O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
APSR010001522015
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,(SENIOR
DIVISION) SRIKAKULAM
Present: Smt.R.Shanthi Sree,
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Srikakulam
Tuesday this the 9 th day of December, 2025
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 82 of 2015
BETWEEN:
Velamala Paparao, S/o Chinnappayya, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, resident of Door No.3-64, Bairivanipeta village, Sathivada Post, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District.
… Plaintiff.
AND:
1.Tandyala Rajarao, S/o late Yerriah, aged about 58 years, Cultivation, resident of Door No.3-64, Bairivanipeta village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District.
2.Tandyala Narayanamma w/o late Mallesu, aged about 61 years, (Since Died),
3.Tandyala Laxmana Rao, S/o late Mallesu, aged about 65 years, resident of Door No.3-64, Bairivanipeta village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District.
4.Tandyala Ramesh, S/o late Mallesu, aged about 40 years, resident of Door No.3-64, Bairivanipeta village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District.
5.Tandyala Govindamma, W/o Ramu, aged about 38 years, resident of Door No.3-64, Bairivanipeta village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District.
… Defendants.
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
This suit is coming on 02.12.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.C.Rama Mohan, Smt.P.Ramanamma, Advocates for the Plaintiff and Sri P.Siva Prasad advocate for Defendant No.1, and D2 reported died and Sri G.Janardhana Rao advocatefor D3 to D5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff praying the court for grant of a decree for division of plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares with metes and bounds by way of partition and to deliver of one such share out of 3 shares to the plaintiff by ejecting the defendants therefrom and by converting the joint possession into separate possession and with subsequent mesne profits and with costs.
2.The averments of plaint in brief are as follows:-
The suit schedule property is joint property of himself and 1st defendant and late Musalayya. Their joint property covered under registered sale deed,
dt:28.02.1990 by investing equal amounts. The suit schedule property is covered
by registered sale deed, dt:28.02.1990 since the date of the said registered sale deed himself, 1st defendant and Musalayya who are close relatives have been in joint right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. While so,
Musalayya died leaving his legal heirs who are 2nd defendant/wife of deceased
Musalayya and 3rd to 5th defendants as his children. Therefore, himself and all the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Hence, he prayed the court that he is liable for share in the joint property.
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
3.The averments in Written statement in brief are as follows:
The 3rd defendant filed written statement and defendants 1,2,4,5 have adopted the same. The 3rd defendant denied all the contents of the petition and further contended that the defendants are relatives to the plaintiff. 1st defendant as well as the husband of the 2nd defendant and father of other defendants jointly purchased the plaint schedule property in their name as well as in the name of the plaintiff, plaintiff was included in the sale deed, as he is none otherthan the 1st defendant’s father’s nephew i.e, son of Yerrayya’s sister by name Velamala
Neelamma W/o Appayya. The plaintiff after the death of his mother came to the house of the 1st defendant’s father and grew up by them. Considering his position as dependant, the 1st defendant and his junior paternal uncle had included the name of the plaintiff in the sale deed. In fact there is no investment by the plaintiff for purchase of the schedule property.
From the date of purchase of schedule property the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and the name of the plaintiff in the sale deed was nominal, the same was never acted upon. On 06.10.1990 the plaintiff executed a document in favour the 1st defendant and the husband of 2nd defendant and got oral partition, the suit schedule properly into two equal shares. Thereupon the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books and title deed in the year 1992-93 and they have been enjoying the schedule property with absolute rights to the exclusion of the plaintiff as outsiders without any interruption from anybody including the plaintiff since last more than two
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
decades. It is clear that the plaintiff has no right, title over the schedule property and that his right if any is extinguish since the date of purchase itself. Defendants have perfected their title to the schedule property by adverse possession. The plaint schedule property is absolute property of the defendant and plaintiff has no right over the same. The value of the suit is not correct and the claim is barred by limitation. The suit is devoid appearance and liable to be dismissed.
Infact, the suit is foisted for the reasons that when defendants demanded the plaintiff for vacating the property which were given to him on license to cultivate and pay the license fee in respect of the property covered by
Sy.No.113/4, and 114/1 of Tulugu Revenue village of Gara Mandal. As well as
Sy.No.94, 64 of Nizamabad village of Gara Mandal. For which the plaintiff agreed and promised to vacate those properties before elders. But the plaintiff created some documents by misrepresenting the facts taking advantage of innocence and illiteracy of these defendants and filed this suit in order to cause loss and damage to the defendants and to have unlawful gain.
