.
19.A perusal of certified copy of 10(1) adangal marked as Ex.A.1 on behalf of the plaintiffs unequivocally recites that (1) Sathivada Chinnodu, (2) Appala
Narasamma and (3) Narayana are the pattadars of the land of Ac.3.96 cents situated in Sy. No.96/1 of Jaggarajupeta village. Ofcourse, the entries in revenue records cannot be the basis for holding right of the parties over the agricultural land. But, it is also the law that the entries in revenue records can be presumed to be true unless and until the contrary is proved. The defendants have not filed any material contrary to the above noted entries appearing in
Ex.A.1. But, In the absence of contrary evidence, the entries in records of 18 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP rights have very good value and they can be also relied upon regarding the rights of the parties over the agricultural land. In the case of K. Papadu (Vs.)
Golagana Suryanarayana reported in 2005(0) Supreme (AP) 747, Hon’ble High
Court of A.P. held in Para (9) of the judgment as follows:
“It is true that a declaration of title to immovable properties can be based on such documents, as are needed in law, to transfer and confer title. This principle, however, needs a little relaxation, when the title is claimed through ancestors and through succession. It would be difficult to trace the title through such documents, in relation to agricultural lands held by farmers. Though the entries in the revenue records do not constitute the basis for declaration of title, law had recognized at least some category of such documents, as constituting the basis. For example, the pahanies in the erstwhile Hyderabad State and fair adangals in the Madras
State, have always been treated as authentic sources of title. The reason is that a fairly good amount of exercise is undertaken, from the point of view of verification of title, as well as survey and settlement, before making entries in such records. In
Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat’s case (supra), the supreme court recognized the authenticity of such entries, and the decision of the privy council in Syed Md. Mazaffaralatnusavi (Vs.) Bibi Jabeda
Khatun, AIR 1930 PC 103, was relied upon. In secretary to
Government of India’s case (supra), a learned Single Judge of this court held as under: “the supreme court in Shikarchand (Vs.) D.J.P.
Karini Sabha, AIR 1974 SC 1178, held that Khasra is a record of right. Although the record of rights is not a document of title, the court is perfectly entitled to take into consideration the entry in the record of rights for coming to the conclusion that certain person is the owner of the land in question. The party relying on presumption of correctness need not prove name of the plaintiff, the onus is upon the defendant to prove that the said entry in favour of the plaintiff is not correct”.
20.So, on the strength of the entries of Ex.A.1 [10(1) Adangal], it can be held that Sathivada people were the original owners of the land admeasuring
Ac.3.96 cents situated in Survey No.96/1 of Jaggarajupeta village. But, as above noted, learned counsel of defendants is pointing out that the plaintiffs did not 19 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP file the sale deeds standing in the name of Sathivada Chinnayya and others.
As rightly pointed out by learned counsel of defendants, it is for the plaintiffs to file said link title deeds and to explain this court as to how the title passed on to their predecessors in title. As rightly submitted by learned counsel of defendants, PW-1 herself categorically admits that they have nothing to do with plaint A schedule properties. As admitted by both the parties, the suit land was originally an agricultural land. But, the plaintiffs are claiming the suit properties with plot numbers saying that the agricultural land in Sy.No.96/1 was developed into house site plots by B. Ramachandra Raju and V. Tatayyamma.
They also contend that the plots were laid with the permission of the panchayat and there was approved plan by the panchayat. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have not filed said approved plan into the court or the lay out alleged to have approved by panchayat. There is certain procedure in law for conversion of agricultural land into house plots. As already noted above, the plaintiffs have heavy burden to discharge as the suit is for declaration of their right over the suit property. Said important evidence was not adduced by the plaintiffs. They have not bothered to prove alleged approved plan and lay out of panchayat.
