APCH030007702016 1 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE MADANAPALLE
Present :Ms.R.Sreelatha, VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle.
Friday, the Eighth (8th) day of May, 2026
O.S.No. 02 of 2017
Between :
1. Sri Thippannagari Krishnamohana Reddy, Son of Late Thippannagari Narayana Reddy, aged about 41 years, Hindu, cultivation.
2. Smt Thippannagari Sankaramma, wife of Late Thippannagari Narayana Reddy, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation. Plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are residents of Eguvaladdigam Village Chadalla Post, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. Ms.Manorama, wife of Changa Reddy, aged about 35 years, Hindu, House wife, residing at Bangalore City of Karnataka State. …… Plaintiffs And :
1. Sri Thippannagari Krishna Reddy, Son of Late Thippannagari Narayana Reddy, aged about 45 years, Hindu, cultivation.
2. Sri Thippannagari Anusha, D/o.Thippannagari Krishna Reddy and wife of Harish, aged about 23 years, Hindu, house wife.
3. Ms.Thippannagari Sarojamma, 1st wife of late Thippannagari Narayana Reddy, aged about 70 years, dependent, residing at Adivinathunikunta, Raganipalli Panchayath Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District.
4. Ms.Reddemma, wife of Krishna Reddy, aged about 43 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Eguva Laddigam village, Chadalla
APCH030007702016 2 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 post, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. (Added as per the orders in I.A No.559 of 2022 dt.28.1.2023.
…… Defendants
The suit is coming up before me on 30.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Ramachandran, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and
Sri S.Rajendra, Advocate for the Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 and the
Defendant No.3 having remained ex-parte, after perusing the materials available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties, to allot 11/16th share to the plaintiffs in the
Plaint A, B and C schedule properties and to direct the defendants to put the plaintiffs in separate possession of Plaint A, B and C schedule properties after division by metes and bounds.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the 3rd defendant by name
Sarojamma is the first wife of one Thippannagari Narayana Reddy and the defendant No.1 is their son. The second defendant is the daughter of the first and the 4th defendants. The 3rddefendant is the first wife of
Thippannagari Narayana Reddy, while the 2nd plaintiff is the 2nd wife of this Narayana Reddy. The 3rd defendant who is the first wife of
APCH030007702016 3 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Narayana Reddy left her husband when the first defendant was a months baby and consented for the 2nd marriage of
Narayana Reddy by receiving money at that time. In order to look after his son i.e., the defendant No.1 Krishna Reddy, this Narayana Reddy underwent 2nd marriage with the 2nd plaintiff and the plaintiffs No.1, 3 are born to them who are also the children entitled for succession as per the Hindu Law. The plaintiffs, the defendants Nos.1 and 2 were residing along with Narayana Reddy jointly at Laddigam village and this Narayana Reddy has died on 17.08.2016 intestate. The plaint ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are the ancestral undivided joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 and 2 and this
Narayana Reddy during his life time was managing the joint family. With the income derived from the ancestral properties, he has purchased some of the properties in ‘A’, B and C schedule in his name and the properties are being enjoyed jointly. The defendant No.3 does not have any share as she took permanent alimony from her husband for maintenance and she is only added as a formal party. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are entitled for 5/16th share each, while the 3rd plaintiff is entitled for 1/16th share and the defendant Nos.1
APCH030007702016 4 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 and 2 are entitled for 5/16th share. It is put-forth that the item no.15 and 16 of ‘A’ schedule originally belonged to the mother of Narayana
Reddy who has died long back and those properties also fell to the common hotchpot and are being enjoyed jointly. It is also put-forth that the marriages of the defendant No.1, plaintiffs No.1 and 3 were performed by Thippannagari Narayana Reddy during his life time and the plaintiffs are residing in the item no.1 of B schedule, the 2nd defendant in item nos.3 and 4 of B schedule, while the item no.2 of B schedule was let out to one Muslim family. The item no.5 of B schedule is being used as hayrick pendols and for cattle purpose. This
Thippannagari Narayana Reddy during his life time has drilled three surface bore wells for cultivation of A schedule properties with submersible motor pump and ‘C’ schedule properties are given for rents to the 3rd parties. After the death of Narayana Reddy, the defendants No.1 and 2 are claiming ‘C’ schedule properties exclusively as if Sri Narayana Reddy has executed documents in their favour.
Since the properties are the Hindu undivided joint family properties, such documents are void documents and the defendants no.1 and 2 are not interested to give any share to the plaintiffs. Earlier, the village
APCH030007702016 5 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 elders have tried for partition of the properties during the life time of Narayana Reddy, but the defendants No.1 and 2 have not cooperated. The defendants No.1 and 2 are not cooperating for partition and claiming half share, even though they are entitled for 5/16th share only. Hence, this suit is filed for partition and separate possession of 11/16th share of the plaintiffs in A, B and C schedules.
The suit is filed after issuing legal notice, for which, a reply was also given by the defendants No.1 and 2 with false allegations claiming ‘C’ schedule properties as the self acquired properties of Naryana Reddy and as if the 2nd plaintiff is the kept mistress of Narayana Reddy, while, the plaintiffs No.1 and 3 are his illegitimate children. The alleged Will of Narayana Reddy dt.27.09.1999 is projected by the defendants No.1 and 2 and during the pendency of the suit, the 4th defendant is added who is claiming the properties as the legatee as per the Will of
Narayana Reddy.
3. The written statement is filed by the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to the effect that the 2nd plaintiff is the concubine of Sri
APCH030007702016 6 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Thippannagari Narayana Reddy and that the plaintiffs No.1 and 3 are the children of the 2nd plaintiff. It is denied that the 3rd defendant took money, deserted her husband and has consented for the 2nd marriage of Thippannagari Narayana Reddy by leaving the first defendant with Thippannagari Narayana Reddy. It is specifically put- forth that the entire suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Narayana Reddy and he purchased those properties with his own earnings and there is no contribution from any one towards the purchase of the properties and that he has not died intestate. The geneology of the family is given. The allegation that the entire suit schedule properties fell into common hotchpot is incorrect and the alleged claim of the plaintiffs for their entitlement to 11/16th share is denied. It is put-forth that the properties are not the Hindu undivided joint family properties and they are the separate and the self-acquired properties of T.Narayana Reddy with no joint nucleus. It is only admitted that Sri Narayana Reddy has performed the marriage of the defendant No.1. It is contended that the house i.e., item no.1 of B schedule stands in the name of defendant No.1 and his name was mutated in Gram Panchayat records of Laddigam Village and that the
APCH030007702016 7 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Government has granted patta vide V.H.S.No.478/1406 dated 30.08.1996 and the item no.4 of ‘B’ Schedule is part and parcel of the item no.3. Whatever alienations are made by Narayana Reddy by way of gift deeds and sale deeds, those properties were his exclusive and absolute properties and the plaintiffs have no right or locus standi to question the same. The defendant 2 is claiming the plaint ‘C’ schedule properties exclusively on the basis of gift deed. Not only the ‘C’ schedule properties, all the suit schedule properties are the separate and self acquired properties of Narayana Reddy and the alleged panchayaths are denied. A suitable reply on 14.10.2016 was issued for the legal notice of the plaintiffs. During his life time, Sri Narayana
Reddy has bequeathed the properties as per registered Will dt.27.09.1999 and the properties that fell to the shares of the legatees i.e., the 1st plaintiff and the 4th defendant as per this Will are detailed. It is put forth that the recitals of the will relating to the suit schedule properties alienated by the testator would render in effective as far as those specific properties are concerned. Further, this
Narayana Reddy and his younger sister Gangulamma have jointly purchased 1/4th share in items No.4, 8, 9 of A schedule, Narayana
APCH030007702016 8 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Reddy has purchased another 1/4th share in item 4, 8, 9 and 15 of A schedule under registered sale deed. Also, Sri Narayana Reddy has purchased items 17, 18 and 19 of A schedule under different registered sale deeds. Further, this Narayana Reddy and his sister have sold away the items No.4, 8, 9 and 15 to one Kalakata Chandra Sekhar Reddy under one registered sale deed dt.08.09.2003 and there are several co- owners as they purchased some of the extents from Narayana Reddy and others. Also they are the proper and necessary parties and this partition suit is bad for the non joinder of necessary parties. The detailed description of the existing rights in respect of the suit schedule properties is given at Para No.23 of the written statement. It is prayed to dismiss the suit as there is no cause of action and as the plaintiffs are not entitled for 11/16th share. The court fee paid is in correct.
