1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KOTHAVALASA.
Present : Dr.S.Vijaya Chandar,
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Kothavalasa.
Thursday, this the 22nd day of August,2024.
O.S.NO. 12 OF 2015.
Between:
1. Mutchakarla Satyam (died)
2. Mutchakarla Demudamma W/o late Satyam, 52 Years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Boddam village, Vepada mandal, Vizianagaram District.
3. Smt Thamanana (Mutchakarla) Jayamma, W/o Darappa, 33 years, R/o Vallampudi village, Vepada mandal, Vizianagaram district.
(Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are added as per I.A.NO.222/2021, dated 29.09.2021)
.. Plaintiffs.
A n d:
1. Ramella Narayana S/o late Jogarao, 66 years, Hindu, occupation Cultivation, R/o Boddam village, Vepada mandal, Vizianagaram District.
2. Ramella Srinu S/o Narayana, 31 Years, Hindu, R/o Boddam village, Vepada mandal, Vizianagaram District.
3. Ramela Jogunaidu S/o Narayana, 26 years, Hindu, R/o Boddam village, Vepada mandal, Vizianagaram District.
4. Ramella Maheswari W/o Narayana, 52 years, R/o Boddam village, Vepada mandal, Vizianagaram District.
...Defendants.
This suit is coming on 25.07.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Eswara Rao, Sri K.Atchibabu, Learned Advocates for plaintiffs and of Sri M.Kameswara Rao, the learned Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: JUDGMENT::
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff No.1 by name Mutchakarla Satyam, s/o. Late Sanyasulu, (died) originally against the defendants, praying the Court to pass a decree in their favour a) by granting permanent injunction, restraining the 2 defendants, their men, agents and whatsoever acts, on their behalf from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over suit schedule properties in any manner; and for costs of the suit. During the course of trial, the 1st plaintiff had died on 14.07.2021 thereafter the 1st plaintiff legal heirs were added as Plaintiffs 2 and 3, who are wife and son respectively, as per
I.A.NO.222/2021, dated 29.09.2021.
2. The case of the plaintiffs, as mentioned in the plaint, is read as follows:
The plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the zeroity dry land and existing
R.C.C slabbed houses constructed therein in the part of an extent of Ac.0-10 cents, covered by S.No.161-10, situated at Boddam village, Vepada Mandal,
Vizianagaram District, originally father of deceased 1st plaintiff i,e., late
Sanyasulu, S/o late Appanna, acquired plaint schedule property through inheritance from his ancestors. The deceased 1st plaintiff who was the husband of the 2nd plaintiff and father of the 3rd plaintiff being only son to his father late
Sanyasulu got acquired the same as an ancestral property by virtue of inheritance. The deceased 1st plaintiff become an absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and other properties left by his father as father of the deceased 1st plaintiff was died intestate, and since the death of his father deceased 1st plaintiff had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without any interruption whomsoever in any manner whatsoever. By recognizing his right, title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, the
Revenue Authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the deceased 1st plaintiff for the suit schedule property along with other properties and the deceased 1st plaintiff also paid the land cist to the revenue authorities.
3
The plaintiffs submits that late Sanyasulu S/o. late Appanna was died intestate by leaving behind the deceased 1st plaintiff as his sole legal heir for the estate left by him including the plaint schedule property, and after his demise, the deceased 1st plaintiff became an absolute owner of the suit schedule property and since then had been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property to the knowledge of one and all in the locality till his last breath. After death of his father deceased 1st plaintiff developed the suit schedule property by constructing two R.C.C. Slabbed houses in the schedule property and the same were let out to two families on the basis of monthly rent which is oral contract, in the remaining place he started construction of another house for their dwelling purpose by using the remaining vacant site for his agricultural activities. While the matter stood thus on 13-01-2015 at about 10-00 AM the defendants herein along with their men came to the suit schedule property and tired to trespass into the suit schedule property highhandedly and illegally without having any manner of right or whatsoever. The deceased 1st plaintiff immediately rushed suit schedule property and could resist the highhanded acts of the defendants with the help of neighbours and while leaving the schedule property the defendants proclaimed that they will come again with more men and could trespass into the schedule properties in any way by hook or crook. Further, the defendants are trying to trespass into the property highhandedly and illegally. The acts of the defendants are illegal and highhanded and the defendants are having men and muscle power and also having influence of both police and political and the plaintiff apprehends that the defendants may come at any moment and could trespass into the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have strong prima-facie case and the balance of 4 convenience is also in their favour for the reason that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. If an injunction is granted there will be no loss or hardship be caused to the defendants and on the other hand if an injunction is not granted the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, since the acts of the defendants are illegal and highhanded.
