Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 1
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), BOBBILI
Present: Smt. S.Arunasri
Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Bobbili.
Thursday, this the 10th day of April, 2025
O .S.No. 107 / 2017
Between:
1. Kuppa Simhachalam (Died)
2. Kuppa Vijayalaxmi, W/o. late Simhachalam, aged about 50 years, S.C. Mala by caste, presently working as Line Inspector in APEPDCL, Vizianagaram, resident of Flat No. B.1, 1st Floor, Makha Mansions Apartment, Opp: Park, P.S.R. Colony, Vizianagaram.
3. Kuppa Veena Sarmila, D/o. late Simhachalam, aged 22 years, resident of Flat No. B.1, 1st Floor, Makha Mansions Apartment, Opp: Park, P.S.R. Colony, Vizianagaram.
4. Kuppa Chandrasekhar, S/o. late Simhachalam, aged 20 years, resident of Flat No. B.1, 1st Floor, Makha Mansions Apartment, Opp: Park, P.S.R. Colony, Vizianagaram.
(Plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are added in this suit as per the orders in
I.A.302/2021, Dt. 03.01.2022) …. Plaintiffs
And
1. Kuppa Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o. late Satyam, aged about 59 years, S.C. Mala by caste, presently working as a Head constable No.107 in Therlam Police Station, Therlam Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
2. Kuppa Guru Murthy, S/o. late Lakshmayya, aged about 70 years, S.C. Mala by caste, Retired Sub-Treasury Officer, near Dhadi Thallamma Temple, Gollapalli Road, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. (Died)
3. Kuppa Simhadri Rao @ Kuppa Simhachalam, S/o. late Venkatappayya,
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 2 aged about 50 years, S.C. Mala by caste, resident of S.C. Colony, Pinapenki Village and Post, Piridi (SO), Bobbili (H.O), Vizianagaram District.
4. Kuppa Manthayya, S/o. late China Atchiyya, aged about 70 years, S.C. Mala by caste, resident of S.C. Colony, Pinapenki Village and Post, Piridi (SO), Bobbili (H.O), Vizianagram District.
5. The State of A.P. represented by its District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.
6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District.
7. The Tahsildhar, Mandal Revenue Office, Badangi, Donkinavalasa (SO), Badangi Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
8. Kuppa Narayanamma, W/o. late Gurumurthy, aged about 70 years, retired Sub Treasurer Officer, Daditallimma Gudi Daggara, Gollapalli Road, Vizianagaram District.
9. Kuppa Vijaya Sankara Rao, S/o. late Gurumurthy, aged about 48 years, Daditallimma Gudi Daggara, Gollapalli Road, Vizianagaram District.
10. Kuppa Lakshmi Narayana Murthy , S/o. late Gurumurthy, aged about 40 years, Daditallimma Gudi Daggara, Gollapalli Road, Vizianagaram District.
11. Darru Aruna Kumari, W/o. D.T.V. Ramana, Paradise Apartment, Plot No.303, Raitu Bazaar, Seethammadara, Visakhapatnam.
(Defendants No.8 to 11 are added in this suit as per order in I.A.70/2019,
Dt. 21.08.2019 as they are the Lrs of the deceased defendant No.2)
…..Defendants
This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 20.03.2025 in the presence of Sri K. Prasada Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri J. Srinivasa
Rao, Advocate for defendant No.1 to 3, Sri M.V.G. Prasada Rao, Asst.
Government Pleader for defendant No. 5 to 7 and defendant No.4, 8 to 11 remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 3
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declare the 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule land and consequential reliefs of directing the defendants 1 to 7 to put to the plaintiffs into the possession of the suit land and also grant future profits for the suit land and award costs of the suit.
2.The averments of the neat copy of plaint in brief are as follows:
a)The 1st plaintiff is the son of one late Appalaswamy and his wife
Narayanamma. In the year 1999 the said Appalaswamy died intestate leaving behind 1st plaintiff and two daughters viz., Mangamma and Adilakshmi. In the year 1993 the 1st plaintiff got the employment in electricity board since then he used to work in different places for the last 18 years and he was settled at
Vizianagaram with his family in view of his employment and also for the better education of his children. The plaint schedule property is consisting of both dry and wet land having a total extent of Acre 4.44 cents bearing Patta Number 159 situated in Pinapenki Village of Badangi Mandal and Vizianagaram District and the said property was devolved upon his deceased father Kuppa
Appalaswamy S/o late Lakshmayya towards his exclusive share from the joint family of the father of the 1st plaintiff. After due enquiry the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed infavour of the said Appalaswamy on 01.08.1995 in respect of plaint schedule property.
b)It was further averred that on 03.08.2009 the entire property covered under the plaint schedule was transferred infavour of the 1st plaintiff after due enquiry conducted by the revenue officials and also obtained due consent of the legal representatives of the deceased Appalaswamy, the pattadar passbook and the title deed issued in the name of the 1st plaintiff under the
Pothi case and that the said passbook and title deed filed in this suit, at that time the 1st plaintiff obtained a letter from 1st defendant with his own hand
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 4 writing by addressing the letter that there are no disputes between himself and the 1st plaintiff and he has no objection if the said passbook and title deed were transferred in the name of 1st plaintiff.
c)It was further averred that the 1st plaintiff gave a police complaint against the defendant No.3 on 31.03.2009 who was a rowdy sheeter of Badangi police station and his three brothers since they let fire and burnt away the mango tope belongs to the plaintiff as well as tried to trespass into the land of the 1st plaintiff. 1st Plaintiff used to visit Pinapenki village to look after the above said plaint schedule property and used to collect cists over the usufruct of the above said land from time to time by getting written agreements executed by the lease holders in his favour thus the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned property and he used to enjoy the said property with absolute rights to the knowledge of every body in the vicinity including the defendants 1 to 4.
