Sunkara Sridevi

APCH000003242018 -1-

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: CHITTOOR IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: CHITTOOR IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: CHITTOOR

Present: Present: Smt Sunkara Sridevi,

VIII Additional District Judge,VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

Wednesday, this the twenty Wednesday, this the twenty second (22nd) day of April, 2026) day of April, 2026

O.S.No.29 of 2018

Between :

1. A.Gayathri

2. A.Sireesha

3. A.Aswini (3 rd plaintiff has declared as major as per orders in IA 64/2026 dt.25.02.2026) plaintiff has declared as major as per orders in IA 64/2026 dt.25.02.2026) plaintiff has declared as major as per orders in IA 64/2026 dt.25.02.2026)

…...Plaintiffs

And :

1. Smt. Manjula

2. Minor A. Mohna, rep. by their mother and next friend Smt. A.ManjulaMinor A. Mohna, rep. by their mother and next friend Smt. A.ManjulaMinor A. Mohna, rep. by their mother and next friend Smt. A.Manjula

3. Minor A.Seenu, rep. by their mother and next friend SmtMinor A.Seenu, rep. by their mother and next friend Smt A.Manjula

4. Nagaraj

5. Adimoorthy

6. Parvathi

7. Kumar @ Kalaga

8. Hareesh

9. Suresh Babu

10. Chandra Babu

11. Sujatha

12. Sri Lakkanna

…..Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 16.04.2026 in the This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 16.04.2026 in the This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 16.04.2026 in the presence of Sri C.Sureshpresence of Sri C.Suresh Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiffs Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiffs and of Sri

K.Bala Kumar, Advocate for defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 4 to 12 K.Bala Kumar, Advocate for defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 4 to 12 K.Bala Kumar, Advocate for defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 4 to 12 remained exparte and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiffs, upon hearing the and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiffs, upon hearing the and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiffs, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and perusinarguments on both sides and perusing the material papers on record and g the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

APCH000003242018 -2-

Judgment

This is a suit filed for division of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties This is a suit filed for division of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties This is a suit filed for division of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and for allotment of shares to the plaintiffs and for allotment of shares to the plaintiffs and for costs.

02. Initially the plaintiffs 1 to 3 got filed the main suit against the Initially the plaintiffs 1 to 3 got filed the main suit against the Initially the plaintiffs 1 to 3 got filed the main suit against the defendants and the plaintiff defendants and the plaintiff No.3 being minor represented by minor represented by her mother as guardian. Later as per the orders in I.A.No.64 of 2026 dated 25.02.2026 the guardian. Later as per the orders in I.A.No.64 of 2026 dated 25.02.2026 the guardian. Later as per the orders in I.A.No.64 of 2026 dated 25.02.2026 the 3rd plaintiff has declared as major.declared as major.

03. The brief averments of the neat copy of the plaint are as The brief averments of the neat copy of the plaint are as The brief averments of the neat copy of the plaint are as follows:

a) The 1st plaintiff is wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of late plaintiff is wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of late plaintiff is wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of late

Gangadhar. The marriage between the 1Gangadhar. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Gangadhar took place plaintiff and Gangadhar took place in the year 1997 in the parents house of 1r 1997 in the parents house of 1st plaintiff at Samasenumitta. At the plaintiff at Samasenumitta. At the time of marriage the parents of 1time of marriage the parents of 1st plaintiff have presented five sovereigns of plaintiff have presented five sovereigns of gold, 1/4th kg silver, house hold articles and a sum of Rs.10,000/kg silver, house hold articles and a sum of Rs.10,000/kg silver, house hold articles and a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the husband of 1st plaintiff.