This is glaring absurdity in the case of the plaintiffs. When the agricultural land is converted into house site plots, the land can only be identified by plot number with reference to approved plan and lay out of house plots and the same boundaries mentioned in the original sale deeds for the agricultural land will not be the same on ground when the land covered by plots is sold to several persons. As rightly submitted by learned counsel of defendants, the right of the plaintiffs over plaint A schedule property cannot straight away be declared only for the reason that the defendants failed to prove their right since as above noted, the plaintiffs cannot at all be permitted to rely on the weakness of defendants case in a suit for declaration of right and title. The above noted admissions of PWs 1 and 2 would certainly go in favour of defendants and against their case. But, a fact remains that the sale deeds of the plaintiffs are much prior to the date of original of Ex.A.4 partition deed and 20 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP the contents of the sale deed exhibited by the plaintiffs also support their case with regard to deliver of possession of land in survey number 96/1 of
Jaggarajupeta Village. A fact also remains that nobody challenged the sale deeds exhibited by the plaintiffs as above noted till today. There is nothing on record showing that anybody raised any objection so far against the sale deeds exhibited by the plaintiffs which are prior to the date of Ex.A.4. Law of limitation prescribes certain period to challenge a registered deed. Registration is public notice to all. Thus, the defendants have not raised any objection against the sale deeds exhibited by the plaintiffs nor did they take any steps against the sale deeds exhibited by the plaintiffs. What they simply did is they entered into original of Ex.A.4 partition deed. The million dollar's question is how can the original of Ex.A.4 partition deed dated 12-10-2007 nullify the sale transactions covered by several sale deeds pertaining to the land in suit Sy.No.96/1.
Unfortunately, the plaintiffs have not placed entire material before this court as to the flow of title in respect of entire land nor did they explain about the total extent of land in Sy. No.96. But, as rightly submitted by learned counsel of plaintiffs it is admitted by DW-3 that the two photographs marked as Ex.A.51 belong to the suit schedule property that is found divided into plots. A fact also remains that the land covered by suit plots was not got localized to hold whether the land covered by the suit plots falls in plaint A schedule or plaint B schedule. If original of Ex.A.4 partition deed can nullify all earlier sale transactions, the property of anybody in the world will never be safe. Thus, basing on Ex.A.4, the plaintiffs cannot be non suited. But the problem is the plaintiffs left the proof of important aspects of the case to wind. But, it is the duty of a court of civil law to see that the dispute between the parties is resolved and the object of the orders of the court must be for that purpose. So, with the available material before this court, it can only be held that the original of Ex.A.4 partition deed is not binding on the sale deeds of the plaintiffs.
21 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP
21.In view of my declaration supra, I hold that it is declared that the original of Ex.A.4 partition deed dated 12-10-2007 is not binding on the sale deeds of the plaintiffs and the defendants are to be restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over their respective sites covered by their respective sale deeds. Accordingly, issues 1 to 4 and 6 are answered.
22:Issue No.7 : In the result, it is declared that the original of Ex.A.4 partition deed dated 12-10-2007 is not binding on the sale deeds of the plaintiffs and the defendants are restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over their respective sites covered by their respective sale deeds. Under the facts and circumstances, both parties are directed to bear their costs of own. Accordingly, the suit is disposed of.
Dictated to Stenographer Gr.II and transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20 th day of January, 2020.
XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
FAC VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No.of Witnesses examined For Plaintiff:
PW-1 : Palaka Lakshmi Kanthan PW-2 : Ravuri Suresh BAbu
For Defendants:
DW-1 : Kona Appala Narasamma DW-2 : Palla Tatamma DW-3 : Gompa Joginaidu DW-4: Gompa Srinu DW-5: Kona Saidu Naidu No. of Exhibits marked For Plaintiff :
