APNE130001962016
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: VENKATAGIRI
PRESENT: S. VISHNU VARMA,
CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), VENKATAGIRI
TUESDAY, THIS THE 05 TH DAY OF MAY 2026
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 190 OF 2016
1. Gangalapudi Sugunamma, W/o. Late Ananda Reddy, Aged about 54 years.
2. Gangalapudi Sanath Kumar, S/o. Late Ananda Reddy, Aged about 32 years.
3. Gangalapudi Mohan, S/o. Late Ananda Reddy, Aged about 29 years. … Plaintiffs All the plaintiffs are residing at Siddagunta Village, Balayapalli Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. - Vs-
Butti Siddamma, W/o. B. Sesha Reddy, Aged about 63 years, … Defendant Residing at Teachers’ Colony, Venkatagiri, SPSR Nellore District.
This suit coming before me for final hearing on 04.05.2026 in the presence of
Sri S. Venkateswarlu, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri C.V.V Sai Vara
Prasad, learned Advocate for the defendant, and upon hearing arguments on both sides and considering the written arguments filed on the side of the defendant and perusing the entire material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:
// J U D G M E N T \\
1.This suit is filed under Section 26 and Order VII Rule 1 of CPC praying this
Court to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men, her agents, et. al., from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs’ over the suit property.
THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN-BRIEF:
2.The suit property was originally an ancestral property belonged to the deceased family head of the plaintiffs by name Gangalapudi Ananda Reddy and other co-parceners including the defendant. In the year 1988, one Sivireddy Balaji and Sivaji filed a suit against Gangalapudi Siddha Reddy, Ananda Reddy,
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 1 of 13
APNE130001962016
Krishnamma, Siddhamma, Vijayamma and Sravanti for partition. The said partition suit ended in compromise decree before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Court,
Gudur, in O.S No. 19 of 1988 on 25.04.1994. In view of the compromise decree, the “C” schedule mentioned property therein fell to the share of Ananda Reddy i.e. the deceased family head of the plaintiffs, and the defendant herein. The total extent of the said property is Ac. 5.72 Cents. After the compromise decree, The family head of the plaintiffs viz., Ananda Reddy and the defendant herein partitioned the joint family property and in that partition, the land to an extent of Ac. 3.36 cents, which is dry land, fell to the share of the deceased family head of the plaintiffs and the land to an extent of Ac. 2.36 cents in Survey Nos. 65/4, 65/6, 70/1, 70/8 and 73/3 fell to the share of the defendant. The deceased family head of the plaintiffs by name Ananda
Reddy dug a bore well in the land in Survey No. 64/1 and 67/1A and fitted an electric motor to the bore well by obtaining Service Connection No. 92. Thereafter, he used it for raising paddy crop and dry crops as a second crop. After digging the bore well, the land value got increased and therefore, the defendant demanded the said
Ananda Reddy for re-partition of the entire joint family property. Anantha Reddy did not accept for the same, as the property was already partitioned long back. Anantha
Reddy invested huge amount for reclamation and erecting bore well and fitting electric motor. After the said partition, Ananda Reddy got issued passbook and title deed in respect of the suit property in his name mentioning his name as enjoydar in the relevant revenue records. The defendant is enjoying the land fell to her share without any obstruction from the plaintiffs’ family.
3.While so, in the year 2014, the defendant sent a representation to the RDO,
Gudur objecting for issuance of revenue records in the name of Ananda Reddy.
Pending the matter with the Revenue Officials, Ananda Reddy committed suicide on 09.07.2016. After the death of Ananda Reddy, the plaintiffs herein have inherited the suit property as the legal representatives of the deceased Ananda Reddy.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any interruption. At the time of filing of the suit, the crop was there and it was ripe for harvest. The defendant has got nothing to do with the suit property, but she is wantonly obstructing the plaintiffs. About two days back from the date of filing of the suit, when the plaintiffs were watering the paddy crop in the suit property, the
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 2 of 13
APNE130001962016 defendant interfered in the possession of the plaintiffs. If the acts of the defendant are materialized, the plaintiffs will be put to serious loss and hardship. Therefore, the present suit.