4.On perusal of the plaint and written statement the following issues were settled.
1. Whether the plaint schedule property is joint property of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and one Thandyala Late Mallesu?
2. whether plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of partition of plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of 1/3rd share to the plaintiff with separate possession by ejecting defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits?
4. To what relief?
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
5.During the course of trial the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1, and got marked Ex.A1 and to support his version he got examined one more witness on his behalf i.e, PW2. On the other hand, 1st defendant eschewed his evidence on 13.10.2022. 3rd defendant got examined as DW.2 and to support his version he got examined three witnesses i.e., DW3 to DW5 and got marked Ex.B1 to B3 to support their version.
6.Heard on both sides :
7.Issue No.1,2,3
As all issues are interlinked with one another and they are discussed jointly.
8.The case of the plaintiff is that :-
The suit schedule property is joint property of plaintiff and 1st defendant and late Musalayya. Their joint property covered under registered sale deed,
dt:28.02.1990 by investing equal amounts. The suit schedule property is covered
by registered sale deed, dt:28.02.1990 since the date of the said registered sale deed, himself, 1st defendant and Musalayya who are close relatives have been in joint right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. While so,
Musalayya died leaving behind his legal heirs who are 2nd defendant/wife of deceased Musalayya and 3rd to 5th defendants are his children. Therefore, himself and all the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Hence, he prayed the court that he is liable for share in the joint property.
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
9.The case of the defendants is that :-
The 3rd defendant filed written statement and defendants 1,2,4,5 have adopted the same. The 3rd defendant denied all the contents of the petition and further contended that the defendants are relatives to the plaintiff. 1st defendant as well as the husband of the 2nd defendant and father of other defendants jointly purchased the plaint schedule property in their name as well as in the name of the plaintiff, plaintiff’s name was included in the sale deed, as he is none other than the 1st defendant’s father’s nephew i.e, son of Yerrayya’s sister by name
Velamala Neelamma W/o Appayya. The plaintiff after the death of his mother came to the house of the 1st defendant’s father and grew up by them.
Considering his position, the 1st defendant and his junior paternal uncle had included the name of the plaintiff in the sale deed. In fact there is no investment by the plaintiff for purchase of the plaint schedule property.
From the date of purchase of schedule property the defendant has been in a possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and the name of the plaintiff in the sale deed was nominal, the same was never acted upon. On 06.10.1990 the plaintiff executed a document in favour the 1st defendant and the husband of 2nd defendant and got oral partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares. Thereupon the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books and title deed in the year 1992-93 and they have been enjoying the schedule property with absolute rights to the exclusion of the plaintiff as outsider without any interruption from anybody including the plaintiff since last more than
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
two decades. It is clear that the plaintiff has no right, title over the schedule property and that his right if any is extinguish since the date of purchase itself.
Defendants have perfected their title to the schedule property by adverse possession. The plaint schedule property is absolute property of the defendant and plaintiff has no right over the same. The value of the suit is not correct and the claim is barred by limitation. The suit is devoid appearance and liable to be dismissed.
Infact, the suit is foisted for the reasons that when defendants demanded the plaintiff for vacating the property which were given to him on license to cultivate and pay the license fee in respect of the property covered by
Sy.No.113/4, and 114/1 of Tulugu Revenue village of Gara Mandal. As well as
Sy.No.94, 64 of Nizamabad village of Gara Mandal. For which the plaintiff agreed and promised to vacate those properties before elders. But the plaintiff created some documents by misrepresenting the facts taking advantage of innocence and illiteracy of these defendants and filed this suit in order to cause loss and damage to the defendants and to have unlawful gain.
10.Prior to discussion regarding the issues it is pertinent to mentioned some of the important points related to the plaint schedule property. The present suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the property was purchased by three members of their family and later, as the other two members has not giving share in the
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
purchased property. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recover of his share, in the plaint schedule property .
