O.S.No.410/2015 1 01.12.2025
IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::
NELLORE.
Monday, this the 01st day of December, 2025.
Present: S.SRINIVAS,
I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Nellore.
(FAC) II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Nellore.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.410 /2015
Panchakshari Sreenivasulu S/o. Mallikarjunaiah, aged 50 years, R/o. Muthukur Town & Mandal, SPSR … Nellore District. Plaintiff. -Vs-
1. Gaddam Prabhavathi W/o. Ramaiah, aged 65 years, R/o. D.No. 155,Pycrafts Road, Royapet, Chennai, Tamilnadu State.
2.Nellore Sankar Singh, S/o. Chandrapral Singh, aged 40 years, Carrying on Business under name and style M/s.Swathi Cut-Piece, Hospital Road, Muthukur Town & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
... Defendant.
This suit is coming on 24.11.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Sreenivasan, Advocate for the plaintiff and of
Sri J.C.S.Amarnath, Advocate for the 1st defendant; Sri P.Uma Maheswar,
Advocate for the 2nd defendant; and upon hearing, this Court is having stood over for consideration till this date, and this court delivered the following:-
O.S.No.410/2015 2 01.12.2025
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed by the plaintiff to direct the defendants to execute
Registered Sale Deed in his favour in respect of plaint schedule property with regard to Possessory Agreement of Sale dated 20.04.2004 within time fixed by this Hon’ble Court, for costs and other reliefs.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
(i) The plaintiff is the younger brother of 1st defendant. The 1st defendant purchased the plaint schedule property under a Registered Sale
Deed dated 15-12-1983 from one Paleti Subbaiah and Jayachandra Gupta.
Subsequently, she sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff under a
Possessory Agreement of Sale dated 20-12-2004 for a total consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-. The document was written by document writer by name
K.Gunasekhar, who is now no more and attested by Velpula
Balakrishnaiah and Yanati Sridhar Reddy. On the same day, the 1st defendant delivered a xerox copy of her title deed dated 15-12-1983 to the plaintiff by stating that the original was misplaced. Since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and converted the tiled roof verandas into A.C. sheet roofs.
(ii) The plaintiff leased out one shop room about 1 ½ ankanams with A.C. sheeted front verandah to Byna Penchalaiah in the year 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-, now enhanced to Rs.3,000/-, where he is
O.S.No.410/2015 3 01.12.2025
carrying on tailoring business. Two more shop rooms each 1½ ankanams with A.C. sheeted verandah and rear residential portions including kitchen, verandah, bathroom and toilet were leased to one Daka Ramakrishna in the year 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-, now enhanced to Rs.9,000/-; where he is running a provision shop and readymade garments and using the rear portion for godown purpose. There is a vacant backyard site of about 10 ankanams where the plaintiff is maintaining a flower garden after raising the ground level. The plaintiff resides with his family in his own house just to the south of this garden. He has been paying property tax to
Muthukur Gram Panchayat and the tenants are paying electricity charges.
(iii) The plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 06-09-2015 to the 1st defendant informing that he is ready with funds for registration and requested the 1st defendant to execute the Registered Sale Deed, for which 1st defendant sent a reply dated 14-09-2015 by denying the execution of
Agreement of Sale dated 20-12-2004, receipt of Rs.9,00,000/-, delivery of title deed, the plaintiff’s possession, and also leasing of the constructed portions to Penchalaiah and Ramakrishna. She falsely alleged that as she resides at Chennai, she only requested the plaintiff being her brother to collect the rents and credit them to her UCO Bank account at Chennai.
(iv) The plaintiff submits that his another sister by name Sivadanam
Hymavathi of Muthukur was indebted some amounts to the 1st defendant and used to give amounts to the plaintiff to deposit into the 1st defendant’s
O.S.No.410/2015 4 01.12.2025
UCO Bank account, and the said amounts do not represent the rents of the said building. There is no landlord and tenant relationship between the 1st defendant and either Penchalaiah or Ramakrishna.
(v) It is further false that the property value is above Rs.50 lakhs and that the 1st defendant entered into an agreement of sale dated 04-09- 2015 with the 2nd defendant for Rs.50 lakhs, and that she received
Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance. The alleged agreement of sale dated 04- 09-2015 is pleaded to be a created document brought into existence by both defendants in collusion with each other. The 2nd defendant is carrying on cloth shop in Muthukur in a small scale and he has no capacity to purchase the property for Rs.50 lakhs. Due to the establishment of
Krishnapatnam port and three thermal stations i.e., GENCO, NCC and
Power Tech within 5 km of the suit property, the land values in Muthukur have steeply increased, which is the real reason for the 1st defendant’s denial of the earlier sale transaction.
(vi) During pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant executed a
Registered Sale Deed dated 28-11-2015 vide Doc.No.1966/2015 of SRO
Muthukur in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant obtained this sale deed with full knowledge of the pendency of the suit and also the prior Agreement of Sale dated 20-04- 2004. Hence, both the defendants are liable to execute a Registered Sale
Deed in favour of the plaintiff.
O.S.No.410/2015 5 01.12.2025
(viii) The plaint schedule property actually situates in Ward No.6 of
Muthukur Gram Panchayat, but in the subsequent sale deed it is wrongly shown as Ward No.4 only to reduce the market value and thereby the stamp duty as well as the registration charges. The vacant site value in
Ward No.4 is about Rs.2,000/- per sq. yard, whereas in Ward No.6 it is about Rs.5,000/- per sq. yard. Therefore, the said sale deed is purposefully undervalued to pay less stamp duty and registration fees.
3. On receiving the notice, the 1st defendant filed written statement denying some of the averments mentioned in the plaint and admitted that the plaintiff is her younger brother and that this defendant purchased the plaint schedule property under Registered Sale Deed dated 15-12-1983 from Paleti Subbaiah and Jayachandra Gupta. It is absolutely false that this defendant sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff under a possessory agreement of sale dated 20-12-2004 for a consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- . The plaintiff has never been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and it is false to state that he converted tiled roof verandas into A.C. sheet roofs. It is false to state that the plaintiff leased out 1½ ankanams of shop room to Byna Penchalaiah in the year 2005 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. She admitted that said
Byna Penchalaiah is doing tailoring business in the shop, but he is the tenant of this defendant. She leased the shop to him about 12 years back.
O.S.No.410/2015 6 01.12.2025
The present rent is Rs.3,000/- per month and the same is being paid to the plaintiff only for depositing into this defendant’s bank account No.
078301100003633 of UCO Bank, Triplicane Branch, Chennai, as she is residing at Chennai. The plaintiff used to collect rents and deposit the same into her account at her request.
(i) It is also false to state that the plaintiff leased out two shop rooms and rear portion to one Daka Ramakrishna in the year 2005 with a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and later Rs.9,000/-. In fact, the said premises was leased out by this defendant about 7 years back to Daka
Ramakrishna, who has been running a provisions store as her tenant. The plaintiff has no right to lease out the premises and never leased it to him.
There is a vacant site in the backyard of the plaint schedule property measuring about 10 ankanams. She admitted that the plaintiff resides with his family in his own house situated adjacent to the south of the said vacant site, but he has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. The relationship of landlord and tenant is only between this defendant and the tenants.
(ii) The 1st defendant admitted that the value of the plaint schedule property is more than Rs.50 lakhs and that this defendant entered into an agreement of sale dated 04-09-2015 with the 2nd defendant for Rs.50 lakhs and received Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance. In addition to that a
Registered Sale Deed dated 28-11-2015 was executed in favour of the 2nd
O.S.No.410/2015 7 01.12.2025
defendant in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Muthukur. The 2nd defendant has sufficient financial capacity to purchase the plaint schedule property.
She admitted that in the schedule of the sale deed the property is shown in Ward No.6 of Muthukur Gram Panchayathi.
(iii) This defendant submits that the plaintiff is her own brother.
