1
APGU200000202021
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR
DIVISION) : TENALI
Present : Sri Shaik Abdul Shariff,
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali.
Saturday, this the 25th day of April, 2026.
OS.No.04 of 2021
Between :
1. Meka Chandra Sekhara Reddy, s/o.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-37, Penumaka village, Tadepalli mandal, Guntur District, Mangalagiri JCJC.
2. Meka Anitha W/o.Chandra Sekhara Reddy, Hindu, aged about 37 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-37, Penumaka village, Tadepalli mandal, Guntur District, Mangalagiri JCJC. … Plaintiffs
And
1. Godavarthi Padmavathi, W/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, House wife, aged about 50 years, R/o.# 1-93, Pothumarru village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District, Tenali JCJC.
2. Godavarthi Venkata Prasanthi, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 32 years, R/o.# 1-93, Pothumarru village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District, Tenali JCJC.
3. Godavarthi Sravanthi D/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 30 years, R/o.# 1-93, Pothumarru village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District, Tenali JCJC.
4. Godavarthi Bindu Madhuri, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 29 years, R/o.# 1-93, Pothumarru village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District, Tenali JCJC.
5. Godavarthi Pavani, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 27 years, R/o.# 1-93, Pothumarru village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur 2
District, Tenali JCJC.
6.Bhavanam Sivareddy, S/jo.Narsareddy, Hindu, 51 years, Business, R/o.D.No.7-1-9, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Guntur District, Tenali JCJC. (6th defendant is shown as proforma party and no relief is seeking against him) … Defendants
This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 24.04.2026 in the presence of Sri B.Vijay Kumar garu, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri. M.Mallikarjuna Rao garu, Advocate for the defendants No.1 to 5, the defendant No.6 remained exparte and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :
// J U D G M E N T //
01.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants 1 to 5 for
a) declaration of the 1st plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule land and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 and their men from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment ;
b) declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint ‘B’schedule land and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 and their men from in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment ;
c) to declare that the award dated 09.03.2017 passed in Lok Adalath
Case No.205/2017 (O.S.78/2005 on the file of Addl.Senior Civil Judge
Court, Tenali) in respect of plaint A and B schedule lands as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs 1 and 2, as it obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation and d) for costs.
The factual score needs to be exposited which is hereunder:
02. That the plaintiffs 1 and 2 state in the plaint that they 3 purchased the plaint schedule properties by means of registered sale deed dated 17.01.2012 from D6 who is the General Power of
Attorney Holder of Godavarthi Venkateswarlu and ever since, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. D1 to D6 have no manner of right in the suit schedule properties and they are making unnecessarily interference. Therefore, the suit be decreed with costs.
03. Controverting the averments, D1 and D3 filed written statement and same is adopted by D2, D4 and D5 mutatis and mutandis, wherein, D1 interalia maintains that the suit schedule properties are not the self acquired properties of her husband by name Godavarthi Venkateswarlu and they are the ancestral properties. D6 have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties to alienate it in favour of Plaintiff 1 and 2.
Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
04. Basing on the competing factual backdrop, the following issues are struck for adjudication:
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration against defendants 1 to 5 as prayed for?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of
permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 5 as
prayed for?
3) Whether the award dt.09.03.2017 passed in
Lokadalath case NO.205/2017 (OS.No.78/2005 on the file of
Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s court, Tenali) is true, genuine, valid
and binding on the plaintiffs?
4) To what relief?
05. That the 1st plaintiff, Sri Meka Chandrasekhar Reddy filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination, and restated by and large all the averments made in the plaint, and in order to buttress his 4 contention got himself examined as P.W.1 and got Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 marked. The 2nd plaintiff in order to fortify her contention filed proof affidavit in lieu chief examination and got herself examined as P.W.2 and got Ex.A15 to Ex.A19 marked and examined P.W.3 to P.W.5.
While, the 1st defendant in order to make her contention good filed proof affidavit and got herself examined as D.W.1 and got Ex.B1 to
Ex.B10 and Ex.B14 to Ex.B20 marked. The 3rd defendant in order to substantiate her contention filed proof affidavit and got herself examined as D.W.2 and examined D.W.3 got Ex.B11 to Ex.B13 and
Ex.X1 to X3 marked. D6 remained exparte.
06.On the aforementioned evidential settings, it is the predominant submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs Sri
B.Vijaya Kumar garu, that one Godavarthi Venkateswarlu who is the husband of D.W.1 had marketable title with respect to ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties covered under Ex.B2 to Ex.B5 and Ex.B16 sale deeds. During his lifetime, he exercised complete dominion over the suit schedule properties. When Godavarthi Venkateswarlu was reeling under terrible cash crunches, he decided to sell away ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties to third parties. In order to materialize his intention, he executed sale agreement cum general power of attorney covered under Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A17 in favour of P.W.3.
Pursuant to the grant, P.W.3 executed Sale deeds covered under
Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A15 and Ex.A16 in favour of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with respect to the suit schedule properties. Ever since the purchase,
P.W.1 and P.W.2 are exercising unobstructed control over the suit schedule properties. The original documents and link documents of
Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A15 and Ex.A16 are lost. Whereupon, P.W.1 and
P.W.2 lodged a report on the file of S.H.O. II town P.S. Tenali. After thorough enquiry, the S.H.O. Tenali II town P.S. issued a certificate 5 covered under Ex.A5 stating that they could not be traced out.
