Sri Shaik Sikinder Basha

APPEAL SUIT No.176-2024 in OS No.472/2021 XI ADJ, TPG, WG Dt.27.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

Present: - SRI SHAIK SIKINDER BASHA,

XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem.

Monday, the 27th day of April, 2026.

APPEAL SUIT No.176/2024

[in OS No.472/2021 on the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior

Division)-Tadepalligudem]

Between: - Suryabhatla Nagamani, W/o.Koteswara Rao, aged 50 years, House wife, Dr.No.5-22-1/1, Near Haritage Street, Muralipeta, Tadepalligudem.

...Appellant/defendant.

And

1. Rayapudi Durga Devi, W/o.Pavan Kumar, C/o.Vabilisetti Nataraju, aged 35 years, Housewife, D.No.13-9-8, Tadepalligudem.

2. Vabilisetti Manikanta babu, S/o.Nataraju, aged 36 years, Business, D.No.14-5-1, Teacher’s colony, Tadepalligudem.

... Respondents/plaintiffs

On appeal preferred against the Decree and Judgment dated 27.02.2024 passed in O.S.No.472/2021 on the file of Principal Civil Judge [Junior Division], Tadepalligudem, and made:

Between: -

1. Rayapudi Durga Devi

2. Vabilisetti Manikanta Babu

... Plaintiffs.

And

Suryabhatla Nagamani … Defendant.

This appeal has come up before me on 16.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.N.T.Baba, Advocate forthe Appellant/defendant and of

Sri B.V.S.R.K.Manohar, Advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs; and perusing 1

APPEAL SUIT No.176-2024 in OS No.472/2021 XI ADJ, TPG, WG Dt.27.04.2026 the entire material available on record, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful defendant in OS No.472/2021 filed this appeal under order XLI Rule 1 CPC challenging the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.472/2021 dated 27.02.2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge [Junior Division], Tadepalligudem.

[The appellant is defendant and the respondents are plaintiffs in the suit. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, wherever necessary, the parties will be referred as arrayed before trial court.]

2. The brief facts of the case :

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.9,44,266/- with subsequent interest on principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/- at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization contending that the the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiffs on 03.02.2016 to discharge her debts, mortgaging the plaint schedule property agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum within two years and agreed to pay the monthly interest regularly at the contract rate of interest and discharge the

principal amount by 03.02.2018 and executed registered mortgage deed vide

registered document No.880/2016 in favour of plaintiffs on the same day duly attested, stamped and registered in Sub Registrar Office, Tadepalligudem. As per the terms of the said deed, the defendant has to repay the mortgage amount to the plaintiffs within 2 years. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount. Then, the plaintiffs got issued the registered notice on 12.02.2021, having received the notice she did not give reply nor tried to discharge the mortgage debt. Hence, the suit.

2

APPEAL SUIT No.176-2024 in OS No.472/2021 XI ADJ, TPG, WG Dt.27.04.2026 3.The defendant made appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that the 1st plaintiff is resident of Cheruvu

Bazar Area, Hanuman temple route, Khammam Urban, Khammam District,

Telangana state and she was not present while lending the amount to the defendant, but her name was recited in the mortgage deed that she is represented by her agent. The defendant did not borrow any amount from the 1st plaintiff. The mortgage deed dated 03.02.2016 is rank forged document, concocted by the plaintiffs and their father i.e., 2nd attestor of mortgage deed for wrongful gain. The father of plaintiffs namely Obilisetty Venkatarao had obtained 5 joint prontes of defendant and her husband i.e., S.Koteswara Rao, obtained 3 stamp papers of S.Koteswara Rao separately with a view to file false cases against them. The defendant is entitled for the doctrine of

Danduput as the interest cannot exceed the principal amount. As the defendant is agricultural coolie, she is entitled to scale down the interest from 24% p.a to 12.5% p.a. and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues.

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for, basing on the registered mortgage deed dated 03.02.2016?

(2) Whether the mortgage deed dated 03.02.2016 is a rank forged one?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit claim, as prayed for?

(4) To what relief?