As she has been residing at Chennai, she requested him only to collect rents from her tenants, pay Gram Panchayath taxes and deposit the surplus in her bank account. On that basis, the Panchayath tax receipts are in his custody. The alleged agreement of sale with possession is a forgery and created by the plaintiff to grab the property by taking advantage of her age and absence at Muthukur and that no prudent person would remain silent without insisting for a registered sale deed after allegedly paying such a huge amount. The tenants have executed “oppudala patrams” confirming that they are tenants of this defendant and that the rents were being paid to the plaintiff only on her behalf and deposited the same into her UCO Bank account. In such circumstances, this defendant submits that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property and the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 20-12-2004 is forged, fabricated, and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. On receiving the notice, the 2nd defendant filed written statement denying some of the averments mentioned in the plaint and submitted that the 1st defendant being absolute owner of the plaint
O.S.No.410/2015 8 01.12.2025
schedule property offered to sell the same for Rs.50,00,000/- to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiff herein. The 2nd defendant agreed to purchase the plaint schedule property and on 04-09-2015, he paid Rs.5,00,000/- as advance. Then, the 1st defendant executed an
Agreement of Sale dated 04-09-2015 agreeing to execute Registered Sale
Deed within three months i.e., on or before 03-12-2015 on receipt of balance sale consideration and to deliver the possession of the said property. On 28-11-2015 this defendant paid the balance sale consideration and obtained Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.1966/2015
dated 28-11-2015. Thereafter, he took possession of the property and he
has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequent to his purchase of the above said property, as the Madras terraced varandah on eastern side of the above said house was in damaged condition, this defendant removed the same and constructed new verandah with asbestos and zinc sheets. He is the absolute owner and possessor of the above said property. He had no knowledge about filing and pendency of this suit till receipt of summons. After the 1st defendant sold the property to this defendant, the plaintiff with dishonest intention fabricated the alleged agreement of sale dated 20-12-2004 by forging the signature of the 1st defendant in collusion with his associates to knock away the property. The 1st defendant never executed such agreement, and the alleged document is forged and fabricated. Hence the suit based
O.S.No.410/2015 9 01.12.2025
on such document is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:-
1.:-Whether the agreement of sale dated 20.12.2004 is true, valid and binding as prayed for or not?
2.:-Whether the plaintiff is entitled for enforcement of agreement of sale dated 20.12.2004 from the defendant or not?
3. :-To what relief?
6.During the course of trial, both the parties produced their respective evidence. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.40 marked. On behalf of defendants, D.W.1 to
D.W.4 & C.W.1 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.12 & Ex.C.1 were marked on their behalf.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted his arguments that the plaintiff is the younger brother of D.1, who is original owner of the schedule property. D.1 got title through sale deed dated 15.12.1983 and she sold the same to plaintiff through Possessory agreement of sale dated 20.12.2004. The consideration passed to a tune of Rs.9 lakhs from P.W.1 to D.W.1. Plaintiff leased out the schedule property to tenants for a monthly
O.S.No.410/2015 10 01.12.2025
sum of Rs.3,000/- by the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff also raised flower garden on the backyard of schedule property and totally the plaintiff got possession over the schedule property. As D.1 not cooperating for registration of the sale deed in his favour on 06.09.2015 the plaintiff got issued legal notice informing about his readiness and willingness, but D.1 given reply with false and frivolous contents. Plaintiff having another sister by name Sivadanam Hymavathi, who borrowed amounts from D.1. At the request of D.1, the plaintiff used to collect amounts from Hymavathi and deposited the same before UCO Bank in the account of D.1 on behalf of
Hymavathi.
(i) P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined to prove the plaintiff’s case and total 40 documents marked on his behalf, whereas D.Ws.1 to 3 examined and
D.W.1 intentionally produced a false certificate/report issued by expert under Ex.B.1. On hearing about the maintainability of Ex.B.1, this Court rightly demarcated the same as basing on zerox copy of document expert given his opinion. P.W.2 is the second attestor of Ex.A.1, who clearly stated about execution of Ex.A.1 by D.W.1. The plaintiff expressed his willingness to purchase the property when D.1 searching for buyers. But, the contention of D.Ws.1 and 2 that they only engaged plaintiff as care taker of the schedule property. D.W.1 in the cross-examination stated that she cannot say the specific date of registration done by her in favour of D.2 and also do not know the contents of the sale deed. Plaintiff filed the suit
O.S.No.410/2015 11 01.12.2025
on 07.10.2015, but the property sold by D.W.1 to D.2 on 28.11.2015, it means during pendency of the suit alleged sale deed executed and it is nothing but document hit by lispendence under section 52 of Transfer of
Property Act. D.W.1 having knowledge about the legal notice as she received the same and got issued reply, but intentionally created sale deed in favour of D.2 in a collusive manner, which is not at all valid one. D.W.2 admitted about legal notice under Ex.A.39, who dealt with properties of his wife D.W.1.
(ii) In the sale deed between D.1 and D.2 dated 28.05.2011 in the schedule, survey number noted as 251, old door number 6/67, new door number 4-41 was entered. The same was clearly a contra version to that of link document dated 15.12.1983, wherein no survey number was mentioned. As per D.W.4, he has not seen settlement of agreement of sale and he failed to identify his signature in the agreement of sale dated 04.09.2015. The version of D.W.4 is different when compared with
D.Ws.1 and 2 evidence with regard to the payment of sale consideration of the Registered Sale Deed between D.1 and D.2. Even though C.W.1 expert examined and marked Ex.C.1 through him, but the said report was only prepared based on zerox copy of Agreement of Sale. There is no prior permission from this Hon’ble Court for such comparison and opinion from expert.
O.S.No.410/2015 12 01.12.2025
(iii) As per the decision reported in 2006 (4) ALT 694 wherein it was held that zerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis and it is rather incomprehensible that an expert would be able to undertake analysis of the imprint of the a signature on a zerox copy. In another decision reported in 2006(4) ALT 245 wherein it was also held that a zerox copy of a document need not be an exact and true replica of the original document, because some portions or parts of the writings in original may be screened or shadowed by placing a paper thereon. Further, one more decision relied on by the learned counsel for plaintiff reported in 2016 (4)
ALT Page 478 in para No.8that generally Honourable Courts preferring to get opinion of expert from Government Forensic Laboratories of a particular State. Even though there is no rule not to get private expert opinion, but in this case only basing on zerox copy opinion of the expert obtained by D.1 directly. In case any opinion obtained from expert basing on the permission of the Hon’ble Court and the documents send in original through the Court, then the said report can be considered as a genuine and permissible one. Here, in this case no such steps taken by D.1 for taking permission from the Hon’ble Court and she directly approached
Truth Labs, Chennai with zerox copy of Possessory Agreement of Sale and submitted her some of the admitted signatures. C.W.1 failed to express in a convincing manner about the validity and genuinety of Ex.C.1 his report.
O.S.No.410/2015 13 01.12.2025
There are so many blanks in Ex.B.3 as admitted by the witnesses of the defendants.
(iv) As per the decision reported in 2007 (4) GLT 26 between Jutika
Paul Andors vs. Bhubaneswari Sheel and others, wherein it was held that when the litigation pending to decide about the right and title, transfer of property by way of registered document is nothing but lispendence and hit by Section 52 of the T.P. Act.
Section 52 : Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto:
During the [pendency] in any Court having authority [[within the limits of
India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir]or established beyond such limits] by [the Central Government] of [any] suit or proceeding [which is not collusive and] in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.
(Explanation – For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or
O.S.No.410/2015 14 01.12.2025
discharge of such decree or order, has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.]
(v) As per a decision reported in Amith Kumar Shaw and another
Vs. Farida Khatoon and another and Bibi Lubandha Khatoon Vs. Nabi
Hassan Saheb and another, wherein it was also discussion by the Hon’ble
Court and held that in case of any pending litigation with regard to title of a property, in the meanwhile transferee by entering into Registered Sale
Deed is nothing, but hit by Section 52 of the T.P. Act. Ex.B.4 is a collusive document intentionally entered by D.1 with D.2 by that time suit on hand already filed by P.W.1. Hence, Ex.B.4 to be declared as null and void and direct the defendants to execute the Registered Sale Deed in favour of
P.W.1 by decreeing the suit with costs.
