ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 1 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
APKR0F0001092020
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SENIOR DIVISION) (FTC), GUDIVADA
Present: SRI S. VASU DEV,
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Gudivada.
FAC/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) (FTC), Gudivada.
Tuesday, this the 08 th day of July, 2025.
O.S.No.14/2020
Between:-
Kurra Sirisha Lakshmi, W/o K.Bapaiah Chowdary, aged about 53 Years, House-wife, R/o D.No.3-11, Kurra Vari Street, Mudunuru Village, Vuyyuru Mandal, Krishna District.
...Plaintiff.
And
1. Chadalavada Padmaja, W/o late Basava Sankara Rao, aged about 46 Years, House-wife, R/o D.No.11-78/1, Ventrapragada Village, Pedaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District.
2. Chadalavada Phanindra Teja, S/o late Basava Sankara Rao, aged about 24 Years, Business, R/o D.No.11-78/1, Ventrapragada Village, Pedaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District.
3. Chadalavada Srinivas, S/o late Basava Sankara Rao, aged about 23 Years, Business, R/o D.No.11-78/1, Ventrapragada Village, Pedaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District. …Defendants
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 2 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 17.04.2025 in the presence of Sri B. Sarath Babu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and
Sri G.J.William, Advocate for the defendants, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for Partition of the Plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, to divide them into two equal shares, and to allot one such share to the Plaintiff and the remaining share to Defendants 1 to 3 by metes and bounds, and to grant mesne profits, by way of a preliminary decree and for costs.
02. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
One Chadalavada Basava Sankara Rao is the husband of defendant
No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3. The plaintiff, Chadalavada
Basava Sankara Rao and Chadalavada Vasu Kumar are the children of late
Chadalavada Tejo Murthy and Chadalavada Kasturi. The said Chadalavada
Tejo Murthy died on 08.12.2019 and his wife Kasturi died on 28.06.2000.
The second brother namely Vasu Kumar died on 12.11.1995 due to brain tumor and he was unmarried. The elder brother of plaintiff ie.,
Chadalavada Basava Sankara Rao died on 07.06.2013. The plaint schedule property is ancestral property and the said property was partitioned on 25.05.1966 among the family members of the father of plaintiff Tejo
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 3 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
Murthy and his brothers Chadalavada Gopala Krishna Murthy, Chadalavada
Jogeswara Rao and Chadalavada Rama Rao and their mother Chadalavada
Chandravathamma. In the said registered partition deed, “C” schedule property fell to the share of father of plaintiff and upon his demise, the said property was devolved upon to the plaintiff and her brothers. The said
Tejo Murthy also acquired the property from his brother in R.S.No.752 in an extent of Ac.1.02 cents in Ryot Vaari System and in total Item No.1 of “A” schedule property is an extent of Ac.2.04 cents and plant “B” schedule properties were enjoyed by him and the said Tejo Murthy died intestate on 08.12.2019 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs.
The plaint schedule property is in joint possession of plaintiff and defendants as copaceners and not yet partitioned between the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff is entitled for half share and defendants are entitled for remaining half share. After the death of father of plaintiff, defendant No.1 managing the joint property along with defendant Nos.2 and 3 and they are answerable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff made demands to the defendant for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to her and defendants did not come forward and plaintiff came to know that defendants intended to mutate their names in revenue records and therefore, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit for partition.
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 4 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
03. The defendant No.2 filed his written statement admitting the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants and also the date of death of persons mentioned in the plaint. He specifically denied the other contents of plaint and further contended that the schedule property is not copacenary property and it is separate and individual properties. The property of Tejo Murthy through the partition deed is individual and separate property and he got only item Nos.2 and 3 and some part of item
No.1 of the plaint schedule property. The remaining property came to him on various ways particularly Ac.1.02 cents of agricultural land merged with item No.1 of plaint schedule property in R.S.No.752 originally belongs to his wife Kasturi. The said Kasturi purchased the said Ac.1.02 cents of agricultural land from Chadalavada Rama Rao for a valuable consideration with her own earnings and Pasupukunkuma amounts through a Registered
Sale Deed dated 28.08.1993. The said extent of Ac.1.02 cents is separate and self acquired property of Kasturi. During the lifetime of Kasturi and
Basava Sankara Rao executed a Will dated 07.06.2000 bequeathing the said extent of Ac.1.02 cents to Chadalavada Basava Sankara Rao who is her son and father of this defendant. The said Will was last and final Will of Chadalavada Kasturi and she died on 28.06.2000 without changing the
Will. After the death of said Kasturi, father of this defendant ie.,
Chadalavada Basava Sankara Rao took possession of the schedule property and cultivating the same as his own property. The plaintiff and
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 5 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
others also aware of the said Will. Thus, the said Ac.1.02 cents is separate property and the same is devolved upon this defendant and other defendants after the death of Chadalavada Basava Sankara Rao on 07.06.2013. Thereafter, this defendant took possession of the same and enjoying the said property. The brother of Chadalavada Tejo Murthy by name Chadalavada Rama Rao got some property in partition dated 25.05.1965. After the death of Chadalavada Rama Rao, his class-II heirs sold away the said property and the said property was not shown in the present suit. During the lifetime of Chadalavada Basava Sankara Rao and
Tejo Murthy, they gave some property to the plaintiff ie., an agricultural land in Mudunuru Village in R.S.No.131/1 and 129 an extent of Ac.2.28 cents, the same was sold by the plaintiff and sale proceeds were taken by her. During the lifetime of Kasturi, she had various gold ornaments,
Bangles-8, 2-threads gold chain, Necklace, Swathi Haram, Nallapusalu,
Nanutajhadu, Chandraharam of 11 sovereigns, Pachalaharam, Gold rings.
