PJCJ, MGL 1 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MANGALAGIRI.
PRESENT: SRI S. VASU DEV,
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MANGALAGIRI.
MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.236/2015
Matta Subba Rao. … Plaintif
Vs
1. Puvvada Harihara Prasad.
2. Kancherla Yesobu.
3. Kancherla Anandha Rao.
4. Abburi Venkateswara Rao.
5. Dhanasiri Manikanta.
6. Turakaa Deva Kumar.
7. Mendem Aditya. … Defendants
This suit coming on before me for final hearing on 06-02-2023 in the presence of Sri P.L.Prabhakar and Smt. A.Sandhya, Advocates for the Plaintif and of Sri G.Ravi Kiran, Advocate for defendant No.1 and
Sri L. Sivaram Prasad, Advocates for the defendant Nos.2 to 7 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this
Court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
This suit is filed by plaintif for declaration, to declare that the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by meets and bounds as per good and bad qualities by virtue of Document no.3554/2015, dated: 04-05-2015 of SRO, Mangalagiri and for
PJCJ, MGL 2 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
consequential cancellation of the documents bearing Nos.7041/2015, 7042/2015, 7043/2015, 7044/2015, 7045/2015 and 7046/2015, dated:
07-05-2015 of SRO, Mangalagiri are sham, illegal and void documents and not binding on the plaintif and for costs, in the interests of justice.
02. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
Originally, the plaint schedule property belongs to Garikapati
Venkata Rao. The said Garikapati Venkata Rao sold an extent of
Ac.1.50 cents of land to one Kunchanapalli Narasimha Rao under sale agreement-cum-GPA, dated: 12-10-2009. The said Kunchanapalli
Narasimha Rao sold away an extent of Ac.1.50 cents to Pothuguntla
Papa Rao vide Doc.No.6314/2009, dated: 15-12-2009. The said
Pothuguntla Papa Rao sold away the said extent to Bhupathiraju Rajya
Lakshmi under agreement-cum-GPA, dated: 03-11-2010. The said
Pothuguntla Papa Rao did not handed over the schedule property to the said Bhupathiraju Rajya Lakshmi. The said Bhupathiraju Rajya
Lakshmi filed a suit against the said Pothuguntla Papa Rao in
OS.No.6/2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.
After filing suit on 27-02-2015 the parties in the said suit compromised the matter in the presence of elders and neighbouring land owners and the said Pothuguntla Papa Rao handed over the Ac.1.50 cents to
Bhupathiraju Rajya Lakshmi. At the time of hand over the site, it is very clear that, the land of defendant No.1 is on south side, on north side cement road previously it is Donka, on east side there is Donka ( now it is used as a road) and on west side land belongs to defendant
No.4. the said Bhupathiraju Rajya Lakshmi was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.50 cents, due to her financial needs, the said
Bhupathiraju Rajya Lakshmi divided into plots and sold some of the
PJCJ, MGL 3 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
plots at her wish. The plaintif purchased the plaint schedule property for a valid consideration of Rs.3,63,000/- under registered sale deed,
dated: 04-03-2015 and since then, the plaintif is in possession and
enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The said Bhupathiraju
Rajya Lakshmi sold Ac.0.85 cents to the plaintif and other prospective purchasers. After sale the said Bhupathiraju Rajya Lakshmi agreed to sell an extent of Ac.0.15 cents in the adjacent land to the plaintif for an amount of Rs.3,63,000/- and received entire sale consideration and the said Bhupathiraju Rajya Lakshmi executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintif and unable to register the same in favour of plaintif due to illegal acts of the defendants and decided to register after clear the same. The defendant No.1 purchased Ac.6.00 from
Garikapati Devala Rao, Garikapati Venkata Rao and Garikapti Murali
Krishna under registered sale deed, dated: 24-01-2015. The defendant
No.1 sold the same to others. East side boundary was mentioned as
Sarkar Donka. The defendant basing on said boundary, his claiming property up to Sarkar Donka. The defendant taking the advantage that the said Bhupathiraju Rajya Lakshmi and plaintif are not resident of
Velagapudi village, he colluded with other defendants and to get wrongful gain, the defendant No.1 executed sale deed pertaining to part of plaint schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 on 07-05- 2015 is nominal, sham and collusive document and not binding upon the plaintif. The defendant No.1 colluded with defendants 3 to 7 and also executed sale deeds, dated: 07-05-2015 vide Doc.No.7043/2015, 7044/2015, 7045/2015 and 7046/2015. The said documents are collusive documents and they are not binding on the defendants. The plaintif approached the defendants and requested them to cancel the
PJCJ, MGL 4 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
said documents as the plaintif is the real owner of the plaint schedule property. The defendants bluntly refused and warned the plaintif with dire consequences. On 12-06-2015 when the plaintif went to plaint schedule property, the defendants approached him and unnecessarily quarreled with him and threatened him with dire consequences. The plaintif approached the Taluka police station and gave complaint. The police refused to take the complaint as it is civil in nature. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the present suit.
