1 Fair O.S.No.262/2012
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), NUZVID.
Present: Sri. Shaik Pedakhasim,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid.
Friday, dated this 24th day of April, 2026
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 262 OF 20 1 2
Between:
1.Challagulla Bheemeswara Rao (Died)
2.Challagulla Kalavathi W/o. Late
Raghavaiah, aged abouit 55 years,
Cultivation, R/o. Chittapur Village,
Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District.
3Challagulla Ravi Kumar, S/o. Late
Veera Raghavaiah, aged 25 years,
Cultivation, R/o. Chittapur village,
Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District.
4.Challagulla Lakshmi Sarojini,
W/o. Late Bheemeswara Rao, aged 67 years, R/o. Gullapudi village,
Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District.
5.Chilakalapudi Sudharani W/o. Srinivasa
Rao, aged 50 years, R/o. D.No. 2-92,
Kammaturu, Jagannadhapuram village,
Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari Dist.
6.Ganta Damayanthi (Died)
7.Polina Vijaya Lakshmi W/o. Durga Prasad
Rao, aged 37 years, R/o. D.No. 1-24,
Gullapudi village, Musuru Mandal, Krishna Dist.
2 Fair O.S.No.262/2012
8.Ghanta Sri Nanaji, S/o. G.S.R. Chowdary, aged 52 years, Cultivation, R/o. D.No.
13-114, Katta Subba Rao Thota,
Eluru Town and Mandal, W.G. District.
9.Ghanta Sri Kshoni D/o. Sri Nanaji, aged 18 years, Cultivation,
R/o.D.No. 13-114, Katta Subba Rao Thota,
Eluru Town and Mandal, W.G.District.
(Plaintiffs 4 to 7 were added as per orders in I.A. 390/2018 dated 21.02.2019) (Plaintiffs 8 and 9 were added as per orders in I.A.No. 776/2022 dt. 18.03.2024) … Plaintiffs.
Vs.
1.Valasapalli Naga Siromani,
W/o. Valasapali Brahmam, aged 55 years, Properties,
R/o. Chittapur village, Chatrai
Mandal, Krishna District.
2.Bottu Ganga Bhavani,
W/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged 31 years, Husband’s
Protection, R/o. Chittapur village,
Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District.
3.Devineni Dhanalaxmi (Died)
4.Mandalapu Krishnaveni,
W/o. Prasada Rao, aged 28 years,
Husband’s protection, R/o. Gudipadu
Village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna Dist.
3 Fair O.S.No.262/2012
5.Challagulla Sirisha, D/o. Late
Challagulla Prasada Rao, aged 20 years,
Relatives protection, R/o. Kothagudem
Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District.
6.Devineni Naresh S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged 39 years, R/o. D.No. 17-31-1/10,
Prakash Nagar, Near Police Station Road,
Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, N.T.R. Dist.
7.Devineni Vashitha Chowdary, D/o. Naresh, aged 12 years, R/o. D.No. 17-31-1/10,
Prakash Nagar, Near Police Station Road,
Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District.
8.Devineni Rishitha Chowdary, D/o. Naresh, aged 10 years, R/o. D.No. 17-31-1/10,
Prakash Nagar, Near Police Station Road,
Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada.
(Defendants 7 and 8 being minors rep., by their father / 6th defendant) (Defendants 6 to 8 were added as per the orders passed in I.A.No.441/2024 dt. 24.07.2024). … Defendants
This suit coming on 02-04-2026 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri N. Madhava Rao, Learned Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri
G. Rambabu, Learned Advocate for Defendants 1, 2, 6 to 8, the defendants 4 and 5 having remained exparte and the third defendant died and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :- 4 Fair O.S.No.262/2012
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and allot two such shares to the plaintiffs with separate possession and also award future mesne profits.