THE CONTENTION OF THE DEFENDANT IN-BRIEF:
4.The defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations and contending that a suit in OS No. 19 of 1988 on the file of the Hon'ble Subordinate
Court, Gudur, against Gangalapudi Siddha Reddy, Gangalapudi Ananda Reddy,
Krishnamma, Butti Siddhamma, Butti Vijayamma and Butti Sravanti was filed.
Pending the suit, Gangalapudi Ramanamma died. As she executed a registered will
dated 08.05.1990 bequeathing her share of the properties in favour of Chevireddy
Balaji and Chevireddy Sivaji, they were added as plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 in the said suit. At the instance of the elders and well-wishers, both the parties have compromised the said suit, and a compromise decree in I.A No. 247 of 1994 in O.S.
No. 19 of 1988 was passed on 25.04.1994. In the said partition, the “C” Schedule mentioned property therein i.e. land to an extent of Acre 5.72 cents was allotted to the joint share of Gangalapudi Ananda Reddy and the defendant herein. The suit property is a part of the aforesaid extent of acre 5.72 cents of land. Gangalapudi
Ananda Reddy is the family head of the plaintiffs herein. Therefore, the defendant herein and Gangalapudi Ananda Reddy are joint owners and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the said land as joint owners. The defendant allowed
Ananda Reddy to cultivate her share of land also and Ananda Reddy was cultivating the same, but he was paying her share of produce in equal half share out of the yield in the entire extent of Ac. 5. 72 cents of land. In the year 2011, the defendant came to know that the said Ananda Reddy was trying to mutate his name in the revenue records in respect of the entire extent. Therefore, the defendant raised objection. The defendant had also filed criminal complaint against the said Ananda Reddy. Ananda
Reddy managed revenue officials and obtained pattadar passbook in his name.
Defendant filed a petition before the Sub-Collector, Gudur, praying for cancellation of the said pattadar passbook issued in favour of the said Ananda Reddy. After enquiry, the Sub-Collector, Gudur, by the order dated 25.06.2016, cancelled the pattadar passbook issued in favour of Ananda Reddy. Ananda Reddy obtained passbook to an extent of Ac. 3.36 cents of land in Survey No. 64/1 and 67/1A by misrepresenting
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 3 of 13
APNE130001962016 to the revenue officials. The entire extent of land i.e., Acre 5.72 cents is a joint property belonging to the defendant and Ananda Reddy. There was no partition and therefore, it is a joint property of the defendant and Ananda Reddy. As the defendant is a co-sharer and as there is no partition took place, the injunction suit is not maintainable against the co-sharer. The plaintiff approached this court with unclean hands and therefore, the equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted. Therefore, the suit may be dismissed.
5.After hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, this court settled the following issues for trial:
(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for?
(ii) To what relief?
6.In support of the contention of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. Ex.A1 is the Adangal dated 11.09.2016. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of orders issued by R.D.O, Gudur cancelling passbook. Ex.A3 is Passbook standing in the name of the deceased Ananda Reddy.
Ex.A4 is the Cist receipts (8 Nos) standing in the name of Ananda Reddy. Ex.A5 is
Loan payment receipts. Ex.A6 is the Electricity Bills in respect of Service Connection
No.92. Ex.A7 is the Death certificate of Ananda Reddy. Ex.A8 is the Pattadar passbook standing in the name of the plaintiff No.1. Ex.A9 is the Pattdar Passbook standing in the name of the plaintiff No.2. Ex.A10 is the Pattdar Passbook standing in the name of the plaintiff No.3. Ex.A11 is 1B Namuna and Adangals (05 in Nos.).
7.One of the villager of Siddagunta was examined as PW2 on the side of the plaintiffs. No documents were marked through PW2.
8.In support of the contention of the defendant, the defendant got herself examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B6. Ex.B1 are notices dated 30.05.2016, 15.11.2014, 31.10.2014, 20.02.2014 and 09.04.2014 issued by the Sub-
Collector, Gudur. Ex.B2 are the Mortgage details of suit property mortgaged in
Kurugonda P.A.C.S (7 in Nos.) Ex.B3 are the copies of F.L.R and Adangals pertainng to the suit property issued under R.T.I Act (8 pages). Ex.B4 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 05.07.2011. Ex.B5 is the order in D.Dis(B2)/66/2014
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 4 of 13
APNE130001962016
dated 25.06.2016 passed by the Sub-Collector, Gudur. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of
the Compromise decree dated 25.04.1994 passed in I.A. No.247/1994 in O.S
No.19/1988 on the file of Subordinate Court, Gudur.