3(a). Further, the additional written statement is filed by the defendant
No.2 which was adopted by the defendants No.1 and 4 to the effect that the plaintiffs have to prove the subsequent deletion and addition of the boundaries in respect of items no.1 and 2 of ‘C’ schedule and
APCH030007702016 9 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 the self styled common boundaries for the items No.1 and 2 of plaint ‘C’ schedule are only to plug the loopholes. No documentary proof is submitted for the substitution of boundaries in respect of items no.1 and 2 of C schedule and it is reiterated to dismiss the suit.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the then officer:-
1. Whether the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties or the self acquired properties of T.Narayana
Reddy?
2. Whether T.Narayana Reddy during his life time gifted/settled some of his properties to others?
3. Whether T.Narayana Reddy executed a Will dt.27.09.1999 and bequeathed the properties in the name of 1st plaintiff and 4th defendant?
4. Whether all the plaint schedule properties are available for partition?
5. Whether the court fee paid by plaintiffs is correct?
APCH030007702016 10 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule
Properties? If entitled what are their respective shares?
7. To what relief?
The additional issue framed on 04.04.2023 :-
1. Whether the boundaries in respect of the item Nos.1 and 2 of the ‘C’ schedule properties are correct?
5. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 5 are examined and Exs.A1 to A16 are marked. For the defendants,
DWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B1 to B22 are marked.
6. Arguments heard and the written arguments are also submitted with citations.
The submissions of the plaintiffs are that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and for the allotment of 11/16th share. It is contended that the properties purchased by Narayana Reddy are to be considered as the joint family properties and being the Kartha of the joint family, he was managing the properties. For this reason, the electricity bills, sale deeds, revenue records stand in the name of Narayana Reddy and the evidence of PW1 is referred to in this context. PW2 though has
APCH030007702016 11 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 admitted about Ex.B20 Gift settlement deed, she has stated that the gift deed is not valid as the properties are the joint family properties.
PW3 has deposed that the defendant No.3 got divorce from Narayana
Reddy in the year 1974 and then this Narayana Reddy has married
Sanakramma. PW3 has stated that the properties are the ancestral properties. PW4 apart from stating the same has also deposed about the panchayath in the presence of the village elders about the property disputes as the gift deeds are executed without the knowledge of other co-sharers in favour of Smt Anusha by Narayana Reddy. PW4 has learnt from the plaintiffs that the lands are ancestral properties and the lands stand in the name of Narayana Reddy only. PW5 also knows about the family of the plaintiffs and the suit schedule properties are being enjoyed by the plaintiffs and defendants with approximate extents, but are in joint. Thus, all the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. So, the will and the gift deeds executed by
Narayana Reddy are not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs. He has referred to the testimonies of DWs.1 to 3 and the documentary evidence.
He contends thatthere was demand for the partition by way of legal notice also. Smt Gangulamma, the sister of Narayana Reddy came to her
APCH030007702016 12 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 parent’s house as her husband has deserted her long back and her share was allotted under a registered document and hence, her share was settled long back and so she is not added as a party. It is contended that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for.
6(a). Per contra, in the written arguments of the defendants and during the oral submissions, the Exs. A3 to A12 are referred to pertaining to issue No.1 so also Exs. A14 to A16. It is put forth that
Ex.A12 does not reflect the fasili number and the admissions of PW1 are specifically referred to pertaining to the aspect of the ancestral nature of the properties as pleaded in the plaint. It is contended that the defendants have discharged the burden of proving that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties. Exs. B1 to B9 are referred to and so also the admissions of PW1 to 5 on this aspect. It is submitted that the Will is proved and the plaintiffs knew about the execution of registered gift deeds long back, but did not question the same. Several items are allotted to the legatees under the Will and the same are referred in the written arguments.
The execution of the Will is proved by examining DW2. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that the suit schedule
APCH030007702016 13 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 properties are the ancestral and Hindu joint family properties of
Sri Narayana Reddy and the alleged 2nd marriage of Narayana Reddy with the 2nd plaintiff is not proved. The court fee paid is incorrect. It is prayed to dismiss the suit.
7. Issue No.1
1. Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties or the self acquired properties of T.Narayana Reddy?
This is the suit filed for partition and separate possession of 11/16th share in A, B and C schedule properties by the plaintiffs herein against the defendant Nos.1 to 4. The Schedule A consists of 19 agriculture lands spread in different survey numbers at Laddigam
Village and the details like the extents, boundaries etc., are given. The
Schedule B consists of 5 properties out of which four are R.C.C houses located at Laddigam village of Chowdepalle Mandal. The 5th item is the vacant site. Schedule ‘C’ consists of two houses at Yetigaddapalem of
Punganur town.
7(a). The admitted facts are that one Narayana Reddy is the son of
Rangappa and SmtVenkatamma and this T.Narayana Reddy has got
APCH030007702016 14 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 one younger sister by name Gangulamma. This Narayana Reddy was married to the defendant No.3 Sarojamma and they were blessed with the defendant No.1 Krishna Reddy. The defendant No.4 is the wife of defendant No.1 and she is the only daughter of Smt
Gangulamma. So, the defendant No.4 is the niece of Narayana Reddy apart from being his daughter-in-law. The defendant No.2 Anusha is the daughter of Krishna Reddy and Reddemma i.e., the defendant
No.4. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 are the children of Narayana Reddy and Smt Sankaramma i.e., the plaintiff
No.2. Of-course, the defendants dispute that Smt
Sankaramma is also the legally wedded wife of Narayana Reddy and that there is valid divorce in between the Narayana Reddy and Smt
Sarojamma. This Narayana Reddy has died on 17.08.2016, so also, the parents of Narayana Reddy have died long back.
8. As per the plaint pleadings and the stand of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 are the legitimate children of Narayana Reddy born to his 2nd wife Smt Sankaramma and hence they are claiming share on par with the defendant No.1 in the suit schedule properties
APCH030007702016 15 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 contending that the suit properties are the ancestral properties and that some of the properties are purchased from out of the income derived
APCH030007702016 16 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 from out of the ancestral properties. Hence, entitled for 11/16th share in all the suit properties.
Further, it is pleaded in the plaint itself that after the death of
Narayana Reddy, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have claimed that there are some documents executed in their favour and that during the life time of Narayana Reddy itself, he tried to partition the properties according to the shares mentioned supra, but due to ill health, he was bed ridden. On the advice of Narayana Reddy, some village elders tried for partition for which, the defendants did not cooperate. In the light of the legal notices exchanged in between the parties also, it is evident that prior to the suit itself, the plaintiffs were aware of the stand of the defendants, particularly about the execution of the registered gift deeds and the registered Will executed by
Sri Narayana Reddy. It is contended in the plaint that the Will is brought into existence by impersonation and forgery and that the gift deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs.
8(a). On the contrary, the specific stand of the defendants is that the suit properties are the self acquired properties of Narayana Reddy.