3.The 4th defendant filed his written statement, the defendants 1 to 3 have filed memo to adopt the written statement of 4th defendant and denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint and submitted that this defendant is not aware of the issue of Pattadar Passbook and title deed in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint schedule land. No notice was served upon her and no enquiry was conducted in village prior to the issue of alleged passbook in favour of the plaintiff. Those proceedings are therefore not binding on this defendant.
The paternal grand father of the plaintiff, Mutchakarla Appanna, the paternal grand father of this defendant Mutchakarla Seetayya and the paternal grand father of the Venkataramana not a party to this suit by name Appalaswamy were brothers. Appanna was the eldest and Appalaswamy was the youngest. The plaint schedule land along with other lands originally belonged to these brothers.
The family properties were partitioned even before this defendant attained age of discussion. Sanyasulu was the only son of Appanna and the plaintiff is the only son of Sanyasulu. Thus the plaintiff got the properties that devolved upon his father Sanyasulu. Mutchakarla Seetayya had only a son by name Appalanaidu who succeeded to the share of the properties of Seetayya. Appalanaidu is no more and this defendant is only issue of Applanaidu and as such succeeded to the properties of her father Appalanaidu. Appalaswamy had a son by name Devudu 5 who succeeded to the share. Demudu also died intestate leaving behind him his three sons namely 1) Venkataramana 2) Chinnamnaidu and 3) Apparno, These three brothers succeeded to the share of Demudu and are still Jointly enjoying the properties. The plaint schedule land measuring nearly Ac 0.10 cents was partitioned into 3 equal shares in the original partition by Appanna and his brothers, Appanna got the southern 1/3rd measuring nearly Ac.0.03 1/3 rd cents. Seetayyaa got the middle port Ion of equal extent. Appalaswamy got the northern extent portion of equal extent. During their life time they used to enjoy the plaint schedule property in accordance with the partition and used to enjoy their share separate. These three brothers died and their properties devolved upon their respective sons. The share of Appanna was devolved upon Sanyasulu. father of the plaintiff, which is on the southern extreme side after the death of Sanyasulu his share is being enjoyed by his son, the plaintiff. The share of Seetayya devolved upon his son Appalanaidu who is no more and it is succeeded by his daughter the 4th defendant in this suit and this portion is middle portion. Appalaswamy shares situated to the northern extreme devolved upon his son Demudu who is no more and succeeded by his three sons
1) Venkataramana 2) Chinnamnaidu and 3) Apparao. The 4th defendant further averred that in the Northern extreme measuring nearly Ac 0.03 1/3rd cents which belongs to 1)Mutchakarla Venkataramana 2) Chinnamnaidu and 3)
Apparao is being jointly enjoyed by these three brothers and they have constructed two R.C.C Slabbed houses more than 10 years ago and are in enjoyment and paying house tax to panchayat. The middle portion in the plaint schedule land which fell to share of Seetayva devolved upon his son Appalanaidu 6 who died intestate leaving behind him the 4th defendant as his class I heir. This 4th defendant is thus in possession and enjoyment of middle portion of Ac 0.03 1/3rd cents using as thrashing floor. It is therefore clear that the plaintiff has neither title nor possession of the entire plaint schedule land he is entitled to he southern extreme Ac 0.03 1/3rd cents and in possession and enjoyment.