D.W.1, D.W.2, D2 to D5 who are the wife and children of Godavarthi
Venkateswarlu filed a suit vide O.S.No.335/2017 on the file of P.J.C.J.
Tenali against P.W.1 to P.W.3 for seeking permanent injunction covered under Ex.A9. After receiving the summons in the aforementioned suit, P.W.1 and P.W.2 got to know that D.W.1, D.W.2,
D2 to D5 put up a collective front and instituted a speculative suit vide O.S.No.78/2005 on the file of this Court covered under Ex.A6 against the vendor of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and protested the suit. During the pendency of the aforementioned proceedings, Godavarthi
Venkateswarlu passed away on 28.01.2016. D.W.1, D.W.2, D2 to D6 played massive fraud upon the court and obtained collusive award covered under Ex.A8, which is non-est in the eye of law. Pursuant to the fraudulent award, D.W.1 made application to get her name mutated in the revenue records. After holding enquiry, the revenue officials negatived the claim of P.W.1, P.W.2 and D.W.1 covered under
Ex.A12, wherein, it is observed that since the matter is Sub-Judice and they cannot pass any orders. P.W.1 and P.W.2 hail from
Penumaka Village and they can not carry on cultivation personally and leased out the suit schedule property to other persons. D.W.1,
D.W.2, D2 to D5 have no fair semblance of right over the suit schedule properties and are making unjustifiable and unwarrantable intrusion into the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are the self acquisition of Godavarthi Venkateswarlu covered under Ex.B2 to B5 and Ex.B16 sale deeds. D.W.1, D.W.2, D2 to D5 did not produce any positive and dependable proof to show that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of
Godavarthi Venkateswarlu. Inspite of incisive and searching cross examination of P.W.1 to P.W.5, no noticeable infirmity is pointed out and their testimony is within the zone of believability and credibility.
6
Therefore, appending the seal of approval to the case of the plaintiffs is wholly sustainable in Law.
07. Repelling the arguments advanced, it is vehemently canvassed by the learned counsel for D1 to D5, Sri M.Mallikarjuna Rao garu that the relief of declaration being the relief in equity, and that the plaintiff has to lay a legal foundation with respect to his right over the property, and the court should not aid a person, who himself/herself is guilty of wrongful acts or misdeeds. The great paternal grand father of D2 to D5 has a son by name Godavarthi
Venkata Ramaiah and he begot three sons by name Godavarathi
Venkateswarlu, Godavarthi Venkata Narasimham and Sri Rama
Chandra Murthy, and they got their shares individualized during the year 1964. During partition, the husband of D.W.1 got the land ad- measuring Ac.3.42 cents covered by survey No.37/2 and No.26/4 of
Pothumarru village. The father-in-law of D.W.1 by name Godavarthi
Venkata Ramaiah purchased the land ad-measuring Ac.2.48 cents in the name of the husband of D.W.1 during the year 1982 from his sister. The father-in-law of D.W.1 purchased lands ad-measuring
Ac.7.00 cents situated at Pothumarru and Malpuru village during his lifetime. The father in-law of D.W.1 passed away without executing any testamentary disposition during the year 1990. After the demise of the father-in-law of D.W.1, the husband of D.W.1 used to carry on cultivation. The mother-in-law of the 1st defendant by name G.
Santhamma passed away during the year 1995. Aftermath of her death, the property covered under Ex.B16 devolved upon the husband of D.W.1. The plea raised by the P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of her husband is palpably false and no iota of truth in it. D1 to D5 are in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ever since 7 the death of Godavarthi Venkateswarlu and they leased out the suit schedule property to Shaik Saleem. P.W.3 is highly wicked and he has no moral ethics and thoughtfully designed sale cum General
Power of Attorney covered under Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A17 in collusion with P.W.1 and P.W.2 and they have no legal efficacy in the eye of law. The present suit is hit by Section 11 of C.P.C. and Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. It is well established proposition of law that the plaintiff has to swim or sink on the strength of his own case and the weakness of the defendant will not energize the case of the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs suffer from several factual and legal infirmities. Therefore, the suit liability can not be fastened against the defendants.
08. In order to test the correctness and competence of the rival contentions, now at this juncture, I am obliged to scrutinize the material emanated from the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.5, D.W.1 to
D.W.4, and the contents Ex.A1 to A19, Ex.B1 to Ex.B20 and Ex.X1 to
Ex.X3.
Issues 1 and 2:
09. Now, I am setting forth the scope of the controversy under different heads and which are stated hereunder in the light of the manifold arguments advanced by both the learned counsels:
Whether D.W.1 and D.W.2 advanced any positive and
dependable proof to show that the suit schedule properties
are the ancestral properties of Godavarthi Venkateswarlu?
In the absence of any weighty proof, can the Court depend
upon the probability components ?