9. The learned counsel for D.1 filed his written arguments, which in brief shows that there is no agreement of sale entered by D.1 in favour of P.W.1. Even if any such agreement of sale exists of the year 2004, why he remained silent for about nine years for issuance of legal notice on 06.09.2015. Immediately, D.1 got issued reply notice on 14.09.2015 denying the execution of agreement of sale. Originally, the property sold to
D.2 by way of Registered Sale Deed for a sale consideration of Rs.50 lakhs. D.1 received summons from this Hon’ble Court in the first week of
January, 2016 and till that date, she has no knowledge about the pendency
O.S.No.410/2015 15 01.12.2025
of the suit on hand. Immediately, D.1 appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit. P.W.1 admitted in his evidence that he used to manage schedule property as care taker. P.W.1 further stated he got another sister by name Sivadanam Hymavathi, whose debt amounts deposited into UCO bank of D.1, Chennai Branch. There is no dispute with regard to depositing of the amount by P.W.1 into D.W.1’s account monthly wise. It is nothing but collection of the rents by P.W.1 as requested by D.W.1 and depositing said amounts into her account. On 14.09.2015 itself D.W.1 clearly mentioned about the agreement of sale between D.1 and D.2. There are no allegations of disputes between
P.W.1 and D.W.1 prior to the existence of Ex.A.39 legal notice.
(i) Ex.A.1 stamp purchased from a stamp vendor of Venkatagiri in
Nellore. In case any such N.J stamp belongs to Venkatagiri Stamp vendor, how it was brought to Nellore for sale purpose. As per authorized and permission document in the manner of N.J, Stamp it shall contain stamp and serial number as issued by the concerned Registrar. There is no such stamp and serial number of either Venkatagiri S.R.O or D.R.O,
Nellore. In such circumstances, genuineness of N.J. stamps for preparation of Ex.A.1 are doubtful. No cash exchanged between P.W.1 and D.W.1 to a tune of Rs.9 lakhs, there are clear contradictions exists in between P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to place of execution of Ex.A.1. P.W.1 clearly admitted that D.2 was in possession and enjoyment of the
O.S.No.410/2015 16 01.12.2025
schedule property since the date of his sale deed. P.Ws.2 and 3 admitted in their presence, no cash exchanged in the manner of consideration between P.W.1 and D.W.1. D.1 only given the schedule property to P.W.1 as care taker, who used to collect rents from the tenants engaged by D.1 and depositing the same into the account of D.1 at Chennai Branch. P.W.1 not examined his another sister Sivadanam Hymavathi to prove his contention that the said deposited amounts are only due amount installments from the side of Hymavathi to D.1. Only after knowing about the agreement of sale dated 04.09.2015 between D.1 and D.2, the plaintiff filed the present suit on hand to grab the property. The worth of property is about Rs.50 lakhs and how she can sell the same at least price of Rs.9 lakhs to P.W.1.
(ii) C.W.1 who is handwriting expert, Truth Labs, Chennai clearly stated the signature on Possessory Agreement of Sale under Ex.A.1 not put by D.1 as proved through other admitted signatures by her. C.W.1 clearly stated about his process of comparison and issuance of report in detailed through cross-examination. Hence, taking into consideration
Ex.C.1, it can be safely concluded that D.1 never executed agreement of sale in favour of P.W.1. The entire evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4 is clear and convincing having much weight than that of P.Ws.1 to 3 and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
O.S.No.410/2015 17 01.12.2025
10. The learned counsel for D.2 argued orally that the agreement of sale under Ex.A.1 is a created one by plaintiff, because it has no stamp and serial number of the concerned Registrar. P.W.1 stated that he purchased the stamp at Nellore, but on observing Ex.A.1, it belongs to stamp vendor of Venkatagiri. Ex.A.1 is nothing, but a created one after agreement of sale between D.1 and D.2 relating to the schedule property.
Till receiving notices from the Hon’ble Court, the defendants have no knowledge about filing of the suit and in such circumstances, there is no chance of lispendence connecting the sale deed entered by D.1 and D.2.
The entire sale consideration paid by D.2 to D.1 and Rs.5,21,000/- by way of cash. The transaction between D.1 and D.2 is true and genuine. Both the defendants completed their part of contract by way of entering into
Registered Sale Deed, which was not exists on part of P.W.1, because D.1 never executed Agreement of Sale in his favour. Even though Ex.C.1 report issued by expert basing on zerox copy of agreement of sale that cannot be given much weight, but the document as N.J. stamp filed for preparation of Ex.A.1 itself is a doubtful one and cannot be based on said document to grant the relief sought for. With these submissions, prays to dismiss the suit.
11 . Issue Nos.1 & 2:-
(i) P.W.1, who is the plaintiff herein filed his chief affidavit reiterating the plaint averments. Coming to cross-examination, he admitted
O.S.No.410/2015 18 01.12.2025
that he is the own brother of 1st defendant. He admitted that the 1st defendant purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 1988 and at that time, she was residing at Chennai with her husband. He deposed that the plaint schedule property is situated beside his own house and that he has been managing it as caretaker ever since its purchase. He further deposed that on account of discussions with the 1st defendant regarding the sale of said property, an agreement of sale dated 20.12.2004 was executed in his favour and that he being a businessman paid the entire sale consideration from his own funds, though the sale deed was not registered immediately at the request of the 1st defendant. By the date of the said agreement, the tenants by name Byna Penchalaiah and Daka
Ramakrishna were in occupation of the property. He admitted that he made a written demand for registration for the first time through legal notice dated 06.09.2015. He deposed that he got Ex.A.39 prepared, but he does not know whether it contains a recital regarding the receipt of original sale deed from the 1st defendant.
(ii) PW.1 admitted that Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.38 and the house tax records stand in the name of the 1st defendant. He volunteers that due to non-registration of sale deed stands on the name of 1st defendant. He denied that he used to collect rents on behalf of 1st defendant from the tenants, paid house tax and electricity charges and deposited the remaining amount in the bank account of the 1st defendant. They showed
O.S.No.410/2015 19 01.12.2025
the 2nd defendant, who purchased the property under Registered Sale
Deed in spite of they having possessory agreement of sale and also possession. He denied that Ex.A.1 is a forged and created document brought into existence after the agreement of sale in favour of the 2nd defendant. He admitted that from 2015 onwards the 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, who running the business therein and he got mutated his name in municipal and electricity records basing on the registered sale deed. He deposed that when he questioned the 1st defendant about the 2nd defendant taking possession, she informed him that she had executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the 2nd defendant. He admitted that he did not file any suit against the tenants for rents and that the tenants vacated the premises after the 2nd defendant took over possession. He do not know how much debt between 1st defendant and one Sivadanam Hymavathi. He denied that there was no debt transaction between 1st defendant and above said Hymavathi, as such
Hymavathi never given any amount to him to hand over the same to 1st defendant. He do not remember how much amount given to him. He also admitted that only two receipts filed relate to actual payment of electricity charges, the rest being demand notices.
(iii) With regard to Ex.A.1, PW.1 stated that the stamp paper was purchased at Nellore within the premises of the Sub-Registrar Office,
Muthukur; that Ex.A.1 was scribed by K.R. Gunasekhar at the Sub-
O.S.No.410/2015 20 01.12.2025
Registrar Office, Muthukur and the attestors by name Venati Sridhar
Reddy and Velpula Balakrishnaiah signed the said document at his shop.
He denied that the stamp paper is fake and Ex.A.1 was created later with a forged signature of the 1st defendant, and that it was brought into existence in collusion with attestors and followers by misusing the copy of the original sale deed available with him as a caretaker. He admitted that the vendor’s seal on the stamp paper of Ex.A.1 shows Venkatagiri, and there is a difference between the signature of the scribe K.R. Gunasekhar on Ex.A.1 and his signature on an earlier Registered Sale Deed dated 17.04.2004 bearing Document No.356/2004, but denied that Ex.A.1 created on collusion of attestors.
(iv) PW.1 further admitted that Ex.A.13 does not mention the address of the 2nd defendant and that he did not raise any objection before the Sub-Registrar against registration of the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant. He also admitted that he did not lodge any police complaint or issue any further legal notice after the alleged forcible occupation by the 2nd defendant and that he did not object before the Panchayath or the
Electricity authorities for mutation of the 2nd defendant’s name. He deposed that he studied up to 10th class and did not get the plaint read over to him, and does not remember on whose instructions his chief- examination affidavit was drafted. He denied that he was never in possession of plaint schedule property and the 1st defendant alone sold
O.S.No.410/2015 21 01.12.2025
and delivered possession to the 2nd defendant as a bonafide purchaser for value and that Ex.A.1 is a concocted document and he filed the present suit with false pleadings to grab the property of the 1st defendant.
