Sri S.Siva Sankar Reddy

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: DARSI

PRESENT: Sri S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY,

Senior Civil Judge, Darsi

Wednesday, this the Eighth (08 th ) day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No.95 of 2018

Between:

Shaik Mahaboob Bee, W/o. Mahaboob Basha, aged 45 years, Muslim, cultivation, Peda Ullagallu village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

And

Medagam Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, aged 45 years, Hindu, cultivation, Reddy Nagar, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant

The suit coming on 18.02.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Srinivasa Sastry, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri V.

Ramana Reddy, Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the same by ejecting the defendant through due process of law, and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief plaint averments of the plaintiff are that;

(a) Originally, one Daggula Venkata Reddy son of Peda Rosi Reddy of

Chenchireddypalli of Pamuru Mandal was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property being purchased from Bathula Mala Kondaiah for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.8,200/- under a registered sale deed dated 16.06.1994 to 08.04.20262OS_95_2018 an extent of Ac.0.53 ½ cents in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village. The plaintiff further averred that the said Daggula Venkata Reddy also purchased an extent of Ac.5.52 ½ cents on 16.06.1994 from Chilamkuri Rajaiah for a valuable consideration of Rs.83,000/- under a registered sale deed vide document No.

1044/1994 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date on wards. The plaintiff further averred that from the date of the said registered sale deeds, Daggula Venkata Reddy being the absolute owner has been in possession and enjoyment of total extent of Ac.6.06 cents in Survey No.171, which is the plaint schedule property herein. The plaintiff further averred that in turn, the said Daggula Venkata Reddy has sold an extent of Ac.3.03 cents in

Survey No.171 to one Bonumukka Rama Krishna Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 23.07.2007. The plaintiff further averred that on 23.07.2007, she purchased an extent of Ac.3.03 cents in Survey No.171 from one Daggula Venkata

Reddy being the remaining half extent, out of Ac.6.06 cents for a valuable consideration vide document No.3834 of 2007. The plaintiff further averred that subsequently she purchased the remaining half extent of Ac.3.03 cents from

Bonamukkala Ramakrishna Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 28.04.2008 in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village vide document No.1515 of 2008. The plaintiff further averred that from the respective dates of sale deeds, she has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property being the absolute owner.

The plaintiff further averred that in recognition of her absolute right and title over the plaint schedule property, her name is also mutated in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title deed in her name, so also cultivation adangal and she paid the cist to the Government regularly. The revenue authorities issued 08.04.20263OS_95_2018 pattadar passbook stands in the name of plaintiff in respect of Ac.6.06 cents in

Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village.

(b). The plaintiff further averred that defendant has no manner of right and title over the plaint schedule property, but there were disputes between him and the defendant with regard to time barred unregistered agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 executed by her in favour of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further averred that due to the said disputes, in the second week of May, 2018, the defendant highhandedly and illegally occupied the plaint schedule property without any manner of right. The plaintiff further averred that inspite of her repeated demands, the defendant failed to handover the possession of the plaint schedule property and also openly proclaimed and threatened her that he would not allow the plaintiff to enter into the plaint schedule property.The plaintiff further averred that the defendant is a powerful person having muscle support and hence prays the Hon’ble Court to pass a decree in her favour.

Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement, denying all the plaint allegations and contended that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property being purchaser under registered sale deeds from her vendors.

Defendant further contended that he purchased the plaint schedule property for

Rs.16,66,500/- (Rs.2,75,000/- per acre, to an extent of Ac.6.06 cents) and accordingly entered into an agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 by paying

Rs.4,00,000/- towards advance amount. Defendant further contended that he also made part payments on the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 from time to time and got endorsements thereon. Defendant further contended that since 08.04.20264OS_95_2018 15.09.2010 he has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property with absolute rights by raising crops. Defendant further contended that inspite of repeated demands and requests, the plaintiff failed to execute a regular registered sale deed in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 with a malafide intention, inspite of readiness and willingness. Defendant further contended that the plaintiff filed this suit with all false allegations. Defendant further contended that he is a bonafide purchaser of the plaint schedule property by paying the entire sale consideration under agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Defendant further contended that he also filed a suit on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court,

Darsi for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 and it has to be numbered. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings of the parties, on 01.12.2019 the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor for trial:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property , as prayed for?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential possession over the plaint schedule property as prayed for ?

Iii. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the sole plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A10.So also, examined two independent witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 on her behalf. Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed dated 23.07.2007 executed by Daggula Venkata Reddy in favour of plaintiff for an extent of Ac.3.03 cents in Survey No.171.Ex.A2 is the registered sale deed

dated 28.04.2008 executed by Bonumukkala Ramakrishna Reddy in favour

of plaintiff in an extent of Ac.3.03 cents in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village, bearing document No.1515 of 2008. Ex.A3 is registered sale deed 08.04.20265OS_95_2018

dated 23.07.2007 executed by Daggula Venkata Reddy in favour of

Bonumukkala Rama Krishna Reddy for an extent of Ac.3.03 cents in Survey

No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village. Ex.A4 is the registered sale deed dated 16.06.1994 executed by Chilamkuri Rajaiah, S/. Rajaiah in favour of

Daggula Venkata Reddy in an extent of Ac.5.52 ½ cents in Survey No.171 of

Peda Ullagallu village. Ex.A5 is the original registered sale deed dated 16.06.1994 executed by Bathula Malakondaiah in favour of Daggula

Venkata Reddy to an extent of Ac.0.53 ½ cents in Survey No.171 of Peda

Ullagallu village. Ex.A6 is the pattadar passbook stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in respect of Ac.6.06 cents in

Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village. Ex.A7 is the copy of ROR under 1-

B namuna dated 24.06.2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Mundlamur through

Mee-seva. Ex.A8 is the digitally signed copy of adangal for fasali 1426 dated 09.06.2018 issued by Tahsildar, Mundlamur in respect of Survey No.171 of

Peda Ullagallu village. Ex.A9 is digitally signed copy of adangal for fasali 1427 dated 09.06.2018 issued by Tahsildar, Mundlamur in respect of Survey

No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village and Ex.A10 is the land revenue receipt

dated 20.03.2010 stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the Village

Revenue Officer, Peda Ullagallu for fasali 1418 and 1419.

6.On the other hand, the sole defendant examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B3, so also examined one independent witness as

DW.2 on his behalf. Ex.B1 is the office copy of legal notice dated 18.05.2019 got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. Ex.B2 is the reply legal notice dated 30.05.2019 got issued by the plaintiff counsel to Ex.B1 notice and Ex.B3 is postal receipt of Ex.B1 notice.

7.Heard the arguments on both the sides. Perused the plaint, written statement, evidence on both the sides and other material on record.

08.04.20266OS_95_2018

8. ISSUES 1 and 2:

As this is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, seeking for declaration of her right and title over the plaint schedule property, as well as consequential recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the plaintiff to prove her case with her own merits and evidence without depending upon the weakness of the defendant’s case if any. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, she herself was examined as PW.1 and reiterated her plaint contents in her chief-examination.

PW.1 deposed that originally one Daggula Venkata Reddy was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property being purchased from Bathula Mala Kondaiah for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.8,200/- under a registered sale deed dated 16.06.1994 to an extent of Ac.0.53 ½ cents in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village. Ex.A5 is the original registered sale deed dated 16.06.1994 executed by

Bathula Malakondaiah in favour of Daggula Venkata Reddy to an extent of Ac.0.53 ½ cents in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village. PW.1 further deposed that the said Daggula Venkata Reddy also purchased an extent of Ac.5.52 ½ cents on 16.06.1994 from Chilamkuri Rajaiah for a valuable consideration of Rs.83,000/- under a registered sale deed vide document No. 1044/1994 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date on wards. Ex.A4 is the registered sale deed dated 16.06.1994 executed by Chilamkuri Rajaiah, S/.

Rajaiah in favour of Daggula Venkata Reddy in an extent of Ac.5.52 ½ cents in

Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village. PW.1 further deposed that from the date of Ex.A4 and A5, the said Daggula Venkata Reddy being the absolute owner has 08.04.20267OS_95_2018 been in possession and enjoyment of total extent of Ac.6.06 cents in Survey

No.171, which is the plaint schedule property herein.

9.PW.1 further deposed that in turn, the said Daggula Venkata Reddy has sold an extent of Ac.3.03 cents in Survey No.171 to one Bonumukka Rama

Krishna Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 23.07.2007, which is marked as Ex.A3. PW.1 further deposed that on 23.07.2007, she purchased an extent of

Ac.3.03 cents in Survey No.171 from one Daggula Venkata Reddy being the remaining half extent, out of Ac.6.06 cents for a valuable consideration vide document No.3834 of 2007. Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed dated 23.07.2007 executed by Daggula Venkata Reddy in favour of plaintiff for an extent of Ac.3.03 cents in Survey No.171. PW.1 further deposed that subsequently she purchased the remaining half extent of Ac.3.03 cents from Bonamukkala Ramakrishna Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 28.04.2008 in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village vide document No.1515 of 2008, which is marked as Ex.A2. PW.1 further deposed that from the respective dates of Ex.A1 and A2, she has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property being the absolute owner.

PW.1 further deposed that in recognition of her absolute right and title over the plaint schedule property, her name is also mutated in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title deed in her name, so also cultivation adangal and she paid the cist to the Government regularly. Ex.A6 is the pattadar passbook stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in respect of

Ac.6.06 cents in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village. Ex.A7 is the copy of

ROR under 1-B namuna dated 24.06.2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Mundlamur through Mee-seva. Ex.A8 is the digitally signed copy of adangal for fasali 1426 08.04.20268OS_95_2018

dated 09.06.2018 issued by Tahsildar, Mundlamur in respect of Survey No.171 of

Peda Ullagallu village. Ex.A9 is digitally signed copy of adangal for fasali 1427

dated 09.06.2018 issued by Tahsildar, Mundlamur in respect of Survey No.171 of

Peda Ullagallu village and Ex.A10 is the land revenue receipt dated 20.03.2010 stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Peda

Ullagallu for fasali 1418 and 1419.