APCH030007702016 17 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Further, under Ex.B11 [item no.2 of the ‘C’ schedule], Ex.B12 (item
Nos.17 to 19 of A schedule) and under Ex.B20 (Item no.1 of C schedule), Sri Narayana Reddy has gifted these referred items to the defendant No.2. Also under Ex.B18 Will, most of the remaining items of A and B schedule are bequeathed by Narayana Reddy in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.4 as detailed in the Will. It cannot be disputed that the item Nos.4, 8, 9 and 15 of ‘A’ schedule are sold away by Sri Narayana Reddy along with his sister Gangulamma in favour of one Kalakata Chandra Sekhar Reddy under registered sale deed bearing No.2232/2003. Very importantly, the first plaintiff admittedly is the attestor of this sale deed Under Ex.B9. So, he has got the knowledge of the sale transaction made by Narayana Reddy and his sister in favour of Kalakata Chandra Sekhar Reddy. But, the vendee Sri Kalakata Chandra Sekhar
Reddy who is now in possession and enjoyment of these items is not shown as a party to this suit. The first plaintiff who is the attestor of
APCH030007702016 18 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Ex.B9 is estopped from claiming that he had no knowledge of
Sri Narayana Reddy dealing with the properties individually. Very importantly, there are no details of the specific properties purchased by Narayana Reddy from out of the alleged joint family funds.
9. Furthermore, under this registered Ex.B18 will executed by
Narayana Reddy, he has bequeathed almost all his properties to the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.4, while some properties are gifted to the defendant No.2. Very significantly, the recitals of this Will supports the version of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.3 has deserted Narayana Reddy by leaving the small child at that time i.e., the defendant No.1 with Narayana Reddy and thereafter, this Narayana Reddy has married the 2nd plaintiff and begot the plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 and that he himself has performed the marriages of the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff No.3. When the defendants rely upon this Will for claiming the properties in favour of one of the legatees i.e., the defendant No.4, they are estopped from contending that these details mentioned therein are false and that this
APCH030007702016 19 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Ex.B18 Will has to be believed only to the extent of bequeathing some of the properties in favour of the defendant No.4. It is important to note that the Ex.B18 discloses that the defendant No.1 was not looking after the family and that he left his wife and daughter and was residing with another lady. This Will was executed on 27.09.1999 and in the year 2016, this Narayana Reddy has died (on 17.08.2016). It is need less to state that this Will comes into effect only on the death of Narayana
Reddy and during his life time, he can deal with the properties referred to in the Will also as per his desire and the remaining properties only are to be distributed to the legatees. There is mention in Ex.B18 by the testator that the properties are his self acquired properties and also that some properties are acquired from his mother. It is noteworthy to mention that the Narayana Reddy and the mother of the defendant
No.4 alone are the legal heirs of Smt Venkatamma wife of Rangappa ( i.e., the mother of
Narayana Reddy) and hence, the nature of the properties as referred in the Will has to be accepted. If the properties are acquired from the
APCH030007702016 20 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 mother, they become the absolute properties of Sri Narayana Reddy and they cannot be termed as ancestral properties.
10. Only if the plaintiffs fail to establish that the plaint schedule properties are the undivided joint family ancestral properties, then it has to be discussed in detail if the properties are the self acquired properties as being contended by the defendants. Also then, it has to be examined if the alleged gift deeds and the Will are proved. Only for sake of understanding the relationship between the parties and the back ground circumstances, the Will is referred to at this juncture.
10 (a).In the above back drop, now it has to be examined if the plaintiffs could place convincing material to establish that the suit schedule properties are the undivided ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the light of the specific contention of the defendants that they are the self acquired properties of Narayana
Reddy.
11. Taking up the oral testimonies, the first plaintiff is examined as
PW1. He has deposed about the relationship between the parties to the suit and that the 3rd defendant has deserted her husband. Ex.A13
APCH030007702016 21 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 only goes to show that Smt Sarojamma is taking pension and she is still the wife of Narayana Reddy as per the records. In what way this
Ex.A13 is going to help the plaintiffs is not known and mere taking of the pension does not change her marital status that she is the wife of
Narayana Reddy. Ex.A14 as admitted by PW1 is only a Xerox copy.
The marriage photographs of PW1 are also filed as Ex.A15. However, the CD with relevant Section 65 B certificate is not filed and hence cannot be considered. The voter’s list i.e., Ex.A16 reflects the names of the plaintiffs, but it pertains to the year 2024 i.e., subsequent to the suit. PW1 claims that themselves and the defendant Nos.1, 2 were residing with T.Narayana Reddy jointly at Ladigam Village. His version is that the plaint A, B and C schedule properties are the ancestral properties which were managed by T.Narayana Reddy during his life time and with the income derived from the ancestral properties, some of the properties in A, B and C schedule were purchased by
T.Narayana Reddy and were being enjoyed as the joint family properties. The respective shares of T.Narayana Reddy and other parties are put-forth and after the demise of T.Narayana Reddy, his share has devolved up on the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 and
APCH030007702016 22 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
2. It is put-forth that the item Nos.15 and 16 of A schedule belonged to the mother of T.Narayana Reddy and she died long back and her properties were merged with joint family properties of the plaintiffs,
Defendant Nos.1, 2 and T.Narayana Reddy and they were in joint possession. It is reiterated about the possession of B schedule items as put-forth in the plaint, so also ‘C’ schedule and it is contended that the documents executed by Narayana Reddy are pertaining to the undivided joint family properties and hence, are void documents.
Though Sri T.Narayana Reddy has tried to partition the properties during his life time, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not cooperate. A legal notice for partition was issued under Ex.A1, for which, the reply was given putting forth aboutthe gift settlement deeds dt.03.03.2009, 07.04.2010 and 08.06.2016 of T.Narayana Reddy and also about the registered Will dt.27.09.1999 of T.Narayana Reddy. The Will is a created document. So also, the gift deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. The additional chief examination affidavit is filed for the purpose of marking of Ex.A3 to
APCH030007702016 23 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Ex.A11 and another additional chief examination affidavit for marking
Ex.A12 to Ex.A16.
11(a).During the cross-examination, PW1 i.e., the plaintiff No.1 states that one Rangappa is the father of T.Narayana Reddy and he has died before the birth of PW1 and the wife of Rangappa is one
Venkatamma. Apart from T.Narayana Reddy, there was a daughter to the couple by name Gangulamma and she too died on 07-07-2022.
So, she was alive by the date of filing of the suit, but not made as a party to this suit. The fact however remains that the defendant No.4 is the sole legal heir of this Smt Gangulamma and the defendant No.4 claims that all the suit properties are the self acquired properties of
Narayana Reddy.
During his cross-examination, PW1 has deposed that the properties mentioned in Ex.A12 are possessed by Smt T.Venkatamma and that she is the pattadar for these items. Though there is no much clarity, it is seen in this Ex.A12 that the name of the Narayana Reddy is entered for these lands. This Ex.A12 does not reflect the fasli as admitted by PW1 and PW1 could not even give the date of death of
APCH030007702016 24 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Venkatamma and admits that the name of Narayana Reddy is recorded subsequent to the death of Venkatamma.No doubt, as seen from
Ex.A12, some of the lands i.e., Item No.5, item No.11, item No.6 of ‘A’ schedule, survey numbers 36/3C, item No.2, Survey no.46/2, 46/8, 148/1A, item no.3 reflect the name of Smt Venkatamma who is the mother of Narayana Reddy and Gangulamma. But, the extents of several properties seen in Ex.A12 are more and only the lesser extents are claimed in the suit. The stand of the plaintiffs is that the share of this Gangulamma is given already. This Gangulamma left her husband and has reached the house of Narayana Reddy, who is her brother when the defendant No.4 was hardly one year old and started living with Narayana Reddy at his house as can be understood from the material on record. The defendant No.4 is the only child to her mother.