SUBMISSIONS:
9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that in view of the compromise decree passed in O.S No. 19 of 1988, Ananda Reddy, who is husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and father of the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, and the defendant have jointly acquired right over the joint family property to the tune of Ac.5.72 cents.
Thereafter, there was a oral partition between Ananda Reddy and the defendant. In view of the above oral partition, the defendant obtained land to an extent of Ac.2.36 cents and the husband of the first plaintiff viz., Ananda Reddy obtained land to an extent of Ac.3.36 cents. The difference in the land is due to the classification of the land. The land allotted to the share of the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 viz., Ananda
Reddy, was dry land and therefore, one acre in excess was allotted to the share of
Ananda Reddy. After 20 years from the date of the oral partition, Ananda Reddy dug a bore well and it was successful. On seeing the success of bore well, the defendant's husband bore grudge against Ananda Reddy and demanded him for re- partition of the entire land. In view of the harassment made by the defendant and her husband, Ananda Reddy committed suicide. The defendant applied to the R.D.O
Court for cancellation of revenue records granted in the name of Ananda Reddy. As neither husband of the first plaintiff nor the plaintiffs appeared before the R.D.O
Court, the R.D.O passed an ex-parte order directing the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry and submit a report thereof. After the oral partition, the revenue records were mutated in the name of Ananda Reddy, and therefore, oral partition was given effect.
The revenue records relating to the suit property were standing in the name of
Ananda Reddy and after his death the revenue records were mutated in the names of the plaintiffs herein. The plaintiffs have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property after the demise of Ananda Reddy. The same is evident from the revenue records marked as Ex.A8 to Ex.A11. Therefore, the suit may be decreed.
10.The learned counsel for the defendant would submit that based on the compromise decree, an extent of Ac.5.72 cents fell to the share of Ananda Reddy
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 5 of 13
APNE130001962016 and the defendant herein. Therefore, both are joint owners. There was no partition thereafter. The alleged oral partition is a created story only for the purpose of this case. Ananda Reddy managed revenue officials and mutated revenue records in his name without any authority. In fact, there was no notice issued to the defendant
before mutating revenue records in the name of Ananda Reddy. The RDO, Gudur,
cancelled the revenue records issued in the name of Ananda Reddy. After cancellation, the plaintiffs herein have filed the present suit. The defendant had clearly denied the oral partition. In fact, the place of oral partition, date of oral partition and in whose presence the oral partition took place and who are the mediators or elders who participated in the mediation are not disclosed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plea of oral partition is not proved. When the plea of oral partition is not proved, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The plaintiffs ought to have filed suit for partition as bare injunction suit is not maintainable. In a suit for bare injunction, establishing possession alone is not sufficient, but they should establish lawful possession. The defendant is co-sharer and co-parcener of the suit property. An injunction cannot be granted against co-sharer. Therefore, the suit may be dismissed. On the above lines, the learned counsel for the defendant has also filed written arguments.
DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND FINDING:
11.After meticulous consideration of the material available on record and written arguments on both sides, each issue is taken up for analysis, discussion and finding.
ISSUE NO. (i): Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for?
12.There is no dispute that the land to an extent of Ac.5.72 cents fell to the share of Ananda Reddy, who is the family head of the plaintiffs, and the defendant herein in view of the compromise decree granted in O.S No. 19 of 1988 by the Hon'ble Senior
Civil Judge Court, Gudur. However, the plaintiffs claimed that after the said
compromise decree, there was an oral partition between Ananda Reddy and the defendant and in that oral partition, the land to an extent of Ac.3.36 cents fell to the share of Ananda Reddy and an extent of Ac.2.36 cents to the defendant.
