FAIR 1 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT :: VEMULAWADA
Present: Sri RAVINDER SATTU
Senior Civil Judge-cum-
Assistant Sessions Judge, Vemulawada.
Thursday, this the 14th day of March, 2024.
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 44 OF 2022
(Old O.S.No. 14 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Sircilla.)
Between:
Sajjanam Sunitharani W/o Shyamsundar, aged 34 years, Occ:
Housewife, R/o. H.No. 10-6-105, B.Y. Nagar locality of Sircilla proper and mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.
...Plaintiff.
AND
1.Thipparthi Swarnalatha W/o Satyanarayana, aged 42 years,
Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 5-2-93, Market street, Vemulawada proper and mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.
2.Mandaloju Anjaneyulu S/o late Venkatesham, aged 31 years,
Occ: Goldsmith, R/o. H.No. 3-65, Narsingapur village of Chandurthy
Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.
3.Thipparthi Satyanarayana S/o Simhadri, aged 55 years, R/o.
H.No. 5-2-93, Market street, Vemulawada proper and mandal, Rajanna
Sircilla District.
4.Vangala Padmaja W/o Sudhakar, aged 36 years, Occ:
Housewife, R/o. Opposite house No. 7-3-38, Vemulawada proper and mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.
FAIR 2 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
5.Thipparthi Rajesh S/o Sathyanarayana, aged 34 years, Occ:
Goldsmith, R/o. H.No.5-2-93, Market street, Vemulawada proper and mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.
6.Thipparthi Mahesh Babu S/o Satyanarayana, aged 26 years,
Occ: Goldsmith, R/o. H.No. 5-3-92, Vishwabrahmana Veedi,
Vemulawada proper and mandal.
...Defendants.
This suit is coming before me on 14.03.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Anjaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri Nakka
Divakar, Advocate for Defendants No.1, 3 to 5 and Sri G. Sadanandam,
Advocate for Defendant No.2, Defendant No.6 set exparte, upon perusing material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This is a suit for partition and separate possession with metes and bounds by allotting 1/4th divided share to each of the Plaintiff and
Defendant No.1 and 2 and 1/4th divided share jointly to the Defendant
No.3 to 5 in the agricultural lands bearing Sy.No. 13/AA area Ac. 3-21 gts and Sy.No. 13/AA area Ac. 3-22 gts, which are fully described in the item No.1 and 2 in the schedule annexed hereto,situated at Ananthapalli village of Chandurthi mandal; for declaration that the registered Gift
Settlement Deed bearing document No. 22 of 2004 dated: 03.01.2004 of
FAIR 3 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 the Sub-Registrar Office, Vemulawada executed by the father of the
Plaintiff by name Mandaloji Venkatesham in favour of Defendant No.1 in respect of the item No.1 of the suit schedule properties, and the registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No. 23 of 2004, dt.
03.01.2004 of the Sub-Registrar Office, Vemulawada, executed by the mother of the Plaintiff by name Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi in favour of the Defendant No.1 in respect of the item No.2 of the suit schedule properties, are sham, bogus, null and void and not binding on the
Plaintiff to the extent of Plaintiff’s share in respect of suit schedule properties; and for declaration that the registered sale deed bearing document No. 5669 of 2016, dt. 14.09.2016 of the office of SRO,
Vemulawada executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.4 with respect to agricultural land bearing Sy.No.13/AA area Ac. 2-03 gts situated at Ananthapalli village of Chandurthi mandal, which is part and parcel of suit schedule properties is null and void and not binding on the
Plaintiff for declaration that the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.
5668/2016 dt. 14.09.2016 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Vemulawada executed by defendant no.1 in favour of Defendant No.5 with respect to agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 13/AA area Ac.2-20 gts situated at
Ananthapally village of Chandurthi mandal, which is part and parcel of of the suit schedule properties is null and void and not binding on the
FAIR 4 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
Plaintiff for declaration that the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.
5667/2016 dt. 14.09.2016 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Vemulawada, executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.6 in the above suit with respect to the agricultural land bearing its Sy.No.13/AA area
Ac. 2-20gts situated at Ananthapally village of Chandurthi mandal, which is part and parcel of suit schedule properties is null and not binding on the Plaintiff, for declaration that the registered sale deed bearing its document No.5667/2016, dt. 14.09.2016 in the office of Sub-
Registrar, Vemulawada executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of
Defendant No.6 in the above suit with respect to the agricultural land bearing its Sy.No.13/AA area Ac. 2-20 gts situated at Ananthapalli village of Chandurthi mandal which is not part and parcel of suit schedule properties is null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff.
BRIEF FACTS OF PLAINT:- 1.i. Plaintiff submitted that she is sister of Defendant No.1 and 2 and late Thipparthi Shoba. Defendant No.4 and 5 are natural son and daughter of late Thipparthi Shoba and Defendant No.3. Mandaloji
Venkatesham and Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi are the parents of Plaintiff,
Defendant No.1, 2 and late Thipparthi Shoba.
FAIR 5 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 ii.Plaintiff submitted that previously, the said Mandaloji
Venkatesham held certain ancestral immovable properties i.e., agricultural lands bearing Sy.No. 44/A area Ac. 9-07 gts, Sy.No. 338/A area Ac. 0-18 gts, Sy.No. 290/A area Ac. 0-19 gts, Sy.No. 275 area Ac.
0-18 gts, sy.No. 266 area Ac. 0-04 gts, Sy.No. 261 area Ac. 0-15 gts situated at Moodapalli village of Chandurthi mandal. It is submitted that Mandaloji Venkatesham cultivated the above said ancestral lands and earned amounts from the crops of the said lands.
iii.Later, Mandaloji Venkatesham purchased the agricultural lands bearing Sy.No. 13/AA area Ac. 3-21 gts which is fully described in the item No.1 in the schedule annexed hereto, situated at Ananthapalli village of Chandurthi mandal in his name and Mandaloji Venkatesham purchased the agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 13/AA area Ac. 3-22 gts which is fully described in the item No.2 in the schedule annexed hereto, situated at Ananthapalli, village, of Chandurthi mandal in the name of his wife by name Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi, which are hereinafter called as suit schedule properties. To show the same, certified copies of pahani for the years 1986-87 pertaining to Sy.Nos. 44/A, 338/A, 290/A, 275, 266, 261 and certified copies of pahanies for the years 1989- 90,2004-05 in the respect of suit schedule properties are herewith filed.