Very significantly, this defendant No.4 is not objecting the manner in which Narayana Reddy has claimed the properties of his mother and bequeathed the properties in favour of the 1st plaintiff and herself and gifted the properties in favour of the defendant No.2. This defendant
No.4 has also not claimed any share in the properties of her
mother against Narayana Reddy. So, it cannot be held that the non-
APCH030007702016 25 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 joinder of Smt Gangulamma to this suit is fatal and as already observed, the properties if any acquired from his mother will not become the ancestral properties of Sri Narayana Reddy.
11(b). According to PW1, T.Narayana Reddy has obtained divorce from the defendant No.3 before elders, but not through court of law, that too in the year 1975. Though he states that he has got the divorce papers and would file them in the court, no such documents are filed. PW1 has deposed that the item No.16 of A schedule was acquired by Rangappa and has pleaded ignorance as to the year of the issuance of the D.K.T. According to him, the item Nos.10, 5 of A schedule were purchased by Rangappa under registered sale deed.
But pleads ignorance about the details of the lands and alienations made by Rangappa and denies that Rangappa did not possess nor has acquired any properties during his life time. He goes to admit that item No.17 of A schedule was purchased by T.Narayana Reddy under original sale deed i.e., Ex.B1, so also item No.7 was purchased by
T.Narayana Reddy under Ex.B2. The Item Nos. 4, 8, 9 were purchased by T.Narayana Reddy under Ex.B3 and some more extents in these survey numbers along with the item No.15 under Ex.B4, item No.12
APCH030007702016 26 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 under Ex.B5, item No.19 under Ex.B6, Item No.18 under Ex.B7, item
Nos.1 and 2 of ‘C’ schedule under Ex.B8, Item Nos.4, 8, 9 and 15 of A schedule (other extents) under Ex.B9. These properties stand exclusively in the name of T.Narayana Reddy and these title deeds does not reflect that the properties are purchased on behalf of the joint family. It is also apt to note here that Ex.A10 1B Namuna (ROR) also does not go to show that the item Nos.1 to 9 shown pertaining to
Laddigam Village are the ancestral properties of Sri Narayana Reddy.
11(c). PW1 admits about the registered gift deeds under Ex.B11 and Ex.B12 pertaining to the specific items. The original pattadar pass books and the title deeds under Ex.B13 to B16 are issued in the name of T.Narayana Reddy for the properties purchased by him. Ex.B17 pass book reflects the name of the defendant No.2 for the gifted items.
Very importantly, this witness admits about Ex.B18 Will executed by
Late T.Narayana Reddy in favour of himself and the defendant No.4 i.e., the wife of defendant No.1, wherein A schedule properties are allotted to this Reddemma, while the B schedule items to him. He admits the signatures of testator and states that he has no enmity with the attestors namely Hanumanthu and Muni Venkatappa and that this
APCH030007702016 27 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Hanumanthu is no more. He also states that he has not obtained any revenue documents in respect of the items of A schedule and did not question the issuance of the revenue records in the names of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 pertaining to A schedule items and has placed no objections before the Municipal authorities questioning the mutation in the name of defendant No.2 in respect of ‘C’ schedule.
They are not paying any taxes for B schedule and ‘C’ schedule properties. He admits that they have not added one Kalakada Chandra
Sekhar Reddy to this suit who is the purchaser of item No.15 of A schedule under registered sale deed dt.08.09.2003 [Ex.B9]. He admits that he is the 1stattestor of this document, where under the item Nos.4, 8 and 9 were sold by T.Narayana Reddy. Having attested the sale
deed executed by his father, how could he again claim the
properties sold under that sale deed as if they are his ancestral
properties remains unanswered. He denies that he does not have any right over the properties except the properties covered under
Ex.B18 and that he is not having possession over the remaining suit items. As far as Ex.A11 is concerned i.e., the marriage photos, they are marked without C.D and without Section 65-B Evidence Act
APCH030007702016 28 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 certificate. These photoes at the best might go to show that
T.Narayana Reddy and the 2nd plaintiff have performed the marriages of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 3. But, whether the 2nd plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the T.Narayana Reddy will not be established by these photographs. There is no valid divorce between the T.Narayana Reddy and defendant No.3 as seen from the material on record.
11(d) . The further cross-examination of PW1 goes to show that though the electricity consumption charges are paid for the relevant service connection numbers as seen from Ex.A3 to Ex.A5, the electricity connections stand in the name of T.Narayana Reddy. It is the stand of the defendants also that the properties exclusively belong to T.Narayana Reddy. In fact, PW2 also admits that the electricity bills reflects the name of Narayana Reddy. Hence, Exs. A3 to A5 are not helpful to the stand of the plaintiffs. In fact, Exs.A3 to A5 relates to the years 2021 and 2022 i.e., subsequent to the suit.
11(e). PW1 admits that the family members’ names are not mentioned in the documents filed by him though he contends that the properties are the joint family properties. He also admits that the
APCH030007702016 29 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 documents stand in the individual name of T.Narayana Reddy and does not contain his description as the Kartha of the joint family.
11(f). Very importantly, the specific admission of PW1 is that they are enjoying the properties as per Ex.B18. This falsifies the entire claim of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties and that some of the items are purchased with the joint family nucleus. Also fasifies that they are undivided properties and that Sri Narayana Reddy has died intestate.
PW1 admits that the house site patta is issued in the name of the defendant No.1 by M.R.O vide Ex.B10. Then why, this item is included in the suit properties remains unexplained.
12.At this juncture, if the evidence of the 3rd plaintiff is perused i.e.,
PW2, she has reiterated the plaint averments in respect of her 1/6th share. She reiterates that her marriage, the marriage of the first plaintiff, so also, the marriage of defendant No.1 were performed by
Narayana Reddy during his life time. During cross-examination, she has pleaded ignorance about the extent of dry and wet lands and claimed that all the plaint schedule properties are purchased by her
APCH030007702016 30 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 family members. She has also failed to give the extents of each item and contended that herself and her brother have instructed to prepare the chief examination affidavits. Her cross-examination, mainly was regarding there being no valid divorce obtained by defendant No.3 from
Narayana Reddy and it is the contention of the defendants that to grab the properties, the version of the divorce is introduced by the plaintiffs.
PW2 too admits about the execution of the registered will under
Ex.B18 by her father in favour of PW1 and the defendant No.4. She
has also identified the signatures of her father in the Will. She
states that after 17 years of the execution of Ex.B18, Sri
T.Narayana Reddy has died. PW2 admits that there is no documentary proof to show that item B and C properties were acquired by her family members. She also admits about the gift settlement deeds in favour of defendant No.2 executed by T.Narayana
Reddy under Ex.B20 and Ex.B12 and she has identified the signatures of her father also. It appears Sri T.Narayana Reddy was sick since one year prior to his death and hence, the last one out of the three
APCH030007702016 31 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 registered gift deeds of Narayana Reddy in favour of the defendant
No.2 contains his Thumb Impressions instead of his signatures and this need not be doubted at all.
12 (a).PW2’s testimony does not throw any light about the plaint schedule properties being the ancestral joint family properties.
13. PW3 is one V.Ramana Reddy who is a 3rd party to the suit. His evidence is that the suit schedule properties are being enjoyed by plaintiffs and defendants jointly and the 2 nd plaintiff is the own elder sister of PW3. He reiterates that Sri T.Narayana Reddy’s first wife
Sarojamma has obtained divorce in the year 1974 by taking permanent alimony and that she is residing separately at Adivinathuni kunta. His version is that the 2nd plaintiff was married to this Narayana Reddy at
Sri Kalyana Venkataramana Swamy Temple,
Punganur in the presence of elders whose names are given by him.
His evidence goes to show that the 2nd plaintiff has brought up the defendant No.1 also since his child hood and he states that some of the properties are the ancestral properties of the joint family, while
APCH030007702016 32 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 some were purchased from out of the joint family funds. This aspect of the marriage of the Narayana Reddy with the 2nd plaintiff would arise for serious discussion only if the plaintiffs would establish that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of Sri Narayana Reddy. If the properties are the self acquired properties of Sri Narayana
Reddy and if has not died intestate, there is no need to discuss about the alleged 2nd marriage of Narayana Reddy with the 2nd plaintiff.