Ex.A-1 : Certified copy of 10(1) Adangal, Ex.A-2 : Certified copy of Registration extract of sale deed in favour of Madisa Yerukulamma executed by N. Sanyasi and others, dated 20-07-1966 Ex.A-3 : Paper publication Ex.A-4 : Certified copy of partition deed of defendants dated 12-10-2007 Ex.A-5 : Property tax pass book Ex.A-6 : Property tax receipt Ex.A-7 : Property tax pass book in the name of Udaya Sankar Ex.A-8 : Property tax pass book in the name of Sheshavatharam EX.A-9 : General Power of Attorney, dated 03-04-2006 Ex.A-10 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated 27-08-1979 bearing No. 6825/1979 Ex.A-11 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 27-08-1979 having document No. 6824 of 1979 22 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP Ex.A-12 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated 10-01-2007 bearing no.2137/2007 Ex.A-13 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 10-01-2007 having document No. 2136 of 2007 Ex.A-14 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated25-11-2005 , bearing No. 5901/2005 Ex.A-15 : Certified copy of sale deed dated25-11-2005 bearing document No. 5900 of 2005 Ex.A-16 : Sale deed, dated 09-07-1971 Ex.A-17 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated 30-12-2006, bearing No.1437/2007 Ex.A-18 : Sale deed, dated 09-07-1971 having document No. 3081/1971 Ex.A-19 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated 02-07-2005, bearing No.3584/2005 Ex.A-20 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated 29-03-2007, bearing No.3163/2007 Ex.A-21 : Sale deed, dated 09-07-1971, document No. 3072/1971 Ex.A-22 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated 02-06-2005, bearing No.3581/2005 Ex.A-23 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated 29-03-2007, bearing No.3162/2007 Ex.A-24 : Sale deed, dated 19-06-1971 Ex.A-25 : Sale deed, dated 24-05-2004, bearing No.2571/2004 Ex.A-26 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated 09-09-1981, bearing No.7205/1981 Ex.A-27: Certified copy of sale deed dated 09-09-1981 having document No. 7204/1981 Ex.A-28 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 09-09-1981 having document No. 7198/1981 Ex.A-29 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 09-09-1981 bearing document No. 7202/1981 Ex.A-30 ; Certified copy of sale deed dated 09-09-1981 bearing document No. 7201/1981 Ex.A-31 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 09-09-1981 bearing document No. 7199/1981 Ex.A-32 : Certified copy of sale deed dt.18.08.1971 bearing No. 4346/1971 Ex.A-33 : Registration extract of sale deed, dated 28-08-1971 bearing No.4344/1971 Ex.A-34 : Certified copy of sale deed dt.29.09.1971 bearing No. 4503/1974 Ex.A-35 : Sale deed, dated 30-06-1971 Ex.A-36 : Certified copy of sale deed dt.25.06.1971 bearing document No.2278/ 1971 Ex.A-37 : Registration extract of sale deed, dated 05-07-1971, bearing No.2881/1971 Ex.A-38 : Sale deed dt.29-09-1966 Ex.A-39 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated 09-09-1981 document No.7200/ 1981 Ex.A-40 : Encumbrance certificate, dated 01-02-2008 Ex.A-41 : Encumbrance certificate, dated 01-02-2008 Ex.A-42 : Search Certificate, dated 17-01-2018 Ex.A-43 : Search Certificate, dated 17-01-2018 Ex.A-44 : Search Certificate, dated 17-01-2018 Ex.A-45 : Certified copy of sale deed, dated 05-12-1966, document No. 3233/ 1966 Ex.A-46 : On line copy of sale deed, dated 14-12-2007 Ex.A-47 : On line copy of Adangal, dated 19-01-2018 Ex.A-48 : Charge Sheet CC.No.882/08 Ex.A-49 : Photo Ex.A-50 : Photos 8 in No. Ex.A-51 : Photos 2 in No.
For Defendants:
Ex.B-1 : Photograph Ex.B-2 : True copy of Writ petition No. 9162/2008 Ex.B-3 : True copy of Writ petition No. 18201/2007 Ex.B-4 : Certified copy of Picket Security Service Pvt., Ltd.,
XIII ADJ/GWK FAC VIIIADJ/GWK 23 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP Date of presentation: 25-01-2008 Date of filing: 25-01-2008
IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA
PRESENT: Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar, B.Com, B.L.,
XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka
FAC VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Gajuwaka
Monday, this the 20 th day of January, 2020
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 20/2008
BETWEEN:
1.Punyapu Venkata Rao, S/o. Late Mangayya aNaidu, Hindu, Aged 85 Years, Retired MES, C/o. P. Venkata Rao, D.No.20-62-1, Opp. to AVN College, Out Gate, Visakhapatnam-1. (Died)
2.Busi Padmini, W/o. B. Rama Rao, Hindu, Aged 54 Years, C/o. P. Venkata Rao, D.No.20-62-1, Opp. to AVN College, Out Gate, Visakhapatnam-1 (Died)
3.Devireddy Nagaratnam, w/o. Late Palguna Rao, Hindu, Aged 76 Years, Housewife, R/O. Trilekya Residency, Plot No.F-2, D.No.43-12-3, Subbalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam-16. (Died)
4.Vadali Venkata Rao, S/o V.V.S. Narayana, Hindu aged about 72 years, Residing at D.No. 22-71-20/A, Near Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Temple, Visakhapatnam.