10.PW.1 further deposed that the defendant has no manner of right and title over the plaint schedule property, but there were disputes between him and the defendant with regard to time barred unregistered agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 executed by her in favour of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property. PW.1 further deposed that due to the said disputes, in the second week of May, 2018, the defendant highhandedly and illegally occupied the plaint schedule property without any manner of right. PW.1 further deposed that inspite of her repeated demands, the defendant failed to handover the possession of the plaint schedule property and also openly proclaimed and threatened her that he would not allow the plaintiff to enter into the plaint schedule property. PW.1 further deposed that the defendant is a powerful person having muscle support and hence prays the Hon’ble Court to pass a decree in her favour. The learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined PW.1 by putting various suggestions, mostly in respect fo the alleged agreement of sale between the plaintiff and defendant . Even according to the cross-examination of defendant also it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. PW.1 further denied the suggestion that as on the date of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010, she handed over the possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendant and 08.04.20269OS_95_2018 since then the defendant has been in possession of the same. PW.1 also denied the suggestion that after payment of the balance sale consideration by defendant to her, he has been dragging on the matter without executing registered sale deed in favour of defendant. PW.1 admitted in her cross-examination that as on the date of filing of the suit, defendant is in possession of the plaint schedule property and defendant also issued a legal notice, for which she also issued a reply notice.

Except the above denial suggestions the defendant counsel could not elicit anything material from the cross-examination of PW.1 to discard her chief- examination.

11.To support the case of the plaintiff, she also examined two independent witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 on her behalf. Both PW.2 and PW.3, who are the third parties deposed in one voice in their chief-examination that the plaint schedule property is the absolute property of the plaintiff being purchased under

Ex.A1 and A2 registered sale deeds. PW.2 and PW.3 further deposed that plaintiff executed an agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 in favour of the defendant, but subsequently, the defendant failed to pay the balance of sale consideration of

Rs.3,16,500/- to the plaintiff and defendant failed to obtain a regular registered sale deed. PW.2 and PW.3 further deposed that they made a mediation in respect of the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of the remaining balance of sale consideration, but the defendant failed to repay the said amount. PW.2 and

PW.3 further deposed that they came to know that in the year 2018, the defendant occupied the plaint schedule property by force. In the cross-examination, PW.2 and

PW.3 are denied the suggestion in respect of the agreement of sale, passing of the consideration thereunder, which are not at all relevant to the case of the plaintiff 08.04.202610OS_95_2018 herein. PW.2 deposed that he was not present at the time when agreement was entered between defendant and the wife of Mabu i.e., plaintiff. PW.3 deposed that he has not seen the agreement of sale, he does not know the contents thereon.

Furthermore, even according to the own evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, they came to know about the occupation of the plaint schedule property by the defendant by force and they are the direct eye witnesses. As such, the evidence of PW.2 and

PW.3 in respect of the agreement of sale, alleged to be executed between the parties is not much helpful to the case of the plaintiff, as it is not in dispute between the parties to the suit that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

12.To rebut the case of the plaintiff, as well as to prove the defence of the defendant, he himself was examined as DW.1 and reiterated his written statement contents in his chief-examination. DW.1 also categorically admitted in his chief- examination, as well as written statement that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property being purchaser under Ex.A1 and A2 registered sale deeds from her vendors. The very evidence of DW.1 is that he purchased the plaint schedule property for Rs.16,66,500/- (Rs.2,75,000/- per acre, to an extent of

Ac.6.06 cents) and accordingly entered into an agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 by paying Rs.4,00,000/- towards advance amount. DW.1 further deposed that he also made part payments on the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 from time to time and got endorsements thereon. DW.1 further deposed that since 15.09.2010 he has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property with absolute rights by raising crops. DW.1 further deposed that 08.04.202611OS_95_2018 inspite of repeated demands and requests, the plaintiff failed to execute a regular registered sale deed in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 with a malafide intention, inspite of readiness and willingness. DW.1 further deposed that the plaintiff filed this suit with all false allegations. DW.1 further deposed that he is a bonafide purchaser of the plaint schedule property by paying the entire sale consideration under agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. DW.1 further deposed that he also filed a suit on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Darsi for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 and it has to be numbered. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. On 30.09.2024 the learned counsel for the plaintiff cross-examined DW.1.

13.After completion of the cross-examination of DW.1 on 02.01.2025, again the

DW.1 was further examined in chief and got marked Ex.B1 to B3 on his behalf.

Ex.B1 is the office copy of legal notice dated 18.05.2019 got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. Ex.B2 is the reply legal notice dated 30.05.2019 got issued by the plaintiff counsel to Ex.B1 notice and Ex.B3 is postal receipt of Ex.B1 notice. In the cross-examination of DW.1 dated 02.01.2025 he denied the suggestion that Ex.B1 legal notice does not carry any evidentiary value, as he has not filed alleged agreement of sale executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property. Whereas, in the cross-examination of

DW.1 dated 30.09.2024, he categorically admitted that originally, the plaint schedule property is the absolute property of the plaintiff herein. DW.1 also admitted in the cross-examination that he has not obtained any possessory agreement of sale from the plaintiff inspite of paying the entire balance of sale 08.04.202612OS_95_2018 consideration . DW.1 denied the suggestion that he has not paid the balance of sale consideration of Rs.3,16,500/- to the plaintiff even till today. DW.1 also admitted that plaintiff has issued a reply notice to the notice issued by him. DW.1 further categorically admitted in his cross-examination dated 30.09.2024 that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that he filed any suit for specific performance against the plaintiff. DW.1 denied the suggestion that in the month of

May, 2018, he forcibly occupied the plaint schedule property without any manner of right. DW.1 denied the suggestion that the unregistered agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 is time barred and he failed to perform his part of contract. DW.1 denied the suggestion that without any manner of right, he forcibly occupied the plaint schedule property and enjoying the same without any manner of right without vacating the same inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff.

14.Furthermore, the defendant also examined one independent witness as

DW.2, to support his case. DW.2 also admitted in his chief-examination that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he deposed about the execution of agreement of sale by the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff and also about the part payment endorsements made thereon. DW.2 further deposed that he is the scribe of the part payment endorsements dated 14.05.2010 and 15.09.2010. DW.2 further deposed that the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from 15.09.2010 with absolute rights by raising crops. Whereas, in the cross-examination of DW.2, he denied the suggestion that no part payment endorsement was scribed by him in the presence of plaintiff. DW. 2 denied the suggestion that on 14.05.2010, the defendant never paid Rs.5,00,000/- as alleged in his chief-examination. DW.2 denied the 08.04.202613OS_95_2018 suggestion that plaintiff never delivered the possession of property to the defendant on 15.09.2010. DW.2 also denied the suggestion that defendant has forcibly entered into the the plaint schedule property prior to filing of the suit.

15.On thorough consideration of the above evidence of DW.1 and DW.2, it is crystal clear that the defendant has failed to prove his defence, as well as the evidences of DW.1 and DW.2 are not at all trustworthy. Why because, according to the case of the defendant, as well as the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2, the plaintiff herself has delivered the possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendant on 15.09.2010 after making part payment endorsement on the back side of the alleged agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010. In such a case, it is for the defendant to file and exhibit the said agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 on his behalf to prove his defence. Surprisingly, in the instant case, on perusal of the docket orders and other material on record, the defendant did not pay the stamp duty and penalty impounded by the Registrar and failed to got exhibit the said agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 on his behalf. In the absence of marking the said agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 on behalf of the defendant, the entire evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 is not at all tenable in the eye of law. Moreover, on perusal of Ex.B1 is the legal notice got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff and

Ex.B2 is the reply legal notice dated 30.05.2019 got issued by the plaintiff counsel to the defendant against Ex.B1 notice. Ex.B3 is the postal receipt of Ex.B1.

Furthermore, PW.1 as well as DW.1 admitted that the defendant has issued a legal notice on 18.05.2019, for which the plaintiff also issued a reply notice dated , which were marked as Ex.B1 and B2, but mere exchange of legal notices between the parties does not confer any rights to the defendant, unless he proved the same 08.04.202614OS_95_2018 with cogent evidence before the Court of law. In addition to that as per the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 since 15.09.2010 he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights by raising crops, as the same was delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. Except saying so, the defendant did not adduce any evidence on his behalf, the plaintiff herself delivered the possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendant on 15.09.2010.

Moreover, even according to the own evidence of DW.1 and DW.2, the alleged agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 was an unregistered un-possessory agreement of sale executed by the plaintiff in his favour. Furthermore, the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 is that defendant is in possession of the schedule property with absolute rights. But, this court could not understand as to how this defendant has got absolute rights over the plaint schedule property, unless he obtained a regular registered sale deed from the plaintiff in his favour. Thus, it clearly goes to show that the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 is nothing but an exaggeration and fictitious to suit the needs of the defendant.

16.In addition to the above, the evidence of DW.1 is that he also filed a suit

before Junior Civil Judge Court, Darsi against the plaintiff seeking for specific

performance and the same has yet to be numbered. In the cross-examination of

DW.1, he categorically admitted that he has not filed any documentary evidence to show that he filed any suit for specific performance against the plaintiff. Thus, it is crystal clear that the evidence of DW.1 deposed as per his whims and fancies without any merits in his case. Furthermore, the failure of the defendant to adduce any evidence about the delivery of possession by the plaintiff in his favour, as well as the admission of DW.1 in his cross-examination, in other-words goes to 08.04.202615OS_95_2018 supports the case of the plaintiff that the defendant without any manner of right occupied the plaint schedule property as alleged by the plaintiff. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 is not at all trustworthy and the defendant has failed to prove his defence and to rebut the case of the plaintiff.