03. Basing on the above pleadings, the defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and he further contended that, the total extent of survey No.177 of Velagapudi village is an extent of Ac.9.36 cents and extreme southern part in an extent of Ac.2.52 cents belongs to family of Chalivendra Gopala Rao.
Out of the remaining extent of Ac.6.84 cents, the land in an extent of
Ac.6.00 was sold in favour of this defendant by Garikapati Devala Rao and his sons Venkata Rao and Muralikrishna under registered sale deed, dated: 24-01-2005. Out of the said extent of Ac.6.00, this defendant sold out the southern side part of Ac.1.00 land in favour of one Abburi Satyanarayana. Thereafter, out of remaining Ac.5.00 cents, this defendant sold out Ac.4.70 cents of land in favour of Apatha
Srinivasa Rao and others. Thereafter, this defendant was left over with an extent of Ac.0.30 cents as an extended bit out of the total Ac.6.00 cents purchased during the year 2005. He divided the said extent of
Ac.0.30 cents as house sites and sold out the same in favour of defendants 2 to 7 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the properties as absolute and exclusive owners. After filing of the suit, this defendant made enquiries and came to know that one of his
PJCJ, MGL 5 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
vendor i.e., Garikapati Venkata Rao by taking advantage of the false entries in the Pattadar pass book and title deed book standing in his name, knowingfully well that their family is left only with Ac.0.84 cents and without having rights and title to the extent of Ac.1.50 cents of land illegally and intentionally brought into existence the suit mentioned agreement of sale-cum-GPA deed, dated: 12-10-2009 and thereafter the documents were got executed successively as being claimed by the plaintif for the property without having property. In fact, the recitals of the sale deed and the plaint schedule property itself clearly establish that the property of the defendant No.1 is lying towards west of the property upto the northern side road. It appears that knowinglyfully well that his vendor and predecessors-in-title are not having valid rights, title, interest and possession for the total extent of Ac.1.50 cents for which registered deeds are brought into existence. The plaintif got filed the suit to cause annoyance and inconvenience to the vendees of this defendant and thereby to dictate terms to this defendant for which he is not entitled to do so. The plaintif in collusion with his vendors and alleged predecessors-in-title got filed the suit alleging that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintif is not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as claimed by him. The plaintif taking advantage of the mistake crept in respect of northern boundary to the property purchased during the year 2005, he is trying to cause confusion and chaos in the matter so as to claim the right over the plaint schedule property. The alleged suit in OS.No.6/2014 might have been got filed collusively on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil
Judge’s Court, Vijayawada and later compromised to give a colour that
PJCJ, MGL 6 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
the transactions are legal. The contention that eastern side circar donka was extended and formed as a road and thereby the actual extent of the land of defendant No.1 was lessened is totally false. No road was formed on the eastern side and the donka was not extended.
The defendant No.1 enjoyed the total extent Ac.6.00 cents till he disposed of the property to his vendees in the manner aforesaid. The defendant Nos.2 to 7 are having valid rights, title, interest and possession over the extents of the properties covered by the sale deeds executed by this defendant. There are no bonafides on the part of the plaintif in filing the suit and approached the Hon’ble court with unclean hands and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
04. The defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 to 7 filed adoption memo, to adopt the written statement of defendant No.1.