b) The husband of 1he husband of 1st plaintiff father’s name is Appanna, he got seven plaintiff father’s name is Appanna, he got seven sons and two daughters. After the death of said Appanna in the year 2010 his sons and two daughters. After the death of said Appanna in the year 2010 his sons and two daughters. After the death of said Appanna in the year 2010 his children i.e., the defendants 4 to 11 and late Gangadhar succeeded plaint 'A' children i.e., the defendants 4 to 11 and late Gangadhar succeeded plaint 'A' children i.e., the defendants 4 to 11 and late Gangadhar succeeded plaint 'A' schedule property. The wife of Appschedule property. The wife of Appanna by name Meenakashi pre deceased anna by name Meenakashi pre deceased to her husband. Since then the children of Appanna have been in joint to her husband. Since then the children of Appanna have been in joint to her husband. Since then the children of Appanna have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' schedule property and the 4possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' schedule property and the 4thpossession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' schedule property and the 4 defendant has been looking after the said property on behalf of the other defendant has been looking after the said property on behalf of the other defendant has been looking after the said property on behalf of the other siblings and use to provide the usufruct to all of them derived from the plaint blings and use to provide the usufruct to all of them derived from the plaint blings and use to provide the usufruct to all of them derived from the plaint 'A' schedule property till the death of Gangadhar. The documents relating to 'A' schedule property till the death of Gangadhar. The documents relating to 'A' schedule property till the death of Gangadhar. The documents relating to plaint 'A' schedule are in the custody of 4plaint 'A' schedule are in the custody of 4th defendant.

c) The husband of 1c) The husband of 1st plaintiff went to Bangalore about 13 years back angalore about 13 years back and was doing building contract works and was living separately. Late and was doing building contract works and was living separately. Late and was doing building contract works and was living separately. Late

APCH000003242018 -3-

Gangadhar took the plaintiffs with him to Bangalore and put up family. Due to Gangadhar took the plaintiffs with him to Bangalore and put up family. Due to Gangadhar took the plaintiffs with him to Bangalore and put up family. Due to the atrocities of late Gangadhar the 1the atrocities of late Gangadhar the 1st plaintiff was forced to come back to her plaintiff was forced to come back to her parents house along with her children. Late Gangadhar had purchased a parents house along with her children. Late Gangadhar had purchased a parents house along with her children. Late Gangadhar had purchased a vacant site through a registered sale deed dated 15.03.2006 and raised a vacant site through a registered sale deed dated 15.03.2006 and raised a vacant site through a registered sale deed dated 15.03.2006 and raised a three storied RCC building which is shown as plaint 'B' schedule properthree storied RCC building which is shown as plaint 'B' schedule properthree storied RCC building which is shown as plaint 'B' schedule property.

Thereafter it came to light that the said Gangadhar developed illicit intimacy Thereafter it came to light that the said Gangadhar developed illicit intimacy Thereafter it came to light that the said Gangadhar developed illicit intimacy with 1st defendant and keeping her as kept mistress. The 1defendant and keeping her as kept mistress. The 1stst defendant has been proclaiming that she being the kept mistress of late Gangadhar gave been proclaiming that she being the kept mistress of late Gangadhar gave been proclaiming that she being the kept mistress of late Gangadhar gave birth to the defendants 2birth to the defendants 2 and 3. While so the said Gangadhar died on and 3. While so the said Gangadhar died on 10.02.2017 10.02.2017 10.02.2017 and and and his his his body body body was was was brought brought brought to to to his his his native native native village village village

Kadathanayanapalle.

d) Coming to know about the said facts along with parents of 1d) Coming to know about the said facts along with parents of 1st plaintiff d) Coming to know about the said facts along with parents of 1 and relatives went to the said village and as per the usage and custom the 1and relatives went to the said village and as per the usage and custom the 1stand relatives went to the said village and as per the usage and custom the 1 plaintiff participated in the funerals and also participated in the 11plaintiff participated in the funerals and also participated in the 11th day plaintiff participated in the funerals and also participated in the 11 ceremony. After the death of Gangadhar the defendants 4 to 11 are denying ceremony. After the death of Gangadhar the defendants 4 to 11 are denying ceremony. After the death of Gangadhar the defendants 4 to 11 are denying to provide the share of usufruct to the plaintiffs. Further the 1share of usufruct to the plaintiffs. Further the 1st defendant is share of usufruct to the plaintiffs. Further the 1 making hectic efforts to alienate the plaint 'B' schedule property. The plaintiffs making hectic efforts to alienate the plaint 'B' schedule property. The plaintiffs making hectic efforts to alienate the plaint 'B' schedule property. The plaintiffs demanded the defendants 1 to 3 for division of 'B' schedule property and the demanded the defendants 1 to 3 for division of 'B' schedule property and the demanded the defendants 1 to 3 for division of 'B' schedule property and the defendants 4 to 11 for divisidefendants 4 to 11 for division of plaint 'A' schedule property, but they have on of plaint 'A' schedule property, but they have not responded for the same. Hence, they got issued a notice dated not responded for the same. Hence, they got issued a notice dated not responded for the same. Hence, they got issued a notice dated 16.03.2017 to the defendants 1, 4 and 7 and they sent a reply dated 16.03.2017 to the defendants 1, 4 and 7 and they sent a reply dated 16.03.2017 to the defendants 1, 4 and 7 and they sent a reply dated 17.04.2017 with frivolous allegations. Hence, the present suit.17.04.2017 with frivolous allegations. Hence, the present suit.