Thus the plaintiff has neither title to nor possession of nearly Ac 0.07 cents of land in the northern portion in the plaint schedule land in which the 4th defendant and her cousin brothers Venkataramana, Chinnamnaidu and
Apparao. The plaintiff taken an false plea in the plaint that the two R.C.C
Slabbed houses constructed in northern extreme of Ac 0.03 1/3rd cents, which actually belonging to Venkataramana, Chinnamnaidu and 3) Apparao belong to him. The plaintiff is n ow constructing R.C.C slabbed house in his portion of the plaint schedule land which is situated in the southern extreme. The allegations of the plaint that recognizing his title the revenue authorities prepared revenue records and Issued pattadar passbook and title deed to him can not be correct in view of the actual possession of the plaint schedule land by the persons has mentioned above. A perusal of V.A.No.3 field by the plaintiff discloses that it is a land under cultivation but there are houses in existence in the said land since a long time. it is therefore clear that
V,A. No.3 is not properly prepared. The plaintiff stated there are two R.CC slabbed houses in the plaint land, but he failed to file house tax receipts. This is because these two houses belonging to Mutchakarla Venkataramana, Chinnamnaidu and
Apparao. the entries in VANO.3 which could have been prepared, from the entries in IB and pattadar passbook issued in accordance with entries in 1B register.
7
These entries are therefore are false on the case themselves and prepared to support the case of the plaintiff, entries in revenue records are neither documents of the title nor possession and are prepared for fiscal purposes. They cannot be looked into the prove the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff misrepresented facts and obtained interim injunction he is not entitled to equitable relief of permanent injunction. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not in possession of the entire extent of plaint schedule. Even his title was in dispose prior to the filing of this suit court fee paid under section 26 (c) AP.C.F Act is not correct. Muthcakarla Venkataramana, Chinnamnaidu and Apparao who are in possession of the northern portion of the plaint schedule land measuring Ac 0.03 1/3rd cents constructed houses and residing there. They are necessary parties to the suit. The suit is therefore barred for non joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.
(1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property or not? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction over ` the plaint schedule property or not ? (3) To what relief?
5.To prove that the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff herself examined as PW.1, and also examined one Gorapalli Nuka Raju as PW.2, Yerravarapu Lajaru examined as PW.3 and got marked Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of Pattadar
Passbook issued in the name of Mutchukarala Satyam, Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of Adangal, Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of cist receipt dated 22.01.2015,
Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of of 1-B and Ex.A5is the Mee-Seva copy of Adangal
dated 17.12.2014. Ex.A.6 is the title deed in favour of deceased 1st plaintiff
8
Mutchakarala Satyam. On the other hand, on behalf of defendants, the 4th defendant herself examined as DW.1, one Muchchakara Ramana examined as
DW2, Dulla Sanyasirao examined as DW.3, Alamanda Ramakrishna examined as
DW.4 and got marked Ex.B.1 is Tax receipt for the years 2019-2020 stands in the name of Muchikarla Ramana and Ex.B.2 is the Tax receipt for the year 2013- 2016 stands in the name of Muchikarla Ramana.
6.Heard on both sides. Perused the record.
7.The counsel for plaintiffs argued that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the zeroity dry land and existing three R.C.C slabbed houses constructed therein in the part of an extent of Ac.0-10 cents, covered by S.No 161-10, situated at Boddam village, Vepada Mandal. The deceased 1st plaintiff, who was the husband of the 2nd plaintiff and father of the 3rd plaintiff being only son to his father late Sanyasulu got acquired the same as an ancestral property by virtue of inheritance. The deceased 1st plaintiff became an absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and other properties left by his father as father of the deceased 1st plaintiff was died intestate, and since the death of his father deceased 1st plaintiff had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by recognizing his right, title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, the Revenue Authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the deceased 1st plaintiff for the suit schedule property along with other properties and the deceased 1st plaintiff also paid the land cist to the revenue authorities., the defendants herein trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, who has 9 no right and title and trying to dispossess the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs prays to grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents and whatsoever acts, on their behalf from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over suit schedule properties in any manner.