05. The defendant No.4 filed his written statement in replica of written statement filed by defendant No.1.
06. Basing on the above pleadings and documents, the following issues are settled for trial:
[1] Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title
to the suit schedule property ?
[2] To what relief?
07. On behalf of plaintif, he himself was examined PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A8. One Pothuguntla Papa Rao was examined as
PW2. The 3rd party to the suit proceedings was examined as PW3. The defendant No.1 himself was examined as DW1 and got marked
Exhibits B1 to B6. The defendant No.5 was examined as DW2. The
PJCJ, MGL 7 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
defendant No.6 was examined as DW3. The 3rd party to the suit proceedings was examined as DW4.
08. Heard the counsel for the plaintif and defendants. Perused the written arguments filed by counsel for plaintif.
09. ISSUE NO.1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title to the suit schedule property ?
[a] In order to establish the contentions of the plaintif, the plaintif himself was examined as PW1, he filed his chief-examination- affidavit reiterating the contents of plaint. He deposed in his cross- examination that, he do not remember as how many plots were laid the entire Ac.1.50 cents of land by Bhupathi Rajyalakshmi; he was having unauthorized layout plan for those plots but it does not contain the signature of Bhupathi Rajyalakshmi; it is true the suit schedule property is one of the plots out of the total plots Ac.1.50 cents; the suit schedule property does not contains plot number; he was not having the plaint copies in OS.No.6/2014 on the file of Hon’ble Principal Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada found by Bhupatiraju Rajya Lakshmi; he
do not know for what relief the above said suit was filed and its result; he do not have the details about the number of plots were laid by
Rajya Lakshmi, the plot numbers, the extent and to whom the other plots were sold; he also do not to whom the last plot was sold by
Bhupathi Rajyalakshmi and when the same was sold; the plaint schedule property does not contains any lineal measurements and the same was not mentioned in Exhibit A1; he do not know whether his chief examination affidavit is on par with contents of the plaint; the southern boundary of Exhibit A1 is mentioned as others property, western boundary is mentioned as land of the defendant No.1; it is
PJCJ, MGL 8 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
true the recitals in para No.5 of his chief examination affidavit with regard to boundaries of the suit schedule property is incorrect; it is true Bhupathi Rajya Lakshmi has sold a total of 85 cents including road and the schedule property is part and parcel of said 85 cents; he do not know whether he has sold the plots in remaining 65 cents out of the total Ac.1.50 cents apart from above said 85 cents; he do not know the defendant No.1 has sold Ac.1.00 out of Ac.6.00 which is by the side of property of Chalivendram Gopala Rao to one Abburi Satyanarayana; it is true out of the remaining Ac.5.00 an extent of Ac.4.70 cents were sold by defendant No.1 to Apatha Srinivasa Rao; it is true the defendant No.1 has laid plots in the remaining 30 cents and sold the same to defendant Nos.2 to 7; he do not know whether his vendor
Rajya Lakshmi or her predecessors in title are entitled for Ac.1.50 cents; it is true as mentioned in 6th paragraph of his chief examination affidavit the defendants are disputing his vendors title by the time of his purchase under Exhibit A1; it is true though having knowledge about the dispute between his vendor and the defendants with regard to the schedule property he got registered Exhibit A1; it is true in
Exhibit A1 is recited that the western boundary is land of defendant
No.1; he do not know how much extent of property the defendant No.1 is having, except schedule property he did not purchase any other property from Bhupathiraju Rajyalakshmi; he do not know the reasons why he have sought to declare himself as absolute owner to the schedule property by metes and bounds as per good and bad qualities; prior to obtaining Exhibit A1 he did not visit the schedule property; when he went to schedule property after purchasing the same, the defendant No.1 along with five other persons came there and claimed
PJCJ, MGL 9 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
the schedule property; he went to the schedule property one week after the registration; he have filed police report on the same day and he was having documentary proof to show that he approached the police; except eastern side road there is no other road to the schedule property; the eastern side road was in existence by the time of his purchase.