5.During trial, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A4. The plaintiff also examined the 2nd attestor and the scribe as P.Ws.3 and 4. The defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on considering the arguments the trial court held that the plaintiffs categorically established their case by producing the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A4, as such they are entitled to the 3

APPEAL SUIT No.176-2024 in OS No.472/2021 XI ADJ, TPG, WG Dt.27.04.2026 suit claim against the defendant and hence preliminary decreed the suit with costs.

6.Assailing the said judgment and decree, this appeal has been filed on the following among other grounds. Though 18 grounds are taken for challenge, most of the grounds are repetition and formal grounds and the gist of the challenge is as below:

The material grounds of appeal:

(1) The trial court failed to consider over all documentary evidence adduced by the appellant/defendant in the suit.

(2) The trial court failed to consider that P.W.1 was not present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 mortgage deed.

(3) The trial court failed to consider that P.W.1 in her evidence stated that she lent only Rs.2,00,000/- and P.w.2 lent Rs.2,00,000/- under Ex.A1 mortgage deed.

(4) The trial court erred in noting that P.W.2 also stated that he lent

Rs.2,00,000/- at the office of scribe.

(5) The trial court failed to consider that P.W.1 did not execute any power of attorney in favour of P.W.2.

(6) The trial court failed to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and did not utilize her mind as learned judge and she did not hail from the

Advocate community having preceptor and hail from clerical cadre of

Typist and gave wrong conclusion and wrong finding in decreeing the suit with costs.

(7) The trial court did not consider written statement nor written arguments submitted by the counsel for the appellant and decisions submitted by the counsel for the appellant.

(8) The trial court failed to appreciate the mortgage deed as rank forged document, as such the suit should have been dismissed.

4

APPEAL SUIT No.176-2024 in OS No.472/2021 XI ADJ, TPG, WG Dt.27.04.2026 7.Heard learned counsels for both sides and written arguments also filed by both parties.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court in OS

No.472/2029 dated 27.02.2024 is on correct appreciation of facts

and law, or, needs any interference in appeal?

Arguments in Appeal:

9.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money on the basis of a mortgage deed. The 1st plaintiff did not appear before the Registrar office at the time of registration.

Though in the mortgage deed it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was borrowed by the defendant, but P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence have stated that the 1st plaintiff gave Rs.2,00,000/- and the 2nd plaintiff gave

Rs.2,00,000/- which is not shown in the Ex.A1 mortgage deed. The trial court did not consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 in the cross-examination, but decreed the suit. The judgment and decree is liable to be set aside.

10.The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the suit is based on the registered mortgage deed. The plaintiffs examined themselves and also examined the attestor and scribe of mortgage deed to prove the mortgage. The defendant took a plea of forgery, as such the burden of proving the forgery is on the defendant. For the 1st time, in this appeal the plea of payment of Rs.2,00,000/- by 1st plaintiff and payment of Rs.2,00,000/- by the 2nd plaintiff is taken. When the plea of forgery is raised, without proving the same, the defendant cannot go to the other aspects. The trial court rightly considered the pleadings and evidence on record and rightly decreed the suit.

There are no valid grounds in the appeal. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

5

APPEAL SUIT No.176-2024 in OS No.472/2021 XI ADJ, TPG, WG Dt.27.04.2026

POINT:

11.From the entire grounds of appeal, there are only 2 material grounds for challenge. First one is that, the 1st plaintiff who is the mortgagee under Ex.A1 was not present at the time of registration and she did not sign the mortgage deed, as such the mortgage deed cannot be enforced in law. The Second ground is that, as per the evidence of P.W.1 she lent only Rs.2,00,000/- and

P.W.2 lent another Rs.2,00,000/-, the same is not reflected in the Ex.A1 mortgage deed, on this ground also the suit should have been dismissed by the trial court.

12.The trial court also considered the above grounds and discussed in its judgment about the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. On the face of it, Ex.A1 does not contain the signature of the 1st plaintiff who is one of the mortgagees. A mortgage deed is a compulsory attestable and registrable document and in the present case Ex.A1 is attested by two attestors and registered document.

When a document is registered, except in case of Wills unless there is challenge by the executor of the document, the examination of an attestor is not necessary. Proviso to section 68 of Evidence Act clearly says that “it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied”. Though there is no requirement of examining one of the attesting witness to the registered mortgage deed, even then, the plaintiffs examined one of the attestors of

Ex.A1 and the scribe as P.Ws.3 and 4. Nothing beneficial to the case of defendant has been elicited in the cross examination fo P.Ws 1 to 4 in support of the case of defendant. Hence it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the Ex.A1 mortgage deed.