13.In the plaint pleadings, the plaintiffs have not specifically stated whether the partition was oral or written. They just mentioned as partition. However, the learned
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 6 of 13
APNE130001962016 counsel for the plaintiffs at the time of the arguments has stated that there was an oral partition. In fact, in the chief examination of PW1 also, it is not specifically testified that it was an oral partition. Admittedly, there is no partition deed in writing filed in this case. The plaintiffs claimed that there was an oral partition. Therefore, the entire case rests on the oral partition only.
14.When the plea of oral partition is taken, the plaintiff is obliged to prove such oral partition. However, the place and date of the oral petition, and in whose presence the oral petition took place and who are the elders or mediators present at the time of such oral petition is not pleaded and proved. None of the persons before whom oral partition took place were examined in this case.
15.The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Palanivelu and Others versus
Muniappan, reported in 2018 SCC Online MAD 7748, in para Nos. 13 and 17, observed and held thus:
“13. However, the defendants have not clearly averred in the written statement as regards their plea of oral partition. They have not averred that as to when the alleged oral partition took place and who were all present at the time of the oral partition, particularly as to who are all the sharers and who are all the Panchayatars/mediators who had effected the oral partition and what were the subject matter of the oral partition and what were the properties allotted to the respective sharers in the various survey numbers etc., In such view of the matter, as rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel, when the plea of oral partition projected by the defendants lacks particulars both by way of pleas as well as by way of evidence, it is seen that the case projected by the defendants that the parties had orally partitioned long back sans proof pointing to the same in any one of the aspects of the
matter would only expore the falsity of the defence version.
17. When with reference to the plea of oral partition, the defendants have not spelt out the particulars in the written statement and also not placed any proof worth acceptance to sustain the same and with reference to the same, they would only rely upon the patta documents and the subdivisions effected thereby in respect of the suit properties, however, when the revenue records by themselves would not be sufficient to uphold the plea of oral partition, particularly, when the plaintiff has taken the stand that he has not been served with any notice as regards the subdivision proceeding, in the light of the abovesaid decisions relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel, it is seen that the plea of oral partition put forth by the defendants cannot be given credence to." (Emphasis supplied)
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 7 of 13
APNE130001962016
16.The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Ramulu Ammal v. Ramachandra
Reddy, reported in 2009 SCC ONLINE MAD 804, in para No.23, observed and held thus:
"23. The onus of proof as well as the onus probandi is on the defendant to prove that there was oral partition before the panchayatars. But it is clear that absolutely there is no evidence much less reliable evidence to uphold the alleged oral partition. No panchayatar was examined on the side of the defendant to prove such panchayat was held and the oral partition took place. In a village, if really a partition had taken place in the presence of panchayatars, certainly some evidence in that regard must be available and the same should have been adduced before the court. But, that was not done so." (Emphasis supplied)
17.The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Guruvammal and Another v. Subbiah
Naicker And Others, reported in 1999 SCC ONLINE MAD 755, observed and held thus:
"15. In Kuppammal v. Gattipalli Gopaul Chetti, AIR 1915 Mad. 614 a Division Bench of this Court dealing with the value of a Collector's certificate in respect of immovable properties, observed that a certificate is only evidence of revenue registry and affords no title or security as to ownership.
16. In Nageshar Baksh Singh v. Mt. Ganesha, AIR 1920 PC 46 the Privy Council dealing with settlement records held that entries in those records, although important evidence of matter recorded cannot be conclusive and that facts of partition or separation of
shares is not a matter dealt with in such records.
17. In Thakur Nirman Singh and others v. Thakur Lal Rudra Partab Narain Singh and others, AIR 1926 PC 100 it has been held that mutation proceedings is not a judicial proceeding and does not decide title and is no evidence of exclusion from property.
18. In Durga Prasad and another v. Chanshiam Das and others, AIR 1948 PC 210 it has been held that, “A definition of shares in khewats or other Revenue papers can be regarded as only a very slight indication of title. It is not the injunction of the officer who compiles such papers to decide questions of title. In particular the nice distinctions which arise upon an issue whether or not there has been a separation are not for their determination.”
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 8 of 13
APNE130001962016
19. It has been held in Bharat Singh and another v. Bhagirathi 1966 (1) SCR 606 that, the mere fact of the mutation entry being made in favour of the respondent on the death of her husband was no clear indication that there was no joint family.
20. In Navalshanjar Ishwarlal Dave and another v. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1994 SC 1496 it has been held that, mutation of name in Revenue Records is not evidence of title, though it may be relevant for other purposes.
21. It has been held in Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and others, (1996) 6 SCC 223 that, mutation of a property in the Revenue records does not create or extinguish the title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.
22. In Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel and others v. Vithalbhai Jaychandbhai Patel and others, (1996) 6 SCC 433 it has been held that, it is settled law that mutation entries are only to enable the State to collect revenues from the person in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the right, title and interest as to the property should be established dehors the entires. Entries are only one of the modes of proof of the enjoyment of the property. Mutation entries do not create any title or interest therein.
23. In Balwant Singh and another v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137 it has been held that, mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries were relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue.
24. In Kuppuswami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai and others, 1995 (1) MLJ 426 a Bench of this Court has held as follows:
“Revenue Officers in a patta proceedings may express their views on the question of title, but such expression of opinion or decision is not conclusive and it is only intended to support their decision for granting patta. Ultimately, it is the civil court which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the person claiming patta is the title-holder of the land. Even if the revenue authorities decide the question of title, that will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the civil court, which has to decide the question without reference to the decision of the revenue authorities.”
25. It has been held by Sathasivam, J. in Arulmigu Viswewaraswami v. R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder, 1996 (II) CTC 199 as follows:
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 9 of 13
APNE130001962016 “Much reliance cannot be placed on municipal extract and tax receipts in order to prove title of any particular part.”
26. Thus, the position on this aspect is well settled, it has not been shown by the appellants that dehors Exs. A-64 and A- 65 there is any material available to substantiate their case of partition between Krishnaswamy Naicker and Subbiah Naicker.
27. Conceding that there was a separate enjoyment by the brothers, that will not by itself show that there was any completed partition between the brothers. The legal aspect is well settled. In Appavu @ Lakshmanan Pillai and another v. Manikkam Pillai and four others ILR 1946 Mad 557 it has been held as follows:
“The fact that the members of a Hindu joint family divide among themselves some of the family assets, such as income from agricultural lands, outstandings and other movable property, does not in itself mean a division in status. In deciding whether a joint family has become divided the Court must have regard to the terms of any instrument bearing on the question and the subsequent conduct of the parties. Statements made by members of the family on certain occasions for certain purposes that they are joint or divided in status are not of much consequence. It is not their statements but their relations with the estate that must be taken into consideration in determining the issue.”
28. In P. Kaliappa Gounder v. Muthuswami Mudaliar, AIR 1987 Mad. 24, it has been held by a Bench of this Court that, separate possession for the sake of convenience is no partition. The fact of separate enjoyment of specified portions for making improvements over such portions and of obtaining loans will not turn joint ownership into ownership is severally and in specie in the eye of law."
18.In the instant case, the plaintiffs relied upon Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. Ex.A1 is the
Adangal. Ex.A3 is Pattadar Passbook. Merely because, the revenue records such as
Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 stood in the name of the family head of the plaintiffs viz., Ananda
Reddy, it does not mean that the partition was already effected. The revenue records are relevant only for revenue purpose and not for proving partition as held by the
Hon'ble Privy Council in Nageshar Baksh Singh v. Mt. Ganesha (cited supra).
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 10 of 13
APNE130001962016
19.Further, availing loan by Ananda Reddy in respect of suit property and its repayment by him under Ex.A5 will not turn joint ownership into a separate ownership of him, as held in P. Kaliappa Gounder v. Muthuswami Mudaliar (highlighted supra).
20.Since the entire case of the plaintiffs is on the basis of oral partition, the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove the oral partition. In the instant case, none of the panchayatdars or mediators or elders, before whom the alleged oral partition took place, are examined. In fact, the specifies relating to the oral partition are not pleaded in the plaint and also not testified by the witnesses on the side of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the oral partition is not proved in accordance with law.
21.Once the plea of oral partition is discarded, the suit property assumes the character of joint family property belonging to Ananda Reddy and the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is a co-sharer and coparcener. It is a settled proposition of law that an injunction cannot be granted against a co-sharer.