8. On the other hand, the defendants counsel argued that the plaintiff has neither title nor possession of the entire plaint schedule land he is entitled to the southern extreme Ac.0.03 1/3rd cents and in possession and enjoyment.
Thus the plaintiff has neither title to nor possession of nearly Ac.0.07 cents of land in the northern portion in the plaint schedule land in which the 4th defendant and her cousin brothers Venkataramana, Chinnamnaidu and
Apparao. The plaintiff taken an false plea in the plaint that the two R.C.C
Slabbed houses constructed in northern extreme of Ac 0.03 1/3rd cents, which actually belonging to Venkataramana, Chinnamnaidu and 3) Apparao belong to him. The plaintiff is n ow constructing R.C.C slabbed house in his portion of the plaint schedule land which is situated in the southern extreme. The allegations of the plaint that recognizing his title the revenue authorities prepared revenue records and Issued pattadar passbook and title deed to him can not be correct in view of the actual possession of the plaint schedule land by the persons has mentioned above. The plaintiff is not in possession of the entire extent of plaint schedule. Muthcakarla Venkataramana,
Chinnamnaidu and Apparao who are in possession of the northern portion of the plaint schedule land measuring Ac 0.03 1/3rd cents constructed houses and 10 residing there. They are necessary parties to the suit. Therefore this defendants prays that this court may be pleased to dismiss the above suit with costs.
9.ISSUE NO.1:-
During the course of the trial of the suit, the 2nd plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1, reiterate the contents of her plaint averments and got marked Exs.A.1 to
A.6,which relating to the plaint schedule property stood in the name of deceased 1st plaintiff ie., Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Mutchukarala Satyam, Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of Adangal, Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of cist receipt dated 22.01.2015, Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of of 1-B and Ex.A5is the Mee-Seva copy of Adangal dated 17.12.2014. Ex.A.6 is the title deed in favour of deceased 1st plaintiff Mutchakarala Satyam and it is further observed that all the above Exs.A.1 to A.6 are very much relevant documents to prove the case of plaintiffs as all the documents shows that the deceased 1st plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.
10.The defendants counsel at length cross examined PW.1 and suggested the questions in favour of the defendants, which are denied by her and the remaining cross-examination of PW.1 did not give any scope to favour the defendant’s case.
11.In support of case of plaintiffs, they adduced the evidence of P.ws.2 and 3,who are 3rd parties to the suit, and P.W.2 is the neighbouring property owner, and PW.3 who was worked as coolie in the fields of plaintiffs. They cogently and collaboratively support the version of P.W.1 in all aspects. Further the defendant counsel also cross examined them at length and gave suggestions to 11 them in order to favour of their case, which were denied by them without giving any scope to the case of defendants.
12.Further, the defendants in order to disprove the case of plaintiffs, the 4th defendant examined as DW.1, he deposed in her chief-examination to reiterate the contents of her written statement. During her cross-examination, she testified that she does not know the father’s name of Appanna, Seethayya and
Appalaswamy. She has not filed any document before the court to show that the above said persons partitioned the plaint schedule land to an extent of 10 cents into three equal shares. When she was six years old, the said partition took place.
DW.1 further testified that they are not the heirs of Mutchakarla family. The surname of her father is Mutchakarla. her natural parents belong to Vijayawada.
She has no house or Kallam at the Plaint Schedule Property. DW.1 further testified that she has not mentioned about her natural father in written statement. she has not filed any document before the court to prove that the above said Mutchakarla Applanaidu is her adoptive father. She has not filed the house tax receipts of Chinnamnaidu and Apparao.