6

APPEAL SUIT No.176-2024 in OS No.472/2021 XI ADJ, TPG, WG Dt.27.04.2026

13.So far as the requirement of signing the mortgage deed by the mortgagee/lender is concerned, section 59 of Transfer of property Act says that, “where the principal money secured is received is one hundred rupees or upwards, a mortgage [other than the mortgage by deposit of title deeds] can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by atleast two witnesses ”. So, there is no statutory requirement of signing the mortgage deed by the mortgagee/lender. As such, the ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that as the 1st plaintiff did not sign Ex.A1 mortgage deed it cannot be enforced in law cannot be sustained as there is no requirement by law.

14.The other ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is admission in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they paid only Rs.2,00,000/- each, but the document was obtained for the total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and there is no mention in Ex.A1 that amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by 1st plaintiff and Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by the 2nd plaintiff. It is true that from the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is elicited that P.W.1 has lent Rs.2,00,000/- and P.W.2 has lent Rs.2,00,000/-. The total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was given to the defendant at the office of scribe of

Ex.A1. The said scribe is examined as P.W.4. He stated that the defendant received the entire consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff in the presence of attestors and executed the mortgage deed and the said deed was prepared and computerized by him. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Ex.A1 does not disclose the amount paid by each of the plaintiff separately. So, the non-mentioning of separate payments in Ex.A1 does not mean that the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- was not made by the plaintiffs to the defendant. If the payment was not made by plaintiffs 1 and 2 jointly, what was the necessity to obtain the Ex.A1 mortgage deed in two names i.e., 1st plaintiff 7

APPEAL SUIT No.176-2024 in OS No.472/2021 XI ADJ, TPG, WG Dt.27.04.2026 and 2nd plaintiff, rather it would have been executed only in one name of one mortgagee/lendee.

15.Further, the defendant has taken plea of forgery, as such she has to prove forgery. When it comes to the cross-examination of D.W.1 after seeing

Ex.A1 registered mortgage deed in open court she admitted that signatures on the Ex.A1 belongs to her. She also stated that P.W.3 obtained her signature on Ex.A1 at Sub Registrar office, Tadepalligudem stating that her husband has to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and asked her to sign on the document. On the date of Ex.A1 he saw her husband at Sub Registrar Office,

Tadepalligudem. This plea of forgery taken by the defendant is not substantiated as she admitted her signature on Ex.A1. According to chief affidavit of D.W.1, her husband who is friend of P.W.3 was indebted to P.W.3, as such P.W.3 has fabricated the mortgage deed. Except examining herself as D.W.1, no evidence has been adduced by the defendant to substantiate the said plea. The defendant could not elicit proper answers in the cross- examination of P.Ws.1 to 4 regarding borrowing of money and execution of

Ex.A1 mortgage deed, nor adduced any independent evidence in support of her defence. Therefore, the trial court on considering the pleadings and evidence on record has rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs by producing the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and documentary evidence

Exs.A1 to A4, established their case and that the defendant failed to establish her case, thereby decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. This court do not find any error apparent in the findings of the trial court in decree and judgment and thereby the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

16.It is pertinent and shocking to note that, in ground No.11 of the appeal, certain scurrilous remarks have been made against the trial court Judge by the Advocate for the appellant, The remarks are as below:

8

APPEAL SUIT No.176-2024 in OS No.472/2021 XI ADJ, TPG, WG Dt.27.04.2026 “The lower court failed to take into consideration of the chief examination of P.W.1 and P.W.4 and cross-examination of P.W.1 to

P.W.4 by utilizing her mind as the learned Judge did not hails from

Advocate community having a preceptor, and hails from clerical cadre (Typist) and gave wrong conclusion and wrong finding stating suit is decreed with costs on 27.02.2024.”