22.Further, in order to prove the possession of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs got marked Ex.A1/Adangal, Ex.A3/Pattaadar passbook, Ex.A4/Cist receipts, Ex.A5/Loan repayment receipt, Ex.A6/Electricity charges bill. Ex.A8/Pattadar Passbook standing in the name of the plaintiff No. 1, Ex.A9/Pattadar Passbook standing in the name of the plaintiff No. 2, Ex.A10/ Pattadar Passbook standing in the name of the plaintiff
No. 3, Ex.A11/1B and Adangals (5 Nos). Out of the documents got marked on the side of the plaintiffs, Ex.A8 to Ex.A11 are of the year 2024, but the suit was filed in the year 2016. The plaintiffs have to prove their possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, Ex.A8 to Ex.A11 are not relevant.
23.Coming to Ex.A1, Ex.A3 to Ex.A6, they may be relevant to prove their possession. However, in a suit for injunction, proving possession is not sufficient, but it should be proved that such a possession is lawful. As discussed above, since the oral partition is not proved and since the suit property assumed the character of joint family property, the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property cannot be said to be lawful. Once the possession is not lawful, certainly the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.
24.Ex.A2 and Ex.B5 are one and the same and it is the order of the R.D.O.,
Gudur cancelling the pattadar passbook issued in the name of Ananda Reddy in
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 11 of 13
APNE130001962016 respect of the suit property. It is mentioned in Ex.A2 and Ex.B5 that the said Ananda
Reddy has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his title in respect of the suit property. The order of the RDO also fortifies the stand of the defendant.
From the order of the R.D.O also, it can be inferred that the plaintiffs are not in lawful possession of the suit property. As the plaintiffs have failed to prove their lawful possession over the suit property, they are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.
25.In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and accordingly this issue No.(i) is answered against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. (ii): To what relief?
26.In view of the finding to Issue No.(i), this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in the suit.
RESULT:
27.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 05 th Day of May 2026.
Sd/- S. VISHNU VARMA
CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Div.),
VENKATAGIRI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT
PW1: Gangalapudi Sanath Kumar DW1: Butti Siddamma PW2: P. Venkata Ramana Reddy
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 12 of 13
APNE130001962016
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS
Sl. No DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT
Ex.A1: Adangal dated 11.09.2016.
Ex.A2: Certified copy of orders issued by R.D.O, Gudur for cancellation of passbook.
Ex.A3: Passbook standing in the name of the deceased Ananda Reddy.
Ex.A4: Cist reciepts (8 Nos) standing in the name of Ananda Reddy.
Ex.A5: Loan payment receipts.
Ex.A6: Electricity Bills in respect of Service Connection No.92.
Ex.A7: Death certificate of Ananda Reddy.
Ex.A8: Pattadar passbook standing in the name of the plaintiff No.1.
Ex.A9: Pattdar Passbook standing in the name of the plaintiff No.2.
Ex.A10: Pattdar Passbook standing in the name of the plaintiff No.3.
Ex.A11: 1B Namuna and Adangals (05 in Nos.).
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT
Sl. No DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT
Ex.B1 : Notices dated 30.05.2016, 15.11.2014, 31.10.2014, 20.02.2014 and 09.04.2014 issued by the Sub-Collector, Gudur.
Ex.B2 : Mortgage details of suit property mortgaged in Kurugonda P.A.C.S (7 in Nos.).
Ex.B3 : Copies of F.L.R and Adangals pertaining to the suit property issued under R.T.I Act (8 pages).
Ex.B4 : Office copy of the legal notice dated 05.07.2011.
Ex.B5 : Order in D.Dis(B2)/66/2014 dated 25.06.2016 passed by the Sub- Collector, Gudur.
Ex.B6 : Certified copy of the Compromise decree dated 25.04.1994 passed in I.A No.247/1994 in O.S No.19/1998 on the file of Sub-Ordinate Judge Court, Gudur.
Sd/- S. VISHNU VARMA
CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Div.),
VENKATAGIRI
Fair Copy // O.S No.190 of 2016 // Page 13 of 13