13 (a). PW3 has deposed that “the plaintiff and 1 st defendant
got partitioned the joint family properties orally and enjoying
separately after the death of Narayana Reddy, but not effected the
Registered Partition deed.” This is not the case of the plaintiffs as per their pleadings and surprisingly, this new case is projected through
PW3.
PW3 was cross examined regarding the alleged divorce of the defendant No.3 with Narayana Reddy. Regarding the plaint schedule properties, he states that they are the ancestral properties of the father of Narayana Reddy and that the names of Rangappa and Venkatamma are reflected in RH register. He admits about this T.Narayana Reddy
APCH030007702016 33 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 and his sister Gangulamma during their life time selling away some of the suit properties to Kalakata Chandra Sekhar Reddy under registered sale deed and that the first plaintiff has attested the sale deed. He admits that under Ex.B18 Will, some of the suit schedule properties are bequeathed in favour of the first plaintiff and the defendant No.4. It is mentioned by him that the defendant No.1 has also married another lady by name Jyothamma and is blessed with a son. He denies that all the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of T.Narayana Reddy.
14. PW4 is one V.Krishna Mohan Reddy who is the neighbouring land owner of the suit lands and he worked as the Sarpanch of
Laddigam Grampanchayath. He claims that he knows about the properties succeeded by the parties to the suit through their ancestors and has deposed about the marriage of Sri Narayana Reddy with the 2nd plaintiff. He speaks the version of the panchayath
before the elders in respect of the property disputes between the
plaintiffs and the defendants in the presence of himself, present
Sarpanch and others. He states that the defendant No.2 and her
APCH030007702016 34 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 husband have agreed to pay the value of the gift properties to the plaintiffs as T.Narayana Reddy has executed the gift deeds without the knowledge of the other co-sharers. Later, the defendant No.2 did not pay that amount. This version is not spoken by the plaintiffs i.e.,
PWs.1 and 2 nor by their maternal uncle i.e., the PW3.
14 (a). PW4 at one breath states that the suit properties are being enjoyed by the plaintiffs and defendants with approximate extents, but the properties are joint. Contradictorily, in his chief examination
itself, he states that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 got
partitioned their lands orally and are enjoying them separately. He too states about the first wife of T.Narayana Reddy taking divorce from her husband on 02.03.1974 by taking permanent alimony and thereafter, Narayana Reddy marrying the plaintiff No.2 and this plaintiff No.2 taking care of the defendant No.1 who was aged about one year by then.
14(b). During cross-examination, PW4 states that there is exchange of lands in between himself and Narayana Reddy, but he
APCH030007702016 35 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 could not say the survey numbers of the lands which were exchanged by him. This version if true goes to show that Sri Narayana Reddy
was dealing with the properties individually and has entered into
exchange deeds also. PW4 admits that since the plaintiffs told that their lands are the ancestral properties, he is deposing the same before the court and that he does not know about the revenue records in the name of Rangappa. He claims that he has convened two or more panchayats during the life time of T.Narayana Reddy i.e., 10 years prior to his death and the dispute was settled amicably for paying
Rs.5,00,000/-, but the amount was not actually paid. The plaintiffs have informed about the execution of Will by Narayana Reddy in their favour, but he has not seen the ‘Will’. This witness also admits about the Narayana Reddy and Gangulamma selling land to Chandra Sekhar Reddy during their life time. However, he pleads ignorance about the 1st plaintiff attesting this sale deed. He denies that the defendant No.3 is living as the widow of Narayana
Reddy and pleads ignorance about the survey numbers pertaining to
APCH030007702016 36 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 the lands given to the defendant No.3 for divorce from Narayana
Reddy.
15. PW5 is one Ramanjulu Reddy and he too claims that there was panchayath in the presence of village elders in respect of the disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendants and he reiterates the names of the same persons as mentioned in the chief examination affidavit of
PW4. He has deposed that the dispute was because of the gift deeds executed by Narayana Reddy in favour of the defendant No.2 by excluding the other co-sharers and that this defendant No.2 and her husband have agreed to pay the value of this property to the plaintiffs, but did not pay the same. The chief examination affidavit of PW5 is almost the replica of the chief examination evidence of PW4. He too states that the plaintiff and
the defendant No.1 got partitioned the joint family properties
orally and are enjoying the properties separately after the death
of Narayana Reddy, but there is no registered partition deed.
During cross-examination, the categorical evidence of PW5 is that
the suit schedule properties were acquired by Sri T.Narayana
APCH030007702016 37 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Reddy and he knows about the two or three sale deeds of the properties acquired by T.Narayana Reddy and states that one property was sold to one K.Chandra Sekhar Reddy by Narayana Reddy, who was the head of the family. Sri T.Narayana Reddy himself has purchased the said properties. He admits that some of the properties are acquired by Narayana Reddy and his sister Gangulamma and they were sold out to one K.Chandra Sekhar Reddy. Very importantly, this
witness also admits about the execution of the registered will
deed under Ex.B18 by T.Narayana Reddy on 27.09.1999 and the
properties were bequeathed in favour of the first plaintiff and 4 th
defendant under this Will and that the legatees of the will are in
possession of their respective shares.
PW5’s version is that during the life time of Narayana Reddy, they conducted panchayath and in that panchayath, Narayana Reddy
was supposed to give Rs.5,00,000/- to the 1 st plaintiff in respect of
the properties situated at Punganur. But the decision of the panchayath was not reduced into writing and after six months of the death of the Narayana Reddy also, one panchayath was held. His chief examination affidavit contrarily goes to show that it was the
APCH030007702016 38 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 defendant no.2 and her husband who have agreed to pay the value of the gifted properties to the plaintiffs, but not Narayana Reddy.
16. The synthesis of the above testimonies and the documentary evidence discussed is that this material does not support the stand of the plaintiffs that the properties are the undivided ancestral properties of their joint family and that some of the items were purchased with the joint family funds.
17.This court now proceeds to scrutinize the evidence of the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. The DW1 is none other than the defendant
No.2 and the defendant No.1 has not entered into the witness box at all. It is come on record that he is sick and cannot move. According to DW1, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 are not the legitimate children of
Narayana Reddy and they are the illegitimate children of Narayana
Reddy born through 2nd wife since there is no valid marriage between the Narayana Reddy and the 2nd plaintiff. There is reiteration of the written statement averments in her chief examination affidavit. She banks upon the registered Will under Ex.B18 and the legatees under
Will are the 1st plaintiff and the 4th defendant (i.e., her mother). Sri
APCH030007702016 39 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
T.Narayana Reddy has died on 17.08.2016. According to her, this
Narayana Reddy during his life time has gifted the item No.1 of plaint ‘C’ schedule, likewise item Nos.17, 18 and 19 of A schedule and item
No.2 of ‘C’ schedule under registered gift deeds vide document numbers 740/9, 1135/2010 and 1805/16 in her favour and she has accepted the gift. Since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the properties gifted to her.
Though, some of the bequeathed properties are sold away
by Narayana Reddy, it is need less to state that the same cannot
be questioned and the Will in respect of the alienated properties
would alone become in effective.
17(a) There is mention about the purchase by Narayana Reddy and his sister Gangulamma pertaining to certain items of plaint A schedule property and subsequently, this Narayana Reddy purchasing some more extents in the same items and in item No.15 of plaint A schedule and later both the siblings jointly selling away all these 4, 8, 9 and 15 items of the plaint A schedule to one K.Chandra Sekhar
Reddy under a registered sale deed. DW1 contends that she has
APCH030007702016 40 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 obtained loan by pleading the gift deed and that the suit for partition is not maintainable as it is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties.