e) The plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit came to know that the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit came to know that the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit came to know that the defendants 1 to 3 in collusion with 7defendants 1 to 3 in collusion with 7th defendant created a sham and nominal defendant created a sham and nominal sale deed dated 16.10.2019 in favour of one Sri Lakkana without their consent sale deed dated 16.10.2019 in favour of one Sri Lakkana without their consent sale deed dated 16.10.2019 in favour of one Sri Lakkana without their consent and without consideration in respectand without consideration in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property to avoid of plaint 'B' schedule property to avoid the share of plaintiffs and the said document is sham and nominal document the share of plaintiffs and the said document is sham and nominal document the share of plaintiffs and the said document is sham and nominal document and not binding on the plaintiffs. and not binding on the plaintiffs.

APCH000003242018 -4-

04. On receipt of summons the defendants 4 to 12 remained ex04. On receipt of summons the defendants 4 to 12 remained ex04. On receipt of summons the defendants 4 to 12 remained ex-parte.

05. The brief averments of t The brief averments of the written statement filed by the 1 he written statement filed by the 1 st defendant adopted by defendants 2 and 3 are as follows: defendant adopted by defendants 2 and 3 are as follows:

a) Except the relationship of 1a) Except the relationship of 1st plaintiff as wife of late plaintiff as wife of late Gangadhar she has denied all the other allegations in the plaint. The father of late Gangadhar has denied all the other allegations in the plaint. The father of late Gangadhar has denied all the other allegations in the plaint. The father of late Gangadhar by name Appanna got seven sons and two daughters and after the death of me Appanna got seven sons and two daughters and after the death of me Appanna got seven sons and two daughters and after the death of said Appanna all his children succeeded his properties. As a matter of fact, said Appanna all his children succeeded his properties. As a matter of fact, said Appanna all his children succeeded his properties. As a matter of fact, one of the sons of said Appanna by name Suresh is a mentally disordered one of the sons of said Appanna by name Suresh is a mentally disordered one of the sons of said Appanna by name Suresh is a mentally disordered person and his whereabouts are not knownperson and his whereabouts are not known for the past ten years. The for the past ten years. The daughters of Appanna got married long back and they are residing happily in daughters of Appanna got married long back and they are residing happily in daughters of Appanna got married long back and they are residing happily in their in-laws house.

b) The contention of the 1b) The contention of the 1st defendant is that, 1st plaintiff is none other plaintiff is none other than the maternal uncle’s daughter of late Gangadhar.than the maternal uncle’s daughter of late Gangadhar. Therefore elders Therefore elders performed the marriage and after the marriage the deceased Gangadhar got performed the marriage and after the marriage the deceased Gangadhar got performed the marriage and after the marriage the deceased Gangadhar got separated from his brothers by separated from his brothers by metes and bounds and put up a separate and bounds and put up a separate family at Bangalore along with the 1family at Bangalore along with the 1st plaintiff and both of them lived for a short plaintiff and both of them lived for a short period. Thereafter the 1stst plaintiff eloped with some other person, with whom plaintiff eloped with some other person, with whom she got intimacy, even prior to her marriage and since then her whereabouts she got intimacy, even prior to her marriage and since then her whereabouts she got intimacy, even prior to her marriage and since then her whereabouts are not known. All the efforts to bring back the 1are not known