After her death, out of her ornaments 6 bangles, 2 threads gold chain, necklace, Nalla Pusala Chain, swathi haram, gold rings were kept in the custody of plaintiff by Chadalavada Tejo Murthy and Basava Sankara Rao deposing trust on her. The remaining gold ornaments particularly one chain and one nanuthadu, bangles-2, one gold ring, was given to the plaintiff by Tejo Murthy for proper custody before her death. All these are not mentioned by the plaintiff intentionally. The plaintiff vaguely
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 6 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
mentioned the amounts in “B” schedule property without description particulars of the property. The said Tejo Murthy, Basava Sankara Rao and plaintiff jointly purchased 25% share in rice mill situated at Chintapalli in
Khammam District in the name of plaintiff with the joint family earnings of
Tejo Murthy and Basava Sankara Rao, the plaintiff and others intentionally did not show the said property in this suit. The plaintiff withdrawn
Rs.80,000/- from the Cooperative Society Bank, Mudunuru which belongs to Chadalavada Tejo Murthy with an understanding that the said amount will be return to the family members of Chadalavada Tejo Murthy. But the said amount was not shown in this suit. The said Tejo Murthy during his lifetime executed a Will dated: 09.11.2019 in a sound disposing state of mind bequeathing Ac.1.02 cents of agricultural land which is part of item
No.1 of plaint schedule property and item Nos.2 and 3 of plaint schedule property. After the death of Tejo Murthy, the defendants took possession over the said properties and enjoying the same. Their names were also mutated in revenue records. The plaintiff failed to join the proper and necessary parties in this suit. The said Chadalavada Rama Rao had no issues and he died intestate leaving behind him, the said Tejo Murthy,
Gopala Krishna and Jogeswara Rao who are his own brothers as his class-
II legal heirs. The said Gopala Krishna and Jogeswara Rao had children ie.,
C.Tirumala Rao, C.Bhaskara Rao and C.Sitaramanjaneyulu and others and they are also legal heirs of said Chadalavada Rama Rao. Some of the
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 7 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
property was also not shown by the plaintiff intentionally and also did not joint those persons as parties to the suit. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. There is no joint and constructive possession over the suit schedule properties. The court fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct and the suit is barred by limitation.
04. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 filed adoption memo, to adopt the written statement of defendant No.2.
05. Defendants filed I.A.No.89/2022 for seeking amendment of written statement and the same was allowed as per the orders dated:
22.04.2022.
06. Defendant No.2 filed neat copy of written statement interlia contending that the properties shown in the partition deed dated:
25.05.1966 which was executed by his grandfather and his brothers were kept jointly and they were not partitioned subsequently either by them or by their legal heirs. It devolved upon the legal heirs of father of plaintiff and the said property is in joint possession of heirs of Tejo Murthy. The said undivided joint property is situated in R.S.No.729/6 an extent of
Ac.0.02 ½ cents; in R.S.No.729/5 an extent of Ac.0.02 cents and in
R.S.No.840/2 an extent of Ac.0.34 cents which were situated in
Ventrapragada Village. The said properties are not mentioned in the suit.
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 8 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
Hence, the suit is hit by partial partition. The legal heirs of Chadalavada
Gopala Krishna are also proper and necessary parties to the suit.
07.The plaintiff filed rejoinder contending that the schedule properties impleaded are without any basis or any proof and not related to the family of Tejo Murthy. The property in R.S.No.729/6 is only electrical motor shed which is situated in the property of Chadalavada Gopala
Krishna and after erecting the separate meters by each individual, the said shed was demolished in the year 1980 and the land was adjusted among
Chadalavada Tejo Murthy in the year 1980 and they are in possession of respective numbers and with the family of Tejo Murthy. The property mentioned in R.S.No.729/5 is the property of tomb of great grandfather of plaintiff and the tomb is still in existence and the property in R.S.No.840/2 is land of pits which is not useful and the said land was left by the villagers in and around the said property and there is no possession or control over the said Ac.0.34 cents of land to the family members of plaintiff and defendants and the plaintiff is not claiming any share in those three properties which are not available for partition and if the defendants are interested to take possession of the said land, the plaintiff had no objection and defendants are at liberty to take possession exclusively and can enjoy the same with absolute rights. The allegation that the property of Chadalavada Rama Rao after his demise devolved upon his class-II legal heirs and the property left by him are not shown in the plaint
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 9 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
schedule is false. Except the property left by parents of plaintiff, there is no other property in existence for partition and the plaintiff had correctly mentioned the plaint schedule as per her knowledge. The defendants with a view to plant quarrels among the Chadalavada family members had chosen to implead the above mentioned properties without any justification and there is no property in joint with other families and prayed to decree the suit with costs.
08. Basing on above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:
[1] Whether all the schedule properties are ancestral
properties of the parties or not ?
[2] Whether the Will dated 07.06.2000 allegedly executed by
Smt Kasturi is true and valid ?
[3] Whether the Will dated 09.11.2019 allegedly executed by
Tejomurthy is true and valid ?
[4] Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
[5] Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of plaint A &
B schedule properties as prayed for ?
[6] To what relief ?
09. After amendment of the Written statement, and filing of rejoinder, the following Additional Issues were framed on 18.07.2022.
[1] Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary
parties as pleaded by the defendant No.2 ?
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 10 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
[2] Whether the land in R.S.No.729/6 and 840/2 respectively
is joint family property and that the suit for partial partition is not
maintainable as pleaded by the 2 nd defendant ?
10. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 and A2. The supporting witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3. The Defendant No.2 was examined as DW1 and got marked Exhibits B1 to B13. The attestor of Exhibits B1 and B2-
Wills was examined as DW2.
11. Heard both sides.
12. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued that Chadalavada
Krishna Murthy, Chadalavada Jogeswara Rao, Chadalavada Tejo Murthy, and Chadalavada Rama Rao are brothers who partitioned their joint family properties. In the said partition, part of Item No.1 an extent of Ac.1.02 cents of the “A” schedule property fell to the share of Tejo Murthy under
Exhibit A1 – Partition Deed. Subsequently, his wife, Chadalavada Kasturi, purchased part of Item No.1 of the plaint “A” schedule property, also measuring Ac.1.02 cents, under Exhibit A2 – Sale Deed. Further,
Chadalavada Tejo Murthy also received Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint “A” schedule property through the same partition under Exhibit A1. Tejo
Murthy had two sons and one daughter, namely, Basava Sankara Rao,
Vasu Kumar, and Sirisha Lakshmi (Plaintiff). Basava Sankara Rao, the elder son, died on 07.06.2013, leaving behind his wife (Defendant No.1)
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 11 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
and two sons (Defendant Nos.2 and 3). Vasu Kumar died issue-less on 12.09.1995. Chadalavada Kasturi died on 28.06.2000, and her husband
Tejo Murthy passed away on 08.12.2019. After the demise of Chadalavada
Tejo Murthy and Kasturi, the plaint schedule property devolved upon
Sirisha Lakshmi (Plaintiff) and the legal heirs of Basava Sankara Rao.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the legal heirs of Basava Sankara Rao are entitled to equal shares (half each) in the plaint schedule property. As the
Defendants are not cooperating for an amicable partition, the Plaintiff has been constrained to file the present suit. The Defendants, in their written statement, contended that Kasturi had executed an unregistered Will in respect of the property she purchased, in favor of Basava Sankara Rao.
Additionally, they claim that Tejo Murthy executed an unregistered Will
under Exhibit B2 in favor of Defendant Nos.2 and 3, covering Ac.1.02 cents (part of Item No.1 of the “A” schedule property) and Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint “A” schedule property. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the deceased Chadalavada Tejo Murthy and Kasturi never executed the alleged Wills as claimed by the Defendants. These Wills are alleged to be fabricated documents. The Defendants have failed to prove the due execution of the Wills, and hence the Wills under Exhibits B1 and B2 have not been established. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to half share in the plaint schedule properties, and the Defendants are entitled to the
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 12 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
remaining half share in the plaint “A” and “B” schedule properties, and prayed to decree the suit.
13. The learned counsel for the Defendants argued that the deceased Chadalavada Kasturi executed Exhibit B1 – Will in favor of
Basava Sankara Rao. Upon her demise, the said Will came into force, and since then, the said Basava Sankar Rao was in possession and enjoyment over the said property till his demise and after his demise, the Defendants 1 to 3 have been in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.1.02 cents, which forms part and parcel of Item No.1 of the plaint “A” schedule property. It was further argued that Chadalavada Tejo Murthy also executed another Will dated 09.11.2019, marked as Exhibit B2, in favor of
Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Tejo Murthy passed away on 08.12.2019, and immediately upon his demise, the said Will came into force. Under Exhibit
B2, Tejo Murthy bequeathed an extent of Ac.1.02 cents (part of Item No.1 of the plaint “A” schedule property), along with Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint “A” schedule property, to the Defendants. Therefore, by virtue of
Exhibits B1 and B2, the Defendants claim to have acquired valid right, title, and interest over the said properties. Consequently, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any share in these properties, and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. The learned counsel for the Defendants further contended that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is hit by the principle of partial partition, as the Plaintiff failed to include certain properties that had fallen
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 13 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
to the share of Tejo Murthy in the earlier partition. On this ground alone, it is submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed. It was also argued that the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. As per
Exhibit A1 – Partition Deed, the “F” schedule property fell to the share of
Chadalavada Tejo Murthy jointly with his brothers. Therefore, the legal heirs of Tejo Murthy’s brothers are necessary and proper parties to the suit. Further, one of the brothers, Chadalavada Rama Rao, was allotted “D” schedule properties under the said partition deed and died issueless.
Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased brothers of Chadalavada Tejo
Murthy ought to have been impleaded in the present suit. It was also pointed out that the Plaintiff has not arrayed all the legal heirs of the deceased Chadalavada Tejo Murthy as parties to the suit, rendering the suit defective and liable to be dismissed on this ground as well. Lastly, the counsel for the Defendants argued that the properties have not been properly described in the plaint, and the court fee paid by the Plaintiff is inadequate. Therefore, on these grounds too, the suit deserves to be dismissed with costs.
14. ISSUE NO.1: Whether all the schedule properties are ancestral properties of the parties or not ?
[a] To prove the case of plaintiff, she herself was examined as PW1 and filed her chief-examination-affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. She deposed in her cross-examination that it is true, her mother
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 14 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
Chadalavada Kasturi purchased an extent of Ac.1.02 cents as per original of Exhibit A2; her mother purchased the said extent from Chadalavada
Rama Rao; it is true, the said Chadalavada Basava Sankara Rao is her elder brother and he has no more; it is true, her elder brother namely
Chadalavada Basava Sankara Rao died on 07.06.2013; it is true, her father died on 08.12.2019; she do not know whether the defendants obtained pattadar pass book and title deeds as per the said partition or not; her father had 3 brothers namely Chadalvada Gopala Krishna,
Chadalavada Jogeswara Rao and Chadalavada Rama Rao and no sisters;
The said Gopala Krishna had two sons and one daughter namely
Chadalavada Tirumala Rao, Pandu Babu and Tara Rani; one Meena Kumari is wife of said Chadalavada Gopala Krishna; the said Chadalavada
Jogeswara Rao had two sons and one daughter namely Bhaskara Rao,
Seetha Ramanjaneyulu and Maganti Syamala; the said Chadalavada Rama
Rao has one son and one daughter namely Ratna Chandra Sekhar and
Chandra Leela; the brothers of her father are also no more, but their legal heirs are there; it is true, as per the original of Exhibit A1, 5th schedule of the property kept in joint possession and rights of her father and his 3 brothers and there is no partition in respect of 5th schedule and original of
Exhibit A1; she do not know whether the legal heirs of her father and his 3 brothers are entitled for share in 5th schedule of original of Exhibit A1; she had not shown the 5th schedule of original of Exhibit A1 in the schedule of
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 15 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
the plaint; she have no objection to share the 5th schedule of original of
Exhibit A1 by the defendants and other legal heirs; she will not execute a relinquishment deed in respect of 5th schedule of original of Exhibit A1; the property fell to the share of her father under Exhibit A1 is his absolute property; it is true, her father is having Ac.2.28 cents in R.S.No.131/1 and 129 of Mudunuru Revenue Village; she had not shown the said extent in the schedule of plaint as her father sold the said extent; herself and her brother subscribed the signatures in the said sale deed; her mother was having 8 bangles and gold chain; there are no documents to prove that the plaint “B” schedule mentioned property; the bank records of
Cooperative Society Bank relating to plaint “B” schedule property are in possession of defendant No.1; she had not seen about the taking of bank records by the defendant No.1, the plaint schedule properties are in possession of the defendants since 30.12.2019; the defendants constructed the house in half share of item No.3 of plaint schedule property; she do not know about the details of building, she had not given amount to the defendants to construct the said house. She denied the suggestions that her mother executed a Will on 07.06.2020 bequeathing
Ac.1.02 cents in R.S.No.752 in favour of Basava Sankara Rao and after demise of her mother, her brother was in possession and enjoyment of said extent of property and on the demise of her brother, the defendants are in possession of the said property. She denied the suggestions that
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 16 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
her father executed a Will in favour of defendants on 09.11.2019 bequeathing part of item No.1 and item Nos.2 and 3 of plaint schedule property and after demise of her mother, the said Will was acted upon by the defendants and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. She further deposed the suggestion that 2 bangles and one gold chain and one nanthadu and one gold ring were handed over to her by her father before her death and she had not shown the said articles in the sit and the plaint schedule property are not in joint and constructive possession and the suit is barred by limitation and deposing false evidence.
[b] The plaintiff examined one Katari Venkateswara Rao, S/o Jiyar as PW2. He filed his chief-examination affidavit supporting the version of
PW1. Nothing important was elicited from the cross-examination of PW2.
The plaintiff also examined oneThummala Jaya Chandra, S/o Venkata
Subba Raoas PW.2.He filed his chief-examination affidavit supporting the version of PW1. Nothing important was elicited from the cross- examination of PW3.
[c] The Defendant No.2 filed his chief-examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of written statement and additional written statement and examined as DW1. He deposed in his cross-examination that there are cordial terms in between them and plaintiff upto filing of the
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 17 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
present suit; he was 5 or 6 years old as on the date of death of his paternal grand mother Chadalavada Kasturi; his paternal grand father was doing cultivation and having the plaint schedule properties an extent of
Ac.0.35 cents in R.S.No.841 of Ventrapragada Revenue Village; an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in R.S.No.729-5, an extent of Ac.2 ½ cents in
R.S.No.729/6 of Ventrapragada Revenue Village; the said properties are self acquired properties of his grand father; he cannot file the document to prove that his paternal grand father purchased the said property; his paternal grand father and his 3 brothers got partitioned their joint family properties on 25.05.1966 under a registered partition deed; the plaint schedule properties are fell to the share of his paternal grand father and the remaining said properties are still in joint possession of legal heirs of his paternal grand father and his 3 brothers and he will produce the document to prove the properties are still in joint possession of legal heirs of his paternal grand father and his 3 sisters; he will produce the documentary proof the properties are still in joint possession of legal heirs of his paternal grand father and his 3 sisters; the land revenue is not paying in respect of the joint family by anybody. The total extent of
Ac.0.49 cents is cultivating, an extent of Ac.0.02 cents is cultivating by him, an extent of Ac.0.2 ½ cents is cultivating by Chadalavada Veena
Kumari and Ac.0.35 cents was leased out by Chadalavada
Seetaramanjaneyulu; an extent of Ac.0.49 ½ was not reflecting in the
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 18 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
revenue records. There is a revenue record in respect of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff, Chadalavada Bhavasashankara Rao who is father of Chadalavada Tejo Murthy who is his paternal grand father together sold an extent of Ac.02.28 cents to others and there are no documents with him to prove that the said extent was sold by his father, the plaintiff and paternal grand father; he had not filed document in respect of the said extent of Ac.0.49 ½ to prove it was in joint; his name and name of defendant No.3 was mutated in revenue records in the year 2000; though if the will got executed his paternal grand father and also original of partition deed took place between him, defendant 1 and 3
before the revenue authorities for mutation of their names; they had not
filed the said partition deed in to the court which is in his possession he will produce the said partition deed; it is true the date of Exhibit B1 Will got executed by Chadalavada Kasturi is not mentioned in the original of partition deed dated 30.12.2019 vide document bearing No.7892/2019 registered at Sub-Registrar’s Office, Gudivada; it is true, the date of
Exhibit B2 Will is also not mentioned in the said partition deed; he cannot file revenue records stands in the name of his father from the year 2000 to 2013; there are tax receipts stands in the name of his father; it is true, revenue tax was not paid during the life time of his father and he had not seen where the name of his paternal grand mother i.e., Chadalavada
Kasturi name was mutated in revenue records prior to the year 2020 or
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 19 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
not; they are paying land revenue after mutation in their names in the revenue records; he will examine defendant No.1, there is no proof that an extent of Ac.2.28 cents was given to the plaintiff and the same was sold by the plaintiff, father and grand father and sale amount was given to the plaintiff; the said Ac.02.28 cents belongs to his paternal grand father; there are no documents to proof that the gold was presented to the plaintiff as per the details mentioned in Para No.8 of written statement; the details of gold ornaments given to the plaintiff is not mentioned in
Exhibit B2; the details of amount given to the plaintiff is not mentioned in
Exhibit B2; it is true, the date of death of his father was also not mentioned in Exhibit B2; he do not know whether the plaintiff was called for attesting Exhibits B1 and B2. He denied the suggestions that Exhibits
B1 and B2 are not in existence as on the date of registered partition deed
dated 30.12.2019 and Will under Exhibits B1 and B2 are created after
filing of the suit and there are no revenue records stands in the name of his father and therefore the same are not mentioned in the original of registered partition deed dated 30.12.2019 and Exhibits B7 and B12 are created by them and the thumb impressions in Exhibits B1 and B2 does not belongs to his paternal grand parents and the plaint schedule properties are still in joint and there was no partition took place on 30.12.2019 is not valid and plaint schedule properties are liable for
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 20 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
partition and that the plaintiff is entitled share and deposing false evidence.
[d] One Chadalavada Dharma Rao son of late Chadalavada
Venkateswara Rao who is attestor of Exhibits B1 and B2 Wills filed his chief examination affidavit and examined as DW2 stating that one
Chadalavada Kasturi, W/o Chadalavada Tejo Murthy executed a Will dated 07.06.2000 bequeathing the part of item No.1 plaint schedule property an extent of Ac.1.02 cents in R.S.No.752 of Ventrapragada Village in favour of her son Chadalavada Basava Sankara Rao. The said Will was attested by him and Chadalavada Tejo Murthy and Chadalavada Kasturi. The said
Will was executed by Chadalavada Kasturi in a sound disposing state of mind. The said Kasturi put her thumb impression on the said Will. After the death of said Chadalavada Kasturi, her son Chadalavada Basava
Sankara Rao acted upon the said Will and took possession of the said Will and enjoyed till his death with absolute rights.The said Chadalavada Tejo
Murthy also executed a Will on 09.11.2019 during his life time bequeathing part of item No.1 ie., an extent of Ac.1.02 cents in
R.S.No.752 of Ventrapragada Village and item Nos.2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in favour of defendants. The said Will was attested by him and Maddukuri Venkata Krishna Rao. The said Will was prepared by
Chadrala Rambabu. The testator Chadalavada Tejo Murthy subscribed his thumb impression on the said Will and the entire transaction took place in
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 21 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
their presence. The said Chadalavada Tejo Murthy executed a Will in a sound disposing state of mind. After the death of Chadalavada Tejo
Murthy, defendants are acted upon the said Will and took possession over the said properties and they have been enjoying the same without any objection from anybody.
[e] He deposed in his cross-examination that Chadalavada Tejo
Murthy is his cousin brother; Chadalavada Kasturi underwent T.B for 8 years; she was fit physically; she was well prior to the death ie., for three months and she used to attend her necessities personally; Chadalavada
Tejo Murthy died due to diabetes; she was bed ridden for 3 months prior to his death; he know he properties owned by Tejo Murthy; there are no properties in the name of his wife Kasturi; the said Kasturi died 20 years ago; her son Sankara Rao died about 20 years back and another son Vasu
Kumar also predeceased him; all the properties were looked after by Tejo
Murthy till his death; Tejo Murthy used to subscribe his signature, but last 2 years he was unable to sign due to shivering; he was not present at the time of execution of Exhibit B1 Will; he was present at the time of execution of Exhibit B2 Will; he cannot remember the name of person who prepared Exhibit B2; he went to Gudivada near Sub Registrar’s Office, but he do not know the purpose of his visit either for this or for other he accompanied with Tejo Murthy to Gudivada in an auto; he is well to walk except the bandages to the legs, his health condition is good; he is able to
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 22 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
walk without any support when they went to Gudivada; there are no wounds or any aliments to the body except to the legs; they went to near
Sub-Registrar’s Office at about 10.00 to 11.00 a.m and the said office is working on that day; the said Tejo Murthy did not produce any stamp paper; one Venkata Krishna Rao accompanied them; the execution of
Exhibit B2 was not informed to the plaintiff; the said Tejo Murthy is not in a condition to sign when they went to Gudivada; he did not observe ie., document signed by Tejo Murthy at Gudivada; they visited Gudivada for one time; he subscribed his signatory only once at Gudivada and not at any time; he signed on Exhibit B2 at his house; second attestor did not subscribe his signature when he signed on Exhibit B2 and he did not sign
before him on Exhibit B2. He denied the suggestions that due to pressure
of defendants he is deposing false evidence.
[f] Coming to the documentary evidence adduced by both parties, the plaintiff got marked Exhibits A1 and A2. Exhibit A1 is the registration extract of registered Partition Deed dated: 25.05.1966 executed among
Gopala Krishna Murthy, his brothers and their mother, and Exhibit A2 is the registration extract of registered Sale Deed dated: 28.08.1963 got executed by Chadalavada Rama Rao in favour of Chadalavada Kasturi. On behalf of the defendants, Exhibits B1 to B13 were marked. Exhibit B1 is the Original Unregistered Will dated: 07.06.2000 executed by
Chadalavada Kasturi in favour of Basava Shankar Rao, Exhibit B2 is the
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 23 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
Original Unregistered Will dated: 09.11.2019 executed by Chadalavada
Tejo Murthy in favour of Defendants 1 to 3; Exhibit B3 is the computerized copy of Adangal for the Fasli 1432 stands in the name DW1 and obtained on 24.11.2022 for the survey No.729/5, Exhibit B4 is the computerized copy of Adangal for the Fasli 1432 stands in the name of DW1 and obtained on 24.11.2022 for the survey No.729/5, Exhibit B5 is the computerized copy of Adangal for the Fasli 1432 stands in the name of
DW1 and obtained on 24.11.2022 for the survey No.729/5, Exhibit B6 is the computerized copy of Adangal for the Fasli 1432 stands in the name of
DW1 and obtained on 24.11.2022 for the survey No.729/5, Exhibit B7 is the cist receipt dated 12.07.2016, Exhibit B8 is the cist receipt dated 06.04.2017, Exhibit B9 is the cist receipt dated 19.02.2018, Exhibit B10 is the cist receipt dated 03.08.2019, Exhibit B11 is the cist receipt dated 01.06.2014, Exhibit B12 is the cist receipt dated 12.03.2015 and Exhibit
B13 is the house tax receipt for the assessment No.1057 issued by
Panchayat Secretary, Ventrapragada Village.
[g] The undisputed facts of the case are follows - Chadalavada Krishna Murthy, Jogeswara Rao, Rama Rao, and Tejo
Murthy are the sons of Chadalavada Chandravathamma and
Chadalavada Basavaramaiah.
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 24 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
Chadalavada Chandravathamma and her four sons (Krishna Murthy,
Jogeswara Rao, Rama Rao, and Tejo Murthy) partitioned their joint family properties under a registered Partition Deed dated 25.05.1996 (Exhibit A1).
Chadalavada Tejo Murthy and Chadalavada Kasturi were husband and wife. They had two sons and one daughter i.e., Chadalavada
Basava Sankara Rao, Chadalavada Vasu Kumar, and Chadalavada
Sirisha Lakshmi (the Plaintiff).
Chadalavada Kasturi passed away on 28.06.2000; Chadalavada
Basava Sankara Rao died on 07.06.2013; and Chadalavada Tejo
Murthy died on 08.12.2019.
Chadalavada Vasu Kumar died issue-less on 12.09.1995.
Defendant No.1 is the wife of the deceased Chadalavada Basava
Sankara Rao, and Defendants 2 and 3 are their children.
An extent of Ac.1.02 cents, which forms part of Item No.1 of the “A” schedule property, was purchased by Chadalavada Kasturi under a registered Sale Deed dated 28.08.1993 (Exhibit A2) from
Chadalavada Rama Rao.
The “C” schedule property in the Partition Deed dated: 25.05.1996 fell to the share of Chadalavada Tejo Murthy.
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 25 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
The “F” schedule property in the Partition Deed (Exhibit A1) was allotted jointly to Krishna Murthy, Jogeswara Rao, Rama Rao, and
Tejo Murthy.
The “F” schedule property is not shown as a subject matter of the present suit.
An extent of Ac.1.02 cents, which is part of Item No.1 of the “A” schedule property, as well as Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint “A” schedule properties, fell to the share of Tejo Murthy and are identified as part of the “C” schedule in the Partition Deed.
No documents have been filed by either party with respect to the “B” schedule property.
[h] Hence, it is clear that an extent of Ac.1.02 cents, which forms part of Item No.1 of the 'A' schedule property, was purchased by
Chadalavada Kasturi under Exhibit A2 – registered Sale Deed, and that an extent of Ac.1.02 cents (also part of Item No.1 of the 'A' schedule property), along with Item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint 'A' schedule properties, fell to the share of Chadalavada Tejo Murthy under Exhibit A1 –
Partition Deed. Upon the demise of Chadalavada Tejo Murthy and
Chadalavada Kasturi, the said properties devolved upon the Plaintiff and
Defendants 1 to 3 and thereby became their ancestral properties.
Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of Plaintiff.
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 26 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
15. ISSUE NO.2: Whether the Will dated: 07.06.2000 allegedly executed by Smt Kasturi is true and valid ?
[a] The Defendants are claiming right and title over an extent of
Ac.1.02 cents, which forms part of Item No.1 of the 'A' schedule property and was purchased by Chadalavada Kasturi under Exhibit A2 – registered
Sale Deed, on the basis that Chadalavada Kasturi had executed Exhibit B1 – Will in favour of Chadalavada Basava Sankara Rao. Upon her demise, the said Will came into force, and Basava Sankara Rao is said to have bequeathed the property. It is further claimed that he was in possession and enjoyment of the said property thereafter, and on his demise, the said properties devolved upon the defendants 1 to 3 and since then they were in possession and enjoyment over the said properties. To prove the execution of Exhibit B1- Will, the defendants relied on the evidence of
DW2.
[b] Now, it has to be seen whether the evidence of PW2 satisfies the requirements as contemplated under Section 68 of Indian Evidence
Act and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. The requirement of proof of a
Will is the same as any other document excepting that the evidence tendered in proof of a Will should additionally satisfy the requirement of
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Section
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 27 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925.
[c] Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act say about, Proof of execution
of document required by law to be attested:- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence;
Provided that it shall not be necessary to call at attesting witness in proof of the execution of any, document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, XVI of 1908 unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.
Section 63 of Indian Succession Act deals about, Execution of un-
privileged Wills:- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare,[or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:- [a] The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. [b] The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. [c] The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 28 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
Further, it is relevant to define the term “attested” which was de- fined Under Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, reads as follows:
“Attested, in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his-signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present it the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.” [d] In short, Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act lays down the mode and manner in which the execution of an unprivileged Will is to be proved and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act postulates the mode and manner in which proof of execution of document is required by law to be attested. The term “attested” was defined under Section 3 of Transfer of
Property Act. It in unequivocal terms states that execution of Will must be proved at least by one attesting witness, if an attesting witness is alive subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. A Will is to prove what is loosely called as primary evidence, except where proof is permitted by leading secondary evidence. Unlike other documents, proof of execution of any other document under the Act would not be sufficient as in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, execution must be proved at least by one of the attesting witnesses. While making
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 29 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
attestation, there must be an animus attestandi, on the part of the attesting witness, means, he must intend to attest and extrinsic evidence on this point is receivable.
[e] As seen from the testimony of DW2, he clearly admitted during cross-examination that he was not present at the time of execution of
Exhibit B1-Will, and that he was present only at the time of execution of
Exhibit B2-Will. These admissions clearly indicate that DW2 had no personal knowledge of the execution of Exhibit B1. His testimony further reveals that there were no properties standing in the name of
Chadalavada Kasturi. If no properties were in her name, the question arises as to why she would execute a Will in favour of her son,
Chadalavada Basava Sankara Rao. Therefore, the evidence of DW2 is insufficient to prove the due execution of Exhibit B1-Will. Consequently, the execution of Exhibit B1- Will was not proved by the Defendants.
Accordingly, this Issue is answered in favour of Plaintiff and against the
Defendants 1 to 3.
16. ISSUE NO.3: Whether the Will dated: 09.11.2019 allegedly executed by Tejo Murthy is true and valid ?
[a] To prove the execution of Exhibit B2 – Will, the Defendants relied on the evidence of DW2. It is a settled principle that the propounder of a Will must dispel all suspicious circumstances and establish that the testator executed the Will in a sound and disposing state of mind.
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 30 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
According to the testimony of DW2, the testator, Tejo Murthy, had been bedridden during the last three months of his life and had been unable to affix his signature for the past two years due to severe shivering.
[b] DW2 further deposed that the Will was executed at the Sub-
Registrar’s Office, Gudivada, and that one Venkata Krishna Rao accompanied them at the time of execution. He also stated that Tejo
Murthy was able to walk without any support when they went to Gudivada and that he had no wounds or ailments, except issues with his legs, and was in a condition to sign the documents at that time.
[c] However, these statements are contradictory. On one hand, DW2 claimed that Tejo Murthy had been unable to sign documents for two years due to his condition, and on the other hand, he testified that the testator was physically capable of signing the Will at the time of execution.
This inconsistency casts doubt on the reliability of DW2’s testimony and raises suspicion about the circumstances surrounding the execution of
Exhibit B2-Will.
[d] Furthermore, DW2 testified that he marked his signature on
Exhibit B2- Will at his residence, and that the second attesting witness did not sign in his presence. These inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the due execution of Exhibit B2-Will and raise significant suspicious circumstances surrounding its validity. The defendants failed to establish the execution of the Will in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 31 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Therefore, the evidence of DW2 is wholly insufficient to prove the execution of Exhibit B2-Will. Hence, from the above discussion, the
Defendants failed to prove the execution of Exhibit B2- Will. Accordingly, this Issue is answered in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendants 1 to 3.
17. ISSUE NO.4: Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
[a] It is a well-settled principle of law that there is no prescribed period of limitation for filing a suit for partition. Therefore, the contention that the suit is barred by limitation does not hold merit.
[b] Even from a perusal of the written statement pleadings, there is no specific averment as to how the suit is barred by limitation; it is only vaguely pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation, without furnishing any supporting facts or particulars. Hence, the issue that the suit is barred by limitation does not arise, and the suit is held to be within time.
Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.
18. ADDITIONAL ISSUES NO.1 & 2:-
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties
as pleaded by the defendant No.2?
Whether the land in R.S.No.729/6 and 840/2 respectively is
joint family property and that the suit for partial partition is not
maintainable as pleaded by the 2 nd defendant ?
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 32 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
[a] The Defendants contended in their written statement that certain properties had fallen to the joint share of Tejo Murthy and his brothers under Exhibit A1- partition deed, and that those properties were never subsequently partitioned among them. It was further contended that, upon their demise, the properties devolved upon the legal heirs of
Tejo Murthy as well as the legal heirs of his brothers. Since these properties were not included in the schedule of the plaint and the legal heirs of Tejo Murthy's brothers were not impleaded, the suit is allegedly bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is also hit by the doctrine of partial partition.
[b] In consequence, the Plaintiff filed a rejoinder specifically relinquishing her claim over the 'F' schedule properties under Exhibit A1, which had fallen to the joint share of her father and his brothers.
Therefore, the question of partial partition and non-joinder of necessary parties does not arise. Accordingly, these Additional Issues are answered in favour of Plaintiff.
19. ISSUE NO.5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of plaint A & B schedule properties as prayed for ?
[a] As already discussed supra, the due execution of Exhibits B1 and B2- Wills has not been proved. In such circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition in respect of the plaint 'A' schedule properties.
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 33 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
[b] With regard to the plaint 'B' schedule, the Plaintiff has merely claimed a half share in the gold pledged in a loan account with SBI,
Ventrapragada, allegedly weighing 60 grams. However, a perusal of the plaint pleadings reveals that there are no specific averments regarding the items of gold ornaments pledged, the name in which the said ornaments were pledged, or other relevant particulars such as the account number or supporting documentation.
[c] Furthermore, the Plaintiff has neither summoned nor examined any Bank official to establish the details or existence of the gold ornaments allegedly pledged. In the absence of such evidence, the
Plaintiff has failed to prove the existence and particulars of the gold ornaments said to be held in the Bank.
[d] The Defendants contended that after demise of Kasturi, some of her gold ornaments were entrusted to the Plaintiff by Tejo Murthy and
Basava Sankara Rao, and that Tejo Murthy had also given the remaining gold ornaments of Kasturi to the Plaintiff for safekeeping prior to his death. However, during the cross-examination of DW1, he admitted that there are no documents to show that Tejo Murthy and Basava Sankara
Rao ever entrusted gold ornaments of Kasturi to the Plaintiff. Similarly, there is no documentary proof that Tejo Murthy gave the remaining gold ornaments of his wife to the Plaintiff prior to his death. DW1 also admitted that Exhibits B1 and B2 - Wills do not contain any recitals regarding the
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 34 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
custody of gold ornaments by the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendants have not produced any corroborative evidence in support of their claim.
Therefore, the Defendants have failed to establish the plea raised in their written statement. Thus, in the absence of sufficient and reliable evidence regarding the plaint 'B' schedule property, the Plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition in respect of the same. Accordingly, this issue is partly answered in favour of the Plaintiff.
20. ISSUE NO.6: To what relief ?
In the result, the Suit is Partly decreed and Preliminary Decree is passed with costs, holding that the Plaintiff is entitled for half (½) share and Defendants 1 to 3 are entitled for remaining half (½) share in the
Plaint ‘A’ schedule property by meets and bounds. The suit is dismissed in respect of Plaintiff’s claim over Plaint ‘B’ schedule property.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by
me in open court, on this the 08th day of July, 2025.
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Gudivada.
FAC/Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Div) (FTC), Gudivada.
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 35 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
PW1: K.Sirisha Lakshmi
PW2: K.Venkateswara Rao
PW3: T.Jaya Chandra
WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
DW1: Ch.Phaneendra Teja
DW2: Ch.Dharma Rao
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
Exhibit A1 : Registration Extract of registered Partition Deed dated 25.05.1966 executed among Gopala Krishna Murthy, his brothers and their mother.
Exhibit A2 : Registration extract of Registered Sale Deed dated: 28.08.1993 executed by Chadalavada Rama Rao in favour of Chadalavada Kasturi.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
Exhibit B1 :Original Unregistered Will dated: 07.06.2000 executed by Chadalavada Kasturi in favour of Basava Shankar Rao.
Exhibit B2 :Original Unregistered Will dated: 09.11.2019 executed by Chadalavada Tejo Murthy in favour of Defendants 1 to 3.
Exhibit B3 :Computerized copy of Adangal for the Fasli 1432 stands in the name DW1 and obtained on 24.11.2022 for the survey No.729/5.
Exhibit B4 :Computerized copy of Adangal for the Fasli 1432 stands in the name of DW1 and obtained on 24.11.2022 for the survey No.729/5.
ACJ (SD) (FTC), Gdv 36 Of 36 O.S.No.14/2020
Exhibit B5 :Computerized copy of Adangal for the Fasli 1432 stands in the name of DW1 and obtained on 24.11.2022 for the survey No.729/5.
Exhibit B6 :Computerized copy of Adangal for the Fasli 1432 stands in the name of DW1 and obtained on 24.11.2022 for the survey No.729/5.
Exhibit B7 :Cist receipt dated: 12.07.2016.
Exhibit B8 :Cist receipt dated: 06.04.2017.
Exhibit B9 :Cist receipt dated: 19.02.2018.
Exhibit B10 : Cist receipt dated: 03.08.2019.
Exhibit B11 : Cist receipt dated: 01.06.2014.
Exhibit B12 : Cist receipt dated: 12.03.2015
Exhibit B13House tax receipt for the assessment No.1057 issued by Panchayat Secretary, Ventrapragada Village.
Sd/Sri S.Vasu Dev.,
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Gudivada. FAC/Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Div) (FTC), Gudivada.
//True copy//
PCJ (SD), GDV