5.Mangipudi Padmavathi, W/o. Late Mangipudi Sithapathi Rao, Hindu, Aged 64 Years, Housewife, C/o. VLN Sarma, Pearl Residency, Baji Junction, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
6.Golusu Rajulamma, W/o G.Venkata Rao, Hindu aged about 65 years, Residing at D.No.30-1-201/1, South Jail Road, Visakhapatnam.
7.Palaka Lakshmi Kantham,D/o Krishna Rao, Hindu aged about 63 years, Residing at D.No.30-1-201/1, South Jail Road, Visakhapatnam.
8.Muntha Suryavathi, W/o Late Satya Prakasa Rao, Hindu aged about 63 years, C/o M. Bhavani Prasad, D.No.39-21-26, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam.
9.Nanduri Seshavataram, S/o. Narasimha Charyulu, Hindu, Aged 56 Years, S/o. M. Bhavani Prasad, D.No.39-21-26, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam-7. (Died)
10.Siddireddy Satyanarayana, S/o Late Gurumurthy, Hindu aged about 56 years, Service, Residing at D.No.25-40-22, Ganugulavari Street, Visakhapatnam.
11.Pentapati Uday Shankar, S/o P. Balakrishna, Hindu aged about 52 years Residing at D.No. 50-1-45/16, Alluri Seetharama Nagar, APSEB Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.
12.Ravuri Haribabu, S/o Sambaiah, Hindu aged about 39 years, Residing at House No.B-22, Sheela nagar, Visakhapatnam.
24 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP
13.Ravuri Suresh Babu, S/o Sambaiah, Hindu aged about 42 years, Residing at House No.B-22, Sheela nagar, Visakhapatnam.
14.Nittala Srinivas Satyanarayana, S/o N.V.Bhaskar Rao, Hindu aged about 41 years, Residing at Flat No.5, Iswarya Apartments, Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam.
15.Nittala Sridhar Rao, S/o N.V.Bhaskar Rao, Hindu aged about 39 years, Residing at Flat No.5, Iswarya Apartments, Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam.
16.Dharmala Jayalakshmi, W/o D.Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu aged about 30 years, Residing at D.No.45-46-9/6, Srinivasa Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.
17.Kamineni Gnana Murali Krishna, S/o Durga Prasa, Hindu aged about 41 years, C/o V. Ravi, Residing at D.No.32-10-37, Allipuram, Opp to Rathod Sons, Visakhapatnam.
18.Mantri Sundara Lakshmi, W/o Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Residing at Meher Nagar. Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam rep by her G.P.A Holder, Sri Mondiyeddula Govinda Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, Hindu aged 58 years, Residing at D.No.21-17-2, Seetha Nagaram, Pedagantyada, R.H.Colony, Visakhapatnam.
19.Yellymanhanti Kusuma Devi, W/o Somasekhar Rao, Hindu aged about 75 years, Residing at Meher Nagar. Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam rep by her G.P.A Holder, Sri Mondiyeddula Govinda Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, Hindu aged 58 years, Residing at D.No.21-17-2, Seetha Nagaram, Pedagantyada, R.H.Colony, Visakhapatnam.
20.Busi Rama Rao, S/o Late B. Appala Swamy, Hindu aged about 71 years, Residing at D.No.10-106, MIG-1-98, Ratnagiri Colony, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam.
21.Busi Sai Deep, S/o B. Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 36 years, Residing at D.No.10-106, MIG-1-98, Ratnagiri Colony, P.M. Palem, Visakhapatnam.
22.Busi Bindu Sagar, S/o B. Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 32 years, Residing at D.No.10-106, MIG-1-98, Ratnagiri Colony, P.M. Palem, Visakhapatnam.