The above remarks, on the face of it, pointing out to the Trial court Judge on personal scores, prima facie, warrant initiation of contempt proceedings against the person making such scurrilous remarks. The Hon’ble Supreme court in a number of decisions has deprecated the practice of making comments on the Judges of the court by the lawyers or the clients, leaving their grievance in the case. In a recent decision of three Judges Bench of

Hon’ble Apex court headed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in IN

RE: N. PEDDI RAJU & OTHERS1 while deciding a suo moto contempt petition, observed:

“It can be seen that this Court observed that a section of the Bar was under an erroneous impression that when a counsel is acting in the interests of his client, or in accordance with his instructions, he was discharging his legitimate duty to his client even when he signs an application or a pleading which contains matter scandalizing the Court. This Court observed that the lawyers feel that whenever there is a conflict between the lawyer’s duty to the Court and the duty to the client, the duty to the client prevails over the duty of the Court. This Court found it necessary that such a misconception had to be rooted out by a clear and emphatic pronouncement. This Court, therefore, in unequivocal terms, held that the counsel who signs applications or pleadings containing matter scandalizing the Court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds are themselves guilty of contempt of court. This Court observed that it is not the duty of the counsel towards his client to take any interest in such 12025 INSC 989 9

APPEAL SUIT No.176-2024 in OS No.472/2021 XI ADJ, TPG, WG Dt.27.04.2026 applications. On the contrary, it is his duty to advise his client to refrain from making allegations of such nature.”

Further, the Hon’ble Apex court also noted that, “when a lawyer is faced

with a conflict between his duty towards the court and duty towards the

client, he has to give preference to duty to the Court rather than duty to

the client”. In the instant case, while deprecating the act of the learned counsel for the Appellant in making comments against Trial court Judge, and keeping in mind his age and standing at Bar, this court do not intend to initiate contempt proceedings, but advise him as a word of caution, to keep restraint in using the language against the Court, while preparing the pleadings so that the remarks shall not harm the reputation of any individual or Court in dispensing judicial functions, nor cause agony to anyone.

17. IN THE RESULT , the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

S/d. Shaik Sikinder Basha

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

TADEAPLLIGUDEM.

(No additional evidence is adduced on either side in this appeal).

I/d. S.S.B.

XI A.D.J.,

TPG.

Copy to: The Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Tadepalligudem, along with L.C. Record.

10

Crl.M.P.No.27/2026 in Crime No.43/2026 XI ADJ, TPG, WG

Dt.28.04.2026

APWG1D0001542026

IN THE COURT OF XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

Present :: SRI SHAIK SIKINDER BASHA, XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem.

Tuesday, the 28th day of April, 2026.

Crl.M.P.No.27/2026 in Crime No.43/2026

of Chebrole Police Station.

Between:-

Korada Suresh, S/o.Markandeyulu, aged 40 years, Coolie worker, Unguturu Village and Mandal. … Petitioner/Accused

And

The State: Station House Officer, Chebrole Police Station, Represented by its

Additional Public Prosecutor.

… Respondent/Complainant.

This petition has come up before me on 27.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Lakshman Kumar and Sri K.V.S.Somayaji,

Advocates for Petitioner/accused and of Additional Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent/Complainant and upon hearing their arguments, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The Petitioner/accused in Crime No.43/2026 of Chebrole Police Station for the offence U/s. 127(2), 124(1), 109[1] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 1

Crl.M.P.No.27/2026 in Crime No.43/2026 XI ADJ, TPG, WG

Dt.28.04.2026 filed this 4th Bail Petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, with the following averments.

2. That, the petitioner was arrested in the above crime on 04.02.2026 on a false complaint filed by the defacto complainant on 31.01.2026. As per the remand report, the accused was having relationship with the victim and the accused telephoned her to come and wait at Venkataramannagudem bus-stop and that he will pick up her and purchase gold to her. She believed the accused and at about 11.00 AM she went to the bus stop. The accused came and picked up her and took her on bike to Horticulture University road by deception, burnt her private parts by tying her both legs and hands, having thought that the victim died the accused has removed her ties and went away.

After 2 hours, the victim got consciousness and came to her house, then went to hospital. The Doctors gave MLC intimation and police case registered. It is submitted that all the allegations are false allegations and created story against the accused, for which there is no proper evidence secured by police.