FAIR 6 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
So the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of late
Mandaloji Venkatesham and late Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi. Mandaloji
Venkatesham died intestate on 04.11.2012 and late Ananthalaxmi died intestate on 13.07.2012.
iv.It is submitted that Mandaloji Venkatesham and Ananthalaxmi died leaving Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and 2 and the legal heirs of late Thipparthi Shoba i.e., Defendant No.3 to 5 as their only legal heirs.
The said Thipparthi Shoba also predeceased to her parents. The said
Thipparthi Shoba died intestate leaving Defendant No.3 to 5 as her only legal heirs. The Defendant No. 3 is her husband, Defendant No.4 is the daughter and Defendant No.5 is son of late Thipparthi Shoba. After death of Mandaloji venkatesham and late Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi,
Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and 2 and legal heirs of late Thipparthi
Shoba i.e., Defendant No.3 to 5 have succeeded the suit schedule properties and the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and 2 are each having 1/4th undivided share therein and Defendant No.3 to 5 together are having 1/4th undivided share therein. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are in joint possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and each of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and 2 are each having ¼ th undivided share and the Defendants No.3 to 5 together are
FAIR 7 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 having ¼th undivided share in the suit schedule properties. The family pedigree of the parties is given below:
Mandaloju Venkatesham S/o Brahmaiah (died on 04.11.2014)
Mandaloju Anatha Laxmi (wife) (died on 13.07.2012)
Daughter Daughter Daughter Son Thipparthi ShobhaT. SwarnalathaS.Sunitharani M. Anjaneyulu (Died in the year 1985) (D1) (Plaintiff) (D2)
Thipparthi Satyanarayana (Defendant No.3)
Vangala PadmajaThipparthi Rajesh (D4)(D5) v.Mandaloji Venkatesham and late Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi had no absolute transfer over the suit schedule properties. The defendant
No.1 at the instigation of defendants no.2 to 5 to deprive the rights of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties colluded with Mandaloji
Venkatesham and late Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi, all of them created and fabricated registered Gift Settlement deed bearing document No.22 of 2004 dated: 3-1-2004 of Sub-Registrar office, Vemulawada executed by the father of the plaintiff by name Mandaloji Venkatesham in favour of the defendant no.1 in respect of the item no.1 of the suit schedule properties, and the registered Gift Settlement deed bearing document
FAIR 8 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
No.23 of 2004 dated: 3-1-2004 of Sub-Registrar office, Vemulawada, executed by the mother of the plaintiff by name Mandaloji
Ananthalaxmi in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the item no.2 of the Suit schedule properties as such the above said gift settlement deeds are sham, bogus, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of plaintiff's share in respect of suit schedule properties. Recently, in the month of December, 2016, the plaintiff came to know the execution of said registered gift settlement deeds, which are illegal and not maintainable in the eye of law as such the said registered gift settlement deeds are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Knowing the same, the plaintiff several times approached and demanded the defendant No.1 to 5 for partition of suit schedule properties and also demanded defendant No.1 to 5 to declare the registered Gift Settlement deeds bearing Doc.No. 22 of 2004
dated: 3-1-2004 of Sub-Registrar office, Vemulawada and the registered
Gift Settlement deeds bearing document Nos.23 of 2004 dated: 3-1-2004 of Sub-Registrar office, Vemulawada, are not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of her 1/4 share, but the defendant No.1 to 5 time to time postponed to do so by showing one or other reason. Finally, on: 15-1- 2017 at Ananthapalli v/o Chandurthi Mandal, the plaintiff approached and demanded the defendant No.1 to 5 for partition of suit schedule
FAIR 9 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 properties and to allot the plaintiff of her 1/4th divided share therein also demanded defendant No. 1 to 5 to declare the registered Gift Settlement deeds bearing document Nos.22 of 2004 dated: 3-1-2004 of Sub-
Registrar office, Vemulawada and the registered Gift Settlement deeds bearing document Nos.23 of 2004 dated: 3-1-2004 of Sub-Registrar office, Vemulawada, are not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of her 1/4h share, but the defendant No.1 to 5 refused to do so.
vi.It is submitted that the defendant No.1 with malafide intention has executed the registered sale deed bearing its document No. 5669 of 2016 dated: 14-9-2016 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Vemulawada in favour of defendant No.4 with respect to agricultural land bearing
Sy.No. 13/AA area Ac. 2-03 gts situated at Ananthapalli village of
Chandurthi Mandal, which is part and parcel of the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.1 executed a nominal registered sale deed bearing its document no. 5668 of 2016 dated: 14-09-2016 in the office of Sub-registrar, Vemulawada in favour of defendant No.5 with respect to agricultural land bearing its Sy.No. 13/AA area Ac. 2-20 gts situated at Ananthapally v/o Chandurthi Mandal, which is part and parcel of the schedule properties and Defendant No.1 executed a nominal registered sale deed bearing its document no. 5667 of 2016 dated: 19-09-2016 in
FAIR 10 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 the office of Sub-registrar, Vemulawada in favour of Thipparthi Mahesh
Babu (D6). The Defendant No.6 with respect to agricultural land bearing its Sy.No. 13/AA area Ac. 2-20 gts situated at Ananthapally v/o
Chandurthi Mandal, which is part and parcel. The defendant No.1 has no right to execute the above said registered sale deeds in favour of defendant No.4 to 6 in respect of above said lands. If the said documents are not declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of his share, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss, injury and damage, which cannot be compensated in any other manner.
vii.The cause of action arose for the suit on: 20-2-2017 at
Ananthapalli v/o Chandurthi Mandal when and where defendant No.1 to 5 refused to make partition of the suit schedule properties and to declare registered Gift Settlement deeds bearing document Nos.22 of 2004, dt.