23.Muddana Meenakshi, W/o M.V.E.Ratna Rao, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Residing at QTR.No. M.I.G B-131, A-Zone, Sujathanagar, Chinamusidiwada Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
24.Muddana Krishna Kanth, S/o M.V.E.Ratna Rao, Hindu, aged about 20 years, Residing at QTR.No. M.I.G B-131, A-Zone, Sujathanagar, Chinamusidiwada Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
25.Pothula Paravathi, W/o Somanadham, Hindu aged about 56 years, Residing at D.No.154, Krishnarayapuram, N.A.D Colony, Chinamusidiwada post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
26.Batthula Revathi Kumari, W/o Late B. Malleswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Residing at 2nd Floor, F-1, Miracle Home, Siddharthanagar, near Sai Degree College, Vizianagaram.
25 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP
27.Chalasani Varalakshmi, W/o CH.S.Ramakrishna, Hindu aged about 53 years, Residing at D.No.49-19-14, Lalitha Nagar, Near Tondam Vinayaka Temple, Visakhapatnam.
28.Pendyla Girija Kumari, W/o P. Rama Rao. Hindu aged about 50 years, Residing at QTR.No.49/1, Type-2, Railway Colony, Near Railway Station, Near Parcel Office, Durg Dist. Chhattisgath State.
29.Vemuri Rama Devi, W/o Lakshmi Narayana Sharma, Hindu aged about 54 years, Residing at Flat No. G-2, D.No.1-173, Pearl Residency, Susarla Colony, Bajji Junction, Gopalapatnam Post, Visakhapatnam.
30.Kotikalapudi Chandrakala, W/o Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu aged about 51 years, Residing at Flat No. G-2, D.No.1-173, Pearl Residency, Susarla Colony, Bajji Junction, Gopalapatnam Post, Visakhapatnam.
31.Nanduri Mangamma, W/o Late Seshavataram, Hindu aged 60 years, Residing at Flat No.A2, Krishna Enclave, 5th Cross, L.B Shastri Nagar, HAL Post , Bangalore.
32.Nanduri Revathi Novel, D/o Late Seshavataram, Hindu aged 35 years, Residing at Flat No.A2, Krishna Enclave, 5th Cross, L.B Shastri Nagar, HAL Post , Bangalore.
33.Nandduri Anil, S/o Late Seshavataram, Hindu aged 32 years, Residing at Flat No.A2, Krishna Enclave, 5th Cross, L.B Shastri Nagar, HAL Post , Bangalore.
……..Plaintiffs
A N D :
1.Gompa Appanna, S/o. Late Gompa Chinnayya, Hindu, Aged 81 Years, Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
2.Kona Appala Narasamma, W/o Konna Appala Naidu, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
3.Palla Tatamma, W/o Palla Chinnodu, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
4.Madisi Chinna Thalli, W/o Madisi Apparao, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
5.Urukuti Appala Narasamma, W/o Urukuti Appala Swamy, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
6.Gompa Ramulamma, W/o Late Appanna, Hindu, aged about 70 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
7.Madisa Appala Konda, W/o Demudu, D/o Late Appanna, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Residing at Golla Jaggarajupeta, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
(Defendants No.6 & 7 are added as per order of this Court in I.A.No.17/2019) ……Defendants
This suit is filed for declaration that the partition deed dated 12-10-2007 standing in the name of defendants 1 to 5 is sham, nominal, void and unenforceable in respect of the plaint schedule property and also for 26 O.S. 20/2008 VIII ADJC/GWK/VSP cancellation of said partition deed dated 12-10-2007 and also for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property, and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.35.00,000/- and a Court Fee of Rs. 40,252/- is paid under Section 26 & Sec.37 r/w Art.1 (b&c) Sch.1 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.
This suit has come up on 24-12-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Eswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri M. Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered and this court doth Order and :
D E C R E E
1.that the suit be and the same is hereby allowed in part,
2. that it is declared the original of Ex.A.4 partition deed dated 12-10-2007 is not binding on the sale deeds of the plaintiffs; and
3. that the defendants are hereby directed to restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over their respective sites covered by their respective sale deeds; and
4. that the facts and circumstances, both parties are here by directed to bear costs of own.
(A copy of plaint schedule is herewith attached)
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this the 20th day of January, 2020.
XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
FAC VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE(FTC),
GAJUWAKA.
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :
No costs memo is filed on either side
XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
FAC VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC),
GAJUWAKA.