[b] One Pothuguntla Papa Rao was examined as PW2. He deposed in his cross-examination that, He purchased Ac.1.50 cents land from Garikapati Venkata Rao son of Devala Rao. The said land is iin Velagapudi village. He do not remember its survey number. It may be in D.No.177. The said land is bounded by donka on East and North.
The lands of Srinivasa Rao is on the south and the land of
Venkateswara Rao is on the west. The same was delivered to him and he have taken possession of the same on the date of purchase itself.
He sold the said property in the year 2010 to Bhupathiraju Rajya
Lakshmi under Exhibit A2 and delivered possession to her. The defendant No.1 had no land on any of the sides of his property. He came to know that the said Rajya Lakshmi sold part of that property to the plaintif herein.
[c] The 3rd party to the suit proceedings was examined as PW3.
He deposed in his cross-examination that, it is true to survey agricultural lands one must hold FMB; it is true FMB with the custody of
Revenue officials; at present he was not having license to show that he was the authorized surveyor Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and
VGTM Urban Development Authorities; it is true prior to conducting survey, they will give information and notices to the persons concerned and they till take documents into consideration; he had not
PJCJ, MGL 10 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
mentioned in his chief affidavit about the documents taken into his consideration at the time of conducting survey; their office will not maintain any record to show that they got conducted survey; he conducted survey of plaint schedule property; by the date of conducting survey, the applicant, Bhupathi Rajyalakshmi is holding registered sale deed for an extent of 726 square yards; it is true the total extent of suit survey Ac.9.36 cents; he got measured Ac.1.50 cents and fixed boundaries for an extent of 726 square yards on northern part; he do not remember the date of registered sale deed stands in the name of Bhupathi Rajya Lakshmi.
[d] Per contra, the defendant was examined as DW1 and filed her chief-examination affidavit reiterating the contents of written statement. He deposed in his cross-examination that, he got purchased agricultural land in D.No.177 of Velagapudi village from
Garikapati Devala Rao and his son; on northern side of his property, the property of Garigapati Devala Rao is situate; on northern side of
Devala Rao, there is existence of donka; he do not know at present cement road was laid in the place of said donka; he got purchased agricultural land from Devala Rao and his sons in the year 2005 under
Exhibit B1 sale deed; it is true since the year 2006, he never entered into Exhibit B1 property; witness adds that in the year 2015, he came to plaint schedule property to sell his 30 cents of land; he do not know whether PW1 got purchased the plaint schedule property under Exhibit
A1 sale deed; he do not know about the earlier transactions of Exhibit
A1 sale deed; he do not remember whether in Exhibit B1, the northern boundary is mentioned as Donka or not. He denied the suggestion that, his document does not contain northern boundary as donka and
PJCJ, MGL 11 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
wrongly executed Exhibits A3 to A8; only to cause loss to PW1, he executed Exhibits A3 to A8 without any right.
[e] The defendant No.5 was examined as DW2 and filed his chief-examination affidavit on par with the evidence of DW1. He deposed in his cross-examination that, he got purchased the plaint schedule property from Hari Hara Prasad; he had gone through the document of defendant No.1; as per the document of defendant No.1, on the northern side, there is Panchayat road; it is true the defendant
No.1 and one Garikapati Devala Rao are relatives; it is true as per the document of defendant No.1 there are only four boundaries; it is true as per the document of defendant No.1, there is no projection of property towards north-west corner; at the time of purchase of said 254 square yards, he obtained Encumbrance Certificate; he filed the said E.C before the Hon’ble court.