11.To support the case of the plaintiff he got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1/Original sale deed, dt:28.02.1990, doc No.395/90. He stated in his evidence that the plaint schedule property is joint property of himself, 1st defendant and late Mallesu, who jointly purchased the property covered by the sale deed, dt:28.02.1990. Since the date of the said sale deed, the plaintiff, 1st defendant and the Mallesu being close relatives have been in joint right, title and possession of the plaint schedule property. Later, Mallesu died in 2010 leaving behind his legal representatives who are defendants 2 to 5. After the death of said mallesu, defendants 2 to 5 succeeded the suit schedule property by virtue of said registered sale deed, dt:28.02.1990. Thereafter, plaintiff and all the defendants are in joint possession and enjoying over the plaint schedule property as joint owners having joint right and title and possession over the plaint schedule property to it. While so, the defendants used to secure the income derived from the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that in the month of August, 2014, the plaintiff orally demanded the defendant No.1, for division of the suit schedule property and delivery of the possession one share in the plaint schedule property to him. While the defendant admitted the same they postponed the same with some pretext or the other. Hence, he filed the present suit for partition of plaint schedule property into three equal shares and one such
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
share to the plaintiff and one such share to 1st defendant and one such shares to the defendants 2 to 5 which are the legal representatives of the late Mallesu.
12.To support his version, he got examined one more witness on his behalf as
PW2 who is the 3rd party to the suit. He reiterated the contents of plaint and further stated that he is one of the elders while the plaintiff demanded the defendants for partition of suit schedule property into three equal shares.
Wherein, the defendants admitted for division of the suit schedule property and delivery of his legitimate share of property but postponed the same.
13.Now coming to the evidence of defendants, 3rd defendant got examined himself as DW2. He denied all the contents of plaint and further contended that the defendants are relatives to plaintiff. Though, himself and husband of the 2nd defendant and father of other defendants have jointly purchased the said property in their name as well as the name of plaintiff. Plaintiff was included in the sale deed, as he is relative to them. It is mentioned that the plaintiff after death of his mother came to their house and grew up by them. Considering his position defendants have included the name of the plaintiff in the sale deed.
Even though, there is no investment by the plaintiff while purchasing the plaint of schedule property. It is further submitted that the plaintiff name is nominal and since the date of purchase the defendants are only in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. On 06.10.1990, the plaintiff executed a document in favor of his father and 1st defendant relinquishing his right over the suit schedule property with absolute right to the exclusion of plaintiff. Since last
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
more than two decades, the defendants are enjoying the plaint schedule property and plaintiff is not having any right. Due to which his right is extinguish now.
DW2 contended that this case is foisted for the reasons that when the defendants demanded the plaintiff for vacating the property which were given to him on license to cultivate and pay the license fee in respect of property is covered by Sy.No.114/1 Gara Mandal and Sy.No.174/4 of Voppangi village as well as Sy.No.95/5, 64/4 of Nizamabad village. For which the plaintiff agreed and promised to vacate the said lands and filed false case against the defendants taking advantage of innocence and illiteracy of the defendants.
14.To support the version of the defendants, defendants got examined 1st defendant as DW3 he also stated the same as in the written statement, denying all the contents of the plaint and prayed the court to dismiss the suit. The defendants got examined DW4, he is 3rd party to the suit and he stated that plaint schedule property was jointly purchased by the 1st defendant as well as husband of the 2nd defendant and father of the other defendants. The plaintiff was also included in the sale deed as he is son of Yerrayya’s sister even though no consideration was paid by the plaintiff. He also further stated that on 06.10.1990 the plaintiff has relinquished his right over the plaint schedule property and he signed on the Ex.B3 as one of the attestors and prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
15.To support the version of the defendants the defendant got examined one more witness as DW5 who is 3rd party to the suit. he stated that plaint schedule
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
property was jointly purchased by the 1st defendant as well as husband of the 2nd defendant and father of the other defendants. The plaintiff was also included in the sale deed as he is son of Yerrayya’s sister even though no consideration was paid by the plaintiff. He also further stated that on 06.10.1990 the plaintiff has relinquished his right over the plaint schedule property.
16.Now coming to the evidence of both parties the main contentions of the plaintiff is that he filed the suit for share in the plaint schedule property by dividing the plaint schedule property into three equal shares. The contentions of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property is joint property of plaintiff, 1st defendant and late Musalayya. Who jointly purchased the property under registered sale deed, dt:28.02.1990. Musalayya died leaving behind his legal heirs, the 2nd defendant to 5th defendant. He contended that by using the proceeds of the plaint schedule property a dry land was purchased from
Venkatarajeswara Rao and others. In the month of August 2014, he orally demanded for his legitimate share in the property but they did not give his share by postponing on one pretext or other.