This witness has further clarified in her chief examination affidavit that her father is suffering from nervous disability and cannot walk, stand or speak, that the defendant no.4 her mother is confined to domestic activities and the defendant No.3 is confined to bed.
17(b).During cross-examination, from this crucial witness i.e., the
DW1, it is elicited that Sarojamma is residing with them and getting old aged pension, so also that her father is residing with them. She pleads ignorance about the defendant No.3 filing criminal case against the defendant No.1. She has denied about the suit filed against the first plaintiff and Indiramma by them. Very interestingly, there is no pleading regarding this OS No. 235 of 2017 on the file of Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Punganur and in what way that suit is concerned with the present partition suit is not brought on record by the plaintiffs.
She has clarified that her grand-father has executed gift deed for the lands and one house in her favour and has categorically stated that there is no cancellation of Ex.B18 and that the contents are true and
APCH030007702016 41 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 that her grandfather used to cultivate the lands. She has denied that the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 are only the legal heirs of
Narayana Reddy.
It is relevant to state here that the gift deeds in her favour
reflect the recitals that the properties gifted are the self acquired
properties of Narayana Reddy which were in his possession.
18. The evidence of DW2 one Dharmavaram Bhupathi Reddy will be discussed in the context of execution of Will since he is the son of one of the attestors of Ex.B18.
19.In this case, DW3 is the defendant No.4 herself i.e., the wife of the defendant No.1. She is the mother of the defendant No.2 and the daughter in law, so also the neice of Narayana Reddy. She has reiterated the written statement contents in her chief examination affidavit and she is one of the legatees of Ex.B18 Will. DW3 has reiterated that her husband is suffering from nervous disability and her mother in law is confined to bed. During her cross-examination, this witness has stated that she does not know about the total survey numbers. She knows the contents of her written statement, but does
APCH030007702016 42 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 not know about the survey numbers referred in her written statement.
Her cross-examination reveals that this T.Narayana Reddy is her maternal uncle and Gangulamma is her mother and that her mother came to the house of her brother along with her while she was a child.
With the money given by the in laws of Smt Gangulamma, T.Narayana
Reddy has purchased the property in the name of Gangulamma as seen from the version of DW3. DW3 pleads ignorance about the case filed by her mother against first plaintiff and his wife vide OS No.230 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur and that this case was dismissed. Very importantly, it was put to DW1 as if that suit was OS 235 of 2017. The nature of the said case on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur is not put-forth. The house hold card was confronted to her by the plaintiffs themselves which reflects that the Sarojamma (defendant No.3) is the wife of Narayana Reddy. Ex.A14 is only a Xerox copy. DW3 pleads ignorance about the marriages of Manorama and the plaintiff No.1 being performed by Narayana Reddy and Sankaramma. Very importantly, it was put to this witness and she has admitted the same
that the plaint schedule properties are acquired through
APCH030007702016 43 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
agriculture income by them and has denied that plaintiffs have
also contributed for purchasing the plaint schedule properties.
20. For the above discussion, the suit schedule properties are not the ancestral joint family properties of Sri T.Narayana Reddy and the defendants could establish that the properties are the self acquired properties of Sri T.Narayana Reddy. In fact, for the item No.1 of B schedule, there is D.K.T Patta issued under Ex.B10 in the name of the defendant No.1. If the properties are not the ancestral undivided properties of the family of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share. No doubt, Irrespective of the legitimacy of the children, they can inherit their parents’ separate share if the parents die intestate. In this case on hand, the Narayana Reddy can deal with his properties during his life time as per his wish and as observed, only if he dies intestate, then the question would arise as to how his properties are to be divided among his legal heirs. In this case on hand, the defendants have projected the gift deeds and the Will deed of Sri Narayana Reddy. Accordingly, the issue No.1 is held against the plaintiffs for the above discussion made.
APCH030007702016 44 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
21. Issue Nos.(2) and (3):
(2) Whether T.Narayana Reddy during his life time gifted /settled some of his properties to others?
(3) Whether T.Narayana Reddy executed a Will dt.27.09.1999 and bequeathed the properties in the name of 1st plaintiff and 4th defendant?
21(a). Out of the A schedule properties, the item Nos.17 to 19 are purchased by Narayana Reddy under different sale deeds i.e., sale deed bearing No.980/63, 1319/97 and 3410/96 and all these 3 items are gifted to defendant No.2 under gift deed bearing No.1135/2010.
So also, the item Nos.1 and 2 of ‘C’ schedule under two different gift deeds i.e., 740/2009 and 1805/2016. The plaintiffs did not question these gift deeds during the life time of Narayana Reddy as can be seen from the material on record and ‘C’ schedule items are also purchased by Narayana Reddy from one Meharunnissa under one registered sale deed i.e., Ex.B8 7 years before executing the registered gift settlement deed in favour of defendant No.2. The evidence of
PWs.4 and 5 regarding the alleged panchayaths relating to the gift deeds is not trustworthy at all. The defendant No.2 has exhibited the gift deeds and she is in possession and enjoyment of these properties
APCH030007702016 45 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 as can be seen from the testimony of DW1 which is already discussed in detail above. Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 are the sale deeds under which
Narayana Reddy has purchased several items referred in the plaint schedule. The registered sale deed executed by Narayana Reddy and his sister Gangulamma in favour of K.Chandra Sekhar Reddy for the above referred items goes to show that Narayana Reddy has sold away some of the items under Ex.B9 and the first plaintiff has admittedly attested this document. This is a serious setback to the stand of the plaintiffs.
The registered gift settlement deeds Under Exs.B11, B12 and
B20 in favour of the defendant No.2 are sufficiently established and the plaintiffs had the knowledge of the same during the life time of
Narayana Reddy itself if the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 is considered.
The versions regarding the alleged panchayaths are not consistent at all as already pointed out. But by examining the alleged panchayathdars, the plaintiffs have impliedly admitted that they knew about the gift deeds executed in favour of the defendant No.2 during the life time of Narayana Reddy itself and by remaining silent, now they cannot deny the same and contend that they are created documents.
APCH030007702016 46 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
The testimonies of DW1 and the admissions of PWs.1, 2, PW.4 and 5 goes to show that the properties are gifted by Narayana Reddy and the alleged version that the Narayana Reddy himself has accepted in the panchayat that he would pay cash to plaintiff No.1 impliedely supports the stand of the defendant No.2. The gifted properties are mutated in her name and she has accepted the gifts. PW3 has also admitted about the mutation in the name of the DW1. Ex.B7 is the pattadar pass
APCH030007702016 47 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 book in the name of the defendant No.2. Therefore,
Narayana Reddy has gifted his self acquired properties i.e., the above referred properties to the defendant No.2 and has put her in possession of the same during his life time.
22. Out of the suit schedule properties, under this registered ‘Will’ i.e., Ex.B18, the item no.2, item No.5, item No.12, item No.13, Item
No.14 of A schedule and item No.5 of B schedule are bequeathed equally i.e., half share each in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.4.
Item Nos.6, 11 are allotted exclusively to the plaintiff No.1, while item Nos.7, 10 are exclusively allotted to defendant No.4 in this A schedule properties under Ex.B18 ‘Will’.
The fact that Sri Narayana Reddy has given the properties to both the 1st plaintiff and defendant No.4 clearly goes to show that he has divided the properties equally and willfully has not given any share to the defendant No.1 on account of his bad vices. The legal notice and reply notice which were exchanged in between the parties are
APCH030007702016 48 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 exhibited as Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and the same documents are exhibited as
Ex.B21 and Ex.B22.
22(a).Item No.4 is sold away by Narayana Reddy and his sister
Gangulamma. So also, item Nos.8, 9 and 15.