03.01.2004 of Sub-Registrar office, Vemulawada and the registered Gift
Settlement deeds bearing document Nos.23 of 2004 dated: 3-1-2004 of
Sub-Registrar office, Vemulawada, are not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of her ¼ share, hence the defendants No.1 to 5 are liable to answer for the same.
FAIR 11 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 viii.As per the residence of the defendants, arising of cause of action, situation of the suit schedule properties, the suit is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court. Hence this Hon'ble court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
ix.The suit is within limitation Under Article 113 of Limitation
Act.
x.The market value of the suit schedule properties is
Rs. 16,50,000-00. The plaintiff's ¼ share in the suit schedule properties is Rs. 4,12,500/- and ¾th of its value is Rs. 3,09,375-00 which is the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction U/s. 50(2) of A.P.C.F.&
S.V. Act. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 to 5 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, a fixed court fee of Rs. 200/- is payable U/s 34(2) of said Act. For the relief of declaration that the registered Gift Settlement deed bearing document
No.22 of 2004 dated: 3-1-2004 of Suh-Registrar office, Vemulawada executed by the father of the plaintiff by name Mandaloji Venkatesham in favour of the defendant no. 1 in respect of the item no. 1 of the suit schedule properties is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of plaintiff's share in respect of item no.1 suit schedule
FAIR 12 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 property, the plaintiff values the same at her discretion at a notional value of RS. 10.000/- and a court fee of Rs. 786/- is payable u/s. 24(d) of said Act. For the relief of declaration that the registered Gift
Settlement deed bearing document No.23 of 2004 dated: 3-1-2004 of
Sub- Registrar office, Vemulawada executed by the mother of the plaintiff by name Mandaloji Venkatesham in favour of the defendant
No. 1 in respect of the item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of plaintiff's share in respect of item no.1 suit schedule property, the plaintiff values the same at her discretion at a notional value of Rs. 10,000/- and a court fee of Rs. 786/- is payable u/'s. 24(d) of said Act. For the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed bearing document no. 5669 of 2016 dated: 14-9-2016 of the office of Sub-Registrar, Vemulawada executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no.4 with respect to agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 13/AA area Ac. 2-03gs situated at
Ananthapalli village of Chandurthi Mandal, which is part and parcel of the suit schedule properties is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, the plaintiff values the same at her discretion at notional value of Rs.10,000/- and a court fee of Rs. 786/- is payable U/s. 24(d) of
A.P.C.F.&S.V.Act 1956. For the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed bearing its document no.5668 of 2016 dated: 14-09-2016 in
FAIR 13 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 the office of Sub-registrar, Vemulawada executed by defendant no.1 in favour of Defendant No.5 with respect to agricultural land bearing
Sy.No. 13/AA area Ac. 2-20 gts situated at Ananthapally village of
Chandurthy mandal, which is part and parcel of the suit schedule e properties is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff f the plaintiff values the same at her discretion at notional value of Rs.10,000/- and a court fee of Rs. 786/- is payable U/s. 24(d) of A.P.C.F.&S.V.Act 1956, for the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed bearing its document no. 5667 of 2016 dt. 14-09-2016 in the office of Sub-
Registrar, Vemulawada executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no. 6 in the above suit with respect to the agricultural land bearing its Sy.No.13/AA area Ac.2-20gs, situated at Ananthapally v/o
Chandurthi Mandal, which is part and parcel of suit schedule properties is null and void not binding on the plaintiff, the plaintiff values the same at her discretion at notional value of Rs.10,000/- and a court fee of Rs.
786/- is payable U/s. 24(d) of A.P.C.F.&S.V.Act 1956. Thus, the total
Court fee of Rs. 4130/- is remitted at the bank to the court fee account of this Hon’ble Court.
2.Defendant No.1, 3 to 5 filed their common written statement, denied the plaint except admitted expressly. The case of Defendants:
FAIR 14 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 i.It is submitted that the defendant No. 4 & 5 are absolute owners in peaceful possession of the agriculture dry land in Sy.No. 13/AA to an extent Ac. 2-03 gts & Ac. 2-20 gts respectively situated at Ananthapally
Village of Chandurthi Mandal of Raianna Sircilla District, The above said lands have purchased by the defendant No. 4 & 5 from it’s original owner in peaceful possession namely Thipparthi Swarna Latha i.e., the defendant No.1 herein through the Regd. Sale deed documents Nos.
5669/2016 & 5668/2016 respectively on the files of the S.R.O.
Vemulawada with valid consideration with delivery the vacant possession to them. Thereafter the defendant Nos. 4 & 5 got mutated their names in the concerned Revenue records through proceedings Nos.
B/4169/2016 & B/4168/2016 Dt: 06-10-2016 on the files of the
Tahsildar, the Tahsildar Chandurthi has issued the Pattadar passbooks and title deeds with Khata Nos. 505 & 504 respectively to them. Since than the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are in peaceful possession and continues possession over the part of the suit schedule item Nos. 1 & 2. The C.C of the Reg. Sale Deeds, C.C of 1-B Namuans & C.C of pahanies for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07,2007-08,2008-09 and C.C of Fasli pahani 1420 to 1423 & 1426(3) are herewith filing for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that, the defendant No.1 was absolute owner and peaceful possession of the Agriculture dry land in
FAIR 15 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
Sy.No. 13/AA to an extent of Ac. 7.03 Gts, which was acquired from it's original owners and possessor i.e., her parents namely Mandaloji
Venkatesham, Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi, vide documents Nos. 22/2004 & 23/2004, dt. 03.01.2004 respectively on the files of S.R.O.