12. P.W.2, who acted as 2nd of attestor of Ex.A.1 filed his chief- affidavit in the same lines as that of P.W.1. Coming to cross-examination, he deposed that he knows the 1st defendant from 1990 and he came to know that she is the sister of the plaintiff, who is his friend and he is doing cloth business. He deposed that the 1st defendant purchased the plaint schedule property from some other person, but he does not know that person’s name, and she was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property up to 2004. He further deposed that he does not know whether the 1st defendant executed any agreement of sale in favour of the 2nd defendant on 04.09.2015 or any Registered Sale Deed on 28.11.2015.
He was called by the plaintiff to attest the agreement of sale and that the terms of the agreement of sale were settled at the plaintiff’s shop, in the presence of himself, Balakrishnaiah and both parties and time taken for that is one hour. By the time he went there, the agreement was already prepared and a stamp vendor brought the document on stamp paper.
According to him, the 1st defendant signed once on the agreement of sale, he also signed once and first Balakrishnaiah signed, then followed by him and lastly the defendant. He deposed that except attesting the agreement
O.S.No.410/2015 22 01.12.2025
of sale, he does not know other transactions between the plaintiff and 1st defendant.
(i) PW.2 admitted that the agreement of sale was for a consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-, which was an amount indebted by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff, and that in his presence cash of Rs.9,00,000/- was not exchanged between them. He denied that the 1st defendant never executed any agreement of sale in his presence, and that he signed the agreement prior to filing of the suit, but not in the year 2004. He further denied that the contents of his chief-examination are false and that he is deposing falsely in favour of the plaintiff and that he has never seen the 1st defendant.
(ii) PW.2 denied that they forged the signature of the 1st defendant by creating the agreement of sale dated 20.12.2004 after coming to know of the sale transaction between the 1st and 2nd defendants. He admitted that he did not receive any summons to give his evidence. He denied that the plaintiff created the agreement of sale with the assistance of him and Balakrishnaiah, and that he is deposing falsely in favour of the plaintiff being his friend.
13. P.W.3, who acted as first attestor of Ex.A.1 filed his chief- affidavit in the same lines as that of P.W.1. Coming to cross-examination, he deposed that he has been working as Village Revenue Assistant of
Malluru Village since 1969. He knows the 1st defendant for the last 20
O.S.No.410/2015 23 01.12.2025
years as she is the sister of the plaintiff. He received summons to give evidence regarding the plaint schedule property, but he does not now remember the exact schedule or its extent and also does not remember how many rooms are in the suit schedule property. He deposed that by the date of filing of the suit, the 1st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. He further deposed that at present half of the plaint schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff and the remaining half was forcibly taken by one Sankar, but he does not know who is said Sankar and also does not know the 2nd defendant by name Sankara Singh.
(i) He does not remember whether the 1st defendant executed any agreement of sale on 04.09.2015 or sale deed on 28.11.2015. He stated that he attested an agreement of sale dated 20.12.2004 at the request of the plaintiff, which was executed at the plaintiff’s house. At that time, the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and another person were present. First the 1st defendant signed the agreement, then Sridhar Reddy, and thereafter himself signed. The sale transaction was for a consideration of
Rs.9,00,000/-. He admitted that he was on duty on the date of execution of the agreement of sale and that Village Revenue Assistants do not have casual leave. He does not remember how long it took to prepare the agreement of sale dated 20.12.2004, from where the stamp papers were purchased, how many stamp papers or pages were used and how many
O.S.No.410/2015 24 01.12.2025
signatures the 1st defendant put on the agreement. He stated that he himself signed only once and except the three persons mentioned, no one else signed the agreement of sale. He also does not remember the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. He denied that the 1st defendant did not give anything to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement of sale, the agreement was created prior to filing of the suit, he has friendship with the plaintiff, and that he is deposing falsely in favour of the plaintiff without knowing about the property. P.W.3 denied that he was not present on 20.12.2004 to attest the agreement of sale and that the alleged agreement dated 20.12.2004 was created by himself, the plaintiff and one Chandra Sekhar Reddy.
14. The 1st defendant as D.W.1 filed chief-affidavit reiterating the written statement averments. During cross-examination, she deposed that she is the first defendant and also elder sister of the plaintiff. She deposed that her in-laws purchased the suit schedule house at Muthukur in her name consisting of about 4 to 5 rooms, and that after her marriage she lived at Muthukur for about 7 years and thereafter shifted to Chennai. She deposed that the plaintiff, who is her younger brother has been collecting rents from the tenants by name Ramakrishna and Penchalaiah on her behalf since 1984 and used to send the rent amounts to her by bank cheques into her UCO Bank, Triplicane Branch, Chennai account, though she does not remember the exact rents and amounts.
O.S.No.410/2015 25 01.12.2025
(i) She stated that in the year 2015 she decided to sell the suit property, but does not remember to whom they first informed and the exact extent or proposed sale consideration, as all matters were looked after by her husband. She stated that nobody approached her directly with a proposal; D.2 Shankar Singh came to Chennai, discussed the sale with her and her husband, and ultimately she executed a registered sale deed in favour of D.2 for Rs.50 lakhs. DW.1 admitted her signatures on the vakalath and written statement. However, she denied her signature appears on Ex.A-1, denied executing any unregistered possessory agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 20.12.2004, and also denied handing over possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff under
Ex.A-1. She denied that the plaintiff issued a legal notice calling upon her to perform her part of an agreement of sale, and she received Rs.9 lakhs from the plaintiff under Ex.A-1 and that the plaintiff has been collecting the rents and spending amounts for repairs after such an alleged agreement.
She also denied any money dealings with her sister by name Hymavathi for which the plaintiff used to send her amounts.
(ii) D.W.1 further denied that the plaintiff issued a legal notice
dated 06.09.2015 demanding for completion of the sale in his favour, and
also denied sending of any reply notice dated 14.09.2015. She denied that due to the development of Krishnapatnam Port and consequent hike in
O.S.No.410/2015 26 01.12.2025
land values around the suit schedule property, she intentionally executed the sale deed in favour of D.2 during pendency of the suit to gain more money and that she colluded with D.2. She stated that she had not gone through either Ex.A-1 or the sale deed executed in favour of D.2. She denied that the sale executed in favour of D.2 is invalid as hit by lispendence and there exists a clear possessory agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff obliging her and D.2 to execute a sale deed in favour of him.
15. D.W.2, who is the husband of 1st defendant filed his chief- affidavit in the same lines as that of D.W.1. Coming to cross-examination, he deposed that he married in the year 1973 at Chennai and thereafter came to Muthukur, Nellore, as an illudam son-in-law. His wife is the adopted daughter of his in-laws. From the date of marriage till 1984, he and his wife stayed at Muthukur and ran a textile business in his father-in- law’s house. Due to health issues of their second son in 1984, they closed the business and shifted to Chennai. He stated that the plaintiff is his wife’s own brother and he was residing in the same street at Muthukur. According to him, the schedule property consists of a big hall, kitchen and bedroom.
(i) DW.2 admitted that there is no documentary proof that the schedule property was ever entrusted to the plaintiff for management. He does not remember the year when they decided to sell the property. He deposed that they first informed the plaintiff about their intention to sell the
O.S.No.410/2015 27 01.12.2025
property, for which replied they can serve as per their own wish as it is their property. He deposed that thereafter D.2, a cloth merchant of Muthukur whose shop is about 100 feet from the property approached them to purchase it. D.2 met them at Chennai in the year 2015, they proposed to sell schedule property for Rs.60 lakhs and the matter was settled for Rs.50 lakhs. An agreement of sale dated 15.09.2015 was said to be executed at
Muthukur through a document writer by name Ramesh Singh with DW.2 and one Hanumantha Rao as attestors. The agreement is now with D.2.
He deposed that the sale deed was registered in the month of November 2015, though he does not remember the exact date and also does not know if the recital mentions the earlier agreement. He admitted that the plaintiff issued legal notice Ex.A.39 on 06.09.2015 and reply Ex.A.40 was sent by DW.1 and that by the date of registration the notice was already in existence, but D.2 was not informed.