13.From the cross examination of DW.1, she herself admitted that she is the adoptive daughter of Mutchakarla Applanaidu, but the said thing not averred either in her written statement or in her chief-examination affidavit. On perusal of the chief-examinations of D.Ws.2 and 3 also discloses that DW.1 is the daughter of Mutchakarla Applanaidu and coming to their cross-examination, they revealed that she is the adoptive daughter of Mutchakarla Applanaidu. Admittedly there is no document filed by defendants to show that DW.1/4th defendant was adoptive daughter of Mutchakarla Applanaidu. Surprisingly in the chief-examination of 12
DW.4 , it is averred that DW.1 was adoptive daughter of Mutchakarla Applanaidu.
If really DW.1 was adoptive of Mutchakarla Applanaidu, what prevented the defendants to averred the said fact in the written statement or in the chief- examinations of D.Ws.1 to 3. Further there is no piece of document to show that 4th defendant/DW.1 is adoptive daughter of Mutchakarla Applanaidu, which manifest that the defendants came with unclean hands.
14.The defendants further marked Exs.B.1 and B.2, which are alleged to be the house tax receipts of D.W.2, which bearing no survey number of S.No.161- 10, situated at Boddam village, Vepada Mandal, Further, it is the case of the defendants the plaint schedule property was orally partitioned in three equal shares, one belongs to plaintiffs, which situated extreme south side of plaint schedule property and the northern side of property belongs to DW.2 and middle of the portion is an exclusive possession and enjoyment of the DW.1. if such is the case what prevented the DW.1 to file any piece of document to show her possession and enjoyment of the same , has not been explained. Further, as per the testimonies of D.Ws.1 to 4 , the plaint schedule property , which is situated in
S.No.160-10 in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents was partitioned in three equal shares , each got Ac.0.03 1/3rd share, about 30 years back, if such is the case, they could have been placed any of the relevant document to prove their possession, but failed to do so.
15. In order to prove the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs, they adduced the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who categorically deposed that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the zeroity dry land and existing R.C.C slabbed houses constructed therein in the part of an 13 extent of Ac.0-10 cents, covered by S.No 161-10, situated at Boddam village,
Vepada Mandal, originally father of deceased 1st plaintiff i,e., late Sanyasulu, S/o late Appanna, acquired plaint schedule property through inheritance from his ancestors. The deceased 1st plaintiffs who was the husband of the 2nd plaintiff and father of the 3rd plaintiff being only son to his father late Sanyasulu got acquired the same as an ancestral property by virtue of inheritance. The deceased 1st plaintiff become an absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and other properties left by his father as father of the deceased 1st plaintiff was died intestate, and since the death of his father deceased 1st plaintiff had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and the plaintiff could successfully proved her contention by adducing the evidences P.Ws.1 to 3 in support of the documents Ex.A.1 to A.6. P.Ws.1 to 3 cogently deposed in their chief-examination that plaint schedule property after death of his father deceased 1st plaintiff developed the suit schedule property by constructing two R.C.C.
Slabbed houses in the schedule property and the same were let out to two families on the basis of monthly rent which is oral contract, in the remaining place he started construction of another house for their dwelling purpose by using the remaining vacant site for his agricultural activities.
16.From the discussion made above the plaintiffs are successfully proved their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Further the defendants failed to file any scrap of paper that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Further more, the suit is filed for suit for injunction simplicitor but not filed to decide the title and ownership against the plaint schedule property.
14
Further, this court relied on a decision in –
Alla Seshu Kumar and another
Vs.
Alla Radha Krishna
Reported in 2008(1) ALT Page No.430
Wherein his Lordship held at Para 10 that –
“When a person, who has no title over the property, is in settled possession
of the property, he is entitled for injunction even against the true owner and
the true owner cannot forcibly evict him from the property.”
