1/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: :: SIDDIPET
PRESENT :: SMT. S. SWATHI REDDY,
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
SIDDIPET
Thursday, this the 17th day of October 2024
O.S. No. 154 OF 2014
Between:-
Afzal Mohiuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin, Aged: 31 years, Occ: Private Employee in Saudi Arabia (UAE) through General Power of Attorney Holder Mohd. Fayasuddin S/o. Nooruddin, Aged : 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.12-3-100/1, Qadarpura, Siddipet, Medak District.
….Plaintiff
A N D
1.Mohd. Kareemuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin, Aged: 40 yrs, Occ: Emp.,
2.Sarwar Mohiuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin, Aged: 35 yrs, Occ: Business,
3.Ghouse Mohiuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin, Aged: 32 yrs, Occ: Busienss,
4.Maqdoom Mohiuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin, Aged: 33 yrs, Occ: Emp. In Saudi Arabia (UAE), C/o. Mohd. Kareemuddin, S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin, Aged: 40 years, Occ: Employee.
5.Nazeer Mohiuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin, Aged: 26 yrs, Occ: Business,
6.Yasmeen Begum W/o. Khaja Nooruddin, Aged: 38 yrs, Occ: Household,
D1 to D6 are R/o.H.No.12-4-98/E/1, Naseer Nagar Colony, Siddipet, Medak District.
7.Balija Shashikala @ Shuni Shashikala W/o. Srinivas, Aged: 37 year, Occ:Household, R/o. Ponnala vilalge, Siddipet mandal, Medak District.
8.Balije Jyothi @ Sunki Jyothi W/o. Nagamallaiah, Aged: 50 years, Occ:Household & Agriculture, R/o. Ponnal village, Siddipet mandal, Medak District.
9.Vanga Surender Reddy S/o. Parsha Reddy, Aged: 52 years, Occ: Govt. Employee,
10.Vanga Swaroopa Rani W/o. Surender Reddy, Aged: 46 years, Occ:Household, 2/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
11.Peddi Vijaya W/o. Srinivas, Aged: 43 years, Occ: Household, N/o. Inapur, Cherial mandal, C/o. Vanga Surender Reddy S/o. Parsha Reddy, Aged: 52 years, Occ: Govt. Employee.
D9 to D11 are R/o. H.No.11-2-57/9/2/2, Shivajinagar, Siddipet, Medak District.
12.Kasha Shivaram Chary S/o. Venkat Rajyam, Aged: 52 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. Gayatri Hospital, Shivajinagar, Siddipet, Medak District.
13.Soma Sundaraiah S/o. Gouraiah, Aged: 57 years, Occ: Business,
14.Soma Srinivas S/o. Sundaraiah, Aged: 37 years, Occ: Employee,
D13 & D14 are R/o. H.No.4-2-34, Patelpura, Siddipet Medak District.
15.K. Sathya Reddy S/o. Malla Reddy, Aged: 75 years, Occ: Agriculture & Business, R/o. H.No.8-2-65, Shivajinagar, Siddipet.
16.S. Arundathi W/o. Laxma Reddy, Aged: 40 years, Occ: Chairman of master Minds Educational Society, Siddipet, R/o. H.No.11-2-57/9/2/2/1, Shivaji nagar, Siddipet, Medak District.
17.Balije @ Sunki Veerappa S/o. Siddaiah, Aged: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ponnal village, Siddipet mandal, Medak District.
…Defendants
This suit coming before me for final hearing, in the presence of Sri K.Ramesh Babu, Counsel for plaintiff and Sri Kamaluddin, Counsel for Defendant No.1, Sri S. Srinivas Goud, Counsel for Defendant No.2 to 6 and Sri V. Raja Reddy, Counsel for Defendants No.7 to 17. Upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The plaintiff filed this suit against defendants for Partition and Separate
Possession in respect of suit schedule properties.
2.Case of Plaintiffs:-(i)The brief facts of the plaint are that, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 are brothers, defendant No.6 is the elder sister of plaintiff. Defendants No.7 to 17 are tenants. Father of the plaintiff and 3/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet defendants No.1 to 5, was the owner, pattedar and possessor of the land bearing
Sy.No.175/E to an extent of Ac.2-18 gts, and Sy.No.174/E to an extent of Ac.6-07 gts, i.e, suit schedule property, situated at Ponnala village, Siddipet, along with other properties ie., Sy.No.55 to an extent of Ac.8-24 gts, and Sy.No.54 to an extent of Ac.9-07 gts, which fell to his share in a final decree dt. 24.07.1979 in
IA.No.179 of 1979 in OS.No.209 of 1978 on the file of District Munsiff, Siddipet.
The said Asad Moinuddin died on 27.03.2014. During his life time he was affected with Paralysis and suffered with Kidneys problem from the year 2000 to till his death and he was unable to walk or talk in unsound mind as blood clotted in his head. Plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 has leased out the suit schedule properties to the defendants No.7 to 17 when Asad Moinuddin fell sick.
(ii)It is further stated that defendant No.1 is managing the entire properties being eldest son of Late Asad Moinuddin and enjoying the usufruct of the suit schedule lands. Asad Moinuddin was an employee in Government Department, transferred to various places of Karimnagar District, and was not in a position to look after his properties and that there is also one more ancestral property i.e, land in Sy.No.53/AA which is not yet partitioned between Late Asad Moinuddin and legal heirs of his brother as appeal AS.No.1020/2012 is pending before Hon’ble
High Court at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and said land is not included in this case. Defendants No.7 to 17 are in illegal occupation of the suit schedule properties as unauthorized tenants, so they are nearest parties to the litigation.
The defendant No.1 is mis-managing the suit schedule properties and denied partition of the suit schedule property after death of their father. Hence the suit for Partition fo suit schedule property as per Mohammedan Law by dividing 4/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet equal share i.e. 2/13rd share to the defendants No.1 to 5 and plaintiff, 1/13rd share to the defendant No.6 in the suit schedule properties.
3.Defendant No.1 called present, but failed to file written statement and hence set exparte on 22.12.2014.
Defendant No.4 called present, but failed to file written statement and hence set exparte on 24.02.2015.
4.Case of Defendants No.7 to 17:- (i)The written statement was filed by defendants No.7 to 17 stating that, plaintiff claims to the share in the suit schedule properties is untenable. It is further stated that, Late Asad Moinuddin was absolute owner and sold his entire land in Sy.No.174/E, ie., Item No.1 of plaint schedule, excluding the area to an extent of Ac.0-13 gts, covered by PWD road of
Siddipet – Ponnala village in favour of defendants No.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15. He sold the land i.e., (1) Sy.No.174 to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts, vide document No.
4457/2001 dt. 28.08.2001 in favour of Soma Sundaraiah/Defendant No.13,
Shivarama Chary/Defendant No.12 and Surender Reddy/Defendant No.9. (2)
Sy.No.174 to an extent of Ac.0-12 gts, vide document No. 4458/2001 dt.
28.08.2001 in favour of Srinivas/Defendant No.14, Swaroopa Rani/Defendant No.
10. (3) Sy.No.174 to an extent of Ac.1-28 gts, vide document No. 4643/2001 dt.
10.09.2001 in favour of Peddi Vijaya /Defendant No.11 & Surender
Reddy/Defendant No.9. (4) Sy.No.174/ to an extent of Ac.1-34 gts, vide document No. 3679/2003 dt. 12.12.2002 in favour of Surender Reddy/Defendant
No.9 & Shivarama Chary/Defendant No.12 and (5) Sy.No.174 to an extent of 5/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
Ac.1-00 gts, vide document No. 2986/2000 dt. 11.08.2000 in favour of K. Satya
Reddy/Defendant No.15.
(ii)It is further stated that, out of the extent of Ac.1-34 gs, purchased by
Surender Reddy/Defendnat No.9 and Shivaram Chary/Defendant No.12 through registered sale deed vide document No.3679/2009. Shivaram Chary sold his half extent Ac.0-37 gts, in favour of Surender Reddy/Defendant No.9, through document No.3001/2010 dt. 29.06.2010. Subsequently, Surender Reddy sold Ac.0- 18 ½ gts out of the extent of Ac.0-37 gts, purchased by him in favour of Soma
Sundaraiah/Defendant No.13 through document No.3226/2010 dt. 09.07.2010.
(iii)It is further stated that, out of the extent Ac.1-00 gts purchased by
Surender Reddy/defendant No.9, Shivaram Chary /Defendant No.12 and Soma
Sundaraiah/defendant No.13, the defendant No.12 Shivaram Chary sold his extent
Ac. 0-9 gts, in favour of Surender Reddy and Sundaraiah through Registered sale deed document No.3018/2010 dt. 29.06.2010 and all the purchasers are in lawful possession of the land.
(iv)It is further stated that, defendants No.9, 12 & 13 partitioned the said extents Ac.1-00 gts, as per their shares through partition deed vide document
No.3000/2010 dt. 29.06.2010.
(v)It is further stated that, Asad Moinuddin is not having any land in Sy.No.175 as described in the plaint schedule. Out of the suit land mentioned in item No.2 of plaint schedule pertaining to Sy.No.175, Asad Moinuddin sold the land to an extent of Ac.1-05 gts, in favour of Balije Veerappa/defendant No.17, through registered sale deed No.1309/1982. Subsequently, the defendant No.17 executed gift deed 6/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet document No.8115/2004 dt. 20.12.2004 in favour of his daughter in law Balije
Shashikala/defendant No.7 in respect of Ac.1-00 gts, by retaining Ac.0-05 gts.
The defendant No.1 sold the remaining extent Ac.1-19 gts in favour of defendant
No.10 through registered sale deed vide document No.3680/2003 in respect of
Ac.0-35 gts, and registered sale deed No. 118/2004 dt. 07.01.2004 in respect of
Ac.0-24 gts.
(vi)It is further stated that, Asad Moinuddin executed the sale deeds in respect of the land Ac.5-34 gts in Sy.No.174 and the remaining extent of Ac.0-13 gts, shown in his name, is covered by road and another road earmarked provided access to Sy.No.175, since the area Ac.1-13 gts, covered by road is not deleted from the extent of Asad Moinuddin in the revenue record, the same is continued in his name. The purchasers suspecting the attitude of some of the children for executing bogus documents, got an agreement dt. 23.05.2009 executed by all the children of Asad Moinuddin, except plaintiff, accepting the land still recorded in the name of Asad Moinuddin is covered by road, documents if any executed by them are not valid and they cooperate for deletion of Ac.0-13 gts, from the name of Asad Moinuddin in the revenue record. The court fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient and the suit is barred by limitation as defendants No.1 to 6 are not in possession from the year 2000 and accordingly the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Case of Defendants No.2, 3, 5 & 6:- (i). The written statement is filed by defendants No.2, 3, 5 & 6, admitting the case of plaintiff and further stated that the suit schedule property and other properties fell to the share of Late
Asad Moinuddin in partition in OS.No.209 of 1978 and final decree proceedings in 7/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
IA.No.179 of 1979 on the file of District Munsiff, Siddipet. Thereafter, Asad
Moinuddin executed an agreement of sale in favour of Syed Ishaq on 26.04.1998 in respect of Ac.3-20 gts, in Sy.No.174/E which is part of suit schedule land and
Syed Ishaq filed a suit in OS.No.152 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s
Court, Siddipet for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale against Late Asad
Moinuddin during his lifetime, defendant No.9 herein and Syed Zaheer Ahmed
Hussain which is pending. Late Asad Moinuddin filed a suit for Perpetual
Injunction in respect of suit schedule property against Balije Veeraiah, Balije
Nagamallaiah and Balije Nagender in OS.No.75 of 1998 on the file of Prl. Junior
Civil Judge, Siddipet and the suit was decreed on 28.12.2001 in view of
compromise. As per the said compromise defendants No.1 to 3 in the said suit have no objection to decree the suit in favour of plaintiff for Sy.No.174/E to an extent of Ac.6-02 gts, and Sy.No.175/E to an extent of Ac.0-35 gts.
(ii)It is further stated that, the written statement filed by defendants No.7 to 17 , stating that they have purchased suit schedule land from the father of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 under the registered sale deeds bearing No.
4457 of 2001 dt. 28.08.2001 in favour of defendants No.13, 12 & 9 in respect of
Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.174 vide document No. 4458 of 2001 dt.28.08.2001 in favour of defendants No.14 and 10 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0-12 gts, in
Sy.No.174 and document No.4643 of 2001 dt. 10.09.2001 in favour of defendants
No.11 & 9 in respect of Ac.1-28 gts, in Sy.No.174 is false. The execution of above documents are created by taking advantage of ill health of Asad Moinuddin and an agreement of sale was already executed in favour of Syed Ishaq in respect of the 8/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet part of the above said lands to an extent of Ac.3-00 gts. The above documents are created during pendency of the suit in OS.No.75 of 1998 on the file of Junior
Civil Judge, Siddipet.
(iii)It is further stated that, the statement of defendants No.7 to 17 in their written statement that the defendants No.9 to 12 have purchased Ac.1-34 gts, in
Sy.No.174 under registered sale deed No.3679/2003 dt. 12.12.2002 and defendant
No.15 purchased to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.174 under registered sale deed No. 2986/2000 dt. 11.08.2000 from Asad Moinuddin by taking advantage of ill health of Asad Moinuddin. The boundaries mentioned in the above said documents are not correct as they belong to legal heirs of Hyder Moinuddin as per final decree proceedings in IA.No.179 of 1979 in OS.No.209 of 1978.
(iv)It is further stated that Late Asad Moinuddin executed registered gift deed No.3656/2008 dt. 11.07.2008 in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of
Ac.0-07 gts, in Sy.No.174/E. He also executed registered sale deed No.3657/2008
dt. 11.07.2008 in favour of Khaja Pasha in respect of Ac.0-06 gts in Sy.No.174/E.
It is further stated that, all the documents are creating falsely and Late Asad
Moinuddin never sold the Ac.1-05 gts in Sy.No.175 in favour of defendant No.17.
Defendants No.1 to 6 are having 2/13th share each in the suit schedule properties.
6.On considering the rival contention, the court framed the following issues for trial:-
1.Whether the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 are joint owners of the suit schedule properties?
9/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
2.Whether the suit is within the Limitation?
3.Whether the Court Fee paid is sufficient ?
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Preliminary Decree for Partition as prayed for?
5.To what relief?
7.To substantiate the case of plaintiff, Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5.
8.To substantiate the case of defendants, defendant No.9 was examined as
DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B20. In support of case of defendants, defendant
No.5 was examined as DW2 and got marked Ex.B21 to B63.
Issue No.1:-
Whether the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 are joint owners of the suit schedule properties?
9.The case of the plaintiff is that, plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 are brothers and defendant No.6 is the elder sister of plaintiff. Defendants No.7 to 17 are tenants. Their father Late Asad Moinuddin was the owner, pattedar and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.175/E to an extent of Ac.2-18 gts, and
Sy.No.174/E to an extent of Ac.6-07 gts, along with other properties. He succeeded suit schedule properties as per the share in a final decree dt.24.07.1979 in IA.No.179 of 1979 in OS.No.209 of 1978 on the file of District
Munsiff, Siddipet. He died in the year 2014 i.e., on 27.03.2014, due to ill health.
10/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
He suffered with Paralysis, Kidney problem and he was bedridden from the year 2000 and he was also of unsound mind. During the ill health of father of Plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6, defendant No.1 managed the properties of their father and he gave the property for lease to defendants No.7 to 17. Apart from the suit schedule properties, the father of plaintiff owned ancestral property i.e, land in
Sy.No.53/AA which is not yet partitioned between Late Asad Moinuddin and legal heirs of his brother, as there is appeal pending vide AS.No.1020/2012, the properties are not included in this case. Defendants No.1 to 17 are in illegal occupation of the suit schedule properties and defendant No.1 is mis managing the properties and inspite of several requests for partition after the death of their father, he refused the same. Hence the suit for partition of suit schedule properties by allotting 2/13th share to plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 and 1/13th share to defendant No.6.
10.In support of the contention of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined PW1 reiterated the facts of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is Certified
Copy of Judgment in OS.No.209 of 1978 dt. 30.12.1978 on the file of District
Munsif Court, Siddipet. Ex.A2 is Certified Copy of Preliminary Decree in
OS.No.209 of 1978 dt. 30.12.1978 on the file of District Munsif Court, Siddipet.
Ex.A3 is Certified Copy of Final Decree in IA.No.179/1979 in OS.No.209 of 1978
dt. 30.12.1978 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Siddipet. Ex.A4 is Original
Death Certificate of Asad Moinuddin issued by Gram Panchayath and Ex.A5 is
Original GPA dt. 07.04.2014. During cross examination PW1 stated that, plaintiff, defendants No.1 to 5 are living separately from the year 2006. Defendants No.2 to 11/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet 4 are residing at Hyderabad. Defendants No.1 & 5 are residing at Siddipet. Their father died in the year 2014 and he has many properties at Ponnala village. Their mother is having a house at Siddipet, it is a family property. The father of plaintiff had Ac.36-00 gts of land in different survey numbers at Ponnal after alienation's the suit lands left behind. The father of the plaintiff made aleinations of all other the lands except the suit lands. On confrontation PW1 admitted the photo of his father and registered sale deed No. 3680/2003, registered sale deed
No.118/2004 and registered sale document No. 3679/2003 and during further cross examination he stated that he do not know whether his father’s name was recorded in the pahanies as pattedar and possessor of suit schedule properties at any point of time. He was bedridden due to Paralysis attack from the year 2000 and he has no medical records with him to show that his father was bedridden due to Paralysis. He has talking terms with defendant No.2 & 3 and he has no talking terms with defendants No.1, 4 & 5. He cannot identify the signature of his father.
He further stated that his father lease a suit lands to defendants No.7 to 17 in the year 2001-02 and defendant No.1 leased the suit land after death of his father. But as per the case of the plaintiff as per his plaint the father of plaintiff was bedridden, defendant No.1 was managing the case properties and he gave properties on lease to defendants No.7 to 17. He further stated that he do not know what was the lease amount fixed for the suit lands. He never asked the defendant No.1 about the lease amount.
11. It is further stated that there are house plots surrounding the suit land and there is no leading road from Siddipet to Ponnal is passing through the suit 12/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet land in item No.1 and he cannot say the boundaries of the suit land. He has not visited the suit land and he visited the Siddipet in five occasions in the last six years and during his visit he did not visit the suit lands. It is further stated that the land in Sy.No.53 to an extent of Ac.17-00 gts and the matter relating to which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court and the same was filed by his father. He filed the suit before the court in respect of land in Sy. No.53/A to an extent of
Ac.17-00 gts, against the son of his brothers. He is not aware as to any document which was reducing into writing at the time of giving suit lands to defendants No.7 to 17. It is further admitted that the suit land is uncultivated since then the year 2000 and they do not know his father sold the suit lands during his life time through registered sale deed and he cannot say whether the lands erected by their father recorded in the title and issued in the name of his father and he do know in whose possession the pattedar pass books, title deeds of his father are kept. As per the testimony of PW1, he is not clear as to the facts of his own case.
He has not filed any pahanies or documents to show to the court that the suit schedule properties are in joint possession as on the date of filing of the suit. The documents filed by the plaintiff pertaining to Ex.A1, A2, A3 show that the father of plaintiff has got ownership of the suit lands vide Judgment and Decree of the court and Ex.A4 shows that Azad Moinuddin has died but there is no document to show that as on the date of filing of the suit, the properties till stands on the name of father of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 and they are entitled for partition as joint owners and possessor of suit schedule properties. As discussed earlier the admissions of the PW1 during cross examination clearly show that, he is not aware as to the lease between the father of plaintiff and defendants No.7 to 13/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet 17 and so also defendant No.1 and defendant No.7 to 17. Though it is alleged that defendants No.7 to 17 are in possession of the properties in view of lease, no such lease deed filed before the court and so also no oral evidence or documentary evidence placed before the court. It is also not even mentioned what is a lease amount entered into the parties and on which date the lease documents are not filed in support of the claim.
12.Defendant No.5 examined as DW2 before the court in support of his contention. Defendants No.2 to 6 filed their written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff and claiming partition of the suit schedule properties. As per the testimony of DW2 who sailing with the plaintiff, the claim of defendants No.7 to 17 is false and plaintiff is entitled for decree over the suit schedule properties.
In support of his contention he got marked Ex.B21 to B63. Ex.B21 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1982-83. Ex.B22 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1985-86. Ex.B23 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1990-91. Ex.B24 is
Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1995-96. Ex.B25 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2000-01. Ex.B26 is Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.No.106 of 2018.
Ex.B27 is Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.No.8 of 2017. Ex.B28 is Certified Copy of
Written Statement in OS.No.8 of 2017. Ex.B29 is Certified Copy of Plaint in
OS.No.63 of 2016. Ex.B30 is Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.63
of 2016. Ex.B31 is Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.No.212 of 2012. Ex.B32 is
Certified Copy of Written Statement of in OS.No.212 of 2012. Ex.B33 is
Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.No.44 of 2017. Ex.B34 is Certified Copy of Written
Statement in OS.No.44 of 2017. Ex.B35 is Certified Copy of Panchanama in 14/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
EP.No.3 of 1981. Ex.B36 is Certified Copy of Bailiff report in EP.No.3 of 1981.
Ex.B37 is Certified Copy of possession receipt with sketch map in EP.No.3 of 1981.
Ex.B38 is Certified Copy of plaint in OS.No.188 of 2016. Ex.B39 is Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.188 of 2016. Ex.B40 is Certified Copy of plaint in
OS.No.170 of 2012. Ex.B41 is Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.170
of 2012. Ex.B42 is Certified Copy of plaint in OS.No.56 of 2018. Ex.B43 is
Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.56 of 2018. Ex.B44 is Certified
Copy of pahani for the year 2005-2006. Ex.B45 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2002-2003. Ex.B46 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2003-2004.
Ex.B47 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2004-2005. Ex.B48 is Certified
Copy of pahani for the year 2005-2006. Ex.B49 is Endorsement memo issued by
Tahsildar Siddipet. Ex.B50 is Certified Copy of D.R. extract for the year 2002.
Ex.B51 is Certified Copy of D.R. extract for the year 2003. Ex.B52 is Certified
Copy of D.R. extract for the year 2005. Ex.B53 is Certified Copy of FIR along with complaint in Cr.No.148 of 2002.
13.During cross examination he stated that in the year 2008, his father executed registered gift deed in his favour with respect to Ac.0-07 gts of land in
Sy.No.174 and similarly his father sold the land to an extent of Ac.0-06 gts in
Sy.No.174 to Khaja Pasha under registered sale deed in the year 2008 and he also executed the registered gift deed in favour of his brother in the year 2008. As per the above statement, the father of DW1 executed registered sale deeds in the year 2008. However, the plea of DW1 during his written statement as well as chief affidavit is that the father was bedridden from the year 2000 and he is in unsound mind and the documents relied by defendants No.7 to 17 are false and 15/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet bogus documents. He got marked compromise petition Ex.B54 in OS.No.106/2020 and Ex.B55 is Certified Copy of the plaint in OS.No.106 of 2020. He admitted that as per the revenue record his father is not having any land in Sy.No.174 & 175.
Defendant No.1 is having possession of pattedar passbook and title deed of his father and from the year 2006, the names of defendant No.7 to 17 were reflecting the revenue records in respect of suit lands. He got marked Ex.B56
Certified Copy of gift deed executed by his father in his favour and Certified
Copy of sale deed executed by his father in favour of Khaja Pasha is marked as
Ex.B57 and Certified Copy of gift deed executed by his father in favour of DW1 is marked as Ex.B58.
14.As discussed earlier, testimony of DW2 shows that the father of plaintiff was in fit state of mind in the year 2008 and he has executed different registered sale deeds and gift deeds, which is quite contrary to the statement made by the plaintiff as well as DW2 in the plaint and written statement and so also in the chief affidavit. Further, there is no document filed before the court to disprove the alienations made by the Late Azad Moinuddin.
15.Further, DW2 got marked Ex.B59 to B63. Ex.B59 is Certified Copy of
Registered sale deed No.417/2022 dt. 07.03.2022. Ex.B60 is Certified Copy of
Registered sale deed No.408/2022 dt. 07.03.2022. Ex.B61 is Certified Copy of
Registered sale deed No.414/2022 dt. 07.03.2022. Ex.B62 is Certified Copy of
Registered sale deed No.415/2022 dt. 07.03.2022 and Ex.B63 is Certified Copy of
Registered sale deed No.411/2022 dt. 07.03.2022. DW2 and his family members are not shown as neighbors. In Ex.B62 names of Aruna, Arundhathi as shown as 16/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet neighbours and Ex.B63 the names of Annapurna, Karunasree, Erra Vidya shown as neighbours and as per the map attached Ex.B56 Surender Reddy, defendant No.9 shown as neighbour and they all registered at SRO, Siddipet. The above admission also is contrary to the case of DW2 and he does not prove that defendants No.1 to 6 are joint owners of suit schedule properties. The documents filed by the defendants do not show their ownership and possession over the suit schedule properties and on the other hand, the case of the defendants No.7 to 17 is that, they have purchased the item No.1 & 2 of suit schedule property from Late Azad
Moinuddin excluding Ac.0-13 gts, covered by PWD road at Siddipet. Their case is that, he sold the land i.e., (1) Sy.No.174 to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts, vide document No. 4457/2001 dt. 28.08.2001 in favour of Soma Sundaraiah/Defendant
No.13, Shivarama Chary/Defendant No.12 and Surender Reddy/Defendant No.9.
(2) Sy.No.174 to an extent of Ac.0-12 gts, vide document No. 4458/2001 dt.
28.08.2001 in favour of Srinivas/Defendant No.14, Swaroopa Rani/Defendant No.
10. (3) Sy.No.174 to an extent of Ac.1-28 gts, vide document No. 4643/2001 dt.
10.09.2001 in favour of Peddi Vijaya /Defendant No.11 & Surender
Reddy/Defendant No.9. (4) Sy.No.174 to an extent of Ac.1-34 gts, vide document
No. 3679/2003 dt. 12.12.2002 in favour of Surender Reddy/Defendant No.9 &
Shivarama Chary/Defendant No.12 and (5) Sy.No.174 to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts, vide document No. 2986/2000 dt. 11.08.2000 in favour of K. Satya
Reddy/Defendant No.15.
16.In support of their contention DW1 was examined, reiterated the facts of their written statement and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B20. Ex.B1 is Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.2986/2000 dt.11.08.2000 executed by Asad Moinuddin 17/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet in favour of Kashireddy Sathya Reddy. Ex.B2 is Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.4457/2001 executed by Asad Moinuddin in favour of Soma Sundaraiah,
Kasha Shivarama Chary and himself. Ex.B3 is Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.4458/2001 dt.28.08.2001 executed by Asad Moinuddin in favour of Soma
Srinivas and Vanga Swaroopa Rani. Ex.B4 is Certified Copy of registered sale deed
No.4643/2001 dt.10.09.2001 executed by Asad Moinuddin in favour of P. Vijaya and himself. Ex.B5 is Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.3679/2003 executed by Asad Moinuddin in his favour and Shviarama Chary. Ex.B6 is Certified
Copy of registered sale deed No.3680/2003 dt.12.12.2002 executed by Asad
Moinuddin in favour of Vanga Swaroopa Rani. Ex.B7 is Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.118/2004 dt.07.01.2004 executed by Asad Moinuddin in favour of
Vanga Swaroopa Rani. Ex.B8 is Certified Copy of registered sale deed
No.3000/2010 dt.29.06.2010 in between Soma Sundaraiah, Shivarama Chary and himself. Ex.B9 is Registered Gift Deed No.8115/2004 dt.28.12.2004 executed by
Balija Veeraiah in favour of Balija Shashikala @ Sunki Shashikala. Ex.B10 is
Agreement dt. 23.05.2009 executed by Moinuddin and others in his favour. Ex.B11 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000. Ex.B12 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2001-2002. Ex.B13 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2002-2003. Ex.B14 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2003-2004. Ex.B15 is
Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2004-2005. Ex.B16 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2006-2007. Ex.B17 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2007-2008. Ex.B18 is Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2011-12. Ex.B19 is Mee
Seva Copy of pahani for the year 2017 (5 sheets) and Ex.B20 is Mee Seva Copy 1-B extract (ROR), and even during cross examination, nothing contrary was elicited 18/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet from the mouth of DW1 and it is established law that the documentary evidence prevails the oral evidence and the defendants No.7 to 17 have filed the registered documents before the court to show their ownership of the suit land. Though plaintiff stated that there is lease between the defendant No.1 and defendant
No.7 to 17 pertaining to suit lands, no document is filed before the court in support of their contention.
17.The counsel for defendants No.2 to 6 have filed written arguments stating that, defendants No.7 & 17 have failed to furnish the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by the father of plaintiff during his lifetime in their favour.
Further defendant No.17 stated that out of his purchased land ie., Ac.1-05 gts, he transferred Ac.1-00 gts in favour of defendant No.7, but defendant No.7 did not explain the remaining Ac.0-05 gts of land as mentioned in para No.11 of their written statement. Defendant No.9 who is husband of defendant No.10 as per the written statement of defendant No.7 to D17 the wife defendant No.10, purchased remaining land in Sy.No.175/E to an extent of Ac.1-19 gts, from defendant No.1 who is eldest brother of the plaintiff but whereas the registered sale deed document No.3680/2003 in respect of Ac.0-35 gts, and the registered sale deed document No.118/2004 dt. 07.01.2004 in respect of Ac.0-24 gts, shows that he purchased land from the father of the plaintiff. But, father of plaintiff never executed any sale deed in favour of defendants No.10. Now the documents are false created for the purpose of case and the revenue entires in Ex.B45 & B48 are mentioning the proceedings No.G/2150/11/02, G2125/117/03/, G/2150/118/03 and
C/1140/9/05, however the said record is not issued by the revenue department 19/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet and as per Ex.B49 no such record is available in the issuing office, it shows that the said proceedings are sham. Ex.B50 is the D.R extract which clearly reveals that the 2150 was a mutation proceeding issued in the name of Karne Shirothalu.
Ex.B51 also clearly shows the 2150 mutation proceeding issued in the name of
R.Rajitha for the purpose of income certificate. Further Ex.B52 is another D.R extract for the year 2005, it is also clearly shows the name of Nakki Reddy Mohan for the purpose of the patta transfer mutation proceeding. Ex.B48 is the pahani for the year 2005-06. The name of defendant No.10 was entered in the revenue record for the extent of Ac.0-35 gts, in respect of Sy.No.175 by deleting the names of Layeeq Hyder, Zeenath Nazeer, Azmath Nazeer and Rafath Nazeer.
Further, the defendants claimed that their were entered in the revenue record in the year 2002 itself, but Ex.B49 clarifies that there is no record as alleged in the department, and it shows that defendants No.9 to 14 tampered with the records by getting their names entered in records, and while entering their names, no notices were issued to any effecting parties. Therefore, all those proceedings are invalid and void, not binding on the plaintiff and did not possess any legal title over the alleged suit schedule property.
18.It is further stated that Ex.B1 is the Certified Copy of registered deed allegedly executed by the father in favour of defendant No.15 and it clearly discloses that the boundaries of the sale deed are North : Sy.No.175, South: Land of father of the plaintiff, East: Land of defendant No.15, West: Land of father of the plaintiff mentioned in that sale deed, but it is not the property of the plaintiff’s father as per the final decree proceedings in IA.No.179/1979 in 20/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
OS.No.209 of 1978 and it fell to the share of the legal heirs of Hyder Moinuddin
Part-A i.e.,Sy.No.174/e. Further, defendant No.15 already purchased Ac.1-32 gts, land from others, which fell to the share of legal heirs of Hyder Moinuddin Sy.No.
174/E A part. Ex. B2 is the Certified Copy of registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.9, defendant No.12 and defendant No.13 in which the boundaries of the sale deed are shown as North : Land of defendant No.15, South: Land of Balije
Nagender, East: Ponnala Road, West : Land of defendant No.14 and 10, by witnessing Begari Babu and Begari other persons. Ex.A6 is the registered sale deed executed by Begari Babu in favour of defendant No.9 & 11 with following boundaries and it was divided into two parts in Sy.No.174/E to an extent of
Ac.0-03 gts, bounded by North: Land of defendant No.9, South: Nagendram Land,
East: Ponnala Road and West: Land of defendant No.9, which clearly establishes that defendant No.9 created false documents as per Ex.B2 without any land existing on the southern side of Begari Babu. The said Begari Babu is also a witness to Ex.B2 hence he is estopped from claiming that southern land. Further, another
Ac.0-03 gts were executed by Begari Babu in favour of defendant No.9 and 11 in
Sy.No.174/E, to an extent of Ac.0-03 gts, land showing boundaries, North : Land of defendant No.9 & 11, South: Land of defendant No.9, East: Land of defendant No.9 and West: Ponnala Road, but the land under sale, this document is also in the possession of the father of the plaintiff, and land in Sy.No.174/e and extent of
Ac.1-20 gts, which is the south-east corner of the suit schedule is also allotted to the father of the plaintiff as per Ex.A3.
19.It is further stated that, Ex.B5 is Certified Copy of registered sale deed bearing No.3679/2003 alleged to be executed by the father of the plaintiff, 21/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet showing boundaries, North: Land of the father of the plaintiff, South: Land of defendant No.9, East : Land of defendant No.15 and West : Land of defendant
No.9 and others, but the land under this document does not belong to the father of the plaintiff as per final decree proceedings in IA.No.179/1979 in OS.No.209 of 1978 Ex.A3 and also the above sale deed was kept nearly for about 8 months as a pending registered document, it clearly shows the fraudulent motive of the defendant No.9 & 11 and it was created for the purpose of grabbing of others land.
20.It is further stated that Ex.B6 is Certified Copy of the registered sale deed allegedly executed by father of plaintiff on 12.12.2002 in favour of defendant
No.10 in Sy.No.175 to an extent of Ac.0-35 gts, with the following boundaries,
North: Land of defendant No.17, South: Land of defendant No.9, East: Land of
Sunki Veeraiah, and West : Land of Surya Prakash and others. Further, the above sale deed was kept for nearly 8 months for a pending register document and on
July 17th 2023, this deed was regularized as well as Ex.B5, and it clearly establishes that defendant No.10 was created for the purpose of grabbing the part of the suit schedule property with the help of the registration authority, and
Ex.B48 is the pahani for the year 2005-06, defendant No.10 entered in the revenue record for the extent of Ac.0-35 gts, by deleting the names of Layeeq
Hyder, Zeenath Nazeer, Azmath Nazeer, Rafath Nazeer by coding mutation proceeding G/2150/118/03, but as per Ex.B49 Tahsildar, Siddipet issued a memo stating that no such proceedings are available in the revenue office and Ex.B51 also clearly shows 2150 mutation proceeding for the year 2003 issued in the name of
R.Rajitha for the purpose of an income certificate.
22/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
21.It is further stated that, Ex.B7 is Certified Copy of registered deed
No.118/2004 executed on 07.01.2004 by the father of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.10 in Sy.No.175 to an extent of Ac.0-24 gts, of land with the following boundaries, North : Land of Balije Anjaiah, South : Land of Balije
Veeraiah, East : Ponnal road and West : Land of defendant No.10. As per Ex.B6, the name Balije Veeraiah was mentioned towards the eastern side but Ex.B6 clearly shows that there is no land left in Sy.No.175 for execution by the father of the plaintiff. It clearly shows that Ex.B7 is also created for grabbing other land.
22.It is further stated that, Ex.B26 is Certified Copy of plaint in OS NO.106 of 2018 and Ex.B27 is the Certified Copy of plaint in OS.No.8 of 2017 for perpetual injunction against defendant No.10, however, the above said cases are after filing of the present suit and so also Ex.B29. However, filing of perpetual injunction suits by other parties do not entitle the plaintiff in decreeing the suit. However, the said pleas are not taken at the time of filing of written arguments and so also the suit schedule property does not describe about the suit schedule property and its boundaries as north side, south side. It is for the plaintiff to establish his suit claim and defendants No.2 to 6 have not filed any claim statement and no such pleas are also taken by them in written statement. Further, the burden of proof lies on plaintiff to establish the suit claim. As discussed earlier the plaintiff failed to prove the lease between the parties.
23.The counsel for defendants No.2 to 6 relied on the case law in Civil Appeal
No.7210 of 2011, wherein it is held that, it is trite law that revenue records are not documents of title.
23/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
This Court in Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and Ors. held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question.
This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh & Ors vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs and Ors.3 wherein this Court held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land.
In Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.4, this Court after considering a catena of judgments, reiterated the principle of law as follows:
“6. Mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.”
We may also profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Bhau
Patil vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. wherein it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary.
However, as per the above case law, the revenue records are not documents of the title and they cannot be presumed to be correct. In the present case, the plea of the plaintiff is also pertaining to the wrong entries in the revenue records and mutations in the revenue records and not to rely on the case of the defendants
No.7 to 17. However, the point is pertinent here to note is that, it is not the defendant No.7 to 17 whom filed before the suit and the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the suit claim. In order to prove the suit claim, it is the 24/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet bounden duty of the plaintiff to show that the suit schedule property is a ancestral property and plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 6 are joint owners of the suit schedule properties. As defendant No.7 to 17 are claiming ownership of the suit schedule properties, it is the duty of the plaintiff to disprove the same by filing the relevant documents in support of their contention. However, plaintiff is not filed any document in support of their contention as discussed in the earlier paragraphs. More-over, at the time of submission of arguments, the counsel for defendants No.7 to 17 submitted that, Late Azad Moinuddin filed the suit for partition and an appeal is pending in AS.No.1020/2012. However, in the said suit, the suit schedule properties are not included which shows that the suit properties are not ancestral properties and they sold to third parties, they are not included.
However, as counsel for defendants No.7 to 17 has not filed the relevant documetns pertaining to the said case and the same cannot not be considered by this court. The plaintiff in order to establish the joint ownership of the suit schedule properties as to the disprove the documents filed by the defendants which are registered documents. Plaintiff also failed to prove that Late Azad
Moinuddin has not executed said document due to his ill health as they merely stated that he executed other document in the year 2008. Firstly, the plaintiff has to nullify the documents filed by the defendant pertaining to the suit schedule property in order to claim the decree for partition. Further, no clarity is given in the case as to the nature of suit and appeal pending before the Hon’ble High Court.
Adding to it, though plaintiff claim that the defendants No.7 to 17 are tenants of the suit schedule properties, no oral evidence is filed before this court in support 25/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet of their contention. In the above circumstances, plaintiff failed to establish his suit claim and accordingly the issue is answered against the plaintiff.
Issue No.2:-
Whether the suit is within the Limitation?
24.The suit is within limitation, there are no serious dispute between the parties pertaining to the limitation in filing of the present suit, except the plea of defendants No.7 to 17 stating that no suit is filed from the date of execution of sale deeds, the court finds concludes that there is no serious dispute regarding limitation between the parties. Further the suit is filed after death of Late Azad
Moinuddin, there is limitation to file the present suit, except the plea in written statement no evidence adduced by either side on the said aspect.
Issue No.3:-
Whether the Court Fee paid is sufficient ?
25.In the present case, plaintiff filed court fee valuing the suit schedule property in joint possession and enjoyment and paid the fixed court fee of
Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only). However, as plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 are not in joint possession with the suit schedule properties, the court fee paid by them is insufficient and deficit.
Issue No.4:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Preliminary Decree for Partition as prayed for?
26/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
26.In view of the findings in Issue No.1 & 2 plaintiff failed to establish the suit claim and accordingly the suit of the plaintiff is hereby liable to be dismissed, and plaintiff is not entitled for Preliminary decree of Partition.
Issue No.5:-
To What Relief:-
27.In view of the findings in issue No.1 to 4, plaintiff failed to prove the suit claim and accordingly the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-II), transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of October 2024.
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
SIDDIPET
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
PW1 : Afzal MohiuddinDW1 : Vanga Surender Reddy DW2 : Nazeer Mohiuddin
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PLAINTIFFS
Ex.A1 Certified Copy of Judgment in OS.No.209 of 1978 dt. 30.12.1978 on the file of District Munsif Court, Siddipet.
Ex.A2Certified Copy of Preliminary Decree in OS.No.209 of 1978 dt. 30.12.1978 on the file of District Munsif Court, Siddipet
Ex.A3Certified Copy of Final Decree in IA.No.179/1979 in OS.No.209 of 1978 dt. 30.12.1978 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Siddipet
Ex.A4Original Death Certificate of Asad Moinuddin issued by Gram Panchayath 27/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
Ex.A5 Original GPA dt. 07.04.2014
DEFENDANTS
Ex.B1Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.2986/2000 dt.11.08.2000 executed by Asad Moinuddin in favour of Kashireddy Sathya Reddy
Ex.B2Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.4457/2001 executed by Asad Moinuddin in favour of Soma Sundaraiah, Kasha Shivarama Chary and himself.
Ex.B3Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.4458/2001 dt.28.08.2001 executed by Asad Moinuddin in favour of Soma Srinivas and Vanga Swaroopa Rani.
Ex.B4Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.4643/2001 dt.10.09.2001 executed by Asad Moinuddin in favour of P. Vijaya and himself.
Ex.B5Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.3679/2003 executed by Asad Moinuddin in his favour and Shviarama Chary.
Ex.B6Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.3680/2003 dt.12.12.2002 executed by Asad Moinuddin in favour of Vanga Swaroopa Rani.
Ex.B7Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.118/2004 dt.07.01.2004 executed by Asad Moinuddin in favour of Vanga Swaroopa Rani.
Ex.B8 Certified Copy of registered sale deed No.3000/2010 dt.29.06.2010 in between Soma Sundaraiah, Shivarama Chary and himself.
Ex.B9Registered Gift Deed No.8115/2004 dt.28.12.2004 executed by Balija Veeraiah in favour of Balija Shashikala @ Sunki Shashikala.
Ex.B10Agreement dt. 23.05.2009 executed by Moinuddin and others in his favour.
Ex.B11Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000.
Ex.B12Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2001-2002.
Ex.B13Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2002-2003.
Ex.B14Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2003-2004.
28/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
Ex.B15Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2004-2005.
Ex.B16Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2006-2007.
Ex.B17Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2007-2008.
Ex.B18Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2011-12.
Ex.B19Mee Seva Copy of pahani for the year 2017 (5 sheets).
Ex.B20Mee Seva Copy 1-B extract (ROR).
Ex.B21Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1982-83.
Ex.B22Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1985-86.
Ex.B23Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1990-91.
Ex.B24Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1995-96.
Ex.B25Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2000-01.
Ex.B26Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.No.106 of 2018.
Ex.B27Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.No.8 of 2017.
Ex.B28Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.8 of 2017.
Ex.B29Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.No.63 of 2016.
Ex.B30Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.63 of 2016.
Ex.B31Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.No.212 of 2012.
Ex.B32 Certified Copy of Written Statement of in OS.No.212 of 2012.
Ex.B33Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.No.44 of 2017.
29/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
Ex.B34Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.44 of 2017.
Ex.B35 Certified Copy of Panchanama in EP.No.3 of 1981.
Ex.B36Certified Copy of Bailiff report in EP.No.3 of 1981.
Ex.B37Certified Copy of possession receipt with sketch map in EP.No.3 of 1981.
Ex.B38Certified Copy of plaint in OS.No.188 of 2016.
Ex.B39Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.188 of 2016.
Ex.B40Certified Copy of plaint in OS.No.170 of 2012.
Ex.B41Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.170 of 2012.
Ex.B42Certified Copy of plaint in OS.No.56 of 2018.
Ex.B43Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.56 of 2018.
Ex.B44 Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2005-2006.
Ex.B45Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2002-2003.
Ex.B46Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2003-2004.
Ex.B47Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2004-2005.
Ex.B48Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2005-2006.
Ex.B49Endorsement memo issued by Tahsildar Siddipet.
Ex.B50Certified Copy of D.R. extract for the year 2002.
Ex.B51Certified Copy of D.R. extract for the year 2003.
Ex.B52Certified Copy of D.R. extract for the year 2005.
Ex.B53Certified Copy of FIR along with complaint in Cr.No.148 of 2002.
30/30 O.S. No.154/2014 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet
Ex.B54Compromise Petition.
Ex.B55Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.No.106 of 2020.
Ex.B56Certified Copy of Gift deed executed by father of DW2 in his favour.
Ex.B57Certified Copy of sale deed executed by father of DW2 to Khaja Pasha.
Ex.B58Certified Copy of Gift deed executed by father of DW2 in his favour.
Ex.B59Certified Copy of Registered sale deed No.417/2022 dt.07.03.2022.
Ex.B60Certified Copy of Registered sale deed No.408/2022 dt.07.03.2022.
Ex.B61Certified Copy of Registered sale deed No.414/2022 dt.07.03.2022.
Ex.B62Certified Copy of Registered sale deed No.415/2022 dt.07.03.2022.
Ex.B63Certified Copy of Registered sale deed No.411/2022 dt.07.03.2022.
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
SIDDIPET