(ii) D.W.2 stated that he said the property particulars in the sale deed tally with their earlier document, and the property lies in Bazar
Road/Hospital Road, but he does not know the exact door number. He denied that they manipulated old and new door numbers; and colluded with
D.2 to defeat the plaintiff’s rights. He further deposed that they sent only xerox copies of documents including Ex.A.1 to Truth Lab at Chennai through their advocate by name Babulu and that the expert opinion based on xerox copies was filed at a later stage. He denied the entire plaintiff’s
O.S.No.410/2015 28 01.12.2025
version regarding Ex.A.1, payment of Rs.9 lakhs towards advance, entrustment of the property to plaintiff, and any collusion with D.2.
16. The 2nd defendant as D.W.3 filed his chief-affidavit in the same lines as that of D.W.1. Coming to cross-examination, he deposed that he is a resident of Muthukur by doing cloth business since 1998 under the name and style of “Swathi Cut Pieces”. P.W.1 is also a resident of Muthukur and runs a cloth business under the name and style of “Siva
Sankara Textiles”. He had acquaintance with P.W.1 as they are from the same village. D.W.1 is the elder sister of P.W.1. He deposed that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to D.W.1 and that he knows her source of title.
(i) He deposed that there are three rooms in the plaint schedule property with a vacant backyard, which he personally observed before purchase. At that time, two persons by name Penchalaiah and
Ramakrishna were in occupation of two rooms. According to him, D.W.1 announced in the village that she intended to sell the schedule property, and on coming to know of this, he showed his interest. For this purpose, he went alone to Chennai and met D.W.1 and D.W.2 at their house about one month prior to the alleged purchase, though he does not remember the exact date and address. He deposed that they proposed to sell the property for Rs.60 lakhs, then he bargained and fixed the sale consideration at Rs.50 lakhs.
O.S.No.410/2015 29 01.12.2025
(ii) He deposed that that he verified D.W.1’s title before purchase and came to know that in the year 1983 she had purchased the schedule property from one Pelleti Sobha Rao of Stonehousepet, Nellore to an extent of about 30 ankanams situated at Venkatachalam Road. He admitted that no survey document in the name of Pelleti Subbarao reflecting the survey number of the schedule property is available to his knowledge, and that the link document also does not mention any survey number, but only the door number, which he does not now remember. He admitted that as per Ex.B.5 the property is described as “Gramanatham”.
(iii) He further deposed that he entered into an agreement of sale with D.W.1 on 04.09.2015 by fixing three months time for completion of the contract and that Ex.B.3 agreement was executed at Muthukur. He purchased non-judicial stamp paper at the SRO, Muthukur for Rs.100/-, but does not remember the date of purchase. Ex.B.3 was scribed by one Pamu
Edukondalu. The agreed sale consideration was Rs.50 lakhs and he verified the encumbrance certificate, property tax receipt and electricity bill which showed D.W.1 as owner. He paid Rs.5 lakhs as advance. He admitted that in Ex.B.3 no survey number is mentioned for the plaint schedule property and the blanks exist in respect of survey number and new door number even after completion of the document, and he does not know why those blanks were left. He also admitted that the boundaries and
O.S.No.410/2015 30 01.12.2025
other details in Ex.B.3 were taken from the 1983 document i.e., Ex.B.5, and that D.W.1 signed Ex.B.3 twice.
(iv) He deposed that within the stipulated period under Ex.B.3 he obtained the registered sale deed Ex.B.4 dated 28.11.2015. He deposed that Ex.B.4 was prepared at Muthukur and he informed D.W.1 about his readiness with the balance sale consideration of Rs.45 lakhs for registration ten days prior to Ex.B.4. He deposed that the entire sale consideration was earned from his cloth business since 1998 and on the date of Ex.B.3 he had the full cash. However, he could not state any specific reason why three months’ time was fixed for completion of sale when, he already had the full amount by the date of Ex.B.4. He deposed that he gave instructions for preparation of Ex.B.4 by referring to the copies of link documents in his possession and at the time of preparation of
Ex.B.4, himself, D.Ws.1 and 2 were present. He admitted that Ex.B.4 mentions the sale consideration as Rs.5,21,000/- only and does not mention Rs.50 lakhs and that there is no recital in Ex.B.4 about the existence of Ex.B.3. He further admitted that as per Ex.B.4 only
Rs.5,21,000/- is stated to have been paid and there is no recital that though Rs.50 lakhs was actually paid, a lesser amount was shown as per market value. He admitted that the boundaries and other details in Ex.B.4 are identical to those in the link document in the name of Pelleti Subba
Rao. He deposed that in Ex.B.4 the survey number of the schedule
O.S.No.410/2015 31 01.12.2025
property is mentioned as Sy.No.258 to his rememberance, but he cannot say how that survey number was arrived at, except that he orally obtained it from some local surveyor whose name he does not remember.
(v) He admitted that he did not apply for mutation in the revenue records, but stated that he got his name mutated in the Panchayat records after registration of Ex.B.4, though he does not remember the exact time.
The Panchayat officials issued proceedings by showing mutation in his name. He admitted that tax receipts Exs.B.9 and B.10 do not mention the door number, the column is left blank and those receipts do not bear the round seal of Muthukur Panchayat. He deposed that he does not know about the legal notice Ex.A.39 issued by P.W.1 to D.W.1, nor about the reply Ex.A.40, and that D.W.1 did not inform him about those notices at the time of Ex.B.4. He deposed that he had no knowledge about the filing of the present suit by P.W.1 on 07.10.2015, i.e., prior to the execution of
Ex.B.4 between himself and D.W.1. He denied that with the knowledge of
Ex.A.1, A.39 and A.40 he intentionally entered into Ex.B.4 with D.W.1 on 28.11.2015 and also denied that Ex.B.3 was created in collusion with
D.W.1 after exchange of legal notices to defeat P.W.1’s rights under Ex.A.1.
He admitted that Ex.B.3 was filed into Court for the first time only on 04.08.2025 and even a xerox copy was not filed earlier.
(vi) He denied that P.W.1 & D.W.1 had earlier entered into Ex.A.1 possessory agreement of sale dated 20.12.2004 under which possession
O.S.No.410/2015 32 01.12.2025
was delivered to P.W.1 and that P.W.1 has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till filing of the suit. He also denied that he forcibly entered into the schedule property just prior to filing of the suit, and that Exs.B.3 & B.4 were created by him and D.Ws.1 & 2 to avoid performance of the contract in favour of P.W.1 under Ex.A.1 and that he is not a bonafide purchaser. He further denied that under Ex.A.1, himself and D.W.1 are obliged to execute a sale deed in favour of P.W.1, and denied that his entire chief-affidavit is false and fabricated.
17. D.W.4, who is the attestor of Ex.B.4 filed his chief-affidavit in the same lines as that of D.W.1. Coming to cross-examination, he deposed that he has been doing cloth business for the last 40 years at
Muthukur under the name and style “Venkata Sai Cut Pieces” and studied up to 10th class. PW.1 is also a cloth merchant known to him, running “Sivasankar Textile” and about four shops between their shops. He knows
DW.1 for 40 years and DW.2 for 30 years. DW.1 is a homemaker, who inherited the suit schedule property from her father. DW.2 is also in cloth business under the name and style of “Sankar Textile” as his neighbouring businessman.
(i) He deposed that the suit schedule property is about 30 ankanams, though he does not know the exact features. In the year 2015,
DW.1 proposed to sell the schedule property, but he does not remember the exact month. He came to know of the proposal through local people.
O.S.No.410/2015 33 01.12.2025
Earlier, DW.1 and her family resided at Muthukur and later shifted to
Chennai. He deposed that DW.2 proposed to purchase the property for
Rs.50 lakhs though the market value was around Rs.70 lakhs. He does not know the purpose of the sale. He does not remember the exact date of the sale transaction. At the time of the agreement of sale, DW.1, DW.2, one
Yedukondalu ie., document writer, Sankar Singh and himself were present.
The transaction took place at about 11.00 a.m. The agreement of sale was written by document writer Yedukondalu on Rs.100/- NJS paper purchased in the name of Sankar Singh, but he does not know who actually purchased the stamp paper.