17.Whereas, on perusal of the evidence of PW.1, coupled with Ex.A1 to A10 it is crystal clear that inspite of thorough cross-examination by the defendant counsel, the evidence of PW.1 is unshaken. Furthermore, it is also an admitted fact as per the material on record that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Though, the defendant has taken the plea that he was put into possession of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff in pursuance of agreement of sale, but the defendant failed to prove the same, as discussed above. So also, on perusal of Ex.A1 and A2 registered sale deeds, it is crystal clearly proved by the plaintiff that she purchased an extent of Ac.3.03 cents respectively and making the total extent of Ac.6.06 cents in Survey No.171 of Peda

Ullagallu, which is the plaint schedule property herein. Further, on perusal of Ex.A3 to A5, which are the registered sale deeds are the link documents/ title deeds of the vendors of the plaintiff. Thus, the unshaken testimony of PW.1, coupled with

Ex.A1 to A5, the plaintiff clinchingly proved her right and title over the plaint schedule property. Even though, plaintiff admitted the execution of alleged agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 in favour of the defendant, but defendant failed to obtain a regular registered sale deed from the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property in pursuance of the said agreement of sale. As such, defendant cannot get transfer of any right or title in his favour from the plaintiff. As per settled principle of law that title can be transferred from one party to another 08.04.202616OS_95_2018 party through a registered document only, but not under agreement of sale. Thus, the plaintiff through the evidence of PW.1, coupled with Ex.A1 to A5 is able to prove her right and title over the plaint schedule property and thereby the plaintiff is certainly entitled for declaration of her title over the plaint schedule property.

18.Furthermore, on perusal of the evidence of PW.1, she categorically deposed that due to the disputes between her and the defendant with regard to time barred agreement of sale, the defendant has forcibly occupied the plaint schedule property in the second week of May, 2018 and refused to vacate the same in spite of her repeated requests and demands. PW.1 also admitted in her cross examination that as on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant even though pleaded that plaintiff herself has delivered the possession of the schedule property in his favour, but failed to prove the same with any cogent evidence as discussed above. Apart from that, even according to the own admission of DW.1 he has not filed any documentary evidence to show that he filed a suit for specific performance against the plaintiff. Admittedly, defendant did not get any regular registered sale deed from the plaintiff. In such a case, I do not understand what is the right of the defendant to continue in the plaint schedule property, for which there is no explanation or evidence on behalf of the defendant.

Apart from that when the plaintiff is proved her right and little over the plaint schedule property, the possession also follows the title. Furthermore, on perusal of

Ex.A6 to A10, which are the 1-B adangal copies and land revenue receipts stands in the name of the plaintiff issued by the revenue authorities, supports the case of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner and her name was also mutated in the 08.04.202617OS_95_2018 revenue records in recognition of her possession over the plaint schedule property.

Therefore, a conjoint reading of the evidence of PW.1 and DW.1, coupled with

Ex.A6 to A10 documents, clinchingly goes to prove the case of the plaintiff that due to the disputes between them, the defendant has forcibly occupied the plaint schedule property and refused to vacate and handover the same to the plaintiff inspite of her repeated requests and demands. Thus, the defendant has no manner of right to continue in the plaint schedule property, as discussed above and thereby the plaintiff is certainly entitled for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant.

19.For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A10, the plaintiff is able to prove her right and title over the plaint schedule property, as well as proved that the defendant has occupied the plaint schedule property without any manner of right and continuing inspite of her repeated requests and demands. On the other hand, the defendant inspite of examining DW.1 and DW.2 and marking Ex.B1 to

B3, failed to prove his defence as discussed above. Apart from that, defendant has took a plea as DW.1 that on 15.09.2018, the plaintiff herself has delivered the possession of the plaint schedule property to him after payment of the entire sale consideration, but failed to pay the stamp duty and penalty and got marked the alleged agreement of sale dated 28.02.2010 in his favour. In the absence of exhibiting and marking the unregistered agreement of sale on behalf of the defendant, the entire defence of the defendant is no pillar and not tenable in the eye of law. As the defendant has failed to prove his defence of delivery of possession by the plaintiff, the defendant has no manner of right to continue the 08.04.202618OS_95_2018 possession of the schedule property, as the defendant has failed to prove his right and title over the plaint schedule property. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her right and title over the plaint schedule property, as well as recovery of possession by ejecting the defendant from the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, these issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

20. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by declaring the right and title fo the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Further, the defendant is directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of plaint schedule property within 45 days from the date of the judgment, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same through the process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 08 th day of April, 2026 .

Sd/-S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendant:

PW.1: Shaik Mahaboob Bee DW.1: Medagam Venkata Ramanareddy PW.2: Daggula Venkateswara Reddy DW.2: Rachapudi Baskar Rao PW.3: Gondi Appireddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Registered sale deed dated 23.07.2007 executed by Daggula Venkata Reddy in favour of plaintiff for an extent of Ac.3.03 cents in Survey No.171 08.04.202619OS_95_2018

Ex.A2: Registered sale deed dated 28.04.2008 executed by Bonumukkala Ramakrishna Reddy in favour of plaintiff in an extent of Ac.3.03 cents in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village, bearing document No.1515 of 2008.

Ex.A3: Registered sale deed dated 23.07.2007 executed by Daggula Venkata Reddy in favour of Bonumukkala Rama Krishna Reddy for an extent of Ac.3.03 cents in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village.

Ex.A4: Registered sale deed dated 16.06.1994 executed by Chilamkuri Rajaiah, S/. Rajaiah in favour of Daggula Venkata Reddy in an extent of Ac.5.52 ½ cents in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village.

Ex.A5: Original registered sale deed dated 16.06.1994 executed by Bathula Malakondaiah in favour of Daggula Venkata Reddy to an extent of Ac.0.53 ½ cents in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village.

Ex.A6: Pattadar passbook stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in respect of Ac.6.06 cents in Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village.

Ex.A7: Copy of ROR under 1-B namuna dated 24.06.2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Mundlamur through Mee-seva

Ex.A8: Digitally signed copy of adangal for fasali 1426 dated 09.06.2018 issued by Tahsildar, Mundlamur in respect of Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village.

Ex.A9: Digitally signed copy of adangal for fasali 1427 dated 09.06.2018 issued by Tahsildar, Mundlamur in respect of Survey No.171 of Peda Ullagallu village Ex.A10 : land revenue receipt dated 20.03.2010 stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Peda Ullagallu for fasali 1418 and 1419.

For Defendant :

Ex.B1: Office copy of legal notice dated 18.05.2019 got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. Ex.B2: Reply legal notice dated 30.05.2019 got issued by the plaintiff counsel to Ex.B1 notice Ex.B3: Postal receipt of Ex.B1 notice.

ILD/-SSSR

S.C.J., DARSI

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: DARSI

Present: Sri S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY,

Senior Civil Judge, Darsi.

Monday, this the Twenty Third (23 rd ) day of March, 2026

APPEAL SUIT No.05 of 2019

Between:

Bandaru Bujji, W/o. Ankamma Rao, aged 28 Years, Hindu, Housewife, Chinna Kothapalli village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. … Appellant/ Plaintiff

A N D

1. Bandaru Suvartha, W/o. Srinu, aged 32 Years, Hindu, Housewife, Vijayanagar Colony, (Konda kinda), Voddupalem village, Ongole Mandal.

2. Gunji Yasoda (DIED)

3. Kunchala Anjamma, W/o. Late Yohan, aged 27 Years, Hindu, Housewife, Vital Nagar Colony, Voddupalem village, Chirala Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Thammisetty Mounika(DIED)

5. Thammisetty Mahesh, S/o. Late Anjaneyulu, aged 16 Years, being minor represented by his guardian grandmother Badaru Koteswaramma, W/o. Pullaiah, 57 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, Ramabadrapuram village, Thallur Mandal, Prakasam District.

6. Gunji Naga Raju, S/o. Papaiah, aged 25 years, Hindu, cultivation, Yedukondalapalem, H/o. Trovagunta village, Ongole Mandal

7. Gunji Krishna, S/o. Papaiah, aged 23 years, Hindu,cultivation, Yedukondalapalem, H/o. Trovagunta village, Ongole Mandal.

The 5th respondent is recognized as legal heir of deceased 4th respondent as per orders in memo dated 01.05.2024.

The respondents 6 and 7 added as legal heirs of the deceased 2nd respondent as per orders in IA No.570/2024

dated 25.11.2024.

...Respondent/ defendants

2 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI

THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF UNDER

SECTION 96 & UNDER ORDER 41, RULE 1 OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, DARSI IN ‘O.S.No.135/2011, DATED 26.12.2017.

Bandaru Bujji … Plaintiff

A N D

1. Bandaru Suvartha

2. Gunji Yasoda

3. Kunchala Anjamma

4. Thammisetty Mounika

5. Thammisetty Mahesh … Defendants

The Appeal Suit coming on 03.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Srinivasa Sastry, Advocate for Appellant/ Plaintiff and of Sri G. Srinivasula Reddy, Advocate for respondent/defendant No.5; the respondents 1, 3, 6 and 7 remained exparte and the respondents 2 and 4 died; and upon perusing the material available on record, and on hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T ::

This is an Appeal preferred under Order 41 rule 1 CPC by the appellant/ plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.12.2017 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, in O.S.No.135/2011.

2.The suit in OS No.135/2011 was filed by the appellant /plaintiff against respondents/defendants, seeking for for partition of plaint schedule properties into 24 equal shares and for allotment of five such shares to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 each and two such share each to the defendants 4 and 5 and for costs of the suit.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the Trial Court.

3 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI

4.The averments mentioned in the plaint, in brief, are that the item No.1 plaint schedule property is agricultural land an extent of Ac.1.58 cents in

S.No.317/9 and item No.2 of schedule property is house an extent of

Ac.0.06 cents of vacant site, including the RCC slabbed house situated in

Nagambotlapalem village. The plaint schedule properties are originally ancestral properties of the father of plaintiff by name Thammisetty

Chennaiah and he died intestate about 15 years back. Upon the death of

Chennaiah, his wife Kotamma, his daughters i.e. plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and his son Thammisetty Anjaneyulu, who is the father of defendants 4 and 5 succeeded the plaint schedule properties in succession and all of them were in joint and constructive possession over the suit schedule properties. Thus, the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3, the mother of plaintiff

Kotamma and the brother of plaintiff Anjaneyulu are each entitled to 1/6th share out of the plaint schedule properties. After the death of father of plaintiff, the name of the mother of plaintiff was mutated in the Gram

Panchayat records in respect of item No.2 of plaint schedule property and she paid house tax to the said property. While so, at about 8 years back, the brother of plaintiff Thammisetty Anjaneyulu died intestate and his wife

Ramana also died. On the death of the brother of the plaintiff, his undivided 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties are devolved upon his heirs i.e., the defendants 4 and 5 and the defendants 4 and 5 are each entitled 1/12th share in the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3 and the mother of the plaintiff are each entitled 1/6th share and the defendants 4 and 5 are each entitled 1/12th share in the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff further averred that at about one year back, the mother of the plaintiff Kotamma died intestate and on her death, her undivided 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties were devolved upon her daughters i.e., the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 equally. The plaintiff and defendants are entitled five shares each in the plaint schedule properties. Recently some misunderstandings arose between the plaintiff 4 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI and the defendants, the plaintiff feels that it is not safe to continue her share into the joint family. In the month of January, 2011 defendants to cooperate for the plaintiff amicable requested partition. But, the the defendants are postponing the same on one pretext or other and moreover the defendants are trying to alienate and execute some nominal documents in respect of plaint schedule properties with an evil intention to evade the share of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

5.The defendants 1 to 3 are remained exparte.