So, the plaintiffs successfully established that the prima-facie, lawful possession over the plaint schedule and balance of convenience in her favour. At this juncture, if the defendants are permitted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property, certainly she would sustained irreparable loss.
Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
17.ISSUE NO.2:-
As per the contention of the defendants, the plaintiffs misrepresented facts and trying to obtain permanent injunction,which they are not entitled. Further contention of the defendants is that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the entire extent of plaint schedule, Muthcakarla Venkataramana, Chinnamnaidu and Apparao who are in possession of the northern portion of the plaint schedule land measuring Ac 0.03 1/3rd cents constructed houses and residing there. They are necessary parties to the suit and that the suit is barred for non joinder of necessary parties.
18. Though the counsel for defendants cross examined P.Ws.1 to 3 at length, but nothing could be elicited regarding the title, possession and 15 enjoyment of the defendant over the plaint schedule property. When the defendants dispute the title and possession of the plaintiffs, it can be presumed that the defendants interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property, as answered in issue No.1.
If there is any serious claim of the defendants covered in S.No.160-10 for an extent of Ac.0-10 cents, they have to claim by way of filing suit for declaration instead of interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiffs, for which the plaintiffs filed Ex.A1 is the
Certified copy of Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Mutchukarala Satyam ie., father in law of the plaintiff No.2., Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of Adangal,
Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of cist receipt dated 22.01.2015, Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of of 1-B and Ex.A5is the Mee-Seva copy of Adangal dated 17.12.2014 and
Ex.A.6 is the title deed in favour of deceased 1st plaintiff Mutchakarala Satyam.
19.As already discussed in issue No.1, the plaintiffs successfully established that the prima-facie, lawful possession over the plaint schedule and balance of convenience in their favour. At this juncture, if the defendants are permitted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property, certainly they would sustained irreparable loss.
At this juncture, this court relied on decision in between –
Ramavath Hasala Naik
Vs.
Sabahavath Gomli Bai
Reported in 2011(2) ALT Page 690
His Lordship held at paras 9 & 10 that – 16
“In a suit for injunction simplicitor, what is material is only the aspect of
possession of the suit property by the plaintiff on the date of suit rather
than the issue of title.
So far as the Indian Law is concerned, the person in peaceful
possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such
possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A
rightly owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake
possession if he can do so specifically and without the use of unreasonable
force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to
the rightly owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he
cannot take the law in his own hands to evict the trespasser or interfere
with his possession.”
In the above decision and discussion made above, this court is in the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as sought for. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.
20.ISSUE No.(3) In view of the above issue Nos.1 and 2 discussed supra, this court is of opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants over the plaint schedule property.
21.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of Plaintiffs, against defendants by granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over suit schedule properties.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 22nd day of August,2024.
Sd/-S.Vijaya Chandar,
Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Kothavalasa.
17
Appendix of evidence Witness examined For plaintiffs:-For defendants:-
PW.1: Mutchakarla Demudamma.D.W.1. Ramella Maheswari
PW.2: Gorapalli Nuka Raju.D.W.2: Muchchakarala Ramana
PW.3: Yerravarapu Lajaru. D.W.3: Dulla Sanyasirao
D.W.4: Alamanda Ramakrishna.
Documents marked For plaintiffs:-
Ex.A1Certified copy of Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Mutchukarala Satyam ie., father in law of the plaintiff No.2., Ex.A2Certified copy of Adangal, Ex.A3 Certified copy of cist receipt dated 22.01.2015, Ex.A4 Certified copy of of 1-B Ex.A5Mee-Seva copy of Adangal dated 17.12.2014. Ex.A.6 Title deed in favour of deceased 1st plaintiff Mutchakarala Satyam
For defendants: -
Ex.B.1 Tax receipt for the years 2019-2020 stands in the name of Muchikarla Ramana.
Ex.B.2 Tax receipt for the year 2013-2016.
Sd/-S.Vijaya Chandar,
Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Kothavalasa.