(ii) He admitted that he has never seen the original agreement of sale till today. According to him, DW.2 signed first as a witness on the agreement and he signed as the second witness. He does not remember the date of registration but says it took place in the month of November 2015. The Registered Sale Deed was also scribed by Yedukondalu at the same place where the agreement was prepared. He admitted that DW.1 is the elder sister of PW.1. He deposed that he suggested to DW.1 to enquire with PW.1 whether he was interested in purchasing the property, being her brother. He further deposed that no discussion about PW.1 took place at the time of registration of the sale deed in favour of DW.2. He does not know about Ex.A.39 legal notice issued by PW.1 to DW.1 as on the date of registration, nor about the reply notice given by DW.1. He
O.S.No.410/2015 34 01.12.2025
admitted that he did not read the registered sale deed between DW.1 and
DW.2 and only signed it as an attesting witness.
(iii) He deposed that the agreement of sale between DW.1 and
PW.1 under Ex.A.1 is a false transaction, but admitted that he has not seen Ex.A.1 and except his oral version, he has no other proof to show that Ex.A.1 is false. He deposed that at the time of registration, the balance sale consideration of Rs.45 lakhs was paid in cash in Rs.500/- denomination notes between DW.1 and DW.2 and that this cash payment was mentioned in the Registered Sale Deed. He denied having any business dealings with DW.2, but admitted good acquaintance with him as a neighbouring businessman. He denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of DW.2, no agreement of sale took place between DW.1 & DW.2 prior to registration, and that he has no knowledge about the suit transaction.
18. The 1st defendant examined the Director and Document
Expert of Truth Lab, Chennai as C.W.1, who in his chief-examination deposed that he is working as Director and Document Expert in the
Document Division of Truth Labs, an independent Forensic Science
Laboratory at Chennai, since 2010. Prior to that he worked in the Forensic
Sciences Department, Government of Tamilnadu, in the Document Division as Assistant Director and Document Expert for about 36 years from 1968 to 31-10-2003. After his retirement and before joining Truth Labs, he did
O.S.No.410/2015 35 01.12.2025
private expert opinion work at Chennai. He is an M.Sc. (Chemistry) and underwent two years’ special training in document examination between 1968 and 1970, after which FSL, Tamilnadu certified him as a document expert.
(i) He deposed that on 13-05-2016, DW.1, who is resident of
Chennai, approached Truth Labs and handed over a photocopy of an unregistered agreement of sale dated 20-12-2004 said to have been executed between DW.1 and PW.1 requested for comparison of the signatures appearing therein as Q.1 to Q.3 with her admitted signatures.
For this purpose, four sets of standard signatures/writings were provided/obtained ie., Doc. No.1: Colour photocopy of Indian Passport
No.E3500146 in the name of G. Prabhavathi, signed as R.Ramaiah
Prabhavathi, valid from 24-10-2002 to 23-10-2012 marked as S.1.
Doc.No.2: Photocopy of Indian Passport No.L3789117 in the name of
Ramaiah Prabhavathi valid from 16-09-2013 to 15-09-2023, in which signature marked as S.2. Doc.No.3: Original unregistered lease agreement dated 01-02-2014 between DW.1 and Mrs.Rexine Trading
Centre containing four signatures of G. Prabhavathi, marked as S.3 to S.6.
Doc. No.4: Specimen signatures and handwriting of DW.1 obtained by him on 13-05-2016 at Truth Labs, marked as S.7 to S.18.
(ii) DW.1 also gave a requisition letter dated 13-05-2016 by mentioning Q.1 to Q.3 and S.1 to S.18 and seeking for expert opinion. He
O.S.No.410/2015 36 01.12.2025
deposed that he carefully examined and compared the questioned signatures with the standard signatures using magnifiers, stereo microscope, enlarged photographs and different light sources, prepared a work sheet and finally concluded that the person who wrote and signed the standard signatures S.1 to S.18 did not sign the questioned signatures Q.1 to Q.3. He issued a detailed expert report dated 27-05-2016 with reasons and a signatures comparison chart, which is marked as Ex.C.1 with seven enclosures and returned all documents to DW.1.
(iii) In cross-examination, he admitted that his academic qualification is M.Sc. (Chemistry) and that he does not hold any separate diploma or degree specifically in document examination; he is a trained expert in that field and was certified as such by FSL, Tamil Nadu. He admitted that Ex.C.1 is a private opinion given after his retirement and that he joined Truth Labs in April 2010 based on his qualification and long experience. He deposed that while examining the documents in this case, he referred to standard books like “Questioned Documents” by Albert
S.Osborne, “The problem of Proof”, “Suspect Documents” by Wilson
R.Harrison, “Evidential Documents” by James V.P. Conway, “Scientific
Examination of Documents” by Wilson R.Harrison and some Indian authors. He stated that he has given reports in more than 6000 cases and deposed as expert in more than 2000 cases.
O.S.No.410/2015 37 01.12.2025
(iv) He admitted that some admitted signatures ie.,S.1 and S.2 are colour xerox copies and that the questioned document given for comparison is also a xerox copy. He further admitted that the lease agreement containing S.3 to S.6 is an unregistered document, and denied that only signatures on registered and before legal authorities can be taken as standard signatures. He stated that he obtained specimen signatures
S.7 to S.18 from DW.1 in one sitting in his office, while the disputed document was on his table, and that he suggested DW.1 to sign in her normal manner. He admitted that health condition at the time of signing may reflect in the signatures and that original documents are ideal for comparison, but states that DW.1 informed him that the originals of the disputed document were not available with her.
(v) He deposed that he did not apply pen-pressure or pen-shading tests because only photocopies were available, but he assessed speed, line quality, alignment and other characteristics. He further deposed that standard signatures show consistency, firmness, no signs of disguise and only natural variations, whereas Q.1 to Q.3 show features of imitation (simulated forgery) and are written with slightly faster speed than the standard signatures. He deposed that there are four or five types of forgery namely 1.Simulated forgery, 2.Partially simulated forgery, 3.Traced forgery, 4.Forgery by trickery either by way of transplanting signatures from one genuine document to fraudulent document or cutting and pasting the
O.S.No.410/2015 38 01.12.2025
authentic signature from the original document and transferring it to fraudulent document and 5.Forgery by scribbling the signature. He deposed that he mentioned in Ex.C.1 that Q.1 to Q.3 are imitated/simulated signatures.
(vi) He admitted to certain variations and gaps between letters (like “R” and “P”, “B” and “H”, presence and absence of curves or hooks, spelling of “Prabhavathi” ending with “y”, etc.) in various standard signatures S.1 to S.18 but characterizes them as natural variations rather than fundamental differences. He further admitted that he has not illustrated all aspects of pen path, pressure, hesitation and rhythm in diagrams and that the signature chart contains cropped and enlarged scanned signatures, but he denied that his opinion is invalid merely because it is based on xerox copies while the original disputed document is in a Court case. He deposed that he followed proper procedure, stands by his conclusion that the writer of S.1 to S.18 did not sign Q.1 to Q.3 and denied that he has deposed falsely at the instance of DW.1, who is also resident of Chennai.
20. In this suit both P.W.1 and D.W.1 are brother and sister. They are having houses side by side in Muthukur as per the version of both the parties. P.W.1 is contending that he purchased the property of D.W.1 basing on Possessory Agreement of Sale by paying Rs.9 lakhs towards sale consideration and taken over possession of the schedule property.
O.S.No.410/2015 39 01.12.2025
The contention of D.W.1 is that she being resident of Chennai handed over the schedule property to P.W.1 as care taker by engaging her own tenants in the schedule property. D.W.1 further contended that P.W.1 used to pay house tax and other required necessaries to the schedule property being local inhabitant of schedule property area. Out of relationship, D.W.1 handed over the property to P.W.1 as care taker only as contended by
D.W.1.
21. So far as evidence brought on record by both the sides shows that P.W.1 depending on Ex.A.1 crucial document to decide the matter on record. On perusing Ex.A.1, it is of the date 20.12.2004, but the said
Ex.A.1 N.J. Stamp does not reflect who issued the said stamp ie., which area Sub-Registrar authorized about sale of N.J. Stamp. It only reflects
V.S.Ramanaiah, Venkatagiri. There is no recital about license number of the stamp vendor and seal of the S.R.O, who issued the said document.
P.W.1 produced both P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the attestors of said Ex.A.1.
But on observing the cross-examination of P.W.2 shows that he along with another attestor and both the parties present at the time of discussion about the sale consideration. One stamp vendor came to them with an
Agreement of stamp paper to them. In case P.W.1 intends to purchase stamp at Nellore, how the stamp vendor of Venkatagiri visited the place of
P.W.1, where he was present, not explained in a proper manner. P.W.2
O.S.No.410/2015 40 01.12.2025
clearly stated alleged sale consideration of Rs.9 lakhs not exchanged in his presence between P.W.1 and D.W.1.
22. So far as P.W.3 evidence is concerned, he signed as an attestor in Ex.A.1 at the request of plaintiff at the house of plaintiff. P.W.3 further deposed that by the time of his visit to plaintiff’s house, P.W.1, D.1 and another person were present. As per the contention of P.W.1, husband of D.W.1 ie., D.W.2 also present. This aspect not deposed by
P.Ws.2 and 3 about presence of D.W.2 at the time of alleged transaction under Ex.A.1. P.W.1 admitted that he purchased the stamp paper at
Nellore within premises of S.R.O, but on perusing the Ex.A.1 the said stamp vendor belongs to Venkatagiri as contended by D.2’s counsel and also as admitted by P.W.1. P.W.1 stated said Ex.A.1 Agreement of Sale prepared at Sub-Registrar Office, Muthukur, but P.W.2 stated the said
Ex.A.1 was prepared at the house of P.W.1. There is no proof from the side of P.W.1 about passing of alleged consideration of Rs.9 lakhs from
P.W.1 to D.W.1. P.W.1 also admitted that he managed the plaint schedule property as care taker since he purchased the plaint schedule property. In case, purchased the plaint schedule property P.W.1 will come under the view of owner not as a care taker. On that aspect, P.W.1 stated about his acts as care taker towards plaint schedule property supports the contention of D.W.1. No proof in the manner of withdrawal from any bank for payment of alleged sale consideration produced by P.W.1. P.W.1
O.S.No.410/2015 41 01.12.2025
clearly admitted that D.2 taken over the possession of the schedule property from the date of his purchase. But, the contention of P.W.1 is that
D.2 forcibly entered into the schedule property. No report given by P.W.1 against D.2 and that no legal steps taken by him for any action against D2 with regard to the alleged forcible occupation/encroachment of schedule property by D.2.
23. D.W.1 on hearing about the existence of Ex.A.1 from the side of P.W.1, she herself taken steps in the manner of placing the zerox copy of Ex.A.1 along with her admitted signatures for comparison by handwriting expert, Truths Lab, Chennai. The said report initially marked as Ex.B.1 and subsequently, this Court come to conclusion that the opinion of the expert shall be marked through him only and not through the individual, who contested the matter. Basing on orders passed in
I.A.No.46/2023 dated 06.11.2024, this Court demarcated/de-exhibited
Ex.B.1. Subsequently, the said expert opinion marked through C.W.1 as
Ex.C.1. But on observing entire submissions of both the parties, this Court come to conclusion that out of over enthusiasm D.W.1 proceeded with producing zerox copy of disputed document before expert to get the opinion. Hence, this Court opines that basing on the zerox copy the process of comparison done by expert cannot be given much weight. On that aspect, the contention of the learned counsel for P.W.1 is having convincing in nature. Basing on the decisions relied on by the learned
O.S.No.410/2015 42 01.12.2025
counsel for plaintiff, this Court finally concluded that Ex.C.1 is not at all helpful to D.W.1. But, the genuinety and credibility of Ex.A.1 is concerned, there is no clear and convincing evidence from the side of P.W.1 to the extent that it was duly executed by D.W.1. D.W.1 given clear reply to the legal notice sent by P.W.1 within eight days. Ex.A.39 is the legal notice got issued by P.W.1 dated 06.09.2015, whereas Ex.A.40 is the reply notice issued by D.W.1 dated 14.09.2015. Ex.A.39 shows P.W.1 let out the schedule property to tenants. The crucial aspect observed by this Court that legal notice under Ex.A.39 clearly reflects original title deed of D.W.1 of the year 1983 handed over by D.W.1 to P.W.1. But, no such title deed of D.W.1 filed by P.W.1, whereas the same original of D.W.1’s title dated 15.12.1983 produced by D.2 as D.W.3 under Ex.B.5. In case D.W.1 intends to sell the property to P.W.1, automatically she has to hand over original of her title deed to P.W.1. But, production of original title deed under Ex.B.5 by D.2 shows that he is the purchaser of the schedule property from D.W.1.
24. Another aspect observed by this Court is that in the year 2004 alleged Ex.A.4 entered by P.W.1 and D.W.1. But, no steps taken by
P.W.1 till issuance of Ex.A.39 legal notice ie., in the year 2015. Eleven years taken by P.W.1 to complete his part of contract expressing readiness and willingness to D.W.1. In case D.W.1 is having knowledge then she might have taken steps to call for P.W.1 about his readiness and
O.S.No.410/2015 43 01.12.2025
willingness for completion of Ex.A.1 alleged Agreement of Sale. On receiving legal notice from P.W.1 in the year 2015, she immediately approached private expert to know about the genuinety of Ex.A.1. Even though report under Ex.C.1 not helpful to D.W.1, but her anxiety in visiting the private expert office about genuinety of Ex.A.1 proves her innocence and immediate steps taken to know about the allegations of P.W.1 through
Ex.A.39. Hence, about the execution of Ex.A.1 the version of D.W.1 apparently convincing in nature, because the said document does not reflect S.R.O., who authorized the issuance of N.J. Stamps with seal and also absence of licence number and other details of stamp vendor, who belongs to Venkatagiri, but the stamp purchased at Nellore. These aspects as raised by learned counsel for D.2 is having much weight when compared with the material in the manner of oral and documentary evidence produced by P.W.1.
25. P.W.1 sent legal notice to D.W.1 on 06.09.2015 and 14.09.2015. D.W.1 got issued reply notice. Suit on hand filed on 09.10.2014, whereas Ex.B.4 sale deed between D.W.1 and D.W.3 dated 28.11.2015. On this aspect D.W.1 stated that till receipt of summons in this suit on hand, she has no knowledge about the filing of the suit. Even on 18.12.2015 summons issued to D.1, D.2 in this suit, by 10.03.2016 summons served on D.2 and await summons of D.1, even then she appeared through her counsel. Hence, the contention of D.1 that she has
O.S.No.410/2015 44 01.12.2025
no knowledge about the filing of suit on hand is convincing in nature. Even no adinterim injunction orders passed through I.A.No.69/2019 by this Court to prevent any further transactions relating to schedule property. Hence,
Ex.B.4 not hit by Sec.52 of Transfer of Property Act as contended by the
D.1 and D.2 having much weight.
26. In case P.W.1 only engaged the tenants in the schedule property, why he has not produced any such tenant on his behalf as a witness was also not explained by him adding strength to D.W.1’s contention. Another aspects observed by this Court is that P.W.1 himself raised contention in the plaint that he deposited some amounts in UCO
Bank, Chennai Branch relates to D.W.1, the said amounts handed over by one Sivadanam Hymavathi, his sister who borrowed amounts from D.W.1 and repaid through him. In case such aspect is correct, why P.W.1 failed to produce said Hymavathi, his own sister to prove that she only paid amounts to D.W.1 through P.W.1 for depositing before UCO Bank,
Chennai. In the absence of such evidence from the side of P.W.1, then the contention of D.W.1 is apparently having much weight, because she being elder sister to P.W.1 given schedule property to him who is local inhabitant of the property to look after as a care taker. These aspects as observed by this Court adds strength to the defendants contention. The version of P.Ws.2 and 3 not supporting P.W.1’s version in toto about execution of Ex.A.1 with place, time and related aspects as discussed
O.S.No.410/2015 45 01.12.2025
supra. This Court also observed that Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.38 reflects name of the D.1 only and that Ex.A.38 last document of the year 2015. There is no explanation from the side of P.W.1, why his name was not mutated in the concerned records that he was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. D1 contention apparently convincing as she has taken assistance of P.W.1, who is her brother as care taker to the properties.
27. D.W.4 is the independent witness as produced by D.W.1 in her support, who is also running a cloth shop near to the schedule property. He knows P.W.1 and D.W.1, and at the time of agreement of sale between D.1 and D.2, he was also present. The version of D.W.4 is helpful to the extent of existence of Agreement of Sale between D.1 and D.2 relating to the schedule property, being same locality businessman.