22(b). Adverting to the left over items of the plaint A, B and C
Schedules, the item Nos.1, 3 of A schedule and item No.1 of B schedule are left out now. The item No.1 of B schedule exclusively belong to the defendant No.1 in view of Ex.B10 and the house is constructed by the defendant No.1. There is specific mention in the will that apart from the properties shown in the Will, the legatees of the
Will i.e., Reddemma and Krishna Mohan Reddy shall share his remaining properties also equally. Absolutely, no scrap of paper is filed by the plaintiffs to the effect that item nos.1 and 3 are the ancestral properties of Sri Narayana Reddy. Therefore, as this property stands in the name of Narayana Reddy in the revenue records also (Evidenced by Ex.A10 (1B Namuna) and the Ex.B13 to Ex.B17 i.e., the pattadar pass books and title deeds in the name of T.Narayana
Reddy), if the defendants are able to prove the Will, then these
APCH030007702016 49 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 properties are also to be divided equally among the 1st plaintiff and the 4th defendant.
23. Ex.B18 is the registered will of Sri Narayana Reddy. The properties bequeathed under this Will to the respectavie legatees are detailed above. PW1 admits about the execution of Will and that the legatees are enjoying the properties as per Ex.B18. Importantly, PW2 claims that she knew about the execution of Ex.B18 at the time of execution itself and that Sri T.Narayana Reddy was hale and healthy at that time. She further admits that Ex.B18 was never challenged and she admits that under Ex.B18, T.Narayana Reddy did not bequeath any properties to her and to the 2nd plaintiff. She knows both the attestors of Ex.B18 and admits like that of PW1 that there are no disputes with the attestors. PW3 also admits about the execution of
Will by Sri Narayana Reddy in a hale and healthy state and the gift deeds in favour of the defendant No.2 and mutation in her favour. Even according to PW4, the plaintiffs have informed him about the Will in their favour. PW5 has categorically admitted that the Will was
APCH030007702016 50 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 executed and that the legatees are in possession of their respective shares.
From the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and the Dws. 1, 3 and the admissions of the other witnesses discussed supra, it is amply evident that Sri Narayana Reddy has executed the registered will during his life time which came into force on his death. Coming to the proof of Will as required under sections 68, 69 of the Indian Evidence Act and
Section 63 of the Indian succession Act, to prove the alleged Will as both the attestors have died, the son of one of the attestors is examined as DW2 by the defendants.
24. This DW2 is the son of one of the attestors of D.Munivenkatappa who has died on 01.01.2012. His categorical evidence is that during the life time of his father, his father has signed as the 2nd attestor of the
Will and his father has informed him the same. This Dw2 is the younger brother of the defendant No.3. During his cross examination, he has categorically stated that Ex.B18 Will pertains to the deceased
Narayana Reddy and he has identified his father’s signature in the Will and stated that his father told him about attesting the document.
APCH030007702016 51 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
However, he states that he personally does not know the contents of
Ex.B18. Nothing could be elicited from this witness about the Will being executed by Sri Narayana Reddy in the manner put-forth which is attested by his father, So also by another attestor. Considering the admissions of the plaintiff side witnesses discussed supra, the evidence of DWs.1 to 3, particularly DW2, the execution of the will is sufficiently proved and if this is believed, considering the last lines of the Will, even the item Nos.1 and 3 of A schedule are to be shared by both the legatees equally. There are no suspicious circumstances projected against the Will and the 1st plaintiff is also one of the beneficiaries of the Will.
24 (a).Regarding the attestation of the Will, as both the attestors are no more, the defendants have rightly examined DW2 and his testimony remained unimpeached on record. All the ingredients of Sec.
63(c) of the Indian Succession Act regarding the attestation of Will are complied. The learned counsel for the defendants has submitted the citations reported in 2025 (2) ALT 53 (SC) of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India between Gopal Krishnan and others Vs. Daulat Ram
APCH030007702016 52 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 and others in Civil Appeal No.13192 of 2024, dt. 02.01.2025 and 2024 (2) ALT 82 (SC) of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India between Savitri Bai and another Vs.
SavitriBai in Civil Appeal No.9035 of 2013, dt.29.02.2024regarding the attestation of the Will.
Therefore, for the aforesaid discussion, this court believes the execution of the registered gift deeds and the registered will by Sri
Narayana Reddy. Hence, the issue Nos.2 and 3 are held in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
25. Issue No.4 :
Whether all the plaint schedule properties are available for partition?
In the light of the discussion made supra in issues 1 to 3, none of the plaint schedule properties are available for partition and considering the nature of the properties which are the self-acquired properties of Sri Narayana Reddy and as there is no convincing material brought on record by the plaintiffs regarding the plaint
APCH030007702016 53 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026 schedule properties being their ancestral joint family properties, this issue is held against the plaintiffs.
26. Taking up the citations submitted by the plaintiffs, in this case on hand, it is not established that the particular items were purchased by Sri Narayana Reddy in his name with the aid of the ancestral properties. Therefore, it cannot be said that a particular property subsequently acquired took the character of ancestral property and that the Narayana Reddy cannot deal with such property as if it is his property alone. At the cost of repetition, there is specific mention in the gift deeds referred above that the properties are the self acquired properties of Narayana Reddy i.e., “swayarjitham”. Therefore, the citations relied upon by the plaintiffs i.e., A.I.R. 1958 ALL 42 of the Hon’ble Allahabad
High Court between Mangal Singh Vs. Harkesh and Another dt.31.07.1957 and A.I.R. 1955 MAD 705 of the Hon’ble Madras
High Court between Sivaramakrishnan Vs. KaveriAmmal and Others dt.07.04.1955 are not helpful to them.
26(a). Adverting to the citations of the defendants;
APCH030007702016 54 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
(i). 2022 SAR (Civ) 65 2021 SAR Online (SC) 538 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court between Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh
Van Prabhag Vs. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (D) Thr. LRs. &Ors. In
Civil Appeal No.7017 of 2009, dt.05.10.2021 : This is to the effect that mere entries in the revenue records without supporting documents will not confer any right in the lands.
(ii) 2024(2) ALT 768 (TS) of the Hon’ble High Court of the
State of Telanga at Hyderabad between G.Siva Sankar Reddy and
Others Vs. State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue,
Hyderabad and another : This case relates to Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act – 1999 and not useful to the present case on hand.
(iii) The plaintiffs have to establish their case and cannot depend on the weaknesses in the case of the defendants. Also it is reiterated in many cases by the Hon’le Apex court also that the entries in the revenue records do not confer any valid title over the immovable properties and already, this court has made observation to this effect while discussing the revenue records. The learned counsel for the defendants has rightly relied on 2024 (5) ALT 102 (TS) of the Hon’ble
High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
between D.Narayana Reddy Vs. BandiBikshapathi and others in
APCH030007702016 55 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
I.A.No.4 of 2022 in A.S.No.301 of 2020, dt.19.07.2024 for these prepositions and has also submitted the citation reported in 2022 (2) ALT 10 (SC) of our Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India between Shenbagam and others Vs. K.K.Rathinavel
in Civil Appeal No.150 of 2022, dt.20.01.2022.
(iv) Regarding the non impleading of the co-parceners in a partition suit, no doubt, the partition suit would not be maintainable for the non joinder of necessary parties and in this case,
Smt. Gangulamma who is the sister of Narayana Reddy is not impleaded as a party. Already this aspect is discussed. The reliance is placed on the citation reported in 2012 (1) ALT 356 of the Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad between
AvulaJayarami Reddy Vs. Yerrabothula Nagarathnamma in
Second Appeal No.62 of 2004, dt.28.07.2011 by the defendants about the non joinder of necessary parties.
Also, to this effect, the learned counsel for the defendants has relied upon 2022 (6) ALT 103 (AP) of the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi between S.Varalakshmi
APCH030007702016 56 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
L.Varalakshmi Vs. M.Dilli Bai and another in Civil Revision
Petition No.139 of 2015, dt.18.08.2022.