The petitioner’s parents are old aged persons. If the petitioner stays in remand, the health issues of his parents cannot be sorted out. The petitioner is ready to cooperate investigation. The 1st bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.14/2026 was dismissed on 26.02.2026. The 2nd bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.20/2026 was dismissed on 18.03.2026. The 3rd bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.24/2026 was dismissed on 08.04.2026. There is no further investigation thereafter. Hence, he may be released on bail.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution. Perused the copy of F.I.R., C.D.

File and other material on record.

4.Now, the Point for determination is:

“Whether the petitioner/Accused is entitled to be released

on bail as prayed for?” 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused submits that the 2

Crl.M.P.No.27/2026 in Crime No.43/2026 XI ADJ, TPG, WG

Dt.28.04.2026 petitioner and the accused belongs to the same village. There are disputes between them. As such, false case has been foisted. The investigation is completed. Since 85 days the accused is in jail. Hence, he may be released on bail.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused had developed illegal intimacy with the victim. As the victim is distancing him, the accused developed grudge and on the ground of purchasing gold for her, took her to a remote place, tied her hands and burnt her private parts with the equipment brought by him. Thereafter, the victim took treatment in hospital.

So far, 10 witnesses are examined by the prosecution. Medical reports are awaited for filing charge sheet. The accused is having criminal antecedents.

Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

P O I N T :- 7.The case of the prosecution, as per the case dairy and remand report, is that the accused is having illegal intimacy with the victim and that in recent times, after the daughter of the victim got matured, she started distancing him for which the accused suspected that she is maintaining relationship with another person and on such suspicion he lured the victim on the pretext of purchasing gold for her and took her to a remote place and attempted to kill her by tying her hands and legs and lifted her cloths and burnt her private parts with Gas cylinder and fire gun brought by him. After she became unconscious the accused left her by removing her ties and went away. After 2 hours the victim got consciousness, she came to road by walk, from there she went to her house where her daughter and mother on finding the condition of the victim, took her to hospital. The hospital authority issued MLC intimation.

The police went there, recorded her statement and registered the case. So far the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, hence the material part of investigation is completed. Since 85 days, the accused is in jail, except fling of 3

Crl.M.P.No.27/2026 in Crime No.43/2026 XI ADJ, TPG, WG

Dt.28.04.2026 the charge sheet after receiving the medical report, nothing left for the prosecution to investigate. In these circumstances, prolonged detention of the accused in judicial custody will not yield any result. The Point is answered accordingly.

8.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed and the Petitioner/Accused is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:

1.The Petitioner/Accused shall execute bond for an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem;

2.The Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned as and when his presence is required.

3.The petitioner/accused shall not meet the witnesses and shall not make any attempt to contact the witnesses and shall not try to influence them with respect to the case and shall abide by the conditions under section 480(3)

BNSS;

4.The Petitioner/Accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without obtaining prior permission from this Court; and

5.On failure to comply with any of the above conditions, the Prosecution is at liberty to move application before this court for cancellation of bail granted to the Petitioner/Accused.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open

Court, this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-. Shaik Sikinder Basha

XI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

TADEAPLLIGUDEM.

Copy To: 1. The I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem. 2. The Station House Officer, Chebrole Police Station.

3.Sri M.Lakshman Kumar and Sri K.V.S Somayaji, Advocates for Petitioner/Accused.

4

1

IA No.1/2026 in OS No.44/2021 XI ADJ Court

TPG. Dt.27.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

PRESENT:- SRI SHAIK SIKINDER BASHA,

XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem.

Monday, the 27th day of April, 2026.

I.A.No. 1 /202 6 in OS No. 44 /20 21 .

Between:- Ravipati Sailaja

... Petitioner/plaintiff

And

1. Yalamati Ahalya Devi (DIED)

2. Yelamati Venkata Raghunandhan

3. Alapati Krishna Kumari

4. Bolla Lakshmi

5. Pendyala N.V.Srinivasa Rao

6. Pendyala Jyeshta Lakshmi

... Respondents

This petition has come up before me on 22.04.2026 for hearing, in the presence of Sri G.S.P.Mukherjee and Smt. N.Suryamani, Advocates

for the Petitioner/plaintiff; and since the 1st respondent died, Sri D.S.Rama

Rao, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, and the respondents 3 and 4 remained exparte in main suit and of Sri K.Mani Kumar and

T.Muralikrishna, advocates for the proposed respondents 5 and 6; the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The petitioner/plaintiff filed this petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to add the proposed respondents 5 and 6 as defendants 5 and 6 to the suit on the ground that during pendency of the suit for partition, on 23.06.2025 and on 27.06.2025 the 2nd defendant brought into existence 2 separate 2

IA No.1/2026 in OS No.44/2021 XI ADJ Court

TPG. Dt.27.04.2026 registered sale deeds in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property for an extent of Ac.1.00 in favour of the proposed 5th respondent and and

Ac.1.00 of land in favour of proposed 6th respondent. The said sale deeds are false, no possession was handed over to the proposed parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings adding of both the parties is necessary.