6.On the other hand, the defendants 4 and 5 resisted the suit by filing written statement. The main averments of the written statement are that the entire averments of plaint are false and are not true. In fact, the item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the father of defendants 4 and 5 by name Thammisetty Anjaiah @ Anjineyulu.

The plaint schedule properties are not ancestral properties of the plaintiff.

The father of plaintiff by name Chennaiah had not any ancestral properties.

The said Chennaiah died about 15 years back and on the death of

Chennaiah, the entire family burdens fell upon the father of defendants 4 and 5. After the death of father of defendants 4 and 5 by name Thammisetty

Anjaiah @ Anjineyulu performed all his sisters marriages with his own expenses and he sold away some of his self-acquired properties for his sisters marriages expenses. After the marriages of plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3, the said Anjaiah living along with his father's mother by name Rangamma, his mother by name Kotamma, his wife Ramanamma and the defendants 4 and 5 together. In the year 2002 TB disease was attacked to the said Anjaiah and the said Anjaiah executed unregistered Will in favour of his father's mother by name Rangamma, his mother by name Kotamma, his wife Ramanamma and the defendants 4 and 5 on 5.4.2003. The said

Anjaiah died in the year 2005. After six months of his death, his father's mother Rangamma died. In the year 2008 the wife of Anjaiah by name 5 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI

Ramanamma who is the mother of defendants 4 and 5 died. In the year 2009 the mother of Anjaiah and plaintiff also died. As per the Will deed,

dated 5.4.2003, the plaint schedule properties are the absolute properties of

defendants 4 and 5. The defendants 4 and 5 are also TB patients and they are living on the mercy of their mercy of their maternal grand mother

Bandaru Koteswaramma. The plaint schedule properties are not the ancestral proprieties of their father and no question of co-parcenary between the plaintiff and the defendants. There is no nucleus of joint family between the defendants and their family members. The plaintiff fraudulently filed the suit for partition without having any right or interest and at the instance of her husband and by colluding with the defendants 1 to 3. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7.The defendants 1 to 3 are remained exparte.

8.Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Darsi framed the following issues for trial on 23.9.2016:- iWhether the plaintiff and the defendants were in joint and constructive possession of plaint schedule properties? iiWhether item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are the ancestral property of plaintiff and the defendants? iiiWhether the defendants 4 and 5 have acquired the plaint schedule properties as per Will deed, dated 5.4.2003?5

O.S.135/11, dated 26.12.2017

ivWhether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule property and whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the plaint schedule property? To what relief

9.On behalf of the plaintiff, she herself examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to

A3 are marked. Ex.A1 is the certificate, dated 7.7.2011 issued by Panchayat

Secretary, Nagambotlapalem village, Ex.A2 is house tax receipt dated 2.2.2010 stands in the name of Thammisetty Kotamma and Ex.A3 is certified 6 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI copy of register sale deed, dated 17.3.2003 executed by T.Kotamma and

T.Anjaiah in favour of B. Pullaiah.

10.On behalf of the defendants 4 and 5 their maternal grand mother by name Bandaru Koteswaramma examined as DW.1 and Exs.B1 to B4 are marked. DW.1/B. Koteswaramma is a witness. Exs.B1 is unregistered Will executed by the father of defendants 4 and 5, dated 5.4.2003, Ex.B2 is house tax receipt dated 9.5.2002, Ex.B3 is house tax receipt, dated 10.08.2004 and Ex.B4 is house tax receipt, dated 10.07.2005

11.Having heard learned counsel on either side and on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and other material on record, the Trial Court by its judgment dated 26.12.2017 dismissed the suit in OS No.135/2011 without costs.

12.Aggrieved with the said Judgment and Decree passed by the learned

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, the present appeal is preferred by the ‘ plaintiff being Appellant ’ .

13.The grounds of appeal are that:

i. The judgment and decree of the lower court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

ii. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in accordance with the settled principles of law of evidence.

iii. The trail court misconstrued the evidence on record and reached erroneous conclusions.

iv. The findings of the trail court on issues 1 to 4 are wrong.

v. The lower court ought to have rejected the inconsistent evidence of Dw-1 on crucial aspects in dispute in the suit.

vi. The lower court failed to appreciate that according to Sec. 8 of Hindu

Succession Act, the plaintiff is class-1 heir of her father and so, the plaintiff is 7 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI entitled an undivided share into the plaint schedule properties along with the defendants.

vii. The lower court comes a wrong conclusion that the plaintiff is not any share into the plaint schedule properties which are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff.

viii. The lower court comes to a wrong conclusion that the father of the plaintiff died 15 years prior to filing of the suit and that the plaintiff is not entitled any share into the plaint schedule properties.

ix. The lower court comes to a wrong conclusion that there is no joint family in existence by the date of coming into force of Act 39/2005 in which the plaintiff can claim share as a coparcener.

x. The lower court failed to appreciate that even though the plaintiff is not entitled any share U/S 6 of Hindu Succession Act, but the plaintiff is entitled share

U/S 8 of Hindu Succession Act as class-I heir.

xi. The lower to comes a wrong conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled any share as the plaintiff did not claim share immediately after the death of her father.

xii. The lower court failed to consider that the decision reported in Praksh and others Vs. Phulavati is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

xiii. On proper consideration of facts available in the case and the law applicable to them the lower court ought to have decreed the suit with costs as prayed for.

14. Heard the arguments on both sides.

15.Now the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:

I. Whether the plaintiff and the defendants were in joint and constructive possession of plaint schedule properties? ii.Whether item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are the ancestral property of plaintiff and the defendants? Iii.Whether the defendants 4 and 5 have acquired the plaint schedule properties as per Will deed, dated 5.4.2003?

8 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI iv.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule property and whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the plaint schedule property? V.Whether the Decree and Judgment in OS No.135/2011 dated 26.12.2017 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Darsi needs any interference? VI. To what relief

ISSUES/POINTS 2 and 3:

16.As seen from the evidence and material on record, the petitioner/appellant herein being the plaintiff has filed a suit in OS No.135 of 2011 against the respondents/defendants on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Darsi, seeking for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 24 equal shares and allotment of 5 such shares to the plaintiff with metes and bounds, good and bad qualities and with separate possession. So also, the plaintiff pleaded in her plaint that the defendants 1 to 3 each are entitled for five such shares, defendants 4 and 5 each are entitled for two such shares. After full trial, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Darsi has passed his judgment on 26.12.2017 by dismissing the suit of this petitioner/ appellant/plaintiff in OS No.135/2011 by holding that petitioner/plaintiff/appellant is not a coparcener with the defendants, as her father died prior to enactment of amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005 i.e., with effect from 09.09.2005 in issue

No.1 and 4. Whereas, in the judgment the learned Junior Civil Judge, Darsi has answered the issue Nos. 2 and 3 affirmatively in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by holding that defendants 4 and 5 have failed to prove the alleged

Will deed vide Ex.B1 dated 05.04.2003 under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, so also held in issue No.2 that items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendants. Aggrieved with the findings of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Darsi on issues 1 and 4 only, the petitioner/ 9 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI appellant preferred this appeal. However, this court being the first appellate court has to consider both the evidence and law in the first appeal in toto in respect of all issues answered by the learned trial court. Hence, this court is going to consider the findings of the learned Junior Civil Judge on issues 1 to 4.

17.As the defendants 4 and 5 took a plea that items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of their father and they are not the ancestral properties as alleged by the plaintiff, issues 2 and 3 were framed. As per the judgment dated 26.12.2017 in OS No.135/2011, the learned Junior Civil

Judge, Darsi observed in issue No.2 on consideration of the evidence on record

that the defendants 4 and 5 have failed to file any tangible documentary evidence

before this court to show that the schedule properties are the self acquired

properties of their father. On the other hand, the learned Junior Civil Judge further held that Ex.A1 to A3 filed on behalf of the plaintiff goes to prove that the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties are the undivided ancestral properties of the parties to the suit. On perusal of the evidence of DW.1, coupled with Ex.B1 unregistered Will dated 05.04.2003, it is crystal clear that the defendants 4 and 5 did not examine any attestors of Ex.B1 Will deed and thereby they have failed to prove the Ex.B1 Will deed, as required under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act.

Thus, Ex.B1 Will deed does not prove by the defendants to support their written statement averments that item Nos.1 and 2 are the self acquired properties of their father and bequeathed to them under Ex.B1. Furthermore, the evidence of DW.1 coupled with Ex.B2 to B4 house tax receipts also clincingly goes to prove that defendants 4 and 5 did not file any title deed or documents stands in the name of their father to prove their defence that they are the self acquired properties of their 10 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI father as alleged by them. As per the record, defendants 1 to 3 are remained exparte before the trial court. Therefore, it is crystal clear that defendants 4 and 5, who are the contesting parties have failed to prove that their father is the absolute owner of the schedule properties and they also failed to prove that Ex.B1 Will as required under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, since defendants 4 and 5 have failed to prove their father’s right and title through documentary evidence, Ex.B1 cannot convey any right or title, as their father himself had no such right or title.

18.However, this being a suit seeking for partition, mere failure of the defendants to prove their defence does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to get the relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties, unless she has proved her case with her own strength and evidence. As per the findings of the learned Junior

Civil Judge in his judgment dated 26.12.2017 in issue No.2, he relied and trusted

Ex.A1 to A3 and come to conclusion that plaintiff has proved that the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties as ancestral properties of the parties to the suit.

Whereas, on perusal of Ex.A1, which is certificate dated 07.07.2011 issued by the

Panchayat Secretary, Nagambotlapalem village, shows that the mother of the plaintiff paid house tax to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. On perusal of

Ex.A2, which is the house tax receipt dated 02.02.2010 stands in the name of mother of the plaintiff. On consideration of Ex.A1 and A3, it is crystal clear that they are the certificate and house tax receipt issued by the concerned Revenue

Department is proving the payment of house tax by the mother of the plaintiff. As per settled law revenue records like cist receipts/tax receipts is not at all proof of title over the said property. Furthermore, Ex.A1 certificate was issued by a 11 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI

Panchayat Secretary is also not at all countersigned by the Tahsildar and that too for collection of tax in the name of the mother of the plaintiff is also not sufficient to believe and hold that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties.

Apart from that, on perusal of Ex.A3, which is certified copy of registered sale deed

dated 17.03.2003 executed by T.Kotamma and T. Anjaiah in favour of B. Pullaiah

in respect of item No.1 of the schedule property by mentioning that it is the ancestral property of Anjaiah, but the said document is not supported with any piece of paper or link document that item No.1 is the ancestral property as mentioned in Ex.A3. In the absence of any proof of documentary evidence, mere mentioning of property as ancestral property by the parties themselves in Ex.A3 certified copy of sale deed does not prove that item No.1 of schedule property is the ancestral property. Ex.A1 like certificate can be brought into existence by parties according to their whims and fancies and suit their needs. It is for the plaintiff and the parties under Ex.A3 that as to how the schedule property was become their ancestral property and how the said property was succeeded and devolved upon them. In the absence of any such proof on behalf of the plaintiff, the contents mentioned by the parties in Ex.A3 itself cannot sufficient to hold that item

No.1 of the schedule property is the ancestral property as alleged by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, on perusal of the evidence of PW.1 also, she did not whisper who is the original owner of the plaint schedule properties and how and in what manner the schedule properties were succeeded from one generation to another generation and devolved upon the parties to the suit. Furthermore, the plaintiff has admittedly not filed any title deed or link document stands in the name of their ancestors to prove her contention.

12 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI

19.For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this court is of the opinion that the findings of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Darsi on issue No.2 that item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendants is not in accordance with law and the same has to be interfered by this court by holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that items 1 and 2 are the ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendants as alleged by the plaintiff. Hence, the issue No.2 is answered against the plaintiff. However, as the learned Junior

Civil Judge, has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff basing on the findings of other

issues, the reversal of the findings of the learned Junior Civil Judge on issue No.2 alone cannot make any change in the result of the suit. Furthermore, this court is of the opinion for the aforesaid reasons and discussions that the findings of learned

Junior Civil Judge on issue No.3 is holds good and does not require any interference.

ISSUE No.1 and 4/POINT No.1 and 4:

20.As seen from the dismissal judgment dated 26.12.2017 in OS No.135/2011, the learned Junior Civil Judge has held in issue No.1 and 4 after thorough appreciation of the evidence on record that the plaintiff is not a coparcener under

Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act on par with the defendants, as the father of the plaintiff died much prior to enactment of the amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005 i.e., which came into force with effect from 09.09.2005. Basing on this findings, the learned Junior Civil Judge has answered the issues 1 and 3 negatively against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the suit in OS

No.135/2011, the petitioner/appellant preferred this appeal specifically in respect of issues 1 and 4 only on the ground that the learned Junior Civil Judge, Darsi has 13 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI failed to appreciate that even though plaintiff is not entitled any share under

Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, but the plaintiff is entitled share under Section 8 of Succession Act as class-I heir. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued in pursuance of his appeal grounds that the learned Junior Civil Judge has come to a wrong conclusion that the father of the plaintiff also died about 15 years prior to filing of the suit and also wrongly held that no joint family in existence by the date of commencement of the Act 39 of 2005 with effect from 09.09.2005. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the learned Junior Civil Judge wrongly opined that the plaintiff is not a coparcener and wrongly dismissed the suit of this plaintiff. Hence, prays this Hon’ble Court to allow this appeal by setting aside the dismissal judgment dated 26.12.2017 and allot the share of the plaintiff under

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. In support of this arguments, the plaintiff counsel also relied on a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad reported in 2005(1) Law Summary 408 held in between Gaddam China

Dodamma Vs., Goka Peda Dodamma and another. So also, relied on another judgment of out Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 25.04.1997 reported in 1997 (4) ALT 803 held in between Sundari Dharmanna Vs.,

Narsu Bai and another. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent opposed the arguments and appeal grounds of the appellant and submitted that the judgment of the learned Junior Civil Judge is in accordance with law and with sound reasons and proper appreciation of the evidence on record and does not require any interference by this court. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent further argued that the petitioner/appellant filed this appeal with all false allegations and without any merits and prays to dismiss the appeal.

14 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI

21.On perusal of the judgment of the learned Junior Civil Judge, he categorically and thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and held on issues 1 and 4 that even according to the own evidence of PW.1 and evidence on record, the father of the plaintiff died much before the commencement of the amended Hindu Succession Act with effect from 09.09.2005 and thereby the plaintiff being daughter cannot be a coparcener along with her male siblings and cannot claim any share in the schedule property. The learned Junior Civil Judge further held on issues 1 and 4 that the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of joint family property as on the date of enactment of amended Hindu Succession

Act and thereby dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. In respect of the findings of the learned Junior Civil Judge on issues 1 and 4 under Section 6 of Hindu Succession

Act, the petitioner/appellant did not dispute the same. Furthermore, on perusal of the evidence of PW.1, coupled with the plaint averments, as rightly answered by the learned Junior Civil Judge, the father of the plaintiff and defendants died 15 years prior to filing of the suit. On perusal of the plaint and material on record, the plaintiff filed this suit on 21.07.2011, in such a case, the father of the plaintiff died much prior to the year 2005. Further, the learned Junior Civil Judge has rightly observed that Hon’ble Apex Court has also delivered the land mark judgment in

Prakash and others Vs., Pulavati and others, regarding the right of the inheritance by the daughters as on the date of enactment of amended Hindu Succession Act, the father has to alive to claim right by the daughters. Further, it is also settled law as rightly held by the learned Junior Civil Judge that amended succession Act does not have retrospective effect. Therefore, the findings of the learned Junior Civil

Judge on issues 1 and 4 under Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act by holding that

as the father of the plaintiff died much prior to enactment of the amended Hindu 15 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI

Succession Act , the plaintiff being the daughter is not entitled to seek any share as coparcener, along with the defendants is in accordance with law and does not require any interference by this Court also.

22.However, the very appeal grounds, as well as the argument of the appellant counsel is that even if the plaintiff has failed to get any share under Section 6 of

Hindu Succession Act, but the plaintiff is entitled for a share in the plaint schedule properties under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. For the sake of convenience, I am herewith reproducing Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Section 8 General rules of succession in the case of males:

The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:―

(a). firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the

Schedule;

(b). secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;

(c). thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and

(d). lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.

In support of his contention, the appellant counsel also relied on a decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in 2005(1) Law

Summary 408 held in between Gaddam China Dodamma Vs., Goka Peda

Dodamma and another. So also, relied on another judgment of out Hon’ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 25.04.1997 reported in 1997 (4) ALT 803 held in between Sundari Dharmanna Vs., Narsu Bai and another.

16 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI

23. On thorough perusal and appreciation of the evidence and material on record, this court is of the humble opinion that the judgments relied by the appellant counsel is not applicable to the present case, as the facts of both the cases are entirely different. In the instant case, the father of the plaintiff died leaving his male issues also and plaintiff is not the sole daughter without having any male issues to her father. Apart from that, a plain reading of Section 8 of Hindu

Succession Act goes to show that it applies to the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this chapter. Whereas, the very case of the plaintiff even according to her plaint and evidence as PW.1 is that plaint schedule properties are her ancestral properties, but not the self acquired properties of her father. Even though, defendants 4 and 5 took a defense that items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of their father, but the same was opposed by the plaintiff, as well as defendants have failed to prove the same. Apart from that, as per the findings of this court on point No.2, it was clearly held that plaintiff has failed to prove that the schedule properties are her ancestral properties, as claimed by her. At the same time, the plaintiff has also not filed even a single piece of paper or any document to prove that items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties are the properties of her father, who died intestate to attract section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. Though, defendants have also failed to prove their defence, the same is not at all a ground for the plaintiff to get the relief of partition prayed by her even under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. It is for the plaintiff to prove whether the schedule properties are the ancestral properties or the self acquired properties of her father, for which the plaintiff ought to have adduce sufficient and satisfactory evidence on record. Unfortunately, in the instant case, except taking vague pleas by the plaintiff at one stage claiming 17 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI schedule properties are ancestral properties and at another stage claiming the schedule properties are the own properties of her father seeking for invoking the

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, which cannot be permitted under the law.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has utterly failed to adduce any cogent oral or documentary evidence on record to substantiate her plaint contents, as well as appeal grounds and thereby this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove her case and there are no merits in the appeal grounds. Accordingly these points are answered.

POINT No.5:

24.On thorough consideration of the evidence and material on record and for the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this court is of the opinion that the findings of the learned Junior Civil Judge on issue No.2 is requires to be interfered by this court and accordingly held that plaintiff has failed to prove that item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties are her ancestral properties, hence issue/point No.2 is answered against the plaintiff. Whereas, with regard to the findings of the learned

Junior Civil Judge on the remaining issues/points 1, 3 and 4 does not require any interference or modification by this court, as they are after proper appreciation of the evidence on record and in accordance with law. However, as the suit was dismissed, even if issue/point No.2 was answered against the appellant it does not effect the result of the suit or appeal. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the appeal and the dismissal judgment dated 26.12.2017 in OS No.135/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

Darsi does not require any interference or modification of this court and the same is holds good. Accordingly, this point is answered.

18 23.03.2026AS.05-2019 _SCJC_DARSI

25.In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed in OS No.135/2011 dated 26.12.2017 on the file of the Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Darsi.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23 rd day of March, 2026.

SD/-S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side during the appeal.

ILD/-SSSR S.C.J.,

Darsi.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: DARSI

PRESENT: Sri S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of May, 2026

Sessions Case No. 102 of 2024

(PRC No.09 of 2021 in Cr. No.189/2019 of Podili PS)

Between:

State: Rep. By Sub Inspector of Police Podili PS.

...Complainant

And

Pobbaraju Malikarjuna, S/o. Malakondaiah, aged 27 years, Machavaram village, Kanigiri Mandal, R/o. Ramnagar.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 08.05.2026 for hearing in presence of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V. Ramana Reddy and Sri S.M. Basha, Advocate for, upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Podili, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC of

Podili Police Station in Crime No.189/2019.

2.The gist of the accusation against the accused, as can be seen from the contents of the charge sheet and other material available on record, is that__

(a). On 05.12.2016, the marriage of Pobbaraju Rajeswari (deceased) was performed with the accused. This was the second marriage for both of them. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter by name 11.05.20262S.C._102_2024

Mamatha. It is further alleged that thereafter they shifted their family to

Hyderabad and resided there while doing mason work. It is further alleged that subsequently, the accused harassed the deceased both physically and mentally by maintaining illegal intimacy with other women. It is further alleged that, due to the unbearable harassment caused by the accused, the deceased informed the same to her parents by name Srirama

Venkateswarlu and Srirama Ramalakshmi (LW.1 and LW.2). They admonished the accused, but he paid deaf ears to their words and continued harassing the deceased.

(b). It is further alleged that on 03.11.2019, the accused and the deceased came to Podili to attend a function. There, the accused spoke with another woman, and when the deceased questioned him about the conversation, he went away without giving any reply. It is further alleged that on 03.11.2019 at about 10.00 p.m., the deceased consumed poison (insecticide Monocrotophos). On observing the same, Latha, Rajesh,

Jagannadham, Narayanamma, and Mahendra shifted the deceased to

Balaiah Hospital, Podili, where the doctor advised them to shift her to the

Community Health Centre, Podili, for treatment. Accordingly, they shifted the deceased to the Community Health Centre, Podili, where the doctor examined her and declared that she had already died.

(c). It is further alleged that, on 04.11.2019, PW.1 gave a written report to the police regarding the occurrence. Based on the report of PW.1,

S. Praveen Kumar, HC-461 (LW.10), registered a case in Crime

No.189/2019 under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and issued the F.I.R. to all the concerned. During the course of investigation, PW.5 visited the scene of offence and observed the same in the presence of PW.4 and Dondleti

Siva Reddy (LW.5), and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence.

PW.5 examined PW.1 to PW.3 and Ponnarsu Rajyalakshmi (LW.4) and 11.05.20263S.C._102_2024 recorded their statements. PW.5 seized one empty SARAG Insecticide

Monocrotophos tin containing 500 ml from the scene of offence. On 04.11.2019, PW.5 sent a requisition to J. Prabhakar Rao, Tahsildar, Podili (LW.9). Accordingly, the Tahsildar held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.4, Dondleti Siva Reddy (LW.5), and Sriram

Anjaneyulu (LW.7). It is further alleged that, after completion of the inquest,

PW.5 obtained a copy of the inquest report along with the statements of the blood relatives of the deceased.

(d). On 07.11.2019 at 08.00 hours, PW.5 arrested the accused at

SSR Apartment, Darsi Road, Podili, and sent him for judicial remand. On 02.12.2019, PW.5 forwarded the seized material objects to the Assistant

Director, RFSL, Guntur, for chemical examination. On 13.09.2020, the

Scientific Officer, RFSL, Guntur, issued the RFSL report and opined that organophosphate insecticide poisonous substance was found in items 1 to

4. Dr. T. Chakravarthy, Medical Officer (LW.8), conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued the postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased appeared to have died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to consumption of organophosphate pesticide poison. It is further alleged that, after completion of investigation, PW.5 laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

3.On 26.10.2021, learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC against the accused and the same was registered as PRC No.9 of 2021. On appearance of accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Darsi, copies of case papers as required under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C were furnished to him. As the offence under 306 of IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 11.05.20264S.C._102_2024

Podili committed the case in PRC No.9 of 2021 to the Hon’ble Court of

Session, Prakasam Division, Ongole under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The

Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Ongole was pleased to register PRC No.9 of 2021

as Sessions Case No 102 of 2024 on 05.09.2024 and made over to this

Court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of the accused before this Court, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material on record, charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, as provided under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no evidence on his behalf. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of defence.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is__

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.5 and got marked Exs.P1 toP10 besides M.O.1. The evidences of

Ponnarsu Rajyalakshmi @ Raji (LW.4), Dondelti Siva Reddy (LW.5), Sriram

Anjaneyulu (LW.7), Dr.T.Chakravarthy (LW.8), J. Prabhakar Rao, Tahsildar (LW.9) and S. Praveen Kumar-HC (LW.10) were given up by the Additional

Public Prosecutor. On the other hand, no defence evidence is adduced on behalf of accused.

11.05.20265S.C._102_2024

8.Heard the arguments of Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as the counsel for the accused. Perused the evidence and other material on record.

POINT:

9.As per the contents of the charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that, on 03.11.2019 at about 10:00 p.m., the accused, being the husband of Pobbaraju Rajeswari (deceased), subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and abetted her to commit suicide. Due to the acts of the accused, the deceased, being vexed with her life, committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison and died. Based on the report of PW.1, a case in Crime

No.189/2019 of Podili Police Station was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

10.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10, besides M.O.1. P.W.1 and PW.2 are the parents of the deceased Pobbaraju Rajeswari, PW.3 is the sister of the deceased, PW.4 is the mediator for scene observation report and seizure of

M.O.1, PW.5 is the investigating officer.

11.As seen from the record, P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the parents of the deceased, Pobbaraju Rajeswari, deposed in one voice that the marriage between the deceased and the accused had taken place on 05.12.2016.

The marriage of the deceased, Rajeswari, with the accused was her second marriage after obtaining a legal divorce from her first husband. P.W.1 and

P.W.2 further deposed that, out of the wedlock, the deceased and the accused were blessed with one female child. They further deposed that the deceased and the accused had been living happily without any disputes.

P.W.1 and P.W.2 further deposed that the deceased, Pobbaraju Rajeswari, 11.05.20266S.C._102_2024 had been suffering from ill-health and stomach ache for a long time and was taking treatment whenever necessary. They further deposed that, on 03.11.2019, they were informed by P. Rajyalakshmi (L.W.4) that their daughter, Pobbaraju Rajeswari, had suffered severe stomach pain while attending a function at the house of Pobbaraju Rajeswari and was shifted to a hospital for treatment. They further deposed that, after reaching the hospital, they came to know that their daughter, Pobbaraju Rajeswari, had died due to stomach pain even before being brought to the hospital. Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1 on the report dated 04.11.2019, but he does not know the contents thereof. PW.3 who is the sister of deceased Pobbaraju

Rajeswari deposed that the marriage between her deceased sister and accused had taken place on 05.12.2016. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with one female child. PW.3 further deposed that the accused never committed any physical or mental harassment against her deceased sister

Rajeswari. PW.3 further deposed that her sister was died due to stomach pain and ill-health. She does not know anything about the facts of this case and she was not examined by the police. The learned A.P.P. has cross- examined PW.1 to PW.3 with the permission of the Court, but nothing material was elicited from their cross-examination, except marking Ex.P2 to

P4, which are the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements of Pws.1 to PW.3.

12. P.W.4, who is the Village Revenue Officer, deposed that on 04.11.2019, at the request of the SHO, Podili, he, along with one Siva

Reddy (VRO), went to the scene of offence, i.e., the house of P. Rajya

Lakshmi (L.W.4), who is the sister of the accused, situated in the Ram

Nagar area of Podili. P.W.4 further deposed that, in his presence, the S.I. of

Police inspected the scene of offence under the cover of a scene observation report and prepared the scene observation report and rough 11.05.20267S.C._102_2024 sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P5 is the scene observation report dated 04.11.2019 at 10:45 a.m., and Ex.P6 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. The S.I. of Police also seized one pesticide bottle labelled as “Sarag (Monocrotophos)” under the cover of Ex.P5. M.O.1 is the pesticide bottle labelled as “Sarag (Monocrotophos)”. P.W.4 further deposed that, on the same day at 11:15 a.m., the S.I. of Police conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased, Pobbaraju Rajeswari, under the cover of an inquest report. Ex.P7 is the inquest report dated 04.11.2019.

13.P.W.5, who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Podili, deposed that on 04.11.2019 at about 10:00 a.m., in his absence, P.W.1 came to the police station and gave a complaint to Praveen Kumar, HC-461. In turn, he registered the same as a case in Crime No.189/2019 under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and issued Ex.P8 - FIR to all concerned. P.W.5 further deposed that he took up the investigation in this case. Prabhakara Rao,

M.R.O. (L.W.9), conducted the inquest in the presence of P.W.4. On 04.11.2019, he visited the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.4 and

Dondleti Siva Reddy (L.W.5) and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also found one “Sarag” insecticide Monocrotophos tin containing 500 ml., i.e., M.O.1. P.W.5 further deposed that he secured the presence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and L.W.4/P. Rajya Lakshmi and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 04.11.2019, Dr. T. Chakravarthi (L.W.8) conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and preserved the stomach, intestine, both kidneys, and a portion of the liver. Ex.P9 is the postmortem certificate. P.W.5 further deposed that on 07.11.2019, on credible information, he arrested the accused at SSR

Apartment, Darsi Road, Podili, and sent him to judicial custody on remand.

P.W.5 further deposed that he handed over the dead body to Dr. T.

11.05.20268S.C._102_2024

Chakravarthi (L.W.8). He further deposed that he received the preliminary postmortem report and also sent the preserved samples to the RFSL through the DSP of Police for analysis and report. He received the RFSL report on 08.09.2020, wherein it was mentioned that items 1 to 4 were analysed and organophosphate, an insecticidal poisonous substance was found in all the items. Ex.P10 is the RFSL report dated 08.09.2020. P.W.5 further deposed that, after obtaining Ex.P10 - RFSL report as well as the final opinion, and upon completion of the entire investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.

14.As seen from the evidence on record, P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile witnesses by the prosecution. According to P.W.1 to P.W.3, the deceased, Pobbaraju

Rajeswari, committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison due to unbearable stomach pain and ill-health. P.W.1 to P.W.3 further deposed that the accused did not subject Pobbaraju Rajeswari to any harassment or cruelty during her lifetime. Except giving mere denial suggestions that they had stated before the police as mentioned in Exs.P2 to P4, i.e., the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no worthwhile material was elicited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor during their cross- examination in favour of the prosecution.

15. Considering the evidence on record, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused subjected the deceased, Pobbaraju Rajeswari, to cruelty or abetted her to commit suicide. As stated above, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased Pobbaraju Rajeswari, and P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased. P.W.3 also did not state anything regarding the commission of the offence. In the absence of such evidence from them, the evidence of

P.W.4 and P.W.5 would not, in any way, prove the case of the prosecution 11.05.20269S.C._102_2024 or secure conviction against the accused. The evidence of P.W.4, who is the mediator for the scene observation report and rough sketch of the scene of offence, and the evidence of P.W.5, who is the Investigating Officer, are limited to the facts relating to registration of the First Information Report and conducting investigation, which are not in dispute. As such, the evidence of

P.W.4 and P.W.5 did not prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of

IPC, and therefore, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

16.In the result, the sole accused is found not guiltyfor the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of CRPC. M.O.1 i.e., one pesticide bottle labeled as Sarag (Mono crotophos) shall be destroyed after exapiry of appeal time.

The Superintendent, District Jail, Ongole is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case/crime.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade - II, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026

Sd/-S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

DARSI .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW.1: Srirama VenkateswarluNone

PW.2: Srirama Ramalakshmi

PW.3: Jagannadham Pullamma

PW.4: Kotra Venkata Anil Kumar, VRO

PW.5 : K. Suresh, SI of Police 11.05.202610S.C._102_2024

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/Signature of PW.1 on the report dated 04.11.2019

Ex.P2/161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Ex.P3/161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P4/ 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P5/ Scene observation report dated 04.11.2019 at 10.45 a.m.

Ex.P6/Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P7/Inquest report dated 04.11.2019

Ex.P8/ Original FIR in Crime No.189/2019 of Podili PS.

Ex.P9/ Postmortem certificate

Ex.P10/ RFSL report dated 08.09.2020

For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1:one pesticide bottle labeled as Sarag (Mono crotophos)

ILD/-SSSR

A.S.J., Darsi 11.05.202611S.C._102_2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE NO.102 of 2024

(Crime No.189/2019 of Podili Police Station - P.R.C. No.09/2021 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Podili)

ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT ::: DARSI :::

(1) NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : State :The Sub Inspector of Police, Podili P.S. (2) DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED :

Pobbaraju Malikarjuna, S/o. Malakondaiah, aged 27 years, Machavaram village, Kanigiri Mandal, R/o. Ramnagar.

(3) DATES OF : Occurrence: 03.11.2019

Complaint: 04.11.2019 Appearance: 24.01.2025 Commencement of trial: 08.05.2025 Closure of trial: 08.05.2026 Sentence or order: 11.05.2026 (4) Offences/Charge: U/s.498-A and 306 of IPC (5) Plea of accused : Not guilty. (6) Finding of Court: Fond not guilty.

(7) SENTENCE OF ORDER :

The sole accused is found not guiltyfor the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and accordingly, accused is acquitted under

Section 235(1) of CRPC. M.O.1 i.e., one pesticide bottle labeled as Sarag (Mono crotophos) shall be destroyed after exapiry of appeal time.

The Superintendent, District Jail, Ongole is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case/crime.

11.05.202612S.C._102_2024 (8) EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY: The Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court,

Podili committed this case as P.R.C. No.09/2021 dated 04.05.2022 to Hon'ble

SessionsDivision, Prakasam District, Ongole and the same was numbered as

SC.102/2024 by the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Ongole and made over the same to

this court for disposal according to law and this court received the same on 09.09.2024. On 07.02.2025 sole accused was examined U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C and charges U/Sec.498-A and 306 of IPC has been framed, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, accused called absent and issued NBW against the accused. On 09.03.2026 accused produced before this court on execution of NBW. Hence, accused is remanded to judicial custody.

During the course of trial, PW.1 to PW.5 were examined and Ex.P1 to P10 beside

M.O1 were marked and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 08.05.2026 accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution evidence against him and he reported no defence evidence on his behalf and on the same day heard the arguments on both sides and the case posted for judgment to 11.05.2026. On 11.05.2026

Judgment pronounced (vide separate judgment) in open court. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

DARSI.

Copies submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

2. The Director of Prosecutions, Door No.24-19-15/A, Durgapuram,Vijawayada. Copies to:

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili

2. The Dist. Superintendent of Police, Ongole

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Darsi

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: DARSI

PRESENT: Sri S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY,

Senior Civil Judge, Darsi

Friday, this the Twenty Fourth (24 th ) day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No.11 of 2024

Between:

Peram Ramana Reddy, S/o.Peda Malakonda Reddy, aged 54 years, Hindu, landholder and cultivation, R/o. Kothareddypalem village, Darsi town and mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

And.,

Regati Veeranjaneya Reddy, S/o. Raghava Reddy, aged 50 years, Hindu, business, R/o. Teachers Colony, Podili Road, Darsi Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant

The suit coming on 01.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Ravindra Babu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri G.T. Siva Sharma,

Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, till this day, this Court delivered the the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.30,42,000/- being the principal and interest due on a suit promissory note dated 10.06.2021 executed by the defendant in favaour of plaintiff, along with subsequent interest and for costs.

2.The brief plaint contents of the plaintiff are that on 10.06.2021, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a., and accordingly, 24.04.2026 2 OS_11_2024 executed a demand promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff at

Darsi village of Darsi Mandal. The plaintiff further averred that subsequently inpsite of repeated demands and requests, the defendant went on postponing the same with a view to evasion. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit against the defendant for recovery of debt due under the promissory note with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement denying the most of the plaint contents and submitted that that he along with plaintiff and one

Yannam Srinivasa Reddy, G. Adam Saheb and one Narayana Reddy did real estate business. The defendant further contended that all of them are purchased an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of land from Buchepalli Venkayamma in the name of plaintiff and in which he is having 10 Paise share. The defendant further contended that subsequently all of them are sold the above said extent of Ac.0.50 cents under different extents to various persons. The defendant further contended that he got profit of Rs.18,00,000/- towards his share. The defendant further contended that plaintiff used to postpone the payment his profit of share the defendant further contended that in addition to that, an extent of Ac.4.68 cents in

Survey No.739/2 and an extent of Ac.3.36 cents in Survey No.738/2 of Polavaram village was also purchased in the name of plaintiff. For which the defendant also contributed another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards his share, but the plaintiff did not pay the said profit and his contributed amount, inspite of his repeated demands and requests and bore grudge against him. Defendant further contended that plaintiff in collusion with attestors and scribe, brought into existence of promissory 24.04.2026 3 OS_11_2024 note by forging his signature for wrongful gain. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are settled for trial- i.Whether the suit promissory note dated 10.06.2021 for Rs.20,00,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

ii.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for?

iii. If so, to what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1, which is the original suit promissory note dated 10.06.2021 for

Rs.20,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also examined two attestors as PW.2 and PW.3 on his behalf. On the other hand, the sole defendant examined himself as DW.1 and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendant.

6.Heard the arguments on both the sides. Perused the plaint, written statement, evidence on both the sides and other materiel on record.

7. ISSUE No. 1:

Whether the suit promissory note dated 10.06.2021 for

Rs.20,00,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW1 by reiterating his plaint contents in his chief examination. PW.1 further deposed that on 10.06.2021, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from him for his family expenses in Darsi town and executed a demand promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a., in the presence of 24.04.2026 4 OS_11_2024 two attestors. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dated 10.06.2021 for

Rs.20,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. PW.1 further deposed that subsequently inspite of his repeated demands and requests, the defendant did not discharge the debt due under Ex.A1 suit promissory note and postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Hence, he constrained to file the present suit for recovery of suit claim from the defendant. The learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined PW.1. In the cross-examination PW.1 denied the suggestion that he along with defendant and others did real estate business, in which the defendant has got Rs.18,00,000/- towards his 10 Paisa share and another Rs.10,00,000/- profit in the land sold jointly in Polavaram village, but the same was went in denial. PW.1 also denied the suggestion that when the defendant demanded his share of profit, they did not pay the same and developed grudge against him. PW.1 also denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document, brought into existence without any consideration for wrongful gain. Thus, the entire cross-examination of PW.1 is nothing but denial suggestions and no material was elicited to discard the chief examination of PW.1.

8.Furthermore, the plaintiff also examined two attestors of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note as PW.2 and PW.3. Both PW.2 and PW.3 in one voice deposed in their chief-examination that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in their presence and accordingly, they attested Ex.A1. The learned counsel for the defendant cross- examined PW.2 and PW.3 by putting a suggestion that Ex.A1 promissory note is a forged and fabricated document, but the same was went in denial. Furthermore, 24.04.2026 5 OS_11_2024

PW.2 and PW.3 denied the suggestion that they simply put their signature on

Ex.A1 promissory note as attestors without knowing anything at the request of the plaintiff being their friend. Therefore, the entire cross-examination of PW.2 and

PW.3 is full of denial suggestions and no material is elicited to discard their chief- examination, Moreover, it is not the case of the defendant that there is enmity between him and the PW.2 and PW.3. Apart from that, there is no reason put-forth by the defendant what is the necessity for them to depose falsehood by PW.2 and

PW.3 against him. When there is no such enmity or rivalry between PW.2 and

PW.3 with the defendant, it is a common prudence that there is no necessity to depose falsehood in this case against the defendant. Thus, the unshaken testimony of PW.2 and PW.3, who are the independent witnesses and attestors of

Ex.A1 promissory note, clinchingly supports the evidence of PW.1 and proves that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff in their presence and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the unshaken testimony of PW.1 to PW.3, coupled with Ex.A1 promissory note, proves that Ex.A1 is a true, valid document and binding on the defendant.

9.On the other hand, in order to prove the defence of the defendant, as well as to rebut the case of the plaintiff, the defendant himself was examined as DW.1 and deposed that he along with plaintiff and others did real estate business, in which he got profit of Rs.18,00,000/- towards his 10 Paise share and he also contributed another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards his share, but the plaintiff did not pay the said profit and his contributed amount, inspite of his repeated demands and requests and bore grudge against him. DW.1 further deposed that plaintiff in collusion with attestors and scribe, brought into existence of Ex.A1 by forging his 24.04.2026 6 OS_11_2024 signature for wrongful gain. Whereas, the entire defence of the defendant was put to PW.1 to PW.3 in their cross-examination, but the same were went in denial. As per settled law mere denial suggestions does not amount to evidence and the same is no way helpful to prove his any case. When the defendant has took a specific plea that he did real estate business jointly with plaintiff and others and obtained profit worth Rs.18,00,000/-, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the defendant to prove the same with cogent evidence. Whereas, in the cross-

examination of DW.1 he categorically admitted that he has not filed any

documentary evidence to show that he along with plaintiff and others did real

estate business jointly. DW.1 also admitted in the cross-examination that he

has not filed any documentary proof to show that he has got 10% share in

the profits out of the Ac.0.50 cents purchased and sold jointly in the name of

plaintiff. DW.1 also admitted in the cross-examination that he has no

documentary evidence to prove that he has got 10% share in the land

purchased by the plaintiff in Survey No.738/3 and 739/2. Therefore, the own admissions of DW.1 in his cross-examination that he has not filed any documentary proof that he did real estate business as alleged by them, clinchingly goes to prove that the dence made by the defendant in his written statement, as well as in his chief-examination as DW.1 is nothing but self serving statements invented and created by the defendant to get over from the suit claim. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the defendant has utterly failed to prove his defence that he did real estate business jointly with the plaintiff and others and obtained profit and when he demanded for the same, the plaintiff bore grudge against him and the same are untenable in the eye of law.

24.04.2026 7 OS_11_2024

10.Furthermore, the very evidence of DW.1 is that Ex.A1 promissory note is a forged and fabricated document brought into existence by the plaintiff in collusion with the PW.2, PW.3 and scribe due to the real state disputes between them. The further evidence of DW.1 is that the signature on Ex.A1 promissory note is not belongs to him and the same is not supported by consideration. When the defendant has took the plea of forgery in respect of Ex.A1 promissory note, the burden of proof is on the shoulder of the defendant under Section 101 of Indian

Evidence Act to prove the same with cogent evidence. Except taking such plea of forgery by the defendant, he did not take any steps to send Ex.A1 promissory note to the handwriting expert to elicit whether the signature on Ex.A1 promissory note is not belongs to him and did not adduce any evidence to prove the same. On the other hand, the plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and examining the attestors as PW.2 and PW.3, is clinchingly proved that Ex.A1 promissory note was executed by the defendant after borrowing Rs.20,00,000/- from him and it is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the defendant has failed to prove his plea of forgery and the same was taken by the defendant only to avoid the suit claim to the plaintiff.

11.Apart from the above, in the cross-examination of DW.1, he denied the suggestion put by the plaintiff counsel that as a counterblast to the present suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant has forged and created the promissory note and filed a false suit against the plaintiff in OS No.14/2014 on the file of this court, but the same was went in denial. Surprisingly, in the cross-examination DW.1 himself categorically admitted that there is no mention in his written statement as well as in his chief-examination that plaintiff indebted to the defendant under a promissory 24.04.2026 8 OS_11_2024 note and filed a suit in OS No.14/2024. Furthermore, surprisingly, DW.1 himself admitted in the cross-examination that the suit promissory note in OS No.14/2024 filed by him was sent to the Truth labs in that case and received a report that the signatures on the said promissory note is not belongs to the plaintiff herein , who is the defendant in OS No.14/2024. The said admissions of the DW.1 in his cross- examination, clinchingly goes to show that he is not a fair person and he made a false defence in this case and thereby defendant with a malafide intention deposed falsehood as DW.1. Thus, the evidence of DW.1 is not at all trustworthy and the defendant has utterly failed to prove his defence in this case.

12.In the light of aforesaid reasons and discussions, this court is of the considered opinion that the defendant has failed to prove his defence inspite of examining himself as DW.1 as discussed above. Whereas, the plaintiff by examining PW.1 to PW.3 and by marking Ex.A1 original suit promissory note clinchingly proved that the defendant himself has borrowed an amount of

Rs.20,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. Further, the unshaken testimony of PW.1 to PW.3 also goes to show that Ex.A1 promissory note is true valid and binding on the defendant, as discussed above. Hence, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE No.2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for?

13.As per the findings of this court on issue No.1, it was held that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Further, as per the 24.04.2026 9 OS_11_2024 findings on issue No.1, it was held that defendant himself borrowed Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in the presence of attestors, who are examined as PW.2 and PW.3. The very evidence of PW.1 is that the defendant did not discharge the debt due under Ex.A1 to him inspite of repeated requests and demands and thereby he constrained to file this suit. Moreover, it is not case of the defendant as DW.1 that he discharged the debt due under Ex.A1 promissory note to the plaintiff. Though the defendant took several defences and deposed the same as DW.1 on oath before this court, but due to the own admissions of DW.1 in his cross-examination, the entire evidence of DW.1 is sham, nominal and concocted one and thereby the evidence of DW.1 is not at all trustworthy. When the plaintiff is able to prove that defendant borrowed and executed Ex.A1 promissory note and failed to discharge the debt due thereunder, it is the bounden duty of the defendant to discharge the debt under Ex.A1 promissory note to the plaintiff. Furthermore, on perusal of Ex.A1, it is clearly mentioned in the plaint that agreed rate of interest is the rate of 18% p.a., and accordingly, the plaintiff is claimed the rate of interest at the rate of 18% p.a., only in the plaint from the date of Ex.A1 suit promissory note till the date of filing of the suit. Furthermore, a perusal of the plaint and office note mentioned thereon also goes to prove that the plaintiff has also paid requisite court fee and filed the suit within the stipulated period of limitation. Therefore, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant, along with the subsequent interest. Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

24.04.2026 10 OS_11_2024

ISSUE No.3:

To what relief?

14. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs for an amount of Rs.30,42,000/- ( Rupees Thirty lakhs and

Forty Two thousand only ) with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the

principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty lakh only) from the date of

filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24 th day of April, 2026.

SD/- S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendant:

PW.1: Peram Ramana ReddyDW.1: Regati Veeranjaneya Reddy

PW.2: Avula Siva Reddy PW.3: Punugupati Koteswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original suit promissory note dated 10.06.2021 for Rs.20,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

For defendant: NIL ILD/-SSSR

S.C.J., DARSI

OS No_17_2024 1Dated 07.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: DARSI

Present: Sri S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY,

Senior Civil Judge, Darsi

Thursday, this the Seventh (07th) day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 17 of 2024

Between

Godugunuri Usha Rani, W/o. Guruvulu, aged 63 years, Hindu, housewife, R/o.Vinukonda Town and Mandal, Palnadu District. … Plaintiff

and

Bale Venu Gopala Krishna, S/o.Chandra Rao, aged 46 years, Hindu, business, r/o. Bayyavaram village, Kurichedu Mandal, Prakasam District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 27.04.2026 in the presence of Sri V. Ranga, Advocate for plaintiff; and defendant remained ex parte on 17.02.2026; and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following____

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.24,33,332/- being the

principal and interest due on A, B, C and D suit promissory notes; for Rs. 5,00,000/-,

Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- dated 18.09.2023 respectively executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

2.The averments mentioned in the plaint, in brief, are: Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 18.09.2023, Rs.5,00,000/- on 18.09.2023, Rs.5,00,000/- on 18.09.2023 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 18.09.2023 from the plaintiff for his business

OS No_17_2024 2Dated 07.05.2026 purpose and duly executed A, B, C and D marked promissory notes at Vinukonda

Town and Mandal, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, either to plaintiff or to her order on demand. Later, in-spite of repeated demands made by plaintiff, defendant failed to discharge the debt due under ABCD marked promissory notes. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3.Summons served on sole defendant, but called absent and no representation. Service is held sufficient. Hence, the sole defendant is set exparte on 17.02.2026.

4.In order to establish his claim, on behalf of plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4.

5.Heard learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is____

Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant , as prayed for ?

7.Point: In order to establish her claim for recovery of the suit amount from defendant, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated her plaint contents in her chief-examination by deposing that on 18.09.2023, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/-+Rs.5,00,000/-+Rs.5,00,000/-+Rs.5,00,000) from her for his business purpose, in the presence of attestors by name R.J. Ramesh and Subrabathini Venkateswara Rao and executed A, B, C and D demand promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a.

Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dated 18.09.2023 for Rs.5,00,000/-, Ex.A2 is the suit promissory note dated 18.09.2023 for Rs.5,00,000/-, Ex.A3 is the suit promissory note

OS No_17_2024 3Dated 07.05.2026

dated 18.09.2023 for Rs.5,00,000/- and Ex.A4 is the suit promissory note dated

18.09.2023 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. PW.1 further deposed that subsequently inspite of her repeated demands and requests, the defendant did not discharge the debt due under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 promissory notes. As already noted, defendant failed to appear before the Court and remained ex parte,and thereby, the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged.

8.A careful perusal of the unchallenged evidence of PW.1, coupled with Exs.

A1 to A4, shows that the plaintiff has established that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- +

Rs.5,00,000/-) on 18.09.2023 from the plaintiff for his business purposes and executed Exs. A1 to A4 promissory notes, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to her or to her order on demand, but subsequently failed to repay the debt due under Exs. A1 to A4 despite repeated demands made by her.

Since the plaintiff has established not only the lending of the amount mentioned in

Exs. A1 to A4 but also the execution of the said Ex.A1 to A4 promissory notes by the defendant in her favour, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs for an amount of Rs.24,33,332/- ( Rupees twenty four lakhs thirty three thousand three hundred and thirty two only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty lakhs

OS No_17_2024 4Dated 07.05.2026 only) from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 07th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintiff: For defendant:

PW.1: Godugunuri Usha RaniEx parte

Documents marked

For plaintiff: Ex.A1:18.09.2023: Original Suit Promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.A2:18.09.2023: Original Suit Promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.A3:18.09.2023: Original Suit Promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.A4:18.09.2023: Original Suit Promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/- For defendant: NIL

ILD/-SSSR

SCJ, DARSI.