27. Issue No.5 :
Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is correct?
It is seen that by claiming joint possession, the plaintiffs paid a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- U/Sec. 34(2) of APCF Act. But the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the properties are the ancestral joint family properties and their joint possession cannot be inferred. No scrap of paper is filed reflecting their joint possession. The plaintiffs are not in joint possession and hence, liable to pay court fee U/Sec. 34(1) of
APCF Act. Accordingly, this point is held in favour of the defendants.
28. Additional Issue No.1 dt. 04.04.2023:
Whether the boundaries in respect of item No.1 and 2 of the C-
Schedule properties are correct?
There is no specific material placed by the defendants in respect of this contention pertaining to the boundaries of C-Schedule. But the
C-Schedule items 1 and 2 are gifted in favour of the defendant No.2 by
APCH030007702016 57 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Sri Narayana Reddy on 02.03.2009 and 08.06.2016 respectively under registered gift deeds.
There is no variation in the boundaries of item No.2 of the C-
Schedule from that of the boundaries shown in Ex.B11 gift deed. Also, the boundaries of item No.1 of C-Schedule tally with the boundaries shown in Ex.B20 gift deed. The amendments made pertaining to C-
Schedule vide IA No.559/2022 dt.28.01.2023 goes back to the date of the suit and hence, it has to be held that the boundaries shown are correct.
29. Issue No.6 :
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule properties? If entitled, what are their respective shares?
The plaintiffs are not entitled for the partition of the plaint schedule properties as prayed for in view of the detailed discussion supra. Hence, this issue is held against the plaintiffs and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
APCH030007702016 58 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
APCH030007702016 59 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
30. Issue No.7 :
To What relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs shall pay the court fee U/Sec. 34(1) of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of May, 2026.
VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined on behalf of
Plaintiffs Defendants
PW1:Sri T.Krishnamohana ReddyDW1 : Ms.T.Anusha
PW2: SmtV.Manorama DW2 : Sri D.Bhupathi Reddy
PW3: Sri V.V.Ramana Reddy DW3 : Sri T.Reddemma
PW4: Sri V.Krishna Mohan Reddy
PW5: Sri G.Ramanjulu Reddy
Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiff:
APCH030007702016 60 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Ex.A1 : Office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiffs to the defendants
No.1 and 2 dt.23.09.2016.
Ex.A2: Reply notice got issued by the defendants No.1 and 2 dt.14.10.2016.
Ex.A3: Electricity payment receipt of service 5234108000179 in the name of T.Narayana.
Ex.A4: Electricity payment receipt of service 5234108000720 in the name of T.Narayana.
Ex.A5 : Electricity demand notice in the name of Narayana Reddy.
Ex.A6: House attached with bore-well for service No.5234108000566 and bore well 5234108000331 in the name of NarayanaReddy.
Ex.A7 : Certified copy of Registered sale deed, dt.07.12.2002 executed by Meharunnissa in favour of Narayana Reddy.
Ex.A8 : Certified copy of gift settlement deed dt.07.04.2010 executed byT.Narayana in favour of Anusha.
Ex.A9 :Aadhar card of 2nd plaintiff.
Ex.A10: Copy of 1-B Namoona dt.20.01.2022 issued by MRO
Chowdapalle reflecting the name of Narayana Reddy.
Ex.A11: Marriage photos without CD (marked to subject to objection as without CD.)
APCH030007702016 61 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Ex.A12: 1-B Nakalu of Laddigam Village issued by deputy Tahsildar,
APCH030007702016 62 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Chowdepalle obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.A13: Information given by the Panchayath Secretary dt.03.12.2024 vide ROC No.2/2024 under Right to Information Act.
Ex.A14: Ration card of one Dharmavaram Sarojamma.
Ex.A15: 12 marriage photos along with one CD (Section 65-B
Certificate is not produced and hence marked subject to objection.)
Ex.A16: Voter’s list of Laddigam-I Gram Panchayath.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendants:
Ex.B1:Original registered sale deed executed by Varidireddigari
Venkata Reddy and Chenga Reddy in favour of T.Narayana vide document No.980/1963 dt.24.04.1963.
Ex.B2: Original registered sale deed executed by M.Narayana
Reddyin favour of T.Narayana vide document No.1258/1970 dt.24.04.1970.
Ex.B3: Registered sale deed executed by M.Rami Reddy in favour of
T.Narayana, Son of Rangappa and P.Gangulammavide document
No.1740/1976.
Ex.B4: Registered sale deed executed by MaareddyGangi Reddy in favour of T.Narayana vide document No.552/1978 dt.14.03.1978.
APCH030007702016 63 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Ex.B5:Original registered sale deed executed by Peddakkagari Rami
Reddy, son of Agastha Reddy in favour of T.Narayana Son of
Rangappa vide document No.536/1998.
Ex.B6: Original Registered sale deed executed by G.Ram Krishna
Reddy and another in favour of T.Narayana vide document
No.3410/1996 dt.26.12.1996.
Ex.B7: Original Registered sale deed executed by T.Rama Chandra
Reddy and another in favour of T.Narayana vide document
No.1319/1997 dt.14.05.1997.
Ex.B8: The registered sale deed executed by Meherunnissa, wife of
Shaik Ibrahim Saheb in favour of T.Narayana, Son of T.Rangappa vide document No.3242/2002 dt.07.12.2002. (Ex.A7)
Ex.B9:The registered sale deed executed by T.Narayana and
P.Gangulamma in favour of Kalakata Chandra Sekhar Reddy Son of
K.Krishna Reddy vide document No.2232/2003 in respect of item
Nos.4, 8, 9 and 15 of A schedule properties.
Ex.B10: The house site patta standing in the name of the 1stdefendant namely T.Krishna Reddy, Son of Late T.Narayana Reddy vide pattaNo.V.H.S. 478/1406 dt.30.08.1996.
Ex.B11:The registered gift deed executed by T.Narayana Reddy in favourof the 2nd defendant namely T.Anusha, wife of Hareesh vide document No.1805/2016 08.06.2016.
APCH030007702016 64 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Ex.B12: Original registered gift settlement deed executed by
T.Narayana, Son of Rangappa in favour of T.Anusha, wife of Harish vide document No.1135/2010 dt.07.04.2010 (Ex.A8)
Ex.B13: Original Pattadar Pass book standing in the name of
T.Narayana Son of T.Rangappa issued by the Tahsildar, Chowdepalle vide patta No.92.
Ex.B14: Original Title deed standing in the name of T.Narayana, Son of T.Rangappa issued by Tahsildar Chowdepallevide patta No.92.
Ex.B15: Original pattadar pass book standing in the name of
T.Narayana, Son of T.Rangappa issued by Tahsildar, Punganur vide patta No.87.
Ex.B16: Original Title deed standing in the name of T.Narayana, Son of T.Rangappa issued by the Tahsildar, Punganur videpatta No.87.
Ex.B17: Pattadar pass book standing in the name of 2nd defendant namely T.Anusha, wife of Hareesh.
Ex.B18: The registered Will deed executed by T.Narayana in favourof
T.Reddemma (D4) and Krishna Mohan Reddy vide document dt.27.09.1999.
Ex.B19 :Death certificate of T.Narayana Reddy, issued by the panchayath Secretary Pudipatla of ChowdepalleMandal.
Ex.B20 : Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed, dt.02.03.2009 vide document No.740/09
APCH030007702016 65 O.S.No.2 of 2017 dt.08.05.2026
Ex.B.21 Legal notice dt.23.09.2016 issued by the plaintiffs through
SriM.S.Harinatha Reddy, advocate, punganur to defendants No.1 and
2. (Ex.A1)
Ex.B22: Reply notice sent by the defendants No.1 and 2 through their counsel to the plaintiffs’ counsel.(office copy) (Ex.A2)
VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.