d)It was further averred that in the month of October 2016 1st plaintiff was suddenly fell ill and under went medical tests and took treatment in NRI
Hospital and also under went major surgery for rectum cancer consequently he held up in the said hospital for a period of nearly three months subsequently recovered thereafter in order to get the passbook and title deed online through web com he made a representations dt.05.06.2017, 21.06.2017, 10.07.2017, 17.07.2017 through registered post under acknowledgments due as well as by hand before the revenue authorities, after his thorough persuasions, 7th defendants under took for enquiry and meanwhile 1st plaintiff applied for computerized Adangal, 1-B in respect of plaint schedule property from defendants 5 to 7 through Meeseva, he found that there was a lot of discrepancy in allotment of the respective survey numbers and extents of the plaint schedule land and his land was allotted to the defendant No.1 to 4 and their names was shown as present enjoyers of the said plaint schedule land, as such the 1st plaintiff applied for correction of
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 5 the said Adangal to all the survey numbers covered under the pattadar passbook and title deed, the said correction receipts of computerized adangal also obtained by the plaintiff in meanwhile he came to knew that in the year 2012, a zero or a fake account bearing No. 77870 was created in favour of 1st defendant by the defendant No.5 to 7 and that after death of father of 1st plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 conspired together and draw a sketch to grab the plaint schedule property.
e)It was further averred that after several representations 1st plaintiff came to know that 1st defendant gave a statement that he was an adopted son of plaintiffs deceased father Kuppa Appalaswamy and his school certificates disclosing the 1st plaintiff’s father name as such he is also entitled to get share over the plaint schedule property infact the 1st defendant was the son of one
Kuppa Satyam who is the elder brother of the Kuppa Appalaswamy, since the said Kuppa Satyam worked as a Government Teacher in order to get the benefits from the State Government purposefully, knowingly got mentioned the name of the Kuppa Appalaswamy who is an agricultural former and respective columns of the father’s name for 1st defendant in the relevant school certificates etc., taking advantage of the absence of 1st plaintiff in the village in view of his employment and ill health 1st defendant colluding with the other defendants with the active support of revenue department trying to grab the plaint schedule property, 1st defendant’s own elder brother’s son who was working in the District Collectorate as a Deputy Tahsildar created the fake account in the year 2012. Moreover 1st defendant is working as Head
Constable in the police department, now he is in the edge of the retirement. He got his own share of properties devolved upon his natural father Koppa
Satyam along with other legal representatives and presently he is enjoying the said properties and having permanent residence of Cheepurupalli Village.
There is no adoption took place at any point of time and school certificates did not confers any right, title and interest over the property under the guise of
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 6 father name in the respective columns 1st defendant trying to grab the plaint schedule property without having any right.
f)It was further averred that out of the total survey numbers i.e., 14 in number having total extent of Acre 4.44 cents mentioned in the said pattadar passbook and title deed, the land covered under the survey number 36/15 having an extent of Acre 0.13 cents was acquired by the State Government about 10 years ago for Thotapalli irrigation canal and that authorities paid
Rs.30,000/- towards compensation to the 1st plaintiff. The 1st defendant along with four others without having any right or title and without having the knowledge and the consent of the 1st plaintiff sold away the land covered under the survey number 205/9 an extent of Acre 0.35 cents to the 3rd party under a registered sale deed dt. 25.09.2002 bearing document No. 1081/2002 of Therlam Sub Registrar Office. 1st plaintiff came to know the same during the recent enquiry conducted by the revenue department in this regard 1st plaintiff going to take steps against the parties in the said sale transaction before competent court of law, as such the plaintiff reduced the claim to the extent of
Acre 3.86 cents out of total extent of Acre 4.44 cents i.e., 12 items only out of 14 items by omitting item No. 1 and 2 in Survey number 36/15, 205/9. As revenue department did not take any action against the defendants basing on the representations given by the 1st plaintiff, he approached the Honourable
Court for seeking relief hence, this suit.
3.After institution of the suit, the same is registered as O.S.No.107/2017.
Suit summons were issued to the defendants through court and Registered
Post. The defendants engaged an Advocate and filed written statement denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint.
4.a). On the other hand Defendant No.1 filed written statement and defendants No.2 and 3 adopted the said written statement. 1st defendant denied the all averments in the plaint in para wise further, contended that this
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 7 suit is barred by limitation hence, this suit is not maintainable. Further contented that 1st plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property at best he can claim a share in the suit properties being a son of
Appalaswamy thus, suit for declaration of absolute right basing on the pattadar passbook and title deed is not maintainable.
b)It was further contended that the original owner of the schedule property is the father of 1st plaintiff and adoptive father of the 1st defendant viz., Kuppa
Appalaswamy after his death his pattadar passbook and title deed passbook transferred in the name of 1st plaintiff under the Pothi case it does not mean that he became the absolute owner of the said property. The revenue records i.e., pattadar passbook and title deed passbook issued under the ROR Act are not the documents of title they are meant for proving possession and collection of revenue, it was repeatedly held by the several precededs that the revenue records do not confirm any right so the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the same.
c)It was further contended that Kuppa Appalswamy married Ademma, he initially did not beget any children though he belongs to SC Mala they used to follow the Hindu custom so to develop his progeny he took the adoption of 1st defendant who is the son of his elder brother Kuppa Satyam since, then 1st defendant is being treated as adoptive son of Appalaswamy after adoption of the same Appalaswamy got educated him and his entire school records would goes to show that Appalaswamy is the father of 1st defendant. After adoption due to luck or fate Appalaswamy begot three children 1st plaintiff is the one among them and remaining two are sisters to him after the death of
Appalaswamy, 1st plaintiff got transferred pattadar passbook and title deed passbook in his name under Pothi case for which the revenue officials asked the statement of 1st defendant accordingly 1st defendant might have given a statement to change the name of pattadar in passbook and title deed but it does not mean that he consented the 1st plaintiff alone is the owner of the
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 8 plaint schedule property being adoptive son of Appalaswamy 1st defendant is also equally entitled to share in all the properties of Appalaswamy and they strictly follow the Hindu Law. Hence, this suit for declaration is not maintainable.
5.Defendants No.4, 8 to 11 are set exparte. Defendant No.7 filed his written statement same is adopted by the defendant No. 5 and 6. Learned
AGP filed written statement on behalf of defendant No.7 and denied all the averments in the plaint in para wise further contended that this suit is not maintainable against the Government as the properties are Zirayathi land and it is family disputes over the landed property, hence the Government is nothing to do with the said dispute. Further, the Tahsildar conducted enquiry and found that 1st plaintiff is not in possession at any point of time and the lands are in the name of Kuppa Appalaswamy as per the FCO Adangal and the plaintiffs names are not there in the revenue records and the name of 1st defendant was updated in the revenue records and Tahsildar further stated 1st plaintiff never gave any representation to the Tahsildar for updating of the Survey numbers in
Web land as per the report of the Tahsildar the 1st defendant is cultivating the land since 20 years and Kuppa Simhachalam is cultivating the land covered by the survey number 193/5, 193/7, 197/1 to an extent of Acre 2.24 cents since 20 years and the land covered by survey number 36/15 has been sub merged in Thotapalli reservoir project and the amount given to Kuppa Venkata
Ramana Murthy and Simhachalam equally, the dispute is only with regard to adoption of the Venkata Ramana Murthy and the Government cannot decide the same hence, the parties are advised to go competent Civil Court, hence defendants 5 to 7 requested the Court to dismiss the suit. The plaintiff filed this suit to grab the plaint schedule property there is no cause of action mentioned in this petition and plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hands. Hence, the defendants requested the court to dismiss the suit with costs.
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 9
6.ISSUES:- From the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
i. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their
status as absolute owners to suit property as prayed?
ii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the consequential
relief of delivery of suit property as prayed?
iii. Whether the suit is barred by Law of Limitation as pleaded
by defendant No.1?
iv. To What relief?
7. Plaintiffs evidence : During the course of trial, 2nd plaintiff /Kuppa Vijaya
Lakshmi examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11 documents. Ex.A1 is the Original Pattadar Pass Book of one Kuppa Appalaswamy transferred in the name of deceased plaintiff Koppa Simhachalam. Ex.A.2 is the Original Title
Deed Book of one Kuppa Appalaswamy Ex.A.3 is the representation of deceased plaintiff Kuppa Simhachalam to the defendant No.7 Tahsildar,
Badangi dt.05.06.2017 with postal receipt and Postal acknowledgment- 3.
Ex.A.4 is the representation of deceased plaintiff Kuppa Simhachalam to the defendant No.7 Tahsildar, Badangi dt.21.06.2017 with postal receipt and
Postal acknowledgment- 4. Ex.A.5 is the representation of deceased plaintiff
Kuppa Simhachalam to the defendant No.7 Tahsildar, Badangi dt.27.06.2017 with postal receipt and Postal acknowledgment- 3. Ex.A.6 is the representation of deceased plaintiff Kuppa Simhachalam to the defendant No.7 Tahsildar,
Badangi dt.17.07.2017 with postal receipt addressed to defendant No.5/
District Collector, Vizianagaram. Ex.A.7 is the representation of deceased plaintiff Kuppa Simhachalam to the defendant No.7 Tahsildar, Badangi dt.10.07.2017 addressed to defendant No.6/RDO, Parvathipuram with postal receipt and acknowledgment. Ex.A.8 is the Study and Conduct Certificate dt.04.10.2023 Ex.A.9 is the Photocopy of Admission register containing Serial
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 10
Number. 158, dt. 01.01.1965, the student by name Kuppa Venkata Ramana
Murthy, S/o Satyanarayana duly compared and attested (Original returned to the witness after comparing entries by receiving photocopy duly attested)
Ex.A.10 is the Original Study Certificate for the student by name Kuppa
Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o Satyanarayana for the academic year 1964-65 to 1967-68 by studying classes I to IV. Ex.A.11 is the Original Study Certificate
dt. 04.10.2023. On behalf of Pw1, Tentu Ramu, Kuppa Adinarayana, Korrayi
Mangamma, Badiginti Rama Rao are examined as PW.2 to 5.
8. Defendant’s evidence: On behalf of defendants, 1st defendant examined as Dw1/Kuppa Venkata Ramana Murthy, and got marked Ex.B1 to B8. On his behalf Kuppa Gowramma examined as Dw2. Ex.B1 is Ex.B.1 is the computer generated copy of 1-B dt. 12.07.2017. Ex.B.2 is the Original Marks
Memorandum of Secondary Education bearing No. 137559 in the name of witness. Ex.B.3 is the Original Marks Memorandum cum Pass Certificate of
Intermediate Education bearing No.003932 in the name of witness. Ex.B.4 is the Transfer Certificate of Witness belongs to Xth Class bearing No. 186 (Torned Condition) Ex.B.5 is the Original ITI Certificate of witness bearing
Admission No. 2459 of ITI, Bobbili Ex.B.6 is the Printed Wedding Invitation for the marriage of Witness dt. 25.06.1988. Ex.B.7 is the Endorsement by
Tahsildar Badangi dt. 29.06.2017 in letter No. 160 of 2017 / A. Ex.B.8 is the
House Tax Receipt for Assessment No. 1583 for the year 2014-2015. Ex.B.9 is the Electricity Consumption Bill for Service No. 92, dt.14.08.1990. Ex.B.10 is the Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No. 207/27, dt.
30.01.2018. Ex.B.11 is the Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey
No. 207/3, dt. 30.01.2018. Ex.B.12 is the Computer Generated copy of
Adangal for Survey No. 206/14, dt. 30.01.2018. Ex.B.13 is the Computer
Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No.207/6, dt. 30.01.2018. Ex.B.14 is the Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No. 18-11/A, dt.
30.01.2018. Ex.B.15 is the Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 11
No. 193/7, dt.30.01.2018. Ex.B.16 is the Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No. 197/1, dt.30.01.2018. Ex.B.17 is the Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No. 209/6, dt.30.01.2018. Ex.B.18 is the Certified copy registeredSaleDeed,dt.28.09.2002infavourofKotagiri
Rajeswaramma.Ex.B.19 is the Original Study Certificate issued by the Head
Master, Z.P. High School, Cheepurupalli, dt.13.08.1979. Ex.B.20 is the
Conduct Certificate by the Head Master, Z.P. High School, Cheepurupalli in respect of the witness for Academic year 1972-1973 to 1974-1975. Ex.B.21 is
Aadhar card of DW.1 in that his father name is mentioned as Kuppa
Appalaswamy (late). Ex.B.22 is Original house hold card issued by Tahsildar
Cheepurupalli in that also his father name is mentioned as Appalaswamy.
Ex.B.23 is Voter ID card issued by Election Commission, in that his father name is mentioned as Appalswamy. Ex.B.24 is Voters list copy supplied to the witness during the election 2024 in the said list Serial.No.366 is the voter particulars of DW.1 in that his father name is mentioned as Appalaswamy.
9.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants.
10. Discussion:
Issue No.3 :
3. Whether the suit is barred by Law of Limitation as pleaded by defendant No.1?
Prior to the discussion of issue No.1, 2 it is imperative to decide the issue No. 3 as 1st defendant mainly contended that this suit is barred by limitation. In this regard legal aspects are Suits relating to immovable property are dealt with in Part-V of the Schedule to the Limitation Act and the limitation prescribed vide Article 65, for a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, is of 12 years commencing from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 12 plaintiff. Coming to the factual aspects this suit is filed in the year 2017. PW.1 got marked Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2 ie., pattadar passbook, title deed issued on the name of K. Appalaswamy father of the 1st plaintiff in the year 1995 same was transferred in the name of 1st plaintiff as Pothi Patta in the year 2009. There after 1st plaintiff leased out the land to the PW.2, PW.3 for sharing system, in the year 2017 he gave representations under Ex.A3, Ex.A4 to the revenue departments to enter his name in the web land but they did not take any action and he came to know D.1 name was entered into the revenue record regarding some of the items of plaint schedule property these sequences clearly shows that in the year 2017 1st plaintiff got knowledge of 1st defendant name was mutated in the revenue record and immediately he filed this suit.
There is no dispute From the year 2009 to 2017 regarding EX.A1, A2 and its entries so from the date of knowledge 1st plaintiff instituted this suit. Hence, this suit is with in the limitation period. This issue No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.
11. Issues No. 1 and 2 :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their
status as absolute owners to suit property as prayed?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the consequential relief of delivery of suit property as prayed?
12. Discussion :
a)Since both issues are intertwined to avoid repetition of facts this court finds that it is essential to decide both the issue at once.
b)The undisputed facts of the case are that 1st plaintiff is the husband of the 2nd plaintiff and father of the plaintiff No. 3 and 4 during the pendency of the suit 1st plaintiff died plaintiff No. 2 to 4 are added as a parties in this suit on behalf of 1st plaintiff. 1st plaintiff filed this suit seeking relief of declaration of his right, title over the plaint schedule property and also recovery of possession of
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 13 the plaint schedule property stating that the said property devolved upon his father Appalaswamy towards his exclusive share from the joint family. 1st defendant is the son of elder brother of 1st plaintiff father but he claimed that he is the adopted son to the 1st plaintiff father, only disputed fact here is 1st defendant is the adoptive son of 1st plaintiff father or not, if the said fact is established then it is not that much of difficult to come to conclusion in this suit.
1st defendant by claiming as adoptive son of father of 1st plaintiff and claiming share in the property of father of 1st plaintiff. With these back drop now let us see the plaint schedule property and connected issues.
c)Plaint schedule properties particulars : In this suit 1st plaintiff showed 12 items of property containing different Survey numbers, extent and boundaries. According to the plaintiff plaint schedule property consisting of 14 items total extent of Ac.4.44 cents consisting of dry and wet land and the said property devolved upon his father towards his joint share. No where described the nature of the property however this court presumed that it is not the self acquired property of 1st plaintiff father Kuppa Appalasamy and it is his share of joint family property. There is no evidence to show that 1st plaintiff father died testate or intestate so this court presumed that he died intestate and nature of the property is ancestral or joint family and all the family members of 1st plaintiff are entitled share in the said property i.e 1st plaintiff, his mother and his two sisters. There is no evidence that mother of the 1st plaintiff alive or not and his sisters are claiming the share in the property or relinquished their rights in the plaint schedule property but 1st defendant is the main contestant in this suit claiming his right in the property that he is the adopted son of 1st plaintiff father to prove the same got marked Ex.B1 to 24 documents.
d)At this juncture it is essential to discuss and gave finding on the factum of adoption other wise it is very much difficult to answer the issue No.1, 2. 1st defendant did not seek any declaration that he is the adopted son of 1st plaintiff father however it is the duty of the court to decide the same by considering
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 14 available oral and documentary evidence to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings in between the parties and gave finality to the litigation.
e)Evidence of plaintiff :
It is the evidence of 2nd plaintiff/ K. Vijayalakshmi that she filed her chief examination affidavit and reiterated the same averments in the plaint, got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 documents Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are Pattadar
Passbook, Title Deed stands on the name of 1st plaintiff father same were transferred on the name of her husband under the pothi case after death of her father-in-law with consent of 1st defendant and sisters of 1st plaintiff. In the said
Ex.A1,A2 14 items of land stands on the name of K. Appala Swamy he got the same from his ancestors. There is no dispute that 1st defendant and two sisters of deceased 1st plaintiff consented before revenue department to transfer the pattadar passbook and title deed on the name of 1st plaintiff here there is a doubt arises that what is the necessity of taking written or oral consent from 1st defendant. In the written statement 1st defendant contended that he is the adopted son of 1st plaintiff father and 1st plaintiff father did not bless children as such he adopted the 1st defendant as he is his elder brother’s son thereafter 1st plaintiff and two sisters were born. 1st defendant claimed that he is the adopted son of 1st plaintiff father his academic and service record also disclosed the name of the 1st plaintiff father so he is having one of the share in the plaint schedule property he gave consent only for transfer of pattadar passbook, title deed on the name of 1st plaintiff but he did not relinquish his total rights in the share of the properties.
f)As per the plaintiff version only to get Government benefits as 1st defendant father is Government employee and his father is agriculturist, his father name was recorded in the school records of Defendant No.1 only for name sake there is no formal adoption took place by following the Hindu Act moreover Defendant No.1 did not separate from his natural parents and he got
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 15 the share in his natural parents property but failed to prove that 1st defendant got the property from his natural parents. However both parties aware that defendant No.1 used the father name of 1st plaintiff. However role of 1st defendant is as a family member of plaintiff family he carry the father name in all his records and his name was mutated in revenue record some of the items of plaint schedule property he sold away the one of the item of plaint schedule property to the third parties the said sale deed marked under Ex.B.18 in the year 2002, plaintiff filed suit in learned AJCJ Court, Bobbili in the year 2017 challenging the said Sale Deed. Further, PW.1 admitted in the cross examination her husband only received compensation from Government and again says her husband received Rs.15,000/- compensation but in the plaint mentioned that 1st plaintiff received compensation of Rs.30,000/-. 1st defendant also stated that he received compensation from Government for the same property. 1st defendant gave consent letter though the said letter was filed in the Court same was not marked but both parties admitted the giving letter to the revenue to transfer the 1st plaintiff name in Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2. 1st defendant pleaded that the said transfer is only for limited purpose. Pothi Patta is only for transfer of record but not the total rights.
g)2nd plaintiff examined as PW.1 in the cross examination she stated that she closely associated with plaintiff No.1 family right from her childhood as she is the close relative to the 1st plaintiff family she know the family affairs.
Learned counsel for the defendant suggested regarding adoption of 1st defendant and connected issues but PW.1 denied the said suggestions. She further stated as on the date of demise of her father in law 1st defendant working as Head Constable at Balijipeta Police Station. 1st defendant executed consent letter addressing the Tahsildar, Badangi that he has no objection for transferring pattadar passbook of Kuppa Appalaswamy infavour of her husband under Pothi Case application. It was suggested that since 1st defendant is Government employee by that time he consented only for
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 16 temporary purpose by retaining his right to claim property in future. She did not file any documentary proof except Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 to show that her husband possessed and enjoyed the said properties.
h)PW.2 who is the 3rd party examined on behalf of PW.1. He filed his chief examination affidavit stating that he know the both parties, he used to cultivate the some portion of the plaint schedule property on sharing system and he cultivated the said land for a period of 15 years, now PW.3 cultivating the said lands and 1st defendant has no right in the said property. In the cross examination he stated that he does not know the details of the schedule property, patta number, survey numbers, boundaries, extent and how the parties got the said properties, he did not verify the revenue records he does not know the details of the partition of properties in between the plaintiffs and defendant families as well as adoption if any.
i)PW.3 is also 3rd party, he know the both parties, he cultivating the some portion of the plaint schedule property from the year 2011 to 2021. He is the family member of the plaintiffs as well as defendant No.1. 1st defendant is not the adopted son of the father of 1st plaintiff and he has no right in the said property. In the cross examination he stated that he does not know the relief prayed in this suit and also particulars of the schedule properties to his knowledge schedule properties recorded in the revenue records in the name of 1st plaintiff he did not verify any revenue record. At that stage Ex.B.1 Computer generated 1-B shown to the witness in that Acre 2.46 cents entered in the name of defendant No.1.
j)PW.4 is the sister of 1st plaintiff she stated in her chief examination affidavit that her father never taken 1st defendant as an adoption. 1st defendant is the son of her senior paternal uncle who worked as a teacher and used to stay at different places as such her father brought up 1st defendant and to get the Government benefits her father name was recorded in the school records.
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 17 1st defendant is not the adopted son of her father and he has no right in the suit schedule property. 1st plaintiff is absolute owner of the schedule property.
In the cross examination she stated that she is aged about 56 years. There was a long gap for blessing children to her parents. Her father died in the year 1990. She know that all the education certificates and Service Register of 1st defendant contains father name as “K. Appalaswamy” who is her father.
k)PW.5 who is the Head Master in MPP School Pinapenki examined as
PW.5 on behalf of plaintiff after receipt of summons from Court and also produced relevant registers and got marked Ex.A.9 and Ex.A.10. PW.5 testifies that as per admission record in serial No. 158, dt. 01.01.1965 the student by name K. Venkata Ramana Murthy S/o Satyanarayana had been admitted into their school as per the record one Kuppa Satyanarayana name is entered as father whereas one Kuppa Appalaswamy name is entered as a guardian for that student. He brought the original admission register with duly attested copies it is marked as Ex.A.9, he also produced study certificates from 1964-1965 to 1967-1968 by studying classes 1 to IV. Ex.A.10 is the original study certificate for the student by Kuppa Venkata Ramana Murthy S/o
Satyanarayana. In the cross examination he stated that he does not know the procedure of admission in the year 1964-1965 but general process of admission is child will be attended to the school by associating with parents upon enquiry as to date of birth, parental details and residential details the said student name entered in the records.
l)1st defendant himself examined as DW.1 got marked Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.24 documents. He reiterated the same averments in his written statement.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff at length cross examined the witness pertaining to the adoption process date, time, occasion and whose presence adoption ceremony took place but he unable to give the said particulars but he came to know one priest by name Vemakoti Narasimha Murthy of Vadada village performed the adoption ceremonies. In the year 1987 Appalaswamy
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 18 died in his house while he was working at Balijipeta and he brought the body to the Pinapenki village till the demise of Appalaswamy suit properties stood in his name by that time plaintiff No.1 worked in electricity department. After demise of Appalaswamy his pattadar pass book transferred in the name of plaintiff No.1 under Pothi / transfer case for that he gave written consent, subsequently 1st plaintiff obtained possession and he cultivated the suit properties for some extent and DW.1 cultivated the some of the extent. DW.1 secured the certified copy of registered sale deed dt. 28.09.2002 and the same was marked as Ex.B.18 in the said sale deed 1st plaintiff is not a party but DW1 and others executed the same in favour of K. Rajeswaramma. DW1 filed
Ex.B.18 in support of his claim that he is the adopted son of Kuppa
Appalaswamy and 1st plaintiff filed suit against the DW.1 before learned PJCJ,
Bobbili challenging the said sale transaction under Ex.B.18. Witness adds that 1st plaintiff received sale consideration under Ex.B.18, now the said suit is pending. There is no evidence to show that 1st plaintiff signed as a party in
Ex.B.18 and he know the said sale transaction.
m)On behalf of 1st defendant one G. Gowramma examined as DW.2. She filed her chief examination affidavit stating that she know the both parties one
Kuppa Appalaswamy married one Ademma, they did not begot any children, though they belongs to SC Mala they used to follow the Hindu customs to develop his progeny he took adoption of DW.1 at the age of three months.
DW.2 and her husband went to the native place of Kuppa Satyam and took the
DW.1 at the age of three months and adoption ceremony performed. The natural parents of the DW.1 gave adoption to his adoptive parents in their presence and in the presence of villagers, relatives viz., Kuppa Mantayya,
Kuppa Narayana, Kuppa Gurumurthy. The said adoption ceremony is conducted by one Vemakoti Narasimha Murthy of Vadada village, since from the date of adoption Appalaswamy got educated his adoptive son by name
Venkata Ramana Murthy, his entire school records would goes to show that
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 19
Appalaswamy is the father of DW.1. After the adoption due to fate
Appalaswamy begot three children, after death of Appalaswamy DW1 look after the welfare of the plaintiff and his sisters as a elder member in the family.
After death of Appalaswamy plaintiff got transferred pattadar passbook and title deed on his name by that time DW.1 gave his consent to the revenue officials for changing the name of the plaintiff DW.1 is co-sharer of the plaint schedule property along with the plaintiff. In the cross examination DW.2 stated the family details of Kuppa Appalaswamy and his brothers and the reason for taking adoption of the DW1. DW.2 is aged about 80 years, at the age of 20 years she got married by the time adoption no document had been written and no photographs were taken. Father of the plaintiff No.1 is own brother of the DW2 mother. At the time of adoption one priest was present.
n)How to prove the adoption : Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that there is no procedure of adoption followed under Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, only 1st defendant being a son of elder brother of Kuppa Appalaswamy and father of the 1st defendant is employee to get benefits from Government his name was shown in the father column and there is no formal adoption. Merely noted the name of another person is not considered as his father and plaintiff has to prove strict proof of adoption is required and school certificate is not a proof for identify the father name and it is only for identify the date birth of the said person. In this regard he relied on the following decisions.
i. 2024 (1) ALT 58 (SC) in between Moturu Nalinikanth Vs
Gainidi Kaliprasad (Dead through L.Rs) where in held that Sec.10 and 11 of Adoption ceremony would not be kept secret or confidential as an adoption would usually be made with much pomp and celebration the clandestine manner in which the alleged adoption is stated to have taken place raises a doubt but the same has not been adequately explained the actual giving and taking of the child in adoption being an essential requisite under Sec.11 (vi) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1936.
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 20
ii. Another decision reported in 2018 (1) ALT 772 in
between Sakriya Krishnabai (Died) per L.R. Vs Syed Ismail
(died) per L.Rs where in held that date of birth certificate can only be used to disprove the date of birth of child or a person it cannot be used as proof of adoption, a progress report of a school is not also exceptable as piece of evidence to prove the alleged adoption.
iii. Another decision reported in 2024 (1) ALT 39 (AP) in
between Kosaraju Venkatesh and others Vs Kosaraju Gopala
Krishna (died) per L.Rs and others where in held that plea of adoption if any boy is fostered from his childhood, for all practical purposes it would be mentioned the name of the fastened father of said boy as that of the father of the boy simply because the name is mentioned as a father in the said document the same is a not a ground to say that he is the adopted father of the said boy.
o)Learned counsel for defendant contended that defendant is the adopted son of the 1st plaintiff father he also got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.24 documents to prove the same and relied on the decision reported in:
i. 2003 (3) ALT 11 in between Rayaprolu Narayanamurthy
Vs Rayaprolu Ramakrishna Sharma and others wherein held that Hindu adoption and maintenance Act 1956, Section 12 proviso
(b) and Section 30 adoption taken place several decades prayed to filing of the suit for partition and prayed to enactment of the Act. Adoptee not entitled to any protection under proviso (b) to Section 12 and not entitled any share in the coparcenary property. Circumstantial evidence in the case proves the factum of adoption several decades ago it shows that he never asserted his right for a share in the property as evident from the sale deed executed by his brothers for sale of joint family house in which he figured only as an attester and not a vendor in school records, his adoptive father name was shown as his father and he performed the death anniversaries of adopted father. ii.2008 (5) ALT 56 in between Atluri Brahmanandam (Died) per L.R. Vs Anne Sai Bapuji where in held that when such a custom is recognized by Court, the same need not be proved in this case on that ground presumption under section 16 of the Act that when registered adoption deed is produced, court shall
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 21 presume that adoption is made in compliance with provisions of the act cannot be ignored. iii.2005 (4) ALT 674 in between V. Anjanayelu Vs Vadapalli Peddanna @ Peddaiah and others where in held that Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 16 Adoption of child need not be by a registered document if adoption is made by a registered document presumption cannot be drawn that adoption was made under the act which is a rebatable presumption. An adoption does not become invalid on the sole ground that it is not witnessed by a registered document. iv.2015 (2) ALT 467 in between Gorige Ailamma Vs Utkoori Somaiah and others where in held that courts can take judicial notice of customs, practices and traditions followed in the villages and they cannot be ignored.
p)This court carefully perused the above referred case laws by the both parties, they filed citations to suit their contentions. Gist of the citations are adoption need not be registered, if parties followed the requisite procedure under the act is sufficient. Facts and circumstances are different not applicable to the present case facts.
q)Now let us see the relevant section 6 of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956
Sec6. Requisites of a valid adoption.―No adoption shall be valid unless—
(i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption;
(ii) the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so;
(iii) the person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption; and
(iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned in this Chapter.“Even Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 does not provide for compulsory registration of an adoption deed. Therefore adoption deed or registered document is not must to prove the adoption. If conditions of valid adoptions as required under the Act are established it is sufficient to prove the
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 22 adoption.”
r)Here defendant No.1 got examined one of the relative who attended to the adoption ceremony of defendant No.1 as DW.2 who is maternal aunt to the 1st plaintiff father at the time of adoption along with relatives she and her husband present. She deposed the giving and taking for valid adoption explained, DW.2 is aged about 80 years, Defendant No.1 is aged about 60 years when he is aged about 3 months he was given adoption to the 1st plaintiff father so any of the relatives, elders, present at the time of adoption they may be more than 80 years aged, in these circumstances it is not possible to expect evidence from 80 years aged person, if any body available it is difficult to refresh their memory due to old age and it is the circumstances evidence if DW.2 is relative to the both parties and she is not a partisan witness in the cross examination plaintiff counsel failed to elicit the material facts from the evidence of DW.2 hence this court relied on the evidence of
DW.2 not only evidence of DW.2, DW.1 in his cross examination stated that 1st plaintiff father died at his house, he brought him to the 1st plaintiff village there is no denial from the plaintiffs and failed to elicit material facts from the mouth of DW.1. Evidence of PW.2, 3 some of the property cultivated by sharing system but not total property and they did not depose they took the property for lease but PW.1 stated they gave the land for lease and sent the lease deeds for impounding but those were not yet received if they received not that much of significant. PW.5 evidence no way helpful to the plaintiffs because 1st plaintiff himself admitted that only to get benefits from government plaintiff
No.1 father name was noted in the registers of 1st defendant at his father column.
s)On careful scrutinizing the evidence of both sides including oral and documentary evidence it is clear that since childhood defendant No.1 was brought up by the 1st plaintiff father and he got joined him in the school and his
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 23 name was noted as father of defendant No.1 at the father column, his school records carry the same father name of K. Appalaawamy and his employment record also continued the same. Ex. B21 to Ex.B24 Aadhar card, ration card, voter card, in the voters list of defendant No.1 also father name of 1st plaintiff father was noted in the column of 1st defendant father, further the 1st plaintiff father performed the marriage of defendant No.1 wedding card ie., Ex.B6 also printed on the name of plaintiff No.1 father as if his natural son. Further 1st plaintiff father died at the house of defendant No.1 thereafter he was brought to 1st plaintiff village, these are seems that defendant No.1 treated as if son of 1st plaintiff father in their circle, it might be the reason for the revenue people to obtain consent from defendant No.1 to transfer the properties in the name of 1st plaintiff after death of his father under Pothi case ie., Ex. A1, A2. Except mere denial there is no specific denial of each and every aspect pleaded by the defendants and there is no necessity to the revenue people to take consent from defendant No.1 to transfer the property in the name of 1st plaintiff under Pothi case after death of K. Applaswamy, if 1st defendant has no connection with the family of 1st plaintiff, this is one of the strong circumstances to say that the defendant No.1 is considered as family member of 1st plaintiff family. So all the circumstances since childhood of the defendant No.1 clearly corroborated and put together appears that defendant No.1 is raised by plaintiff No.1 father but it is considered as adoption or not is the point for consideration? An adoption is not required compulsory registration as such what has to be proved before this court is, giving and taking is the criteria for that only witness is DW.2. Further more defendant No.1 fulfilled all the requisites for valid adoption under Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act 1956 and there is no disqualifications to the natural parents of defendant No.1 and his adoptive parents and at the time of adoption 1st plaintiff and his sisters not yet born to the 1st plaintiff parents. Hence this court considerable opinion that defendant by adducing oral evidence and adduced
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 24 extensive documentary evidence ie., Ex.B1 to B24 he categorically established the factum of adoption as such this court treated the defendant No.1 is the adopted son of 1st plaintiff father as such plaintiffs alone are not entitled the declaration of plaint schedule property as other children of K. Appalaswamy are alive. As plaint schedule property is ancestral property, plaintiffs alone not entitled for declaration of the right, title over the schedule property. In view of detailed discussion in preceding paragraphs issue No. 1 and 2 answered in favour of the defendants against the plaintiffs as such plaintiffs are not entitled any reliefs sought for.
13. Issue No. 4: To What relief?
In the result, this suit is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this is the 10 th day of April, 2025.
Sd/- S. Arunasri,
Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Bobbili.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For the Plaintiffs:
PW1: Kuppa Vijaya Lakshmi
PW2: Tentu Ramu
PW3: Kuppa Adinarayana
PW4: Korrayi Mangamma
PW5: Badiginti Ramarao
For the Defendants:
DW1: Kuppa Venkata Ramana Murthy
DW2: Kuppa Gowramma
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 25
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiffs :
Ex.A.1 : Original Pattadar Pass Book of one Kuppa Appalaswamy transferred in the name of deceased plaintiff Kuppa Simhachalam
Ex.A.2 : Original Title Deed Book of one Kuppa Appalaswamy transferred in the name of deceased plaintiff Kuppa Simhachalam
Ex.A.3 : Representation of deceased plaintiff Kuppa Simhachalam to the defendant No.7 Tahsildar, Badangi dt.05.06.2017 with postal receipt and Postal acknowledgment- 3
Ex.A.4 : Representation of deceased plaintiff Kuppa Simhachalam to the defendant No.7 Tahsildar, Badangi dt.21.06.2017 with postal receipt and Postal acknowledgment- 4
Ex.A.5 : Representation of deceased plaintiff Kuppa Simhachalam to the defendant No.7 Tahsildar, Badangi dt.27.06.2017 with postal receipt and Postal acknowledgment- 3
Ex.A.6 : Representation of deceased plaintiff Kuppa Simhachalam to the defendant No.7 Tahsildar, Badangi dt. 17.07.2017 with postal receipt addressed to defendant No.5/ District Collector, Vizianagaram.
Ex.A.7 : Representation of deceased plaintiff Kuppa Simhachalam to the defendant No.7 Tahsildar, Badangi dt.10.07.2017 addressed to defendant No.6/RDO, Parvathipuram with postal receipt and acknowledgment.
Ex.A.8 : Study and Conduct Certificate dt. 04.10.2023
Ex.A.9 : Photocopy of Admission register containing Serial Number. 158, dt.
01.01.1965, the student by name Kuppa Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o.
Satyanarayana duly compared and attested (Original returned to the witness after comparing entries by receiving photocopy duly attested)
Ex.A.10 : Original Study Certificate for the student by name Kuppa Venkata
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 26
Ramana Murthy, S/o Satyanarayana for the academic year 1964-65 to 1967-68 by studying classes I to IV.
Ex.A.11: Original Study Certificate dt.04.10.2023
For Defendants :
Ex.B.1 : Computer generated copy of 1-B dt. 12.07.2017.
Ex.B.2 : Original Marks Memorandum of Secondary Education bearing No. 137559 in the name of witness.
Ex.B.3 : Original Marks Memorandum cum Pass Certificate of Intermediate Education bearing No.003932 in the name of witness.
Ex.B.4 : Transfer Certificate of Witness belongs to Xth Class bearing No.186 (Torned Condition)
Ex.B.5 : Original ITI Certificate of witness bearing Admission No. 2459 of ITI, Bobbili
Ex.B.6 : Printed Wedding Invitation for the marriage of Witness dt. 25.06.1988. Ex.B.7 : Endorsement by Tahsildar Badangi dt. 29.06.2017 in letter No. 160 of 2017 / A.
Ex.B.8 : House Tax Receipt for Assessment No. 1583 for the year 2014-2015.
Ex.B.9 : Electricity Consumption Bill for Service No. 92, dt.14.08.1990.
Ex.B.10 : Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No. 207/27, dt.30.01.2018.
Ex.B.11 : Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No. 207/3, dt.30.01.2018.
Ex.B.12 : Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No. 206/14, dt.30.01.2018.
Ex.B.13 : Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No.207/6, dt.30.01.2018.
Ex.B.14 : Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No. 18-11/A, dt.30.01.2018.
Ex.B.15 : Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No.193/7, dt.30.01.2018.
Ex.B.16: Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No.197/1, dt.30.01.2018.
Ex.B.17: Computer Generated copy of Adangal for Survey No.209/6,
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.107/2017 - Dt.10.04.2025 on the file of SCJ Court, Bobbili. 27 dt.30.01.2018.
Ex.B.18 : Certified copy registered Sale Deed, dt.28.09.2002 infavour of Kotagiri Rajeswaramma.
Ex.B.19 : Original Study Certificate issued by the Head Master, Z.P. High School, Cheepurupalli, dt.13.08.1979.
Ex.B.20 : Conduct Certificate by the Head Master, Z.P. High School, Cheepurupalli in respect of the witness for Academic year 1972-1973 to 1974-1975.
Ex.B.21 : Aadhar card of DW.1 in that his father name is mentioned as Kuppa Appalaswamy (late)
Ex.B.22 : Original house hold card issued by Tahsildar Cheepurupalli in that also his father name is mentioned as Appalaswamy.
Ex.B.23 : Voter ID card issued by Election Commission, in that his father name is mentioned as Appalswamy.
Ex.B.24 : Voters list copy supplied to the witness during the election 2024 in the said list S.No.366 is the voter particulars of DW.1 in that his father name is mentioned as Appalaswamy.
Sd/- S. Arunasri,
Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Bobbili.