17.On the other hand, the defendants contended that even though the name of the plaintiff was included in the sale deed he has not contributed any amount for purchase of the plaint schedule property. Subsequently, on 06.10.1990 the plaintiff executed a document in favor of the 1st defendant and husband of the 2nd defendant relinquishing his right over the schedule property. . The plaintiff has executed a relinquishment deed in favor of the defendants contending that he
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
relinquished his right over the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, that the 1st defendant and the husband of the 2nd defendant orally partitioned the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and got mutated the property in their names. Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued for the said property in the name of 1st defendant and husband of 2nd defendant. Since then the defendants are only in possession, and enjoyment and having title and right over the plaint schedule property and so the plaintiff is not having any right to claim title over the plaint schedule property.
18.To support the case of the plaintiff, he filed chief affidavit and got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 which is registered sale deed,
dt:28.02.1990 where in it is mentioned in the said registered sale deed, the plaint
schedule property was purchased by 1st defendant, husband of the 2nd defendant and plaintiff. He further contended that he is having share in the plaint schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed. Ex.A1 and as he was not given share in the plaint schedule property, he filed the present suit.
19.To support his evidence, plaintiff got examined another witness who is 3rd party to the suit as PW2. Who also contended that the plaint schedule property sale deed was executed in favor of the plaintiff, 1st defendant and husband of 2nd defendant. PW2 stated that plaintiff asked for share in the plaint schedule property. The defendant agreed to give share in plant schedule property to plaintiff in his presence and later postponed on one pretext or the other.
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
20.On perusal of contents of written statement filed by the defendants, the defendants themselves mentioned that the plaintiff’s name was also included in the registered sale deed as he is their family member. And they contended that the plaintiff has not paid any consideration for the said sale deed. He was nominally added in the registered sale deed.
21.If really the plaintiff is added nominally to the sale deed, it is the burden on the defendants to prove the said point. That no consideration was passed under the sale deed by the plaintiff and that he has no right over the said property even though plaintiff ‘s name was included in the registered sale deed. On reading the contents in registered sale deed Ex.A1 no whisper regarding the nominally mention of the plaintiff ‘s name in the Ex.A1.
22.Now coming to the evidence of the defendants, the defendant got examined 4 witnesses on their behalf and they got marked ExB1 to B3. Which are Ex.B1 is the registered sale deed, dt:28.02.1990. Ex.B2 is pattadar pass book and title deed, Ex.B3 is unregistered relinquishment deed, dt:06.10.1990.
23.The defendants in their evidence, formally contended that plaintiff has not paid any consideration and hence, he has no right over the plaint schedule property and the name of plaintiff was nominally mentioned in the Ex.A1, but he has no right over the plaint schedule property.
24.Another important point mentioned by the defendants is that plaintiff execute a relinquishment deed in favour of the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant’s husband and father of defendants 3 to 5. They filed unregistered relinquishment
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
deed which is marked Ex.B3 to support their version. Any relinquishment deed is a compulsorily registrable document.
25.The contentions of the defendant is that as the plaintiff executed the relinquishment deed, Dt:06.10.1990 which is marked Ex.B3 the plaintiff right over the plaint schedule property is relinquished and so he has no right over the said property and so he has no right to file the present suit.
26.On the other hand, the plaintiff contended that Ex.B3 is created for the purpose of the suit by the defendants to escape their liability to given share to the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property.
The defendant did not choose to prove that the Ex.B3 is not created document and it is executed by the plaintiff himself relinquishing his right over the plaint schedule property .
27.Another important point to be mentioned is that as registered sale deed is a registered document. The defendant for the reasons best known to the defendants did not mentioned why the relinquishment deed was not registered as every relinquishment deed is a compulsorily registerable document.
28.Now coming to the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 even though defendant choose to cross examined PW1 and PW2. In cross examination of the plaintiff/PW1 or in cross examination of PW2 nothing was impeached from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the plaintiff has executed a relinquishment deed.
From the beginning the plaintiff contended that the said relinquishment deed/Ex.B3 is an fabricated document by the defendants to escape their liability
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
to give share to the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. This show that the
Ex.B3 is no way useful to the defendant is to prove their case.