[f] The defendant No.6 was examined as DW3 and filed his chief- examination affidavit on par with the evidence of DW1. He deposed in his cross-examination that, originally the plaint schedule property an extent of Ac.9.36 cents belongs to Deval RAo; it is true the said Deval
Rao sold an extent of Ac.6.00 cents out of Ac.9.36 cents to his brother- in-law Hari Hara Prasasd i.e., defendant No.1; he do not know whether the said Devala Rao had mortgaged an extent of Ac.1.50 cents to Papa
Rao; he came to know about the alleged execution of agreement of sale-cum-GPA deed, dated: 12-10-2009 said to have been executed by
Deval Rao in favour of Papa Rao after filing the suit by PW1.
[g] The 3rd party to the suit proceedings was examined as DW4 and filed his chief-examination affidavit on par with the evidence of
PJCJ, MGL 12 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
DW1. He deposed in his cross-examination that, One Matta Subba Rao had filed the present suit; the extent of plaint schedule property is more than Hal acre; at the request of purchasers, he came to court to depose evidence; he know the boundaries of plaint schedule property; towards east of plant schedule property there is Cirkar donka; towards southern side of plaint schedule property there is land belonging to
Brahimins; there is land of Abburi Venkateswara Rao towards western side of plaint schedule property and there is panchayat road towards northern side; the present suit was filed by Puvvada Harihara Prasasd and others; he do not know whether DW1 and Garikapati Venkata Rao are relatives or not. He denied the suggestion that the boundaries above stated are all false and at the request of DW1 and Garikapati
Venkata Rao, he came to court to depose evidence falsely.
[h] This suit is filed for declaration of right and title over the plaint schedule property. It is the burden on the plaintif to establish his right and title over the plaint schedule property and he cannot depend upon the weakness of the case of the defendants. The plaintif in order to establish his title over the plaint schedule property got marked Exhibits A1 to A8. Exhibit A1 is the registration extract of sale deed, dated: 04-03-2015 executed by Bhupathi Rajya Lakshmi in favour of plaintif and Exhibit A2 is the link document of Exhibit A1.
Exhibits A2 to A8 are the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 7. So, the plaintif is mainly relying on
Exhibits A1 and A2 to establish his right and title over the plaint schedule property.
[i] At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Exhibits A1 and A2.
Exhibit A1 is the registration extract of registered sale deed dated: 04-
PJCJ, MGL 13 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
03-2015 executed by Bhupathi Rajya Lakshmi in favour of plaintif for an extent of 726 square yards in S.No.177. It was specifically mentioned in the said document that, Pothuguntla Papa Rao got acquired property by virtue of sale agreement executed by GPA agent of Garikapati Venkat Rao by name Kunchanapalli Narasimha Rao on 15- 02-2009 and subsequently, the said property was registered by
Pothuguntla Papa rao in favour of Bhupathi Rajya Lakshmi under sale agreement-cum-GPA dated: 03-11-2010 and in turn the said Bhupathi
Rajya Lakshmi sold the said property to PW1.
[j] As seen from the Exhibit A2, which is non-possessory agreement-cum-GPA deed, dated: 03-11-2010 executed by
Pothuguntla Papa Rao in favour of Bhupathi Rajya Lakshmi. As per the said document the vendor by name Pothuguntla Papa Rao got acquired the property on 16-12-2009 through Garikapati Venkata Rao by virtue of sale agreement-cum-GPA deed eecuted by Kunchanapalli Narasimha
Rao. As per the said document, the possession was not delivered to the vendee of PW1 i.e, Bhupathiraju Rajya Lakshmi. Further the vendor of Bhupathiraju Rajaya Lakshmi had also not obtained regular sale deed from the original vendor i.e., Garikapati Venkata Rao. The said
Bhupathiraju Rajya Lakshmi without delivery of possession, she executed Exhibit A1-sale deed in favour of PW1. Here in the instant case, the vendor of the plaintif is not having valid right and title over the plaint schedule property. The vendors vendor of plaintif had not obtained proper regular sale deed from his original owner and without obtaining proper sale deed, the vendor of PW1 got executed sale deed.
[k] At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2012(1) SCC 656 between Suraj
PJCJ, MGL 14 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director vs.
State of Haryana and Another. Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “sale agreement or GPA or will transaction does not
convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable
property and further held that immovable property can be
legally and lawfully transferred or conveyed only by a
registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of
“GPA Sales” or “Sale Agreement or GPA or Will Transfers” do
not confer title and do not amount to transfer, nor can be
recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property.