2.The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is as follows:-
(a). The first plaintiff, the husband of second plaintiff and father of third plaintiff namely Challagulla Veera Raghavaiah (hereinafter referred as “Raghavaiah”), the father of the defendants 4 and 5 by name Challagulla
Prasada Rao (hereinafter referred as “Prasada Rao”) and the first defendant are the children of Challagulla Dharmaiah (hereinafter referred as “Dharmaiah”) and his wife Challagulla Lakshmi Kanthamma (hereinafter referred as “Kanthamma”). Kanthamma died intestate on 23.01.2004 and
Dharmaiah was pre-deceased to her in or about the year 1993. The plaint “A&B” schedule properties are the absolute properties of Kanthamma and she had been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties by the date of her death. Kanthamma died leaving the first plaintiff, Raghavaiah, Prasada
Rao and the first defendant as her class-I legal heirs. Immediately after the death of Kanthamma, the plaint schedule properties were jointly devolved on her class-I legal heirs. While enjoying the properties, Prasada Rao and his wife Challagulla Kanaka Maha Lakshmi (hereinafter referred as “Maha
Lakshmi”) were died intestate in the year 2005 and 2009 respectively leaving the defendants 4 and 5 as their class-I legal heirs. Thereafter, Raghavaiah died intestate on 10.11.2012 leaving the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as his class-I legal 5 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 heirs. Since the death of Kanthamma, the plaint schedule properties were in joint possession of her class-I legal heirs. After the death of Prasada Rao,
Raghavaiah, the plaint schedule properties continued in joint possession of plaintiffs 1 to 3, defendants 1, 3 and 4. The first plaintiff having 1/4th share, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 together has 1/4th share, the first defendant has 1/4th share, the defendants 4 and 5 together has 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property and same has been in their joint and constructive possession. While so, after the death of Raghavaiah, the defendants 1 to 3 proclaimed that they will not allow the plaintiffs, defendants 4 and 5 to continue as joint owners.
Upon enquiry, the plaintiffs learnt that the first defendant executed gift deeds in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 regarding the plaint schedule property on 22.05.2012. The said gift deeds are collusive, not binding on the plaintiffs.
The defendants 2 and 3 are no other than the daughters of first defendant.
The recitals of gift deeds that Kanthamma executed Will deed dt. 03.01.2004 are false. There is no such Will deed. The said Will deed is forged and brought into existence to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiffs as well as the defendants 4 and 5. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs are constrained to approached this court.
(b).During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died intestate and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 4 to 7.
During the pendency of the suit, the sixth plaintiff died intestate, her legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 8 and 9. During the 6 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 pendency of the suit, the third defendant died, her legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 6 to 8. Hence, this suit.
3.1.The defendant Nos.1 to 3 joined filed their written statement.
Later, plaint was amended and neat copy of plaint was filed on 06.03.2019 on account of death of the first plaintiff. Thereafter, additional written statement of defendants treated as Nil. Later, the plaint was amended on account of the death of 6th plaintiff and neat copy of the plaint was filed on 23.02.2024. Later, the right of defendants 1 to 3 to file additional written statement is forfeited.
Later, the plaint was amended on account of death of third defendant and neat copy of plaint was filed on 30.07.2024. Thereafter, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2 reported no additional written statement. The defendants 6 to 8 filed memo adopting the written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 3.
3.2.The case of the defendants 1, 2, 6 to 8 in nutshell is as follows :-
(a). It is true that 1st plaintiff, husband of 2nd plaintiff and father of 3rd plaintiff namely Challagulla Veera Raghavaiah, the father of defendants 4 and 5 namely Challagulla Prasada Rao and 1st defendant are children of
Challagulla Dharmaiah and Challagulla Lakshmikanthamma. Dharmaiah died in or about the year 1992. It is also true that the properties shown in "A" and "B" schedule properties are absolute properties of Challagulla
Lakshmikanthamma and that she had been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties by the date of her death. The plaint "A" schedule property was gifted to Challagulla Lakshmi Kanthamma by her two sons namely Veera 7 Fair O.S.No.262/2012
Raghavaiah and Prasada Rao, under two registered Gift deeds dated.17-11- 1993 which were registered as document Nos. 2945 and 2946 of 1993 respectively in Sub-Registrar's office, Vissannapeta. Challagulla
Lakshmikanthamma purchased Item No.1 of "B" schedule property under a registered sale deed dated. 08.06-1989 executed by Mallempati Bapaiah and others. Challagulla Lakshmikanthamma acquired Ac. 0-56 cents in
R.S.No.225/4 of Chithapuru village, which is part of Item 2 of "B" schedule property under a registered gift deed dated. 17-11-1993 executed by
Challagulla Veera Raghavaiah. Challagulla Lakshmikanthamma purchased
Ac.1-10 cents in R.S.No.224/2 of Chithapuru village, which is part of item No.2 of "B" schedule under a registered sale deed dated. 16.04-1996 executed by
Challagulla Venkateswara Rao and other.
(b).The marriage of first defendant was performed with Valasapalli
Brahmam S/o Raghavaiah of Cheepurugudem village in Chatrai Mandalam,
Krishna District. The first defendant is blessed with three daughters namely 1.
Bottu Padmavathi and defendants 2 and 3. When children of first defendant were of tender age differences arose between 1st defendant and her husband and as such 1st defendant began residing in the house of her parents along with her children at Chittapuru. The first defendant used to look after her parents i.e., Dharmaiah and Lakshmikanthamma by staying in the old house belonging to her parents. Later first defendant shifted her residence to her site and constructed a tiled house and began residing therein along with her parents. After the death of Dharmaiah, her sons namely Bheemeswara Rao 8 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 and Veera Raghavaiah and Prasada Rao never looked after the welfare of
Lakshmikanthamma and it is the 1st defendant who looked after the needs of
Lakshmikanthamma. Prasada Rao and his wife Kanakamahalakshmi separated and Kanakamahalakshmi began residing at Kothagudem village,
Chatrai Mandal, along with defendants 4 and 5 and as such it is the 1st defendant who looked after Prasada Rao also.
(c).On 03-01-2004 Challagulla Lakshmikanthamma executed a will in a sound and disposing state, at Nuzvid, in the presence of
R.Ramamohana Rao and Dosapati Venkata Srinivasa Prasad and
Namala Venkateswara Rao, by bequeathing the plaint schedule property infavour of first defendant. Execution of the said Will by
Lakshmikanthamma is known to all her sons i.e., first plaintiff, Veera
Raghavaiah and Prasada Rao. After coming from Nuzvid,
Lakshmikanthamma garu handed over the Will dated. 03-01-2004 and all her documents of title to the first defendant stating that she executed a will bequeathing all her properties to the first defendant. Subsequently on 23-01-2004 Lakshrnikantamma died in the house of 1st defendant, without revoking the will dated. 03-01-2004. Thus the will dated. 03-01-2004 is the last will and testament of Challagulla Lakshmikanthamma. Soon after the death of Lakshmikanthamma the Will dated. 03-01-2004 came in to force and first defendant became absolute owner of schedule properties and enjoying the same by raising crops and paying land revenue payable to the Government. First defendant has been in peaceful possession and 9 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties till she gifted the same to defendants 2 and 3 as legatee under Will dated.03-01-2004, executed by
Challagulla Lakshmikanthamma. Neither Challagulla Veera Raghavaiah nor Challagulla Prasada Rao questioned the right, title and possession of first defendant in the schedule properties as per will dated. 03-01-2004 executed by Lakshmikanthamma during their life time. Challagulla Veera
Raghavaiah never managed the schedule properties either before the death of Lakshmikanthamma or after the death of Lakshmikanthamma.
The possession and enjoyment of first defendant in plaint schedule properties was also reveals in Revenue records. Third plaintiff, colluded with 1st plaintiff after the death of Veera Raghavaiah and got filed this suit, in order to grab the property belonging to defendants 2 and 3.
(d).The first defendant has got two Bore Wells in her land of Ac.
2-26 cents of wet land in R.S.No. 211/5 of Chithapuru village, which are equipped with submersible motors. About 15 years ago, first defendant laid under ground pipe line from the said Bore Well to plaint "B" schedule property and from plaint "A" schedule property and cultivating the same on behalf of Lakshmikanthamma. After the death of Lakshmikanthamma, 1st defendant has been raising crops in plaint "A" and "B" schedule properties with the waters of Two Bore Wells situated in her own land. On 22-05-2012, first defendant gifted "A" schedule property infavour of 2nd defendant by executing a registered gift deed in her favour and delivered possession of the same to her. The second defendant accepted the said 10 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 gift and took possession of the land and continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising maize crop. Likewise on 22-05-2012, first defendant gifted "B" schedule property infavour of third defendant and executed a registered gift deed in her favour and delivered possession of the same to her and ever since then she has been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same. The possession and enjoyment of defendants 2 and 3 in plaint "A" and "B" schedule properties respectively were also recognized by Revenue authorities by granting
Pattadar Pass Book and title deed books in their favour. The defendants 2 and 3 also obtained loans from Andhra Bank, Vissannapeta on security of their respective lands, by depositing the title deed books with the bank.
(e).1st defendant alone spent money for the cremation and obsequies of Challagulla Lakshkmi Kanthamma, through the pyre was let by Prasada Rao. As 1st plainiff, Veera Raghavaiah and Prasada Rao have it knowledge about the will dated 03-01-2004 executed by
Challagulla Lakshmi Kanthamma bequeathing all her properties infavour of 1st defendant, they have asked the 1st defendant to bear all the expenses by her. The 3rd plaintiff by taking advantage of the death of his father and Prasada Rao, got filed this suit without any cause of action to gain wrongfully for himself and to cause wrongful loss to the defendants 2 and 3. Plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 5 are not entitled to seek partition of the schedule properties as they are not having any share and they were never in joint possession of schedule properties along with 1st 11 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 defendant. Thus, the court fee paid is not correct. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
3.3.The third defendant died.
3.4.The defendants 4 and 5 are remained exparte.
4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for the purpose of trial :
(1). Whether the schedule properties are joint family properties?
(2). Whether the Challagulla Lakshmi Kanthamma died intestate?
(3). Whether the Will dt. 03.01.2004 executed by Lakshmi Kanthamma in favour of the first defendant is true and valid and binds on the plaintiffs?
(4). Whether the gift deeds dated 22.05.2012 executed by D.1 in favour of D.2 and D.3 for “A” and “B” schedule properties respectively are valid and binding on the plaintiffs?
(5). Whether the court fee paid is not correct?
(6). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the partition as prayed for?
(7). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for future mesne profits, as prayed for?
(8). To what relief?
12 Fair O.S.No.262/2012
5.During the course of trial, P.W.2 was examined but no documents were marked through him. Chief examination affidavit of P.W.1 was filed, he was partly cross-examined, later he died, hence, his evidence was eschewed, consequently Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 which were marked through him were also eschewed. On behalf of the contesting defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined, Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.20 were marked. During cross examination of
D.W.1, Ex.A3 to Ex.A7 were marked.
6.Heard the learned Advocates for both the parties. Perused the material on record.
7.1.Issue Nos.1, 2 , 3 and 6 :
(1). Whether the schedule properties are joint family properties?
(2). Whether the Challagulla Lakshmi Kanthamma died intestate?
(3). Whether the Will dt. 03.01.2004 executed by Lakshmi Kanthamma in favour of the first defendant is true and valid and binds on the plaintiffs?
(6). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the partition as prayed for?
7.2.The third plaintiff deposed evidence by filing hischief examination affidavit as P.W.2 reiterating the contents of the plaint. The first defendant deposed evidence by filing her chief examination affidavit as D.W.1 reiterating the contents of her written statement, Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.12 and Ex.A3 to Ex.A7 were marked through her. The second defendant deposed evidence by filing her chief examination affidavit, two additional chief examination affidavit as
D.W2, supporting the case of contesting defendants, Ex.B.13 to Ex.B.20 were 13 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 marked through her. A person who is third party to the suit deposed evidence by filing chief examination affidavit as D.W.3. He deposed that he is the son of the scribe of Ex.B.1. The sixth defendant deposed evidence by filing his chief examination affidavit as D.W.4. He deposed about the execution of two gift deeds by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3.
7.3.The relationship between the parties pleaded in the plaint is admitted. The death of Dharmaiah, Kanthamma, Prasada Rao, Maha
Lakshmi, Raghavaiah are also not in dispute. It is just and proper to proceed into the merits of the case keeping these facts in mind.
7.4The plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that plaint “A” and “B” schedule properties are the absolute properties of Kanthamma and she had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by time her death.
The contesting defendants also admitted in their written statement, the plea of the plaintiffs about the absolute ownership of Kanthamma on the plaint schedule property. Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.4 reveals that Kanthamma acquired the plaint “A” schedule property. Ex.B.2, Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.5 reveals that
Kanthamma acquired the plaint “B” schedule property. The admissions made by P.W.2 in his cross-examination also clearly established that Kanthamma was the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property.
Therefore, the right, title and possession of Kanthamma on the plaint schedule property is clearly established.
7.5.1. As per the plaintiffs, Kanthamma died intestate, therefore, three sons and one daughter of Kanthamma are entitled for partition of her property.
14 Fair O.S.No.262/2012
The contesting defendants pleaded that Kanthamma had executed Ex.B.1 bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of the first defendant, therefore, the first defendant has absolute ownership on the plaint schedule property. As the contesting defendants are relying on Ex.B.1 in support of their claim, the burden lies on them to prove the execution of Ex.B1 infavour of first defendant by Kanthamam. This court noticed is that there inconsistency in the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 with regard to the execution of Ex.B.1. As per the case of the contesting defendants, the first defendant is the legatee under Ex.B.1. D.W.1 in her cross-examination deposed that she was not present when her mother executed Ex.B.1 and she do not know who got prepared the contents of Ex.B.1. She further deposed that she was in
Chittapuru village at the time of execution of Ex.B.1. She further deposed that as per her contention, Ex.B.1 was executed in Nuzvid town. However, at another point of time, she deposed that she was also present when Ex.B.1 was executed. It means, D.W.1 gave inconsistent versions about her presence at the time of execution of Ex.B.1. D.W.1 at another point deposed that Ex.B.1 was executed at Vissannapeta. It means D.W.1 gave inconsistent versions even about the place of execution of Ex.B.1. Further, D.W.1 in her cross-examination deposed that Prasada Rao and Veera Raghavaiah were present at the time of execution of Ex.B.1. However, she further deposed that she do not have personal knowledge who were present at the time of execution of Ex.B.1. These two versions are contrary to each other. D.W.1 in her cross-examination deposed that Prasada Rao and Veera Raghavaiah attested Ex.B.1. However, Prasada Rao and Veera Raghavaiah are not 15 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 attestors of Ex.B.1. This admission of D.W.1 also raises a doubt about the genuineness of execution of Ex.B.1. D.W.1 in her cross-examination deposed that Kanthamma came to Tataiah Babu Hospital on the date of Ex.B.1 but she cannot say whether there is a proof to say that on the date of Ex.B.1, her mother visited Tataiah Babu Hospital. D.W.1 categorically deposed that she cannot produce any document as a proof that her mother took treatment in
Tataiah Babu Hospital, Nuzvid town. These admissions of D.W.1 also raises a serious doubt about the mother of D.W.1 visiting Tataiah Babu Hospital at
Nuzvid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Judgment between Smt.
Duro Vs. Atma Singh and Ors (date of Judgment 05/03/1992) 1992 SCC(2) 507 held that “If a witness made contradictory statements about her/his presence at the time execution Will, the said evidence is doubtful”. This legal principle is applicable against the evidence of D.W.1.
7.5.2. Ex.B.1 is compulsorily attestable document. Ex.B.1 contains the signatures of two attestors and scribe. Sec. 68 of Indian Evidence Act provides that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness atleast has been called for the purpose of proving its execution if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to process of court and capable of giving evidence. Sec. 69 of Indian
Evidence Act is in continuation of Sec. 68 of Indian Evidence Act. D.W.1 in her evidence deposed that Prasada Rao and Veera Raghavaiah attested
Ex.B.1. However, Ex.B.1 does contain the signatures or thumb impressions of
Prasada Rao and Veera Raghavaiah. Moreover, D.W.1 in her cross- 16 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 examination at another point of time deposed that Veera Raghavaiah and
Prasada Rao did not attest Ex.B.1. It means Veera Raghavaiah and Prasada
Rao are not the attestors of Ex.B.1. Ramapurapu Ram Mohana Rao is the first attestor of Ex.B.1. D.W.1 in her cross-examination deposed that
Ramapuramu Rama Mohana Rao who is the attestor of Ex.B.1 is resident of
Chittapuru village. She further deposed that she has no disputes with the said
Rama Mohana Rao, she has cordial terms with him. D.W.1 voluntarily stated that the said Rama Mohana Rao is the friend of Veera Raghavaiah and
Prasada Rao, therefore, she has acquaintance with him till now. It means,
D.W.1 has good acquaintance with Rama Mohana Rao, moreover she is resident of Chittapuru village where the D.W.1 also resided. It is not the case of the contesting defendants and it is not the evidence of D.W.1 or any other witness that the said Rama Mohana Rao is not alive, not subject to the process of the court, not capable of giving evidence. Inspite of the same, the contesting defendants has not examined the said Rama Mohana Rao before this court to prove the execution of Ex.B.1 even though the plaintiffs are seriously pleading that Ex.B.1 is a fabricated document. Further, the second attestor is Dosapati Venkata Srinivasa Prasad. Ex.B.13 reveals that Dosapati
Venkata Srinivasa Prasad died on 22.05.2013. It is clear from the evidence of
D.W.2 that it is legal mandate that atleast one of the attesor of Ex.B.1 shall be examined. It is not the case of the contesting defendants that there are no legal heirs to Dosapati Venkata Srinivasa Prasad or there are no persons to identify the signature of the said Venkata Srinivasa Prasad. Inspite of the knowledge about the mandate U/sec. 68 and 69 of Indian Evidence Act, the 17 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 defendants has not examined any person to comply these provisions. The son of the scribe of Ex.B.1 deposed evidence by filing his chief examination affidavit as D.W.3. D.W.3 in his evidence deposed that his father Namala
Venakta Rao died on 08.12.2013. He deposed that the signature in the scribe column of Ex.B.1 is the signature of his father. However, the evidence of
D.W.3 is not sufficient to comply the legal mandate provide U/sec. 68 and 69 of Indian Evidence Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Judgment between Kashibai W/o. Lachiram & Anr Vs. Parwatibai W/o Lachiram & Ors (date of Judgment 25/09/1995) 1995 SCC(6) 213 held that “If a document is compulsorily attestable, one of the attestor shall be examined in accordance with section 68 of Indian Evidence Act”. After thorough perusal of the evidence on record, this court is of the opinion that the contesting defendants utterly failed to comply Sec. 68 and 69 of Indian Evidence Act, consequently,
Ex.B.1 shall not be used as evidence in this suit.
7.5.3. D.W.1 in her cross-examination deposed that she do not know who scribe Ex.B.1 as her mother and brothers brought the same to her. D.W.1 in her cross-examination further deposed that Venugopal scribed Ex.B.1 at
Sub Registrar Office, Vissannapeta. This piece of evidence is contrary to the first version of D.W.1 on the particulars of scribe. It is doubtful whether
Venugopal scribed Ex.B.1 or Namala Venkateswara Rao scribed Ex.B.1 or whether D.W.1 knew who scribed Ex.B.1. D.W.1 is giving contradictory versions. If the evidence of D.W.1 that Venugopal scribed Ex.B.1 is believed, 18 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 the evidence of D.W.3 shall be thrown away. The aspects discussed in this paragraph raises a serious doubt about the genuineness of Ex.B.1.
7.5.4. Ex.B.1 contains two thumb impressions of alleged testator i.e.,
Kanthamma. D.W.1 in her cross-examination deposed that her mother put thumb impression since beginning. D.W.1 categorically deposed that her mother do not know to sign. In support of her version, defendants relied
Ex.B14 which contains Thumb Impression. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.1 is in favour of the thumb impression on Ex.B.1. However, Ex.A.3 goes against the version of the contesting defendants. Ex.A.3 reveals that Challagulla
Lakshmi Kantham gifted three properties to Challagulla Bheemeswara Rao ie., the first plaintiff on 09.05.1960 under Ex.A.3. In Ex.A.3 Lakshmi
Kanthamma is the Donar. Five signatures of Lakshmi Kanthamma are available on Ex.A.3. Ex.A.3 is not in dispute. Ex.A.3 is sufficient to say that
Lakshmi Kanthamma put her signatures. Lakshmi Kanthamma not signing on
Ex.B.1 even though she signed on Ex.A.3 creates a serious doubt about the genuineness of Ex.B.1. As Ex.A.3 contains the five signatures of Lakshmi
Kanthamma, heavy burden lies on the defendants why and how Lakshmi
Kanthamma was forced to put her thumb impression on Ex.B.1. However, the contesting defendants neither pleaded nor produced any evidence to establish that in a peculiar circumstances, Lakshmi Kanthamma put her thumb impression instead of her signature on Ex.B1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the Judgment between Smt. Duro Vs. Atma Singh and Ors (date of
Judgment 05/03/1992) 1992 SCC(2) 507 held that “It is necessary to adduce 19 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 satisfactory evidence to show, why, instead of signatures, the thumb impression of the testator was obtained on the Will”. This legal principle is applicable against the evidence of D.W.1 and contesting defendants. This aspect also clearly goes against the case of the contesting defendants.
7.5.5. D.W.1 in her cross-examination admitted that she did not file
Ex.B.1 before any office, court prior to filing of the same in this suit. This suit is filed in the year 2012 whereas Ex.B.1 is dated 03.01.2004. Inspite of having lot of time, the contesting defendants not producing Ex.B.1 before any office, court till same is filed before this court in the year 2012 creates a doubt about the genuineness of Ex.B.1. D.W.1 in her cross-examination further admitted that Ex.B.1 is not enclosed to Ex.B.6 and Ex.B.7. If really, Ex.B.1 was available by the date of Ex.B.6 and Ex.B.7, nothing prevented to first defendant to enclose the copy of Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6 and Ex.B.7. However, there is no reason from the contesting defendants why Ex.B.1 or its copy is not made part of Ex.B.6 and Ex.B.7. D.W.2 in her cross-examination deposed that she was not presented at the time of execution of Ex.B.1 and she has no personal knowledge about the facts at the time of execution of Ex.B.1.
Therefore, the evidence of D.W.2 is not helpful to prove the execution of
Ex.B.1.
7.5.6. After taking all the aspects discussed supra into consideration, this court is of the opinion that Ex.B.1 is not true, genuine document, therefore, the same shall not be relied. Moreover as the requirements U/sec.
20 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 68 and 69 of Indian Evidence Act are not satisfied, Ex.B.1 shall not be used in evidence.
7.6.As the contesting defendants failed to prove the execution, genuineness of Ex.B.1, the other evidence available on record that there was a partition between Dharmaiah and his sons, Kanthamma gave properties to the first plaintiff etc. are not helpful to the contesting defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from taking their share of property out of the plaint schedule property.
7.7. The contesting defendants pleaded that after death of Dharmaiah, the sons of Kanthamma never looked after her welfare. The admissions made by D.W.1 and D.W.2 in their cross examination reveals that there were cordial terms between Kanthamma and her children till her death. This aspect shall be taken into consideration in favour of the plaintiffs.
7.8.The first plaintiff, Raghavaiah, Prasada Rao and the first defendant being the children of Kanthamma are entitled for equal share in view of Sec. 15 and 16 of Hindu Succession Act. The legal heirs of these four children of Kanthamma are entitled for the share according to Hindu
Succession Act.
7.9.After taking the entire evidence on record into consideration, this court is of the opinion that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiffs 1 to 3, the first defendant, defendants 4 and 5. This court is of the further opinion that Kanthamma died intestate. This court is of the further opinion that the Will dated 03.01.2004 ie., Ex.B.1 is not true, valid 21 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 document and same is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties, as prayed for. Accordingly,
Issue Nos.1 to 3 and 6 are answered infavour of the plaintiffs and against the contesting defendants.
8.1.Issue No.4 :
Whether the gift deeds dated 22.05.2012 executed by D.1 in favour of
D.2 and D.3 for “A” and “B” schedule properties respectively are valid and binding on the plaintiffs?
8.2.The evidence on record reveals that the first defendant gifted plaint “A” schedule property to the second defendant under Ex.B.6 and the second defendant has obtained Ex.B.9. The first defendant gifted the plaint “B”schedule property to the third defendant under Ex.B.7 and the third defendant obtained Ex.B.8. As this court already gave finding that Ex.B.1 is not valid document, the first defendant has no alienable right on the plaint schedule property. Therefore, Ex.B.6 and Ex.B.7 as well as Ex.B.8 and
Ex.B.9 which were issued basing on Ex.B.6 and Ex.B.7 are not valid in the eye of law to the extent of share of other sharers. After through examination of material on record, this court is of the opinion that Ex.B.6 and Ex.B.7 are not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs. Accordingly, issue No.4 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
9.1.Issue No.5 : Whether the court fee paid is not correct?
9.2.The plaintiffs are claiming that they along with defendants 1, 4 and 5 have joint and constructive possession on the plaint schedule property.
22 Fair O.S.No.262/2012
In view of the findings of this court on issue Nos.1 to 4 and 6, it is established that the plaintiffs, defendants 1, 4 and 5 have right on the plaint schedule property and they have share in it. Therefore, it shall be deemed that the plaint schedule property has been in joint and constructive possession of the plaintiffs, defendants 1, 4 and 5. Therefore, the court fee paid on the plaint is correct. Accordingly, issue No.5 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
10.1Issue No.7 : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for future mesne profits, as prayed for?
10.2. The plaintiffs claimed future mesne profits on the plaint schedule property. As the plaintiffs has right, share on the plaint schedule property, they are entitled for share out of the income from the plaint schedule property.
There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the plaint schedule property is agricultural land. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled for future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date delivery of possession of the share of the plaintiffs to them, otherwise, the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Accordingly, issue No.7 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
11.1. Issue No.8 : To what relief?
11.2. The plaint schedule property shall be divided into four equal shares. The plaintiffs 4, 5 and 7 to 9 together being the class – I legal heirs of the first plaintiff are entitled for one share. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 together 23 Fair O.S.No.262/2012 being the class-I legal heirs of Challagulla Veera Raghavaiah are entitled for one share. The first defendant is entitled for one share. The defendants 4 and 5 together being the class-I legal heirs of Challagulla Prasada Rao are entitled for one share. Further, in view of the facts and circumstances existing in this suit, the plaintiffs are entitled for suit costs from the defendants. Accordingly, issue No.8 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
12.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The defendants 1, 2, 6 to 8 are directed to divide / partition the plaint schedule property into four(4) equal shares with metes and bounds with good and bad qualities and allot one such share to the plaintiffs 4, 5, 7 to 9 together as they are the Class – I legal heirs of the deceased first plaintiff, allot one such share to the plaintiffs 2 and 3 together as they are Class – I legal heirs of Challagulla Veera Raghavaiah, allot one such share to the defendants 4 and 5 together as they are Class-I legal heirs of Challagulla Prasada Rao and put them in separate possession of their respective share of property. The first defendant is entitled for one such share out of four shares. The plaintiffs 2 to 5, 7 to 9 are entitled for mesne profits from date of suit till the date of delivery of possession of their share of property to them. Accordingly, the preliminary decree is passed.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2026.
Digitally signed by
SHAIK
SHAIK PEDAKHASIM
PEDAKHASIMDate: 2026.04.24 11:27:27 +0530
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid.
24 Fair O.S.No.262/2012
A ppendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined for
Plaintiff s : Defendants :
P.W.1: Challagulla Bheemeswara RaoD.W.1: Valasapalli Nagasiromani (Eschewed)D.W.2: Bottu Ganga Bhavani
P.W.2: Challagulla Ravi KumarD.W.3: Namala Ranga Rao.
D.W.4: Devineni Naresh
Exhibits Marked for Plaintiff s :
Ex.A1:Registration extract of the gift deed dt. 22.05.2012 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the second defendant. (Eschewed) Ex.A2:Registration Extract of the gift deed dt. 22.05.2012 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the third defendant. (Eschewed) Ex.A3:Registered Gift deed bearing document No.708/1960 dated 09- 05-1960. Ex.A4:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed bearing document No.2850/2012 dated 13-07-2012 executed by defendants 4 and 5 in favour of 3rd plaintiff. Ex.A5:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed bearing document No.2851/2012 dated 13-07-2012 executed by defendants 4 and 5 in favour of 3rd plaintiff. Ex.A6:Pattadaru passbook stands in the name of Challagulla Ravi Kumar. Ex.A7:Photograph(One in Number).
Note : Ex.A3 to Ex.A7 are marked in the cross examination of D.W.1.
Exhibits Marked for Defendants :
Ex.B1Unregistered Will deed dated 03.01.2004 executed by Challagulla Lakshmi Kanthamma.
Ex.B2Registered Sale deed bearing document no.937 dated 08.06.1989.
25 Fair O.S.No.262/2012
Ex.B3Registered gift deed bearing document no.2945 dated 17.11.1993.
Ex.B4Registered gift deed bearing document no.2946 dated 17.11.1993.
Ex.B5Registered Sale deed bearing document no.1403 dated 16.04.1996.
Ex.B6Registered gift deed bearing document no.1975 dated 22.05.2012.
Ex.B7Registered gift deed bearing document no.1976 dated 22.05.2012.
Ex.B8Pattadar passbook stands in the name of Devineni Dhana Lakshmi.
Ex.B9Pattadar passbook stands in the name of Bottu Ganga Bhavani.
Ex.B10Land cist receipts (Three in number).
Ex.B11Certified copy of Sale deed bearing document no.2841 of 1959 dated 02.06.1959 and Typed copy of the same.
Ex.B12Certified copy of Registered gift deed bearing document no.708/1960
dated 09.05.1960 and typed copy of the same.
Ex.B13Death certificate of Dosapati Venkata Srinivasa Prasad dated 01.03.2018.
Ex.B14Co.OP.Kisan Credit card – cum – Passbook issued in the name of Challagulla Lakshmi Kanthamma bearing code No.KRS50074956.
Ex.B15Co-op. Kisan Credit Card – Cum – Passbook of Nekkalapu Sesharatnam.
Ex.B16Co-op. Kisan Credit Card – Cum – Passbook of Yadala Ramesh.
Ex.B17Co-op. Kisan Credit Card – Cum – Passbook of Mothineni Sunitha.
Ex.B18Co-op. Kisan Credit Card – Cum – Passbook of Challagulla Jagana Mohana Rao.
Ex.B19Co-op. Kisan Credit Card – Cum – Passbook of Muthina Srinivasarao.
Ex.B20CKCC passbook of Devineni Dhana Lakshmi.
Digitally signed by SHAIK
PEDAKHASIM
SHAIK Date:
PEDAKHASIM
2026.04.24 11:27:49 +0530
Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Nuzvid.