29.Another contention raised by the defendant is that the government issued pattadar passbooks and titled deeds in favor of 1st defendant and husband of 2nd defendant since then they are cultivating the plaint schedule property with absolute right since 1990. The plaintiffs contention is that their names were mutated in the pattadar pass books and title deeds was unaware to him . He came to know about it when he asked for his share in the plaint schedule property. He further contended that mere mutating the properties in defendants names without including his name when his name is in registered sale deed the said pattadar pass books and title deeds are not have any santity. He further contended that it was done against to his concern.
The contentions of the plaintiff is that pattadar pass book and title deeds were wrongly obtained by the defendants without his consent he also applied for cancellation of the title deeds and pattadar passbooks as they are obtained without his concern.
Now coming to the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 by the defendant counsel. In this connection, inspite of cross examination of PW1 and PW2 by learned counsel for the defendants nothing was impeached from the evidence of
PW1 and PW2 that Ex.B2 pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued with his knowledge .
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
30.On perusal of the discussions made supra, the defendants could not prove the relinquishment deed as the plaintiff contended that it is a fabricated document for the purpose of escaping the defendants liability to give share to the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. The defendants themselves admitted that in the registered sale deed, the name of the plaintiff was included by them.
31.When the plaintiff has proved the execution of sale deed and also the transaction of registered sale deed, now it is the burden of the defendants to prove regarding the un-registered relinquishment deed which is marked as
EX.B3. Actually any relinquishment deed is compulsorily registerable document.
But on perusal of the record, Ex.B3 it is not registered document. On the other hand, the plaintiff contended that the said document is fabricate document for the purpose of this suit. Now the burden is on the defendants to prove their case that the plaintiff is not having any share over the plaint schedule property. In cross examination of PW1 and 2 nothing was impeached and the defendants could not place any evidence on their behalf to prove their case. Even though they filed relinquished deed, it is an unregistered document and it cannot be considered as it is a compulsorily registerable document. Hence, the said document cannot be taken into consideration. When the plaintiff denied the execution of said document. The defendants contended that their names were mutated in the record, that they are the owners of plaint schedule property and they are cultivating the same. Defendants contended that the plaintiff was silent about, when their names were included in the revenue records. And now the plaintiff is
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
opposing their right over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff contended that immediately on knowing that the names of the defendants were included in the revenue record, he then approached the revenue authorities and filed an application to change the revenue records as he is also having the share in the property.
32.The plaintiff contended that he is also having right over the plaint schedule property along with the 1st defendant and the husband of 2nd defendant and he has proved the same, by way of filing registered sale deed, Ex.A1 wherein the document it clearly goes to show that he is also one of the purchaser of the plaint schedule property. The defendants have not taken any plea that the said document is not correct. They also admitted the document. They only contended that plaintiff has not paid any consideration and his name is nominal added in to the document. The same should be proved by the defendants. On perusal of
Ex.A1 registered sale deed nothing of such kind is mentioned in the sale deed that the plaintiff name is nominally added. So the defendants inspite of cross examination and oral and documentary evidence placed by the defendants. they have failed to prove their case.
33. Hence, for herein above discussions made supra, the plaintiff has successfully prove his case and the defendants have failed to prove their contentions. Hence, in these circumstances. The above mentioned issue
Nos.1,2,3 are answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
34.In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed by dividing plaint
schedule property into three equal shares with metes and bounds for
delivery of one such share out of three shares to the plaintiff. No order as
to costs.
Typed to my dictation directly on computer to the Stenographer G-II,
pronounced by me in the open court on this 9th day of December, 2025.
Sd/-Smt.R.Shanthi Sree
Addl Civil Judge(Senior Division), Srikaulam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: P.W.1: Velamala PaparaoD.W.1: T.Raja Rao(eschewed P.W.2: P.Buddayya, on 13-10-2022), D.W.2:T.Laxmana Rao, D.W.3: T.Raja Rao, D.W.4: Goru Suryanarayana, DW5:Kala Latchumu.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
ExA1 : Original registered Sale deed, dt:28.02.1990 doc.bearing No.395/90.
FOR DEFENDANT:
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
Ex.B1: Original registered Sale deed, dt:28.02.1990 doc.bearing No.395/90. Executed by Venkata Varada Rajeswar rao and four others in favour of 1st defendant and Mallesu and plaintiff.