2.Counter has been filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein he did not dispute the alienation of property in favour of proposed defendants 5 and 6, but tried to justify his action stating that the father of the 2nd defendant by name Sri Yelamati Chakradhara Rao executed a registered Will on 26.03.1997 in a sound and disposing state of mind. Based on the said Will, on the death of the father, he became absolute owner of the properties bequeathed to him as such he sold the property to the proposed defendants 5 and 6.

3.The proposed parties/respondents 5 and 6 also filed separate counter in which they stated that they have purchased the property from the 2nd defendant by paying the valuable consideration and that they are bona fide purchasers of the properties.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

for the respondents. Perused the record.

5.Now, the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled to add the proposed parties as defendants 5 and 6 in the main suit as prayed for?

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and division of properties into 3 equal shares and allot one share to him. During pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant brought into force 2 registered sale deeds in favour of proposed defendants 5 and 6, as such they are proper and necessary parties.

Hence, they may be added as defendants 5 and 6 in the suit.

7.The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the 2nd respondent has got the property by virtue of Will as such he sold the 3

IA No.1/2026 in OS No.44/2021 XI ADJ Court

TPG. Dt.27.04.2026 property to the proposed parties. Only to harass the defendants, this petition is filed. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

POINT:

8.The suit is for partition of properties in 3 equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff. Admittedly, during pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant sold the property to the proposed defendants 5 and 6. In support of the said contention, certified copies of sale deeds also filed along with petition. The respondents are not denying the said sale and 2nd respondent tried to justify his action stating that he got the property by virtue of Will dated 26.03.1997 executed by his father. The respondents 5 and 6 contended that they are bona fide purchasers of property for a valuable consideration. Therefore, any decision rendered in the suit will have a binding on the purchasers of the property and hence they are proper and necessary parties for deciding the suit. If the suit decided in their absence, it may lead to another round of litigation as they have purchased the property from the contesting 2nd defendant who claims exclusive right to the property based upon a Will which is to be proved during trial of the suit. Point is answered accordingly.

9.IN THE RESULT, the Petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to add the proposed parties as defendants 5 and 6 in the suit.

No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

S/d. Shaik Sikinder Basha

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

(No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side) I/d. S.S.B

XI A.D.J.,

TPG.

1

IA No.1/2026 in OS No.44/2021 XI ADJ Court

TPG. Dt.27.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

PRESENT:- SRI SHAIK SIKINDER BASHA,

XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem.

Monday, the 27th day of April, 2026.

I.A.No. 1 /202 6 in OS No. 44 /20 21 .

Between:- Ravipati Sailaja

... Petitioner/plaintiff

And

1. Yalamati Ahalya Devi (DIED)

2. Yelamati Venkata Raghunandhan

3. Alapati Krishna Kumari

4. Bolla Lakshmi

5. Pendyala N.V.Srinivasa Rao

6. Pendyala Jyeshta Lakshmi

... Respondents

This petition has come up before me on 22.04.2026 for hearing, in the presence of Sri G.S.P.Mukherjee and Smt. N.Suryamani, Advocates

for the Petitioner/plaintiff; and since the 1st respondent died, Sri D.S.Rama

Rao, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, and the respondents 3 and 4 remained exparte in main suit and of Sri K.Mani Kumar and

T.Muralikrishna, advocates for the proposed respondents 5 and 6; the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The petitioner/plaintiff filed this petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to add the proposed respondents 5 and 6 as defendants 5 and 6 to the suit on the ground that during pendency of the suit for partition, on 23.06.2025 and on 27.06.2025 the 2nd defendant brought into existence 2 separate 2

IA No.1/2026 in OS No.44/2021 XI ADJ Court

TPG. Dt.27.04.2026 registered sale deeds in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property for an extent of Ac.1.00 in favour of the proposed 5th respondent and and

Ac.1.00 of land in favour of proposed 6th respondent. The said sale deeds are false, no possession was handed over to the proposed parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings adding of both the parties is necessary.