The Courts will not treat such transactions as completed or
concluded transfers or his conveyance as they neither convey
title nor create interest in an immovable property.” [l] Therefore, by virtue of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp’s case, it is well settled principle of law that, the sale agreement or GPA or will transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property and further held that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred or conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. From the above said proportion of law, it is very clear that the agreement of sale does not confer better title to Plaintif in respect of Plaint schedule property.
[m] The defendants further contended in their written statement that, originally the family of Garikapati Venkata Rao is left only that 84 cents and without having rights and title to the extent of Ac.1.50 cents they illegally executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA, dated: 12-10- 2009. The plaintif in order to establish that, Garikapati Venkata Rao is having Ac.1.50 cents, he had not adduced any cogent, oral or
PJCJ, MGL 15 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
documentary evidence and relied only on Exhibits A1 and A2. The plaintif also failed to establish that the alleged original owner i.e.,
Garikapati Venkata Rao is having Ac.1.50 cents in suit survey number.
The plaintif also failed to establish his case on this aspect also.
Therefore, from the above discussion, this court holds and concludes that the plaintif failed to establish his right and title over the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintif.
10. ISSUE NO.3: To what relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in
open court, on this the 13 th day of February, 2023.
Sd/- S.Vasu Dev.
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Mangalagiri.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
PW1: Matta Subba Rao.
PW2: Pothuguntala Papa Rao.
PW3: Yadavalli Venkata Ramana Rao.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
Exhibit A1: Certified copy of sale deed No.355/2015 in favour of plaintif executed by Bhupathiraju Rajya Lakshmi, dated:
04-03-2015.
Exhibit A2: Certified copy of sale agreement-cum-GPA No.8207/2010 in favour of Bhupathiraju Rajya Lakshmi executed by
Pothuguntla Pap Rao, dated: 03-11-2010.
Exhibit A3: Certified copies of sale deed No.7041/2015 executed by
PJCJ, MGL 16 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, dated: 07-05- 2015.
Exhibit A4: Certified copy of sale deed No.7042/2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favaour of defendant No.3, dated: 07- 05-205.
Exhibit A5: Certified copy of sale deed No.7043/2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favaourof defendant No.4, dated: 07-05- 2015.
Exhibit A6: Certified copy of sale deed No.7044/2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5, dated: 07-05- 2015.
Exhibit A7: Certified copy of sale deed No.7045/2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.6, dated: 07-05- 2015.
Exhibit A8: Certified copy of sale deed No.7046/2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.7, dated: 07-05- 2015.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT No.1
DW1: Puvvada Hari Hara Prasad.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT No.1
Exhibit B1: Registration extract of registered sale deed, dated: 24-01- 2005 executed by Devala Rao and two others in favour of defendant No.1 obtained from mee-seva.
Exhibit B2: Registration extract of registered sale deed, dated: 14-06- 2005 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Abburi
Satyanarayana obtained from mee-seva.
Exhibit B3: Registration extract of registered sale deed, dated: 14-06- 2005 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of
Kanakadurga Rani and two others defendant No.1 obtained from mee-seva.
PJCJ, MGL 17 Of 17 O.S.No.236/2015
Exhibit B4: Registration extract of registered sale deed, dated: 21-06- 2006 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Yalamanchili
Kanaka Durga Rani obtained from mee-seva.
Exhibit B5: Registration extract of registered sale deed, dated: 21-06- 2006 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Apatha
Srinu alias Srinivasa Rao obtained from mee-seva.
Exhibit B6: Registration extract of registered sale deed, dated: 21-06- 2006 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Apatha
Rajani, W/o.Srinivasa Rao obtained from mee-seva.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT No.2 to 7
DW2: Dhanasiri Manikanta.
DW3: Turaka Deva Kumar.
DW4: Kopuri Michel.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT No.2 to 7
-NIL- Ild/- S.V.D
PJCJ, MGL.