10. The learned counsel for D1 to D5 pressed his view that admittedly, on the date of execution of Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A17, the 8 age of Godavarthi Venkateswarlu was 51 years. From the stand point of the plaintiffs that the properties covered under Ex.B2 to
Ex.B5 are the self acquired properties of Godavarthi Venkateswarlu.
Ex.B2 to Ex.B5 clearly spell out that the aforementioned properties are purchased from 1981 to 1994, at that time, Godavarthi
Venkateswarlu was in between the age bracket of 16 to 24 years, in such a case, how did he earn the amount and what was his professional avocation at that time, thus this aspect deserves unflinching attention and the Court may not get carried away by the fact that Ex.B2 to Ex.B5 stand in the name of Godavarthi
Venkateswarlu.
In this disputative backdrop, for better appreciation of the point and for ready reference, once again, I may revert to the averments made in para No.4 of the plaint. The para-4 of the plaint unfolds that “It is humbly submitted that the entire plaint schedule
properties which are described as item No.1 and No.2 of A
schedule and Item No.1 and No.2 of B schedule properties
are ancestral properties of husband of the first defendant
and father of defendants 2 to 5 by name Godavarathi
Venkateswarlu.”
It is the fundamental tenet of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam that he who asserts the burden is on him, he has to prove affirmatively and positively the existence or non-existence of fact-in- issue. The original onus is changeless and it does not shift, which is known as legal burden or persuasive burden. While, the evidential burden alters basing on the plea propounded by the parties to the lis. Therefore, in the light of the aforementioned legal prescription, the onus lands on D.W.1 to prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of her late husband Venkateswarlu 9 either by oral evidence, by circumstantial evidence or by collateral evidence.
It is in the backdrop, I feel it relevant to reproduce the salient portions of the material emanated from the testimony of D.W.1 and
D.W.2 for ready reference.
Question and Answers from the testimony of D.W.1:
Q.1. Whether the title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule properties stand in the name of your husband?
Ans. Yes. (The witness while answering the question, in quick succession, she adds that her father-in-law purchased the properties and kept the properties in the name of her husband).
Q.2. Did you produce any documentary proof to show that your father-in-law provided funds and purchased the property in the name of your husband?
Ans. I did not produce.
Question and Answers from the testimony of D.W.2:
Q.1. Did you produce any documentary proof to show that your grand father Venkata Narasimham purchased the land ad-measuring
Ac.2.58 cents during the year 1981 in his name and in the name of your father?
Ans. I did not.
Q.2. Whether it is reflected in Ex.B5/sale deed dt.06.04.1994 that your father purchased the land ad-measuring Ac.1.87 cents covered under by survey No.26/2 from Godavarthi Venkata Parvatha
Vardanamma and others which is part of Item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule?
10
Ans. Yes.
Q.3. Whether it is reflected in Ex.B5 that the property covered thereunder is purchased with the ancestral nucleus?
Ans. No.
Q.4. Whether it is reflected in Ex.B5 that your father paid the consideration to the vendors covered thereunder?
Ans. Yes.
Q.5. Whether it is reflected in Ex.B3 that your father purchased the property from his vendors by paying consideration which is item
No.2 of ‘A’ schedule property?
Ans. It is not reflected.
Q.6 . Whether it is reflected in Ex.B3 that your grand father supplied the consideration?
Ans. No.
Q.7. Whether it is reflected in Ex.B4 that your father is the purchaser of item No.2 of ‘B’ schedule?
Ans. Yes.
Q.8. Whether it is reflected in Ex.B4 that your father paid the consideration to the vendees?
Ans. Yes.
Q.9. Whether it is reflected in Ex.B4 that your father is the purchaser of the property covered thereunder and not your grand father?
Ans. Yes.
Q.10. Did you produce any documentary proof to show that your 11 grand father purchased the property and kept it in the name of your father?
Ans. No.
Aver and prove is the cardinal principle of law of evidence and the evidence is the instrument through which the court gets satisfied with respect to the existence or non-existence of fact-in-issue. Cases where there is no direct evidence, the Court got to be guided by the probability components, and which play very important role in adjudicating the fact-in-issue. The reliability and credibility of the case of the parties to the litigation is to be put on test basing on the yardstick of probabilities without entering into the arena of imaginations and conjectures.
DW.1 in order to press home the point heavily relies upon Ex.B2 to Ex.B5 sale deeds. A careful scan of Ex.B2 to Ex.B5, which depict that they purchased in the years 1981, 1985, 1988 and 1994. At this juncture, it is significant to notice the age of Godavarthi
Venkateswarlu as reflected in Ex.B2 to Ex.B5. It is transparent from
Ex.B2 to Ex.B5 that the age of the Godavarthi Venkateswarlu is 51 years. Now, it is the legitimate occasion for me to apply the rule of logic. If I make a guess work of the age of Godavarthi Venkateswarlu from the circumstances or other collateral facts as presented, the age was in between 16 to 24 years and not more than that. Now, a powerful question gets into one’s mind how does Godavarthi
Venkateswarlu purchased the suit schedule properties, when he is not gainfully employed and when he was under the age of 16 to 24 years, which is the commonsense point and no need to wreck the brain. This million dollar question to be answered only by P.W.1 and
P.W.2, however, they are unanswered. Therefore, in the light of the 12 ameliorating conditions in favour of D.W.1 and D.W.2, I am pretty sure that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of
Godavarthi Venkateswarlu and they are not the self acquired properties of him.
Whether the testimony of P.W.3 is of poor quality and does
not inspire any confidence with respect to the execution of
Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and Ex.A17 by Godavarthi Venkateswarlu in
his favour conferring rights upon him over the suit schedule
properties ?
11.The settled norms of appreciation of evidence requires the court to be put on guard while evaluating the testimony of witnesses and the testimony of witnesses have to be tested basing on the truthfulness and creditworthiness. Now, it is in the backdrop, I have been called upon by the learned counsel for the defendants to scrutinize the cross-examination of P.W.3 with utmost care and caution since he is highly untrustworthy of credit.
Question and answers from the testimony of P.W.3 :
Q.1. Are you aware of the contents of your proof affidavit ?
Ans. I am aware of the contents of proof affidavit.
Q.2. Are you aware whether Item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule property is the joint acquisition of G.Venkateswarlu and his mother by name
Santhamma ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.3. Are you aware that whether Item No.2 is purchased by
G.Venkateswarlu and his father ?
Ans. I am not aware.
13
Q.4. Are you aware of the consideration covered under Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A15 and Ex.A16 ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.5. Did you produce any documentary proof to show that you had cash of Rs.50 lakhs at your disposal ?
Ans. No.
Q.6. In whose custody the original documents are ?
Ans. I am not in the custody of the original documents.
Q.7. Are you aware that the original documents are in the custody of
D1 to D5 ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.8. Are you aware of the contents of Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.9. Are you aware whether it is recited in Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 that the physical possession of the property is delivered ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.10. Are you aware that G.Venkateswarlu lodged a report against me alleging cheating ?
Ans. I am not aware.
When the witness by taking oath as per the Oath Act 1944, testifies the facts which transpire in his/her physical presence between the parties to the lis before the court, the ordinary presumption is that he is trustworthy, unless his testimony is impaired or tainted in the cross-examination. In the case on hand, 14
P.W.3 did not stick to his version stated in the chief examination and he completely did ‘U’ turn in the cross-examination. Now, this situation demands the application of the rule of logic. If in truth,
P.W.3 sold the suit schedule properties covered under Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A15 and Ex.A16 to P.W.1 and P.W.2, surely, he would have answered all the questions very accurately and precisely with respect to his title and the title of the predecessor-in-interest, however, he pleaded ignorance. Admittedly, when Item No.1 fo ‘B’ schedule property is under mortgage, how he purchased the property and why he kept his commonsense in cold storage.
Therefore, in such state of weak evidence of P.W.3, I am entitled to conclude logically that the documents covered under Ex.A1, Ex.A2,
Ex.A15 and Ex.A16, Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A17 are the documents of doubtful integrity and they are shrouded with serious suspicion which cannot be eradicated by P.W.3.
Whether the evidence available on record purport to convey
a strong message that the sale transactions covered under
Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A15 and Ex.A16 are the unreal, sham and
nominal documents and P.W.3 recruited the services of P.W.1
and P.W.2 to screen the suit schedule properties for
obtaining the unjust enrichment ?
12.Question and answers from the testimony of P.W.1.
Q.1. How D6 Siva Reddy is related to you ?
Ans. He is my brother-in-law and I married his sister.
Q.2. How many persons are arrayed in the suit as a party ?
Ans. Only one person.
Q.3. Are you aware of Item No.1 and 2 of ‘A’ schedule properties ?
15
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.4. When did you see the suit schedule properties at last ?
Ans. I saw during the year 2018 and thereafter, I did not see.
Q.5. Are you aware the predecessor-in-title of the suit schedule properties ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.6. Did you speak with Godavarthi Venkateswarlu at any point of time ?
Ans. I did not speak.
Q.7. Are you in the custody of the title deeds and link documents pertaining to the suit schedule property as well ?
Ans. Yes.
Q.8. Did you produce the link documents ?
Ans. I did not produce.
Q.9. Are you aware that whether the mother of Venkateswarlu by name Santhamma purchased the land Ac.0-50 cents located in
Sy.No.26/3 and Ac.0-51 cents in Sy.No.26/2 by means of registered sale deed on 14.05.1961 ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.10. Are you aware whether G.Venakteswarlu and his father purchased Item No.1 of ‘B’ suit schedule property on 14.05.1981 ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.11. Do you have any personal knowledge regarding the execution of Ex.A3 ?
16
Ans. I am not having any personal knowledge.
Q.12. Did you consult G.Venkateswarlu prior to purchase ?
Ans. I did not.
Q.13. Can you say how the predecessor-in-title of the plaint schedule property got the title ?
Ans. I cannot say.
Q.14. Are you aware the source of title of Item No.2 of ‘A’ schedule ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.15. After registration, did D6 hand the original documents to you ?
Ans. Yes.
Q.16. Did you make any enquiry regarding the title of your vendor and predecessor-in-title ?
Ans. I did not make any enquiry.
Question and answers from the testimony of P.W.2 :
Q.1. Are you aware that how many items are arrayed in the plaint schedule property ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.2. Are you aware that why P.W.1 filed the suit ?
Ans. P.W.1 filed the suit for getting the pass books.
Q.3. Did you verify the title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule properties ?
Ans. No.
Q.4. Can you say the survey number of the suit schedule properties 17 and boundaries thereon ?
Ans. I cannot.
Q.5. Are you aware of the sale consideration covered under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.6. Are you aware how D6 got the property covered under Ex.A17 ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.7. Are you aware whether your husband is in the custody of link documents of Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A15 and Ex.A16 ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.8. Are you aware that whether the taxes are levied with respect to the suit schedule properties ?
Ans. I am not aware.
Q.9. Whether there are several cases pending with respect to the suit schedule properties ?
Ans. I am aware.
In the normal scheme of things, if any person intends to buy the immovable property, the buyer of the property makes thorough enquiry with respect to the right, title and interest of the seller/vendee and his predecessor-in-interest, and obtains the photocopies of all the link documents prior to the purchase and find out the nature of the possession of the seller and his predecessor-in- title.
Circumstantial evidence is the direct evidence which is applied indirectly with respect to the existence or non-existence of fact-in- 18 issue, and if the oral evidence is analyzed in a proper perspective, the evidence that emanates has inferential quality. In the case on hand, the conduct of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is not in tune with the conduct of ordinary prudent man and a man of ordinary resolute. During cross-examination both P.W.1 and P.W2 spoke in one line that they are not aware of the right, title and interest of Godavarthi
Venkateswarlu who is the predecessor-in-title of P.W.3. P.W.2 admits in the cross-examination that there is a civil litigation pending pertaining to the plaint schedule properties. In such a case, how she purchased the plaint schedule properties. In such circumstances, I am of the undoubted view that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are wholly unreliable witnesses, thus, it is risky and hazardous to place implicit reliance.
When the status of P.W.3 is the indigent status, how does he
purchase the property covered Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A17 from
Godavarthi Venkateswarlu?
13.Now, in this context, I feel it desirable to advert to the cross- examination of P.W.3.
Question and answers from the testimony of P.W.3 :
Q.1. What is your avocation ?
Ans. I am carrying on poultry business.
Q.2. Do you own any land ?
Ans. I own land admeasuring Ac.2-00 cents and besides that I have a house.
Q.3. Are you ready to produce the documentary proof to show that you have land admeasuring Ac.2-00 cents and a house ?
Ans. Yes.
19
Q.4. Are you an income tax assessee ?
Ans. I am an Income Tax Assessee.
Adjudication requires the establishment of fact-in-issue by means of oral and documentary evidence. In the matter at hand, as noticed in essence, from the tone and tenor of the cross-examination
P.W.3 that he is born with golden spoon, however, no proof is cited that he is a man of means nor offered any plausible explanation for not producing the income tax returns.
Whether from the admission of P.W.3, it can be made out
easily that the deceased G.Venkateswarlu and P.W.3 are
grinding axe each other in view of the financial transactions
which took place in between them ?
14.Now, I may reiterate the cross examination of P.W.3. It is suggested to P.W.3 that whether the deceased G.Venkateswarlu got the legal notice issued to him that the cheque issued by him is bounced, on which, the witness clearly concedes and stated that he did not get issued any reply notice.
In order to facilitate the proof, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam built up certain presumptions, certain inferences follow from certain facts, proved facts, connections, relevance, coincidence and admissions. In the case on hand, from the trend of the cross- examination of P.W.3, it appears that there is a deep seated animosity and hatred in between P.W.3 and the deceased
G.Venkateswarlu regarding financial transactions. In such circumstances, there is every likelihood that P.W.3 might have obtained Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A17 by resorting to intimidatory tactics or by dubious means.
20
Whether Godavarthi Venkateswarlu has any transferable
interest to transfer the property covered under Ex.A3, Ex.A4
and Ex.A17 in favour of P.W.3 ?
15. Now, I have to keep under focusSection 7 of the Transfer of
Property Act. Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act in essence lays down that-
7. Persons competent to transfer:—
Every person competent to contract and entitled to
transferable property, or authorised to dispose of
transferable property not his own, is competent to transfer
such property either wholly or in part, and either absolutely
or conditionally, in the circumstances, to the extent and in
the manner, allowed and prescribed by any law for the time
being in force.
A cursory glance through the salient features laid down in
Section 7 of the Act, makes it amply clear that the transferor who is transferring the property has transferable competency to transfer the property to the transferee i.e., nemo dat quod non habit which means no one can convey a better title than what he has. Now, the case on hand got to be tested on the basis of the aforementioned statutory prescription. The evidence available on record tends to indicate clearly that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Godavarthi Venkateswarlu. Therefore, I hold that
Godavarthi Venkateswarlu has no transferable interest to transfer the property in the name of P.W.3 covered under Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and
Ex.A17 and they are the void documents. When no right accrued to
P.W.3 over the suit schedule properties, in turn, he cannot confer any right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties in favour of 21
P.W1 and P.W.2.
Whether the production of the original title deeds stand in
the name of Godavarthi Venkateswarlu by D.W.1 covered
under Ex.B15, Ex.B16, Ex.B17, Ex.B18, Ex.B19 and Ex.B20
during trial, the presumption gets activated that P.W.1, P.W.2
and P.W.3 resorted to untruth and procured Ex.A5 with
oblique motive to make out a case in their favour ?
16.In this litigious backdrop, the material averments made by
P.W.1 and P.W2 in para-4 of the plaint needs extraction word by word.
Para-4 of the plaint goes on to specify that “As the original
documents of plaint schedule properties and its link
documents were lost, both the plaintiffs lodged reports
before the Tenali II Town Police Station. After enquiry the
said police issued not traced certificates dated 12.05.2017.”
Now, I think it apt to restate the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 states during cross-examination that “I am in the custody of the title
deeds pertaining to the suit schedule properties and the link
documents as well.” When that being so, why he suffered delightful silence without producing the same before the Court. On the contrary, he states in his pleadings that the original documents are lost. Thus, the double standards of P.W.1 weakens his case in a great measure.
It is axiomatic that the witnesses may indeed tell lie, but the circumstances unfold as it is, is the cardinal principle of Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam. In the case on hand, D.W.1 produced the link documents of Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A15 and Ex.A16 i.e., Ex.B15 to
Ex.B20. Thus, from this tale-tale circumstance, the inference is inevitable that P.W.1 and P.W.2 procured the false certificate from 22
SHO, II Town P.S., Tenali covered under Ex.A5 to pass it off that as if they were lost. It is proverbial that ultimately the truth survives and the truth cannot be burried.
Whether conveying immovable properties by executing Sale-
cum-General Power of Attorney by the owner of the land in
favour of attorney is recognized under law and it has any
legal sanction as per the plan of action laid down in Section
5, 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 17 R/w.49 of
the Registration Act ?
17. In this legal environment, I am obliged to revisit the judgment of our Hon’ble Supreme Court in Spl.L.P.© No. 13917 of 2009 in between Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of
Haryana and another.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in extenso discussed the legal implications and the beauty of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 ; Sections 5, 40, 53A, 54 and 55 Registration Act, 1908,
Sections 17 and 49 of Indian Stamp Act ; Power of Attorney Act, 1882
Sections 1A and 2 Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 69 and 70 of Trusts Act – Section 91 of Indian Stamp Act, Section 27 of
Registration and other Related Laws Act, 2001.
It is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 15 and
Para 16 of the judgment that : Para-15 unfolds that “Therefore, a
SA/GPA/Will transaction does not convey any title nor create
any interest in an immovable property. The observations by
the Delhi High Court, in Asha M.Jain Vs. Canara Bank that the
“Concept of Power of Attorney Sales has been recoginzed as
a mode of transaction” when dealing with transaction by way
of SA/GPA/Will are unwarranted and not justified, unintended
23
misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL
transaction are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode
of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale
deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept
SA/GPA/WILL transaction as concluded transfers, as
contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.”
While Para-16 goes on to specify that “We therefore
reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully
transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of
conveyance. Transactions of the nature of ‘GPA sales’ or
SA/GPA/WILL transfers do not convey title and do not amount
to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of
transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat
such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as
conveyances as they neither convey title not create any
interest in an immovable property. They cannot be
recovginzed as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of
Section 53A of the transfer of property Act. Such
transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for
mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated
above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to
freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property.
A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered
Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the
pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WIL transactions known as GPA
sales.”
On a contextual reading of the whole text of the judgment with utmost care, what I make out is that, if immovable property to be transferred by the transferor in favour of the transferee conferring 24 ownership, it must be effected by registered conveyance and if it is not conveyed through a registered instrument, the document suffers from serious vice under Section 17 r/w. 49 of the Registration Act.
The observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment, it is the ratio decidendi which has more persuasive value and it is stare decisis and not obiter dicta i.e., it is not a passing remark. Now, the present factual matrix is tested on the touchstone of the aforementioned judgment, it is felt by me that
P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not make out a case in their favour and thus, their case flaps.
In the wake of the aforementioned reasons, Issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of D1 to D5 and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.3 :
Whether P.W.1 and P.W.2 cited any trustworthy and
creditworthy proof to show that the award covered under
Ex.A8 is the collusive award ?
18.The fundamental object of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is that to prove the points in issue and to create some sort of certainty in the mind of the court with respect to the existence or non-existence of fact-in-issue and the proof must be made by production of evidence. In the case on hand, except averring baldly,no impressive is produced to show that Ex.A8 is the collusive award. Therefore, in view of this reason, this issue is answered in negative.
19.Last but not least, on a cumulative consideration of the assessment of the whole evidence and being mindful of appreciation of evidence, I hold that P.W.1 failed to establish his case as per the evidential standards i.e.,proof by preponderance of probabilities.
25
Issue No.4:
20. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 25th day of April, 2026.)
Sd/- Shaik Abdul Shariff
Addl.Civil Judge(Senior Division) Tenali.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs :
P.W.1 – Meka Chandra Sekhara Reddy P.W.2 – Meka Anitha P.W.3 – Bhavanam Siva Reddy P.W.4 – B.Nagireddy P.W.5 – Tella Sivaji
For Defendants:
D.W.1 – Godavarthi Padmavathi D.W.2 – G.Sravanthi D.W.3 – Pulivarthi Kanakamma D.W.4 – Epuri Nagaiah
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiffs :
Ex.A1 is certified copy of sale deed dated 17.01.2012 executed by Godavarthi Venkateswarlu in favour of the plaintiff.
Ex.A2 is certified copy of sale deed dated 17.01.2012 executed by Godavarthi Venkateswarlu in favour of the plaintiff.
Ex.A3 is certified copy of sale agreement cum General Power of Attorney dated 30.12.2011 executed by Godavarthi Venkateswarlu in 26 favour of 6th defendant.
Ex.A4 is certified copy of sale agreement cum General Power of Attorney dated 30.12.2011 executed by Godavarthi Venkateswarlu in favour of 6th defendant. Ex.A5 is certificate issued by SHO, Tenali dated 12.05.2017 in favour of plaintiff.
Ex.A6 is certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.78/2005 on the file of
Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali filed by D3 to D5 against
Godavarthi Venkateswarlu and defendants No.1 and 2.
Ex.A7 is certified copy of the memo dated 09.03.2017 filed by both the parties in O.S.No.78/2005 on the file of Additional Senior Civil
Judge’s Court, Tenali.
Ex.A8 is Certified copy of award in Lokadalath case bearing No.205/2017 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali passed by the Lokadalath dated 09.03.2017.
Ex.A9 is certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.335/2017 on the file of
Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali against the plaintiff and
the 2nd plaintiff and the 6th defendant.
Ex.A10 is certified copy of not press memo filed by the plaintiffs (D1 to D5) in O.S.No.335/2017on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali.
Ex.A11 is certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.335/2017on the file of
Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali.
Ex.A12 is proceedings of the primary Cum recording authority and the Tahsildar, Vemuru Mandal in R.c.No.412/2015 dated 18.06.2018.
Ex.A13 is official copy of appeal filed by the plaintiff against the proceedings of the primary cum recording authority of the Tahsildar, Vemuru Mandal in R.C.No.412/2015.
Ex.A14 is notice dated 16.12.2018 issued by appellant authority and the revenue divisional officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate in
R.C.No.2631/2018.
Ex.A15 is certified copy of sale deed dated 17.01.2012 executed by Godavarthi Venkateswarlu in favour of 2nd plaintiff.
27
Ex.A16 is certified copy of sale deed dated 17.01.2012 executed by Godavarthi Venkateswarlu in favour of 2nd plaintiff.
Ex.A17 is certified copy of sale agreement cum GPA dated 30.12.2011 executed by Godavarthi Venkateswarlu in favour of D6.
Ex.A18 is office copy of appeal filed by the 2nd plaintiff against the proceedings of the Primary Cum Recording Authority and the Tahsildar, Vemuru Mandal in R.C.No.412/2015-A.
Ex.A19 is notice issued by Appellate Authority and Revenue Division Office and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tenali in R.C.No.2631/2018/DT (ROR) to the 2nd plaintiff.
For Defendants :
Ex.B1 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 14.05.1981 executed by Shaik Hanifa Bi in favour of A Rajyalakshmi.
Ex.B2 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 14.05.1981 executed by M.Venkata Lakshmamma and others in favour of G.Narasimham and his son Venkateswarlu with respect to Item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule property.
Ex.B3 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 29.04.1985 executed by G.Sangameswara Rao and others in favour of G.Venkateswarlu with respect to Item No.2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
Ex.B4 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 23.03.1988 executed by G.Venkata Subba Rao, and others in favour of G.Venkata Narasimham and his son Venkateswarlu with respect to Item No.2 of ‘B’ schedule property.
Ex.B5 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 06.04.1994 executed by G.Venkata Parvathi Vardhanamma and others in favour of G.Venkateswarlu with respect to Item No.1 of ‘B’ schedule property.
Ex.B6 is attested copy of report dated 14.08.2024 addressed by VRO, Jampani VRO, duly attested by Dy.Tahsildar.
Ex.B7 is attested copy of report dated 21.10.2017 addressed by VRO, Jampani VRO, duly attested by Dy.Tahsildar.
Ex.B8 is certified copy of report dated 14.06.2018 addressed by VRO 28 and attested by Deputy.Tahsildar.
Ex.B9 is report given by VRO dated 14.08.2024 and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Vemuru.
Ex.B10 is certified copy of judgment dated 16.06.2025 in C.C.No.132/2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class.
Ex.B11 is certified copy of the delivery warrant along with the report in E.P.No.134/2009in O.S.No.139/2007 on the file of PJCJ, Tenali.
Ex.B12 is certified copy of the panchanama report dated 12.06.2018 issued by the revenue officer.
Ex.B13 is certified copy of the report submitted by VRO, Pothumarru and attested by Deputy Tahsildar, Vemuru, Dated 17.10.2017.
Ex.B14 is registered original partition list dated 29.12.1967 executed among the father-in-law of the 1st defendant and other family members (Which correspondence to Ex.B2).
Ex.B15 is registered original sale deed dated 14.05.1981 executed by M.Venkata Lakshmamma and others in favour of G.Narasimham and his son in respect of item No.1 of A schedule property.
Ex.B16 is registered sale deed dated 14.05.1981 executed by G.Radha and another in favour of G.Santhamma in respect of Item No.1 of B schedule property.
Ex.B17 is registered sale deed dated 23.03.1988 executed by G.Venkata Subba Rao in favour of G.Venkata Narasimham in respect of item No.2 of the B schedule property (Which is marked as ex.B4).
Ex.B18 is pattadar pass book issued by MRO, Vemuru in favour of G.Venkateswarlu in respect of the plaint schedule properties.
Ex.B19 is land ownership title deed issued by MRO, Vemuru in favour of G.Venkateswarlu with respect to the plaint schedule properties.
Ex.B20 is adangal copy dated 05.09.2018 pertaining to Fasli No.1425, No.1394, 1427 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Vemuru Mandal attested by VRO and Mandal Revenue inspector consists of 12 sheets.
Ex.X1 is the report dated 05.03.2026 which bears the signature of D.W.3.
Ex.X2 is the proceedings dated 19.12.2020.
Ex.X3 is the proceedings dated 23.12.2020.
29
Sd/- Shaik Abdul Shariff
Addl.Civil Judge(Senior Division) Tenali.* 30
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : TENALI
Present : Sri Shaik Abdul Shariff,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.
Monday, this the 17th day of January, 2022.
OS.No.509/2016
Between :
1. Kandru Marthamma, W/o Late Babu Rao, House Wife, Hindu, aged about 58 years,
2. Veerabattini Lourdh Mary, W/o Aaservadam, D/o Late Babu Rao, Christian, 38 years, House Wife,
3. Kandru Narasimha Rao, S/o Late Babu Rao, aged 36 years, Hindu, Private Employee,
4. Pillai Chanti, W/o Muthu Swamy, Hindu, aged about 34 years, House Wife,
5. Kurapati Nirmala Kumari, W/o Suman Raju, aged about 32 years, Hindu, House Wife,
6. Pillai Dakshavali @ Suman Lavanya, W/o Babu, aged about 31 years, Hindu, House Wife,
Plaintiffs 1 to 6 are R/o Nandivelugu (V), Tenali (M).
7. Bandlamudi Ratna Kumari, W/o Anil Kumar, 30 years, House Wife, Hindu, R/o Bandlamudi (V). … Plaintiffs
and
Vemula Nagendramma W/o Sudarsanam, Hindu, House Wife, 60 years, R/o Nandivelugu (V), Tenali (M). … Defendant
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property; for consequential possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs from the defendant, and for costs.
Plaint presented on: 23-08-2016. Plaint filed on: 19-10-2016.
CAUSE OF ACTION :- 31
Cause of action for the suit arose on 09-07-2009 when the Government of Andhra Pradesh granted plaint schedule property patta to one Kandru Babu Rao, husband of 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 7 and when he died intestate and when defendant requested the 1st plaintiff to permit her to live in the plaint schedule and when the 1st plaintiff permitted the defendant to live in the plaint schedule property temporarily until they return from the works and when the 1st plaintiff used to pay money to the defendant for payment of house tax and when the defendant used to pay the tax on behalf of the plaintiff and used to retain the receipts and later she used to tell that she misplaced it somewhere and that she would return to same as soon as they were traced and when in January, 2016 mid when the plaintiffs came back to the village and requested the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises house and when in the month of April, 2016 the defendant agreed to vacate and requested some months time to vacate the same and when in June, 2016 the plaintiffs went and requested the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property and the defendant to the surprise of the plaintiffs refused to vacate the schedule premises and proclaimed
before the plaintiffs that the house belongs to her and that she
acquired rights over the plaint schedule property by paying house tax in the name of the defendant and not in the name of the plaintiff which she has done the same deliberately and also said they are the plaintiffs with the help of her relatives and when in the month of June, 2016 the plaintiffs personally and through elders requested the defendant to vacate the schedule premises and the defendant adamantly refused to vacate and threatened the elders and where the plaint schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this court.
VALUATION :- The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and for consequential relief of possession of plaint schedule property. Market value of the plaint schedule property (As the plaint schedule property is a patta land ad-measuring only 3 cents issued by Government of India for the poor people the value of the property is notionally valued at Rs.15,000/-. 3/4th value of the property is : Rs.11,250/-. On which a court fee of Rs.876/- is paid U/Sec.24(a)(b) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act. The plaint value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.11,250/-.
This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 04-01- 2022 in the presence of Sri S.Ram Mohan Rao garu, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri. M.K.Deena Dayal garu, Advocate for the defendant, and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, the court Doth Order and Decree as follows :
1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs;
and
32
2. That the plaintiffs do bear their own costs of Rs.3,138/- and do pay Rs.2,202/- to the defendants towards costs. (Schedule attached to decree)
Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 17th day of January, 2022.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
TENALI.
Table of Costs
Sl.NoDescription For theFor Defendant .Plaintiffs 1Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 102-00 2Stamp on Plaint 876-00- 3Batta 110-00- 4Stamp on petition -- 5Advocate fee 2,000-002,000-00 6Typing Charges 100-00 100-00 7Writing Charges 50-00-
Total 3,138-002,202-00
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
TENALI.