Viewed from any angle, the entire evidence of P.W.1 is not convincing in nature when compared with oral and documentary evidence produced by
D.W.1, even though Ex.C.1 not taken into consideration, because of opinion issued basing on zerox copy. Hence, Ex.A.1 is not binding on defendants 1 & 2 and that P.W.1 is not entitled for any relief sought through the suit on hand to get Registered Sale Deed. Accordingly, the
Issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
O.S.No.410/2015 46 01.12.2025
28. Issue No. 3
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the
Open Court, this the 01 st day of December, 2025.
I Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Nellore.
(FAC) II Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Nellore.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiff: For Defendants:
P.W.1: Panchakshari Sreenivasulu. D.W.1: Gaddam Prabhavathi.
P.W.2: Yenati Sreedhar Reddy. D.W.2: Gaddam Ramaiah.
P.W.3: Velpula Bala Krishnaiah. D.W.3: Nellore Sankar Singh.
D.W.4: Soma Hanumantha Rao.
C.W.1: Prof.K.Ramakrishnan.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A1 : Possessory agreement of sale dt: 20.12.2004 executed by 1st defendant in my favour for Rs. 9 lakhs.
Ex.A2 : Property Tax receipt dt: 13.12.2006 for Rs. 381/- issued by
Panchayath secretary of Muthukur Village.
Ex.A3 : Property Tax receipt dt: 03.02.2007 for Rs. 401/- issued by
O.S.No.410/2015 47 01.12.2025
Panchath secretary of Muthukur Village.
Ex.A4 : Property Tax receipt dt: 28.02.2007 for Rs. 421/- issued by
Panchath secretary of Muthukur Village.
Ex.A5 : Property Tax receipt dt: 12.11.2007 for Rs. 421/- issued by
Panchath secretary of Muthukur Village.
Ex.A6 : Property Tax receipt dt: 26.02.2009 for Rs. 465/- issued by
Panchath secretary of Muthukur Village.
Ex.A7 : Property Tax receipt dt: 31.03.2010 for Rs. 953/- issued by
Panchath Secretary of Muthukur Village.
Ex.A8 : Property Tax receipt dt: 01.02.2012 for Rs.1050/- issued by
Panchayath secretary of Muthukur Village.
Ex.A9 : Property Tax receipt dt: 22.03.2012 for Rs. 1050/- issued by
Panchayath secretary of Muthukur Village.
Ex.A10 : Property Tax demand notice dt: 31.12.2014 for Rs. 2,280/- issued by Panchayath secretary of Muthukur Village.
Ex.A11 : Property Tax receipt dt: 09.03.2015 for Rs. 2,280/- issued by
Panchayath secretary of Muthukur Village.
Ex.A12 : Electricity Bill dt: 09.12.2013 for Rs. 1,699/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL with endorsement paid on 21.12.2013.
Ex.A13 : Electricity Bill dt: 06.10.2013 for Rs. 1,748/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL with endorsement paid on 25.10.2013.
Ex.A14 : Electricity Bill dt: 06.09.2013 for Rs. 804/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL .
Ex.A15 : Electricity Bill dt: 09.12.2013 for Rs. 1,699/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL.
Ex.A16 : Electricity Bill dt: 08.10.2014 for Rs. 934/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL with endorsement paid on
O.S.No.410/2015 48 01.12.2025
21.12.2013
Ex.A17 : Receipt dt: 30.11.2014 for Rs. 934/- issued by APSPDCL relating to service No. 3511101000815
Ex.A18 :Electricity Bill dt: 08.04.2014 for Rs. 1,591/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL with endorsement paid on 24.04.2014
Ex.A19 : Electricity Bill dt: 09.11.2014 for Rs. 959/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A20 : Electricity Bill dt: 09.08.2014 for Rs. 3,132/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A21 : Receipt dt: 30.08.2014 for Rs. 3,132/- issued by APSPDCL relating to service No. 3511101000815
Ex.A22 : Electricity Bill dt: 26.01.2015 for Rs. 1,638/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A23 : Electricity Bill dt: 08.03.2015 for Rs. 367/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A24 : Electricity Bill dt: 10.02.2015 for Rs. 2,535/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A25 :Receipt dt: 21.02.2015 for Rs. 2,610/- issued by APSPDCL relating to service No. 3511101000815
Ex.A26 : Electricity Bill dt: 07.09.2013 for Rs. 2,217/- relating to service No.
3511101000815 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A27 : Electricity Bill dt: 11.06.2013 for Rs. 959/- relating to service No.
3511101000080 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A28 : Electricity Bill dt: 06.10.2013 for Rs. 3,106/- relating to service No.
3511101000080 issued by APSPDCL.
Ex.A29 : Electricity Bill dt: 09.11.2013 for Rs. 2,108/- relating to service No.
3511101000080 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A30 : Electricity Bill dt: 08.02.2014 for Rs. 1,718/- relating to service No.
O.S.No.410/2015 49 01.12.2025
3511101000080 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A31 : Electricity Bill dt: 08.03.2014 for Rs. 833/- relating to service No.
3511101000080 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A32 : Electricity Bill dt: 11.12.2014 for Rs. 1,848/- relating to service No.
3511101000080 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A33 : Electricity Bill dt: 09.10.2014 for Rs. 2,860/- relating to service
No.3511101000080 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A34 :Receipt dt: 23.07.2015 for Rs. 1,806/- issued by APSPDCL relating to service No. 3511101000080
Ex.A35 : Electricity Bill dt: 05.08.2015 for Rs. 776/- relating to service No.
3511101000080 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A36 : Electricity Bill dt: 07.07.2015 for Rs. 3,222/- relating to service No.
3511101000080 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A37 : Electricity Bill dt: 10.02.2015 for Rs. 3,536/- relating to service No.
3511101000080 issued by APSPDCL
Ex.A38 :Receipt dt: 27.07.2015 for Rs. 3,540/- issued by APSPDCL relating to service No. 3511101000080.
Ex.A39 :Office copy of registered lawyer notice dt: 06.09.2015 issued on behalf of plaintiff to the 1st defendant.
Ex.A40 :Reply notice sent dt: 14.09.2015 on behalf of 1st defendant.
For Defendants:-
Ex.B1 : Report/Opinion of the Truths Lab, Chennai dated 27.05.2016 with its enclosures addressed to D.1 on 27.05.2016. (De-exhibited).
Ex.B2 : Suit summons dated 06.01.2016 issued by the Court served on D.1.
Ex.B3 : The agreement of sale dated 04.09.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of D.W.3.
Ex.B4 : The Registered Sale Deed bearing No.1966 of 2015 dated
O.S.No.410/2015 50 01.12.2025
28.11.2015 executed by 1st defendant in favour of D.W.3.
Ex.B5 : The Registered Sale Deed bearing No.740 of 1983 dated 15.12.1983 executed by Peteti Subba Rao and another in favour of 1st defendant.
Ex.B6 : The house tax receipt for payment of house tax for the year 2012- 2015 issued by Panchayath Secretary, Muthukur.
Ex.B7 : The house tax receipt dated 24.05.2016 for payment of house tax for the year 2016 issued by Panchayath Secretary, Muthukur.
Ex.B8 : The house tax receipt dated 15.03.2017 for payment of house tax for the year 2017 issued by Panchayath Secretary, Muthukur.
Ex.B9 : The house tax receipt dated 08.08.2023 for payment of house tax for the year 2023 issued by Panchayath Secretary, Muthukur.
Ex.B10 : The house tax receipt dated 03.12.2024 for payment of house tax for the year 2024 issued by Panchayath Secretary, Muthukur.
Ex.B11 : The bunch of electricity bill in Nos.12 relating to the service connection number 3541230000815 of plaint schedule property issued in the name of D.W.3.
Ex.B12 : The bunch of electricity bill in Nos.12 relating to the service connection number 3541230000080 of plaint schedule property issued in the name of D.W.3.
Marked through C.W.1.
Ex.C1 : The expert opinion issued by C.W.1 along with seven enclosures including report and signatures comparison chart.
I Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Nellore.
FAC) II Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Nellore.
O.S.No.410/2015 51 01.12.2025