Vemulawada with delivery vacant possession to her out of love and affection. Immediately the defendant No.1 was got mutated her name in the concerned records issued the pattadar passbook and title deed with
Khatha No. 207 by the Tahsildar Chandurthi. Later the deferdant No.1 sold out to an extent of Ac.2-20 Gts to one Thipparthi Mahesh Babu through the Regd. Sale deed No. 5667/2016 Dt: 14-09-2016 with valid consideration on the files of S.R.O. Vemulawada with delivery the vacant possession to him and the remaining land was sold to the defendant Nos, 4 & 5 as stated in supra.
ii.That the defendant Nos. 1,3 to 5 humbly submit that, the parents of the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 namely Mandaloji Venkatesham,
Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi were purchased (self acquired) the agriculture dry land in Sy.No.13/AA to an of Ac. 4-17 gts and land in Sy.No. 13/AA to an extent of Ac. 2-26 gts, totally to an extent Ac. 7.03 gts situated at
Ananthapali Village of Chandurthi Mandal of Rajanna Siircilla District from it's original owners namely Joginipally Sathyanarayana Rao, S/o:
FAIR 16 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
Ranga Rao and Joginipally Lachakka, w/o: Ranga Rao through the
Regd. Sale Deed documents Nos. 656/87 8& 657/87 Dt: 29-04-1987 on the files of the S.R.O. Vemulawada respectively with valid consideration (their own earning only) doing gold smith work but not as averred in the
Plaintiff’s pleading in plaint.
iii.The agricultural lands in Sy.No. 44/A area Ac. 9- 07gts, Sy.No.
338/AA area Ac. 0-18gts, Sy.No.290/A area Ac. 0-19gts, Sy, No. 275 area Ac.0-18gs, Sy.No. 266 area Ac. 0-04gts, Sy.No. 261 area Ac. 0- 15gts, situated at Moodpalli v/o Chandurthi Mandal were belongs to one
Avusula Brahmaiah, S/o: Venkatesham but not Mandaloji Venkatesham.
The same was clearly shown in the pahanies filed by the plaintiff. As such earning for purchasing the suit schedule property with joint nucleus funds as well as earning of ancestral property does not arise at all. More over the plaintiff does not show any valid proof of transactions of the suit schedule property i.e., the sale and purchase particulars. The question of the null and void not binding the Regd. Gift Deed No.
22/2004 and 23/2004 dt. 03.01.2004 on the Plaintiff does not arise at all.
The Plaintiff has come to this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands and suppressing the real facts. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
FAIR 17 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
3.Defendant No.2 filed written statement denied plaint pleadings except admitted expressly.
i.That the defendant No. 2 submitted that, the parents of the defendant Nos. l& 2 namely Mandaloji Venkatesham, Mandaloji
Ananthalaxmi were purchased (self acquired) the agriculture dry land in
Sy.No. 13/AA to an extent of Ac. 4.- 17 gts and land in Sy.No. 13/AA to an extent of Ac. 2.-26 gts, totally to an extent Ac. 7.03 gts situated at
Ananthapalli Village of Chandurthi Mandal of Rajanna
Sircilla(Karimnagar) District from it's original owners namely
Joginipally Sathyanarayana Rao, S/o: Ranga Rao and Joginipally
Lachakka, w/o: Ranga Rao through the Regd. Sale Deed documents
Nos. 656/87 & 657/87 Dt: 29-04-1987 on the files of the S.R.0.
Vemulawada respectively with valid consideration their own earning by doing gold smith work but not as averred in the plaintiff's pleading of the plaint. The agriculture lands in Sy.No. 44/A area Ac. 9-07 gts, Sy.No.
338/A area Ac. 0-18 Gts, Sy.No.290/A gts area Ac. 0-19 Gts, Sy,No.275 area Ac. O-18 Gts, Sy.No. 266 0-04 Gts, Sy.No. 261 are area Ac.0-15 gts, situated at Moodapalli v/o Chandurthi Mandal were belonging to one Avusula Brahmaiah, S/o: Venkatesham, but not Mandaloji
Venkatesham. The same was clearly shown in the pahanies filed by the
Plaintiff. As such with the earning and purchasing the suit schedule
FAIR 18 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 property with joint nucleus funds as well as with the earnings of ancestral property does not arise at all. More over the plaintiff does not show any valid proof of transactions of the suit schedule property i.e., the sale and purchase particulars. The parents of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 were performed the marriages of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1, 2 &3 )with their spouses with their own earnings and they also gave huge amount as dowry in their marriages to the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2. The defendant No.1’s marriage was solemnized with Defendant No.3 after death of the said Thipparthi
Sobha and blessed with one child Thipparthi Mahesh. As such the suit is bad non for joinder of the necessary party.
ii.Defendant No.2 further submitted that in the year 2000 onward the parents of defendant Nos.1 & 2 were suffered with paralysis in which the defendant No. 1 take care with providing medicine etc., and they depend on the Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has given huge amount to Mandaloji Venkatesham & Ananthalaxmi for their ill- health and also for the marriage of the plaintiff. As such they have gifted the suit schedule property to the defendant No.1 through the Regd. Gift
Deed documents Nos. 22/2004 & 23/2004 Dt: 03-01-2004 on the file of the S.R.O. Vemulawada with the delivery of vacant possession to her.
FAIR 19 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
Thereafter the defendant No. 1 & 3 had maintained the old aged parents till their death. As such the declaration of the said Regd. Gift deeds are void does not arise. More over joint family question never come, as the suit schedule property was self-acquired property and the same was gifted to the defendant No. 1 as stated supra.
iii. The plaintiff has come to this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands by suppressing the real facts of the case, the suit is bad for non- joinder/ miss- joinder of the necessary parties and to grab the land of the defendant No. 1 by taking advantages of this Hon'ble Court orders.
Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
4.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1.Whether the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the Plaintiff and defendants?
2.If so, whether the Plaintiff is entitled for ¼th share in the suit schedule property as prayed for?
3.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration
FAIR 20 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 that the Registered gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.
22/2004, dt. 03.01.2004 of the Sub-Registrar, Vemulawada be declared as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff?
4.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that the Registered gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.
23/2004, dt. 03.01.2004 of the Sub-Registrar, Vemulawada be declared as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff?
5.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that the Registered sale deed bearing Doc.No. 5669/2016, dt.
14.09.2016 of the Sub-Registrar, Vemulawada be declared as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff?
6.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that the Registered sale deed bearing Doc.No. 5668/2016, dt.
14.09.2016 of the Sub-Registrar, Vemulawada be declared as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff?
7.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that the Registered sale deed bearing document No. 5667 of 2016,
dt. 14.09.2016 of the Sub-Registrar, Vemulawada, be declared
as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff?
8.To what relief?
FAIR 21 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
5.Issue No.1 is only material to decide in this case.
6.Issue No.2 to 7 are ancillars to the main issue.
UNDISPUTED FACTS:-
7.The undisputed facts are that Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and 2 are sisters and brother besides one deceased Shoba Rani. Defendant
No.3 is husband of deceased Shobarani. The Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and 2 and deceased Shobarani are children of Mandaloji Venkatesham and Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi. Defendant No.4 and 5 are children of deceased Shobarani with Defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 married
Defendant No.1 and blessed Defendant No.6.
8.The simple case of the Plaintiff is that her parents Mandaloji
Venkatesham and Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi held ancestral immovable properties those are:
S.No.Sy.No.Extent Ac.- gts.
1.44/A9-07
2.338/A0-18
3.290/A0-19
4.2750-18
5.2660-04
6.2610-15
FAIR 22 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
The total Ac. 10-38 gts situated at Moodapalli village of Chandurthi mandal.
9.It is submitted that parents of Plaintiff cultivated the said land and earned amount. It is submitted that her parents sold above said land to different persons. It is submitted that with the sale proceeds purchased item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the issue involved in this case is very simple whether above said properties are held by Plaintiff parents’ and sold to different persons or not, thereby purchased item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties or not?.
10.As the facts reads that parents of Plaintiff hold property jointly and sold, thereby purchased another property, therefore, the burden lies on the Plaintiff to prove it. In order to prove such fact the Plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 by way of filing chief examination affidavit which is nothing but replica of plaint and relied Ex.A1 to A13. PW.1 got examined Sheelam Mallaiah as PW.2, filed his chief examination affidavit, wherein he deposed that he is the resident of Narsingapur village and he knows father of Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and 2 by name
Mandaloji Venkatesham and Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi, Venkatesham,
FAIR 23 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 who was neighbour to him in the village, as such, they both are very close friends, he knows Mandaloji Bramaiah who is father of said
Mandaloji Venkatesham and grandfather of Plaintiff whose name was called as both surnames as Mandaloji Bramaiah and also Avusula
Bramaiah during his life time; most of the villagers know his name as
Avusula Bramaiah but his surname is “Mandaloji”, as such, both names are called during his life time. He further deposed that said
Venkatesham cultivated lands, then sold the lands in Moodapalli village to his brother and villagers. PW.1 got examined Marati Sathaiah as
PW.3, who filed his chief examination affidavit on the lines of Sheelam
Mallaiah. PW.1 got examined Chinthapati Devaiah as PW.4, who filed his chief examination affidavit with some improvements in addition to the evidence of PW.1, 2 and 3. His improved evidence is that Mandaloji
Venkatesham cultivated the land; during his lifetime, acquired the same land from his father Mandaloji Bramaiah @ Avusula Bramaiah through succession after demise of his father his three sons namely Lakshmana chary, Ramesh and Venkatesham partitioned ancestral properties i.e., agricultural lands, some of the above said allotted lands to the father of
Plaintiff i.e., Mandaloji Venkatesham, later he sold the part of lands i.e., extent of land Ac. 0-19 gts out of Sy.No. 290/A for sale consideration and executed sale deeds in the name of his wife Ananthalaxmi for extent
FAIR 24 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 of Ac. 0-19 gts out of Sy.No. 290/A, since then his wife is in possession and enjoyment of the same.
11.Though the burden lies on the Plaintiff to prove, the Plaintiff’s father purchased the suit schedule property out of joint family income and sale proceeds still the Defendants in rebuttal of Plaintiff’s case, got examined Defendant No.1 as DW.1, who filed her chief examination affidavit which is on the lines of written statement and relied Ex.B1 to
B23. Defendant No.2 is also testified as DW.2, who filed chief examination affidavit which is nothing but replica of his written statement.
12.The fact pleaded by Plaintiff required documents. PW.1 proved
Ex.A3 pahani for the year 1986-87. The recitals under Ex.A3 in respect of Sy.No. 44/A extent Ac. 9-07 gts, the name of Avusula Bramaiah, is recorded as pattedar, in respect of Sy.No. 338/A an extent of
Ac. 0-18 gts, the name of one Sunaru Bramaiah is recorded as pattedar, in respect of Sy.No. 290/A to an extent of Ac. 0-19 gts, the name of
Avusula Bramaiah is recorded as pattadar, in respect of Sy.No. 275 to an extent of Ac. 0-18 gts the name of Bramaiah/Venkatesham is recorded as pattedar, in respect of Sy.No. 266 to an extent of Ac. 0-04 gts, the name
FAIR 25 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 of Bramaiah and Venkatesham is recorded as pattedar and in respect of
Sy.No. 261 to an extent of Ac. 0-15 gts the name of Avusula
Venkatesham and Mandaloji Venkatesham is recorded as pattadar.
13.The Defendants case is that Avusula Bramaiah is no way concerned with the family of Mandaloji Venkatesham and
Ananthalaxmi. Once, the Defendants admitted the relation as pleaded in the plaint and strongly denied that Avusula Bramaiah is not concerned with their family. The burden is heavy on the Plaintiff. Except Ex.A3 there is no other material to show that the properties situated in
Moodapalli village, belongs to Avusula Bramaiah @ Mandaloji
Bramaiah.
14.On careful traverse of plaint, this Court found no where that
Avusula Bramaiah name recorded as pattadar against Sy.No. 44/A, 290/A, Avusula Bramaiah and Mandaloji Bramaiah one and the same person. However, Bramaiah and Venkatesham name recorded as pattadar against Sy.No. 275, 266. Avusula Venkatesham name is recorded against Sy.No.261. Even there is no pleading in the plaint that
Avusula Venkatesham name shown against Sy.No. 261 in Ex.A3, where, there is also pleading that Avusula Venkatesham is one and the same
FAIR 26 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 person that of Mandaloji Venkatesham or not. In these circumstances, let us switch over to the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.4.
15.PW.1 filed her chief examination affidavit wherein she categorically mentioned Mandaloji Venkatesham only hence no need to reproduce her evidence affidavit. The answers which are given in her cross examination are relevant to appreciate. PW.1 in her cross examination stated that her father name is Mandaloji Venkatesham S/o
Bramaiah; her grandfather name is Mandaloji Bramaiah; Bramaiah has three sons namely Venkatesham, Lakshmanachary and Ramesh. As per answers of PW.1 during her cross examination, this Court safely came to conclusion that her father name is Mandaloji Venkatesham and her grandfather name is Mandaloji Bramaiah. It is fortified that the answer given by her in a specific question hereunder:
Q: As per Ex.A3, Avusula Bramaiah S/o Venkatesham but not as
Mandaloji Bramaiah S/o Venkatesham. What do you say?
A: Yes.
16.Coming to the oral evidence of PW.2 who is neighbour of deceased Mandaloji @ Avusula Venkatesham. PW.2 in his cross examination stated that he has been living in Narsingapur village from
FAIR 27 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 his birth; Mandaloji Venkatesham used to do agriculture and gold smith; Venaktesham was called as Mandaloji Venkatesham;
Venkatesham was not called in any other name; Bramaiah’s surname is
Mandaloji and Bramaiah has one surname. This witness is not interested to answer to the questions posed by defence counsel. It is also recorded in his cross examination as “Can you say suit survey number”, to which the witness answered “who remember such numbers sarcastively”. Therefore, witness answered sarcastively whenever defence counsel confronted questions. Besides, his attitude, answer during his cross examination is very much relevant to appreciate.
During his cross examination, he stated that he does not know to whom
Mandaloji Venkatesham and his brother sold and he does not know sale consideration also. These answers are contrary to the evidence deposed in his chief examination. In his chief examination affidavit he deposed that Mandaloji Venkatesham sold the lands to his brother and villagers.
Therefore, this witness does not know actual facts except hearsay and parrot speaking words.
17.Coming to the oral evidence of PW.3 during cross examination,
PW.3 in his cross examination stated that he has been residing in
Moodapalli village from 70 years; he knows Venkatesham as his house
FAIR 28 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 and Venkatesham house are adjacent; father name of Venkatesham is
Mandaloji Bramaiah. Bramaiah has three children namely
Venkatesham, Lakshamana Chary and Ravindra chary. Bramaiah had approximately 10 or 11 acres in Narsingapur village; Bramaiah called as with surname as Mandaloji and Avusula was not his surname of
Bramaiah. In a specific question put to her hereunder:
Q: Was there two surnames to Bramaiah?
A: No.
Avusula Venkatesham name is recorded against Sy.No. 261 in
Ex.A3, but Plaintiff failed to confront it to DW.1 whether Avusula
Venkatesham and Mandaloji Venkatesham one and same person or not?
Therefore, the surname of Avusula recorded in Ex.A3 is not the surname of Bramaiah as per the oral evidence of PW.3.
18.Coming to the oral evidence of PW.4, who improved version of plaint in his evidence affidavit that Mandaloji Venkatesham sold
Ac. 0-19 gts out Sy.No. 290/A to his wife and his wife is in possession which is not pleaded by Plaintiff in the plaint. PW.4 in his cross examination stated that Venkatesham surname is Mandaloji and also
FAIR 29 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 called as Avusula Venkatesham; He does not know whether Avusula surname or not. A surprising answer came on record, during his cross examination that he does not know Mandaloji Bramaiah lands, even he does not know his purchased lands and he did not file document from
Mandaloji Venaktesham to his wife to extent of Ac.0-19 gts. A specific question put to him hereunder:
Q: Mandaloji Venkatesham did not execute registered sale deed in favour of your wife to extent of Ac. 0-19 gts in Sy.No. 290/A. What do you say?
Ans: Mandaloji Venkatesham got executed registered sale deed document through his mother. I do not know his mother name. PW.4 in his further cross examination stated that one person possess one surname, Venkatesham with the surname Mandaloji.
19.Besides oral evidence of PW.1 to 4, it is relevant to switch over to the oral evidence of DW.1 and 2. DW.1 denied the suggestion that her grandfather was called as Avusula Bramaiah. DW.2 ignored her knowledge as to grandfather was called as Avusula Bramaiah, hence, his surname entered in revenue record as Avusula Bramaiah.
FAIR 30 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
20.DW.2 in his cross examination stated that in the village, his grandfather was called as Avusula Bramaiah.
21.Having gone through statements of PW.1 to 4, in my considered opinion, Avusula Bramaiah name is not that of the Mandaloji
Bramaiah, who is grandfather of Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s father name and her grandfather name is Mandaloji Venkatesham and Mandaloji
Bramaiah respectively. Therefore, Avusula Bramaiah name in Ex.A3 is not proved as that of Mandaloji Bramaiah.
22.Mere calling a person with caste name is not supposed to record the same in official record, like, revenue record, the ration card, voter ID card etc., in India there is a custom of surname prefixing name.
In villages, certain persons are used to call with caste name but when it requires to enter in official record, it should be with the surname only.
Mere calling of Avusula Bramaiah in the village, is not a substantive piece of evidence to believe Avusula Bramaiah and Mandaloji Bramaiah are one and the same.
23.The Plaintiff should have called the revenue people to elicit, on which base Avusula Bramaiah name entered against Sy.No. 44/A in
FAIR 31 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
Ex.A3 and whether Avusula Bramaiah and Mandaloji Bramaiah one and the same person or not. The Plaintiff pleaded that the properties in
Moodapalli belonging to her father which are ancestral properties. If said Mandaloji Bramaiah was the grandfather of the Plaintiff, when partition took place between sons of Mandaloji Bramaiah? As per oral evidence of PW.2, 3, the said Bramaiah has three sons namely
Venkatesham, Lakshmanachary and Ravindra Chary/Ramesh. If the property belongs to Mandaloji Bramaiah, the cause of action arose after last breath of Mandaloji Bramaiah in the present case, there is no whisper when and where Mandaloji Bramaiah died.
24.The Plaintiff being a daughter of Mandaloji Venkatesham and
Ananthalaxmi does not know how her parents purchased suit schedule properties. The Plaintiff pleaded that her grandfather held lands in
Moodapalli village, her father sold them and purchased the suit schedule properties in Ananthapalli village. But the Plaintiff did not plead manner of purchase by her parents. The Defendants pleaded that
Mandaloji Venkatesham and Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi purchased suit schedule properties through Doc.No. 656/1987 and 657/1987 of SRO,
Vemulawada, and proved them under Ex.B1 and B2. On confrontation of Ex.B1 and B2, PW.1 admitted. Ex.B1 and B2 are original. As per the
FAIR 32 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 contents under Ex.B1 and B2, the vendor is Joginipelly Satyanarayana
Rao and Joginipelly Lachakka, the purchaser is Mandaloji Venkatesham and Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi respectively. The sale consideration in
Ex.B1 is Rs. 11,100/- and there is no contention that Mandaloji
Venkatesham paid such consideration out of sale proceeds in Moodapalli lands likewise in Ex.B2 also.
25.The oral statement of PW.1 is relevant to appreciate where she had knowledge about Ex.B1 and B2. Naturally PW.1 denied that she had knowledge earlier about Ex.B1 and B2.
26.PW.2 in his cross examination stated that Mandaloji
Venkatesham and Ananthalaxmi purchased suit lands out of their self- earnings i.e., called as self-acquired. PW.4 in his cross examination stated that the suit lands purchased by Venkatesham and his wife;
Venkatesham might be purchased from Joginipelly Satyanarayana and his wife Ananthalaxmi might be purchased from Joginipelly Lachakka through registered document.
27.PW.1 in her cross examination stated that T. Swarnalatha (DW.1) has been possession of land. PW.1 denied that she has very well
FAIR 33 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 knowledge on 03.01.2004. PW.1 denied she paid less Court fee saying in possession. PW.1 admitted that Padmaja and Rajesh obtained patta passbook and in possession. PW.3 in his cross examination stated that the suit schedule properties are in the possession of Swarnalatha;
Swarnalatha has been in possession from seven years over suit schedule lands; Swarnalatha is in possession of suit schedule lands from 03.01.2004 onwards.
28.The pleading of the Plaintiff that her parents purchased suit schedule properties out of proceeds from the lands in Moodapalli is rebutted through Ex.B1 and B2.
29.As per Ex.B1 and B2, father of Plaintiff and mother of Plaintiff became absolute owners in Sy.No.13/AA to an extent of Ac. 4-17 gts and Sy.No. 13/AA to an extent of Ac. 2-26 gts situated at Ananthapalli village, the then Vemulawada Taluka. His name entered in revenue record vide Ex.A1. Father of Plaintiff being owner of above suit schedule property transferred Ac. 3-21 gts in Sy.No. 13/AA in favour of
T. Swarnalatha (Defendant No.1) who is daughter vide Gift Deed No.
22/2004 proved under Ex.A4/B3 original. Likewise, her mother transfereed Ac. 3-22 gts in Sy.No. 13/AA in favour of
FAIR 34 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
T. Swarnalatha(D1) through Gift deed No. 23/2004 proved under
Ex.A5/B4 original. The Defendant No.1 became owner of Ac. 7-03 gts in Sy.No. 13/AA.
30.The case of the Defendants that when parents of Defendant
No.1, 2 and 3 and Plaintiff, fell ill-health like paralysis and T.B.,
T. Swarnalatha served them, for her services parents of Plaintiff transferred Ac. 7-03 gts through Gift Deed as stated above supra. The oral evidence of PW.1 is also relevant here. PW.1 in her cross examination stated that T. Swarnalatha served her mother when she suffering from lungs. However, PW.1 added that she also attended her mother. Once parents of Plaintiff are absolute owner, they can have right to dispose as per their wish, irrespective of services rendered by
T.Swarnalatha.
31.T. Swarnalatha being owner of Ac. 7-03 gts through gift deed she transferred Ac. 2-20 gts in Sy.No. 13/AA in favour of T. Mahesh
Babu vide Doc.No. 5667/2016 proved under Ex.A11/B5.
T. Swarnalatha being owner of suit schedule property, she transferred
Ac. 2-03 gts in Sy.No. 13/AA in favour of V. Padmaja vide Doc.No.
5669/2016 proved under Ex.A12/B7. T. Swarnalatha being owner suit
FAIR 35 O.S.No. 44 of 2022 schedule properties, she transferred Ac. 2-20 gts in Sy.No. 13/AA in favour of T.Rajesh vide Doc.No. 5668/2016 proved under Ex.A13/B6.
32.T. Swarnalatha/DW.1 is own sister of Plaintiff. Here this Court observed her knowledge about the property which she transferred.
T. Swarnalatha/DW.1 in her cross examination stated that her father transferred Ac. 7-03 gts gave to her but she does not know boundaries and she sold Ac. 7-03 gts to T.Rajesh, T. Mahesh Babu and V. Padmaja.
She further stated in her cross examination that she does not know sale consideration and boundaries under Ex.B7; she does not know sale consideration under Ex.B5; she does not know sale consideration and boundaries under Ex.B6; she added that her husband knows.
Therefore, she knows her parents gifted the property to her in the year 2004. She does not know the sale in favour of Defendant No.4 to 6 namely V.Padmaja, T. Rajesh and T. Mahesh Babu in the year 2016.
A small doubt lingered in the mind of Court. Whether Defendant No.1 transferred her gifted properties at the behest of her husband or not to deprive the rights of her own sister who is Plaintiff herein. But there is no material since section 91 of Indian Evidence Act bars the oral evidence. Once Defendant No.4 to 6 purchased the suit schedule properties, naturally their names entered in the revenue record.
FAIR 36 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
Accordingly, Ex.A8 Mee Seva pahani for fasli 1426 in the name of
V. Padmaja, Ex.A9 Mee Seva pahani for fasli 1426 on the name of
T. Mahesh Babu, Ex.A10 Mee Seva pahani for fasli 1426 on the name of
T. Rajesh. Likewise, 1-B pahanies are reflecting the name of
V. Padmaja, T. Rajesh and T. Mahesh Babu vide Ex.B9 to B11 before entering the names of Defendant No.4 to 6, the name of Defendant No.1 recorded in pahanies which is evident under Ex.B17 to B21 Mee Seva pahani for fasli 1422 to 1426.
33.As I discussed above, in my considered opinion, the Plaintiff failed to prove that Avusula Bramaiah whose name appearing in Ex.A3 against Sy.No. 44/A, 290/A is not Mandaloji Bramaiah and the Plaintiff failed to prove to whom her father sold the alleged lands in Moodapalli village. The Plaintiff produced PW.2 to 4, who deposed before this
Court are not pleading in the plaint as such their improvements are contrary to the legal principles that no pleading no evidence. Plaintiff suppressed Ex.B1 and B2 through which her parents purchased.
Accordingly, issue No.1 answered against Plaintiff.
FAIR 37 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
ISSUE No.3 TO 7:-
34.As I discussed above elaborately in issue No.1 that Mandaloji
Venkatesham and Mandaloji Ananthalaxmi are absolute owners of
Sy.No.13/AA through Ex.B1 and B2, in pursuance of them, they transferred through Gift Deed to be Doc.No. 22/2004 and 23/2004 in favour of Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.1 transferred in favour of
Defendant No.6 through Ex.A11/B5, transferred in favour of Defendant
No.4 through Ex.A12/B7 and transferred in favour of Defendant No.5 through Ex.A13/B6, thus, the gift deed No. 22/2004, 23/2004 sale deed
No. 5669/2016, 5668/2016, 5667/2016 are valid and not liable to be declared as null and void. Accordingly, issue No.3 to 7 are answered against Plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2:-
35.Issue No.1 answered against Plaintiff and the property is in possession of Defendant No.4 to 6 as such she is not entitled 1/4 share.
Issue No.2 answered against Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid Court fee for partition under section 34(ii) of TSCF and SV Act, which is not sufficient as she is out of possession, as such, suit is liable to be valid under section 34(i) of TSCF and SV act.
FAIR 38 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
ISSUE No.8:-
36.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade – III, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me
in the open Court on this the 14 th day of March, 2024.
Senior Civil Judge-cum-
Assistant Sessions Judge, Vemulawada.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
For Plaintiff:For Defendants:
PW.1: Sajjanam SunitharaniDW.1: Thipparthi Swarnalatha
PW.2: Sheelam MallaiahDW.2: Mandaloju Anjaneyulu
PW.3: Marati Sathaiah
PW.4: Chinthapati Devaiah
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A1: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1989-90.
Ex.A2: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05.
Ex.A3: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-87 (6 copies).
Ex.A4: Certified copy of Gift Deed No. 22/2004.
Ex.A5: Certified copy of Gift Deed No. 23/2004.
Ex.A6: Market value certificate dt. 17.01.2017.
FAIR 39 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
Ex.A7: Encumbrance dt. 09.09.2016.
Ex.A8: Pahani for fasli 1426 Sy.No. 13AA/E.
Ex.A9: Pahani for fasli 1426 Sy.No. 13AA/A.
Ex.A10: Pahani for fasli 1426 Sy.No. 13AA/AA.
Ex.A11: Certified copy of sale deed No. 5667/2016.
Ex.A12: Certified copy of sale deed No. 5669/2016.
Ex.A13: Certified copy of sale deed No. 5668/2016.
For Defendants:
Ex.B1: Registered sale deed document No. 656/1987, dt. 29.04.1987.
Ex.B2: Registered sale deed document No. 657/1987, dt. 29.04.1987.
Ex.B3: Registered Gift Deed document No. 22/2004, dt. 03.01.2004.
Ex.B4: Registered Gift Deed document No. 23/2004, dt. 03.01.2004.
Ex.B5: Certified copy of sale deed No. 5667/2016.
Ex.B6: Certified copy of sale deed No. 5668/2016.
Ex.B7: Certified copy of sale deed No. 5669/2016.
Ex.B8: Certified copy of true copy of 1-B Namoona.
Ex.B9: 1-B Namoona, dt. 06.04.2017 in Sy.No. 13AA/E.
Ex.B10: 1-B Namoona, dt. 06.04.2017 in Sy.No. 13AA/AA.
Ex.B11: 1-B Namoona, dt. 06.04.2017 in Sy.No. 13AA/A.
Ex.B12: Certified copy of true copy of pahani for the year 2004-05.
Ex.B13: Certified copy of true copy of pahani for the year 2005-06.
Ex.B14: Certified copy of true copy of pahani for the year 2006-07.
Ex.B15: Certified copy of true copy of pahani for the year 2007-08.
Ex.B16: Certified copy of true copy of pahani for the year 2008-09.
Ex.B17: Mee Seva pahani for the fasli 1420 in Sy.No. 13AA.
Ex.B18: Mee Seva pahani for the fasli 1421 in Sy.No. 13AA.
FAIR 40 O.S.No. 44 of 2022
Ex.B19: Mee Seva pahani for the fasli 1422 in Sy.No. 13AA.
Ex.B20: Mee Seva pahani for the fasli 1423 in Sy.No. 13AA.
Ex.B21: Mee Seva pahani for the fasli 1426 in Sy.No. 13AA/E.
Ex.B22: Mee Seva pahani for the fasli 1426 in Sy.No. 13AA/AA.
Ex.B23: Mee Seva pahani for the fasli 1426 in Sy.No. 13AA/A.
Senior Civil Judge-cum-
Assistant Sessions Judge, Vemulawada.