2.Counter has been filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein he did not dispute the alienation of property in favour of proposed defendants 5 and 6, but tried to justify his action stating that the father of the 2nd defendant by name Sri Yelamati Chakradhara Rao executed a registered Will on 26.03.1997 in a sound and disposing state of mind. Based on the said Will, on the death of the father, he became absolute owner of the properties bequeathed to him as such he sold the property to the proposed defendants 5 and 6.

3.The proposed parties/respondents 5 and 6 also filed separate counter in which they stated that they have purchased the property from the 2nd defendant by paying the valuable consideration and that they are bona fide purchasers of the properties.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

for the respondents. Perused the record.

5.Now, the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled to add the proposed parties as defendants 5 and 6 in the main suit as prayed for?

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and division of properties into 3 equal shares and allot one share to him. During pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant brought into force 2 registered sale deeds in favour of proposed defendants 5 and 6, as such they are proper and necessary parties.

Hence, they may be added as defendants 5 and 6 in the suit.

7.The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the 2nd respondent has got the property by virtue of Will as such he sold the 3

IA No.1/2026 in OS No.44/2021 XI ADJ Court

TPG. Dt.27.04.2026 property to the proposed parties. Only to harass the defendants, this petition is filed. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

POINT:

8.The suit is for partition of properties in 3 equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff. Admittedly, during pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant sold the property to the proposed defendants 5 and 6. In support of the said contention, certified copies of sale deeds also filed along with petition. The respondents are not denying the said sale and 2nd respondent tried to justify his action stating that he got the property by virtue of Will dated 26.03.1997 executed by his father. The respondents 5 and 6 contended that they are bona fide purchasers of property for a valuable consideration. Therefore, any decision rendered in the suit will have a binding on the purchasers of the property and hence they are proper and necessary parties for deciding the suit. If the suit decided in their absence, it may lead to another round of litigation as they have purchased the property from the contesting 2nd defendant who claims exclusive right to the property based upon a Will which is to be proved during trial of the suit. Point is answered accordingly.

9.IN THE RESULT, the Petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to add the proposed parties as defendants 5 and 6 in the suit.

No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

S/d. Shaik Sikinder Basha

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

(No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side) I/d. S.S.B

XI A.D.J.,

TPG.

APWG1D0001022026

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT : Sri Shaik Sikinder Basha, XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem.

Monday, this the 27th day of April,2026

E.P.No.83/2026 in A.C.No. 88/2023.

Between :

Shriram Finance Company Ltd., Bhimavaram Branch, rep.by its G.P.A. Holder Mr. Mohammad Aziz, S/o Khalel Rahaman, Male, age 42 years, Ravindra Plaza, JP Road, Bhimavaram. …Petitioner/DHR

And

1. Dandu Raghu RamaKrishna Raju, S/o Subbaraju, Hindu, male, age 47 years, Business, R/o D.No.2-163, Sivalayam Street, Ganapavaram Mandal, W.G.District.

2. Vatsavari Siva Rama Raju, S/o Seetharama Raju, Hindu, male, Business R/o D.No.100-1, Kothapet, Apparaopet, Tadepalligudem …Respondents/JDR

This Executive Petition is filed Prays to issue R22 notice and thereafter issue Rule 37 notice to J.Dr Nos. 1 and 2, make enquiry and order for arrest of

J.Dr Nos. 1 and 2 under Rule 38 and to commit them to Civil Prison under Sec.

55 of C.P.C for realization of the award amount

This Executive Petition is coming on 27.04.2026 for filing Batta before me in the presence of Sri G.Suresh, counsel for Petitioner/Decree Holder; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

D.Hr called absent. No representation. Batta not represented. Waited till 4-45 p.m. This Court does not find any reason to continue this petition un represented. Hence, the EP is dismissed for non-appearance and non- prosecution.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Shaik Sikinder Basha

XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- Shaik Sikinder Basha

XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem.