IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDGE-CUM-VI SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri S.Nageswara Rao, VI Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
Friday the 28th day of December, 2018
O.S.No.1777 of 2013
Between:
Kotagiri Prashant Kumar …Plaintiff.
And
1. Mrs. Balapuram Lakshmi @ Kotagiri Lakshmi
2. B.Rakesh Babu...Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.S.Rajpurohit, counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri S.Bhasker Reddy, counsel for defendants no 1 and 2 and the matter having been stood over for consideration and this court delivered the Judgment as follows:
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit for:
a) Declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property;
b) Perpetual Injunction against the defendants and others from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property;
c) Declaration that the cancellation deed, document no.670/13 of Gift deed document no.1760/2009 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff;
d) Cancellation of sale deed, document no.1107/2013 directing defendants 1 and 2 to cancel the same as it is null and void and for costs.
2. The plaint pleadings:-
Plaintiff is the grand son of 1st defendant i.e., son’s son. The 2nd defendant is the cousin brother of the plaintiff i.e., father’s sister’s son. Plaintiff is a businessman carrying on hair cutting business at Hyderabad. Defendant no.1 was owner of the property bearing Municipal No.4-4-717, admeasuring 17.41 sq.yards consistingof ground floor and 1st floor, situated at K.S.Lane, Sultan Bazar,
Hyderabad having purchased it under a registered sale deed document no.167/1968, dated 10.01.1968. The 1st defendant, out of love and affection 2 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013 towards the plaintiff, gifted the said property to the plaintiff vide Gift Settlement
Deed document no.1760/2009, dated 31.07.2009 and delivered physical possession of the same to the plaintiff. Thereafter plaintiff constructed 2nd floor thereon. So, the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the said property and he is enjoying the same without interference from anybody. Plaintiff got mutated his name in GHMC records and is paying property tax to GHMC. The 1st defendant filed her written statement on 29.04.2013 in OS.No.106/2013 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad which was filed by the plaintiff’s father, stating that she cancelled the Gift Settlement Deed, document no.1760/2009 and sold away the suit schedule property to 2nd defendant. The said statement and act of the 1st defendant is malafide and motivated wrong statement. 1st defendant has no power or right or authority to cancel the said Gift settlement deed without the consent of the plaintiff.
The 1st defendant, who is under the influence of her daughter’s son i.e., 2nd defendant, after cancellation of the gift settlement deed, executed a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant falsely stating that she sold the same by receiving alleged sale consideration of Rs.7,61,000/- from defendant no.2. The said fact of the 1st defendant is illegal and against law and interest of the plaintiff. The registering authority also acted against law by registering the cancellation deed and the sale deed. Due to the same, the title and the claim of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property came into clouds. Further, on 08.12.2013 at 4 PM the defendants and their associates went to the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff and his family members illegally from the Suit
Schedule Property, but due to strong resistance the defendants and their associates, they could not succeed in their attempts. They left suit schedule property saying that they would come again to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave a complaint to
Police station, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad but the Police refused to take action and advised the plaintiff to approach the court, as the matter is civil in nature. Hence, the suit.
3 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013
3. The Defendants 1 and 2, jointly filed Written Statement. The pleadings of
Defendants 1 and 2:
Except the specifically admitted facts other averments are denied. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. Defendant no.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same through registered sale deed, document no.167/1968, dated 10.01.1968. The plaintiff taking advantage of the old- age of defendant no.1 who is bedridden and illiterate, aged about 92 years fraudulently obtained the gift settlement deed, document no.1760/2009, dated 31.07.2009 and is claiming ownership over the suit schedule property. Plaintiff, his father and his family members neglected the defendant no.1 from the past several years. Coming to know the fraudulent activities of the plaintiff and his family members and when they tried to grab the suit schedule property, the 1st defendant cancelled the said gift deed on 11.04.2012 and subsequently sold away the same in favour of 2nd defendant for a valid sale consideration under registered sale deed, document no.1107/2013, dated 30.03.2013. Hence, plaintiff cannot claim that he is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. Being an owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, defendant no.1 has power to cancel the gift settlement deed when the plaintiff fraudulently obtained the same from Defendant no.1 when she was bedridden and further he failed to lookafter the welfare of defendant no.1.
After cancelling the gift deed and selling the suit schedule property to defendant no.2, defendant no.1 performed her grand daughter’s marriage, who is motherless and having drunkard father, with the knowledge of the plaintiff and his father and other family members. Defendant no.1 has not executed any gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff voluntarily and as such question of delivery of possession does not arise. Plaintiff played fraud and obtained the alleged Gift Settlement deed to grab the suit schedule property from defendant no.1. As such plaintiff has no right or title over the suit schedule property. Defendant no.2 is the rightful owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The District Registrar has rightly registered the cancellation deed and the sale deed. Suit is bad for non joinder of the sub-Registrar as a party to 4 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013 the suit. There is no cause of action for the suit. Plaintiff having knowledge about the cancellation of gift settlement deed by defendant no.1 and execution of sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 through his father filed OS.No.106/2013 on the file of III
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition and separate
possession and also filed the present suit. Suit is not properly valued. Plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs. Plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. Plaintiff filed rejoinder to the Written statement of defendants no.1 and 2 denying the written statement averments.
5. Issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of sale deed?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Injunction?
4. To what relief?
6. Evidence:
Plaintiff examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. The defendants examined Dws 1 and 2 and marked Exs.B1 to B4.
7.The following additional issue has been framed after hearing the parties:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the cancellation deed, document no.670/2013 of the Gift deed is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff?
8. Heard both sides.
9. Issue no.1 and Additional issue:
The Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced Exs.A1 to A7 on his behalf. In the chief examination he reiterated the plaint averments. Ex.A1 is certified copy of Gift settlement deed, dated 13.01.2009 executed by the the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff gifting the suit schedule property to the 5 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013 plaintiff out of love and affection. Further it shows that the gift was accepted by the plaintiff and possession was also delivered to the plaintiff.
10. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of cancellation of Gift settlement deed covered by Ex.A.1 executed by the defendant no.1 alone. It is stated that
Defendant No.1 executed the Gift Deed infavour of the plaintiff out of natural love and affection inrespect of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the 1st defendant settled the schedule property infavour of the plaintiff hoping that he shall look after and maintain day to day needs of the 1st defendant and utilize the schedule property for good use, but she realized that soon after execution of the gift deed plaintiff has changed his attitude and behavior and made misuse of the schedule property and shall not utilize the same for good cause and as such defendant No.1 decided to cancel, revoke and nullify the said gift deed and accordingly she did so under Ex.A.2. Thus, it is clear that the 1st defendant admittedly executed Ex.A.1 out of love and affection towards the plaintiff and presuming that the plaintiff may misuse the suit schedule property she wanted to cancel and revoke the said gift deed. Ex.A.2 being executed by defendant No.1 unilaterally without the consent of the plaintiff cannot have any impact on Ex.A.1gift deed.
11. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of sale deed executed by defendant No.1 infavour of defendant No.2 on 30-03-2013 showing that she sold the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.7,61,000/-. Ex.A.5 is rough sketch plan showing the property sold under Ex.A.3.
12. Ex.A.4 is the market value certificate of the suit schedule property showing its value as Rs.5,17,600/- . Ex.A.6 are 4 photographs with compact disc showing the suit schedule property. Ex.A.7 are is 6 photographs with compact 6 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013 disc, dated 18-8-2016 during the pendency of the suit reflecting suit schedule property.
13. The defendants admitted Ex.A2 cancellation deed of the gift deed under Ex.A1. Inspite of that it was suggested to PW1 that Defendant no.1 did not execute the gift deed Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff and same has been created fraudulently. This contention of the defendants cannot stand in view of the specific recitals of Ex.A2 giving reasons for the cancellation. There is no mention in Ex.A2 that the git deed, Ex.A1 was created by the plaintiff fraudulently. It is stated that since the plaintiff changed his behavior and attitude and presumed that he may misuse the schedule property, defendant no.1 wanted to cancel the gift deed. Even in Ex.A2 Defendant no.1 admitted the execution of the Ex.A1 gift deed in favour of the plaintiff out of love and affection.
14. It is the contention of the defendants that Defendant no.1 performed the marriage of Swapna, her grand daughter who is motherless with the sale consideration of Ex.A3 and the same is denied by the plaintiff stating that the marriage was performed by the father of Swapna who is an R.T.C. Driver.
Whether the marriage of Swapna was performed by Defendant no.1 or by the father of Swapna cannot decide the genuineness of Ex.A1 and cannot have any force to revoke the gift deed. Similarly whether the defendant no.1 purchased a property of 100 sq.yards at H.No.3-16-110/10/1/F, Vasavi Colony, Ramanthapur in the name of the father of the plaintiff or whether he himself purchased the said property with his own earnings cannot have any force to decide the genuineness of Ex.A1 and cannot give rise to any authority to defendant no.1 to cancel the gift deed unilaterally.
7 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013
15. Plaintiff claims that he came to know about the cancellation deed in
OS.No.106/2013 which was filed by his father against Defendant no.1 for
partition of the house wherein at present defendant no.1 was residing. We need not go into the merits of the said suit in this case.
16. Whether the plaintiff and his parents harassed defendant no.1 for twenty years insisting her to give property to them and tried to grab the property of defendant no.1 and whether they are neglecting the welfare of defendant no.1 are not the matters for consideration in dealing with Ex.A1.
Anyhow there is no evidence to substantiate the same. The fact that the
Electricity bills and Municipal Taxes were standing in the name of defendant no.2, pursuant to the sale deed Ex.A3 cannot have any force of revoking the gift under Ex.A1. There is nothing material elicited in the cross examination of PW1 in favour of the defendants.
17. The evidence of PW2 is to the effect that the plaintiff is the grand son of Defendant no.1 and she gifted the property in the year 2009 wherein they are running hair cutting shop and that the plaintiff constructed 2nd floor thereon. Though PW2 has been cross examined at length no material information has been elicited from him to discredit his testimony. Infact Ex.A1 is admitted by the defendants as executed by defendant no.1. From Ex.A1 it is clear that when the property was gifted, it was having ground plus first floor only. But a perusal of the sale deed Ex.A3 shows that ground plus 2nd floors were sold. That means after execution of Ex.A1 gift deed, 2nd floor has been constructed by the plaintiff and the said fact is also established by the evidence of PWs.1 and 2.
8 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013
18. The 2nd defendant as DW1 reiterates written statement averments in the chief examination and produced Exs.B1 to B4. Ex.B1 is the original sale deed,
dated 13.03.2013, certified copy of which is already marked as Ex.A3. Ex.B2 is
the proceedings by GHMC mutating the name of Defendant no.2 in respect of the suit schedule property is concerned, basing on Ex.B1/A3. Ex.B3 is the electricity bill dt.13.03.2018, for consumption number 04236150, in the name of defendant no.2, but it does not reflect that it relates to the suit schedule property. Ex.B4 is the Caste Certificate issued by the Nayee Brahmin Seva
Sangam dt.15.07.2014, i.e., during the pendency of the suit certifying that D2 is resident of the suit house number. This certificate cannot confer any title or possession of D2 over the suit schedule property.
19. D2 has shown his residence as H.No.303, Deendhayal Nagar, Bachpally
Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District and it shows that he is not residing in the suit schedule property. With regard to allegation of the fraud in obtaining Ex.A1, DW1 says that he came to know about the same in the year 2010, through Defendant no.1. DW1 admits that, he was not present at the time of cancellation of the Gift Deed and he came to know about the same through his Grand-mother. The said original Cancellation Deed is also not filed.
In view of the recitals of Ex.A2, admittedly executed by the 1st defendant there is no fraud played in executing Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff. So the contention of the defendants with regard to the same cannot stand.
20. DW2 is one Smt. C.Shanthamma, one of the daughters of the 1st defendant. Her evidence is that she is one of the attestor to Ex.B1 and Exs.A1 to A3. According to her defendant no.1 is aged about 99 years and she is suffering for her day to day livelihood and old ailments and as on the date of
Ex.A1, she was aged about 89 years and the plaintiff and his parents are not 9 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013 providing the basic amenities and needs of D1 and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Further she stated that defendant no.2 became the owner of suit schedule property and he is enjoying the same by the sale deed under Ex.B2 and defendant no.2 is none other than the son of her sister and he is doing hair cutting business engaging his brother in law and others in the suit schedule property. She stated that defendant no.1 worked as
Nurse and acquired 100 sq.yards house at Ramanthapur in the name of one
K.Veera Prakashm, father of the plaintiff who is the son of defendant no.1.
Further she says that defendant no.1 acquired another property at sultan bazar,
Hyderabad consisting of ground plus three floors in the name of her daughter- in-law by name K.Shanta.
21. DW2 stated that defendant no.1 coming to know about the gift deed and as plaintiff neglected to lookafter the welfare of defendant no.1 and failed to keep up the promise to pay Rs.7,00,000/- to defendant no.1 in order to perform the marriage of the grand daughter she cancelled the gift deed under
Ex.A1 and sold the property to defendant no.2 for Rs.7,61,000/- under Ex.A3/B1 and since then defendant no.2 is in the possession of the same. She also stated about OS.No.106/2013 being filed by the father of the plaintiff.
22. In this case defendant no.1 has not given any evidence being a party to the proceedings, DW2 says that she is giving evidence at the request of her mother/defendant no.1. The evidence of DW2 and a perusal of Ex.A1 clearly show that DW2 is also one of the attestor to the gift deed under Ex.A1. There is no explanation from DW2 as to why she signed on Ex.A1 gift deed, if really it is a fraudulent document. In fact she signed as a witness for Ex.A1 and also signed
before the Sub Registrar as identifying witness for defendant no.1. So DW2 is a
witness for execution of Ex.A1 by defendant no.1 and also for the registration 10 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013 of the same. Hence, her evidence that she was informed by her mother that the gift deed was executed by playing fraud cannot stand.
23. DW2 admitted that she sold the house at Sultan bazar to one Mr.Venu under Ex.A8. Ex.A8 shows that DW2 along with Mr.C.Suresh her husband sold house no.4-1-46 infavour of one Mr.Venu. She stated that she has not filed any document to show that house at Vasavi Colony stands in the name of the father of the plaintiff and that the same was given by defendant no.1 to the father of the plaintiff.
24. DW2 is also signatory to the cancellation of gift deed under Ex.A2 as an attestor. She is also an attestor to Ex.A3/B1 execution of Ex.A1 in favour of
Defendant no.2. Still DW2 denies the said fact. A close reading of the evidence of DW2 show that she attested Ex.A1 gift deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff and now she is stating that the said document is fraudulent, without any basis.
25. The learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon a decision in Thota
Ganga Laxmi and another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others [ (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 207] for the proposition of law that vendor cannot execute cancellation deed unilaterally and such unilateral cancellation shall not be registered. There is no dispute about this proposition of law. In view of this decision, Ex.A2 which is an unilateral cancellation of the gift deed is also not valid and could not have been registered.
26. The learned counsel for plaintiff further placed reliance in H.Lakshmaiah
Reddy and others Vs. L.Venkatesh Reddy [ (2015) 14 Supreme Court Cases 784] for the proposition of law that mutation of revenue records does not covey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of 11 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013 calculation of land revenue. There is no dispute about this proposition of law also. So, even if the property is mutated in the Municipal records in the name of defendant no.2 it cannot convey or extinguish the title already vested by the defendant no.2 infavour of Plaintiff.
27. The learned counsel for plaintiff further placed reliance in Renikuntla
Rajamma Vs. K.Sarwanamma [ (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 445] for the similar proposition of law that a gift validly made and accepted by the Donee is irrevocable in nature. In this case Ex.A1 being executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff giving the absolute rights over the property to the defendant no.1 also irrevocable. If defendant no.1 wanted to cancel the same she could have done so only with the consent of the plaintiff or with the decree of the court.
28. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further placed reliance in
Ajjapalli Papireddy and another Vs. Ajjapalli Narayana Reddy and another [ 2014 (1) ALD 622] that the allegation of fraud must be clearly and specifically pleaded and proved by the party pleading by adducing unimpeachable evidence. There is no dispute about this proposition of law. In this case, there is no specific plea of fraud pleaded by defendant no.1 and proof of the same by any unimpeachable evidence. Hence this contention of the defendant cannot stand. The learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance in E.R. Kalaivan Vs.
Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and another [AIR (2010) Madras 18 ] for the proposition of law that cancellation of a sale deed is unilateral without the consent of the purchaser/party and its registration is not permissible and there is no dispute about this proposition of law also. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further placed reliance in Yanala Malleshwari W/o Y.Yadagiri Reddy etc., Vs. Smt.Ananthula Sayamma, W/o late Gopaiah and another etc., [AIR 2007 12 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013
Andhra Pradesh 57] for the proposition of law that the Writ petition is not maintainable for cancellation of instruments which purports nullify the sale deed and the person aggrieved by the cancellation deed has to approach the civil court. There is no dispute about this proposition of law also.
29. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further placed reliance in
Smt.Shakuntla Devi Vs. Smt.Amar Devi [AIR 1985 Himachal Pradesh 109] for the proposition of law that cancellation of gift deed unilaterally by the donar is not valid. There is no dispute about this proposition of law also.
30. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further placed reliance in Subhas
Chandra Das Mushib Vs. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib and others [AIR (1967)
Supreme Court 878 ] for the proposition of law that no presumption of undue influence can arise merely because parties were nearly related to each other or merely because the donor was old or of weak character. In this case it is not the case of the defendants that the gift deed under Ex.A1 was executed by undue influence. Therefore, this decision is not relevant for consideration.
31. On the other hand, the learned counsel for defendants relied upon a decision in Yanala Malleshwari Ananthula Sayamma and others [ 2006 (6) ALT 523] which was also relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff for a different proposition of law. It is clear from this decision also at para 22 that a person who executed a sale deed and got it registered cannot subsequently execute a document unilaterally canceling the earlier sale deed. Therefore, this decision is of no helpful to the defendants.
32. The learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance in an unreported decision in Writ Appeal No.1851/2016 in W.P.(C) No.8193/2014 on the file of High Court of Kerala Ernakulam, dated 03.10.2016. The Hon’ble Keral 13 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013
High Court while dealing with Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has held that it is not the requirement or inherent that the document evidencing transfer either by gift or otherwise should itself contain an express condition that the transferee shall be provide the basis amenities and physical needs of the transferor and on the other hand if there is evidence to the satisfaction of the authorities under the act that the requirements of Section 23 are satisfied in a case, it is always open to the authorities to invoke their powers under section 23 of the Act and involvement of the document.
33. In this case, defendant no.1 is not invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 by filing an application to the Tribunal constituted under the said Act, so that
Section 23 of the said act can be made use of. So, this decision is of no help to the defendants.
34. In view of the above discussion the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the cancellation deed document No.670/2013, dated March, 2012 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. These two issues are accordingly held in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
35. Issue No.2:-
Plaintiff is also seeking for cancellation of Sale deed, dated 30.03.2013
Ex.B1/Ex.A3 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2. In view of
Ex.A1 gift deed, defendant no.1 has no rights in the suit schedule property to execute Ex.A3/Ex.B1. But in this case plaintiff is not seeking any relief of declaration that Ex.A3 is null and void and not binding on him. He is seeking the 14 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013 relief of cancellation of the said sale deed. The relief of cancellation of the sale deed can be asked by the any of the parties to the document but not by a third party. Plaintiff is not a party to the document under Ex.A3. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek for this relief. On that ground the plaintiff is not entitled for the said relief. This issue is accordingly held against the plaintiff.
36. Issue No.3:-
Ex.A1 shows that possession was delivered to the plaintiff on 13.01.2009 itself. The photographs produced by the plaintiff and the evidence of plaintiff clearly establish that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.
It is evident from the record that the defendants are claiming the suit schedule property by virtue of the cancellation deed under Ex.A2 and the sale deed under Ex.A3/Ex.B1 and they are also claiming that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. The evidence of PW1 about the attempt made by the defendants to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Further, in view of the findings on issue no.1 and additional issue, the plaintiff proved his entitlement for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants etc., as prayed for. This issue is accordingly held in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
37. Issue no.4:-
In view of the findings on issue no.1, additional issue and issue no.3 the plaintiff is entitled for decree in part.
In the result, this suit is decreed with costs declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property; 15 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013
Further declaring that the cancellation deed document no.670/2013, dated March, 2012 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
Further the defendants and their men are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property by way of perpetual injunction.
The suit so far as relief of cancellation of the sale deed document no.1107/2013, dated 30.03.2013 is hereby dismissed.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant and transcribed by him corrected and pronounced
by me in the open court this the 28th day of December, 2018.
Sd/-
Addl. Judge-cum-VI Senior
Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For plaintiff: For defendants: PW1: K.Prashant KumarDW1: B.Rakesh Babu PW2: S.Srinivasa RaoDW2: C.Shanthamma
Exhibits marked
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A.1 – Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed, dated 31.01.2009
Ex.A.2 – Certified copy of cancellation deed of gift, dated 11.04.2012
Ex.A.3 – Certified copy ofsale deed, dated 30.03.2013
Ex.A.4 – Original Market Value of suit schedule property, dated 12.11.2014
Ex.A.5 – rough sketch plan of suit schedule property
Ex.A.6 – photographs (4 in nos) along with compact disk.
Ex.A.7 – photographs (6 in nos) along with compact disk.
Ex.A.8 – Certified copy of sale deed, dated 19.03.2016
For Defendant:
Ex.B1 – original sale deed, dated 30.03.2013
Ex.B2 – Proceedings issued by GHMC, dated 18.12.2014
Ex.B3 – Electricity bill, dated 31.08.2018
Ex.B4 – Original caste certirficate, dated 15.07.2014
Sd/-
Addl. Judge-cum-VI Senior,
Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
16 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013 17 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013 18 O.S.No.1777 OF 2013