Ex.B2: Original Pattadar title deed issued by MRO, Gara Mandal in respect of patta No.180.
Ex.B3 : Unregistered relinquishment deed, dt:06.10.1990 executed by plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant and Mallesu(Ex.B2 is impounded by collection of stamp duty deficit penalty by DRO, Srikakulam vide orders in IA 120/23, dt:14.07.2023)
Sd/-Smt.R.Shanthi Sree
Addl Civil Judge(Senior Division), Srikaulam.
//True copy//
Addl Civil Judge(Senior Division), Srikaulam.
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
. Date of Presentation:15.12.2014 Date of Filing:04.03.2015
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,(SENIOR
DIVISION) SRIKAKULAM
Present: Smt.R.Shanthi Sree,
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Srikakulam
Tuesday this the 9 th day of December, 2025
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 82 of 2015
BETWEEN:
Velamala Paparao, S/o Chinnappayya, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, resident of Door No.3-64, Bairivanipeta village, Sathivada Post, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District.
… Plaintiff.
AND:
1.Tandyala Rajarao, S/o late Yerriah, aged about 58 years, Cultivation, resident of Door No.3-64, Bairivanipeta village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District.
2.Tandyala Narayanamma w/o late Mallesu, aged about 61 years, (Since Died),
3.Tandyala Laxmana Rao, S/o late Mallesu, aged about 65 years, resident of Door No.3-64, Bairivanipeta village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District.
4.Tandyala Ramesh, S/o late Mallesu, aged about 40 years, resident of Door No.3-64, Bairivanipeta village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District.
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
5.Tandyala Govindamma, W/o Ramu, aged about 38 years, resident of Door No.3-64, Bairivanipeta village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District.
… Defendant. The suit is filed by the plaintiff praying the court for grant of a decree for division of plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares with metes and bounds by way of partition and to deliver of one such share out of 3 shares to the plaintiff by ejecting the defendants therefrom and by converting the joint possession into separate possession and with subsequent mesne profits and with costs.
The value of the suit for the purpose jurisdiction and payment of court fee as follows:-
The market value of the suit schedule property is Rs.8,00,000/- as at the rate Rs.2,00,000/-per Ac.1.0cents for an extent Ac.4.00cents=4x2,00,000/- =Rs.8,00,000/-. The plaintiff 1/3rd share market value is =8,00,000x1/3rd =2,66,500/- which is value for jurisdiction 3/4th share is Rs.2,66,550/-x3/4th =Rs.1,99,912/-. Which is the value for payment of court fee on and joint possession over the suit schedule property, Hence a diced court fee of Rs.200/- is paid U/s.34 (2) of A.P.S.V.Act 1956 for the relief of the partition by way court of law. This suit is coming on 02.12.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.C.Rama Mohan, Smt.P.Ramanamma, Advocates for the Plaintiff and Sri P.Siva Prasad advocate for Defendant No.1, and D2 reported died and Sri G.Janardhana Rao advocatefor D3 to D5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court , doth order and decree as follows:-
D E C R E E
i) that the suit be and the same is hereby preliminary decreed by dividing plaint schedule property into three equal shares with metes and bounds for delivery of one such share out of three shares to the plaintiff. ; and ii) that there be No order as to costs.
( copy of plaint schedule is herewith attached to the decree)
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 9th day of
December, 2025.
Addl Civil Judge(Senior Division),Srikakulam.
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendants:
C.F. on plaint: Rs. 200-00 C.F. on plaint: Rs. 200-00 Stamp on Vakalat Rs. 3-00 Stamp on Vakalat Rs. 3-00 Stamp on process: Rs. 100-00 Typing charges: Rs. 300-00 Typing charges: Rs.100-00 Sr. Advocate fee: Rs.20,000-00 Sr. Advocate fee: Rs. 20,000-00 claimed) Jr.Advocate fee: Rs. 6,666-00 Jr.Advocate fee: Rs. 6,666-00
------------------ --------------------
Costs incurred: Rs. 20,603-00 Costs certified: Rs. 26,969.00
------------------ --------------------
Decree is drafted properly.
Senior Superintendent
Sd/-Smt.R.Shanthi Sree
Addl Civil Judge(Senior Division), Srikaulam.
//True copy//
Addl Civil Judge(Senior Division),
Srikaulam.
O.S.82 of 2015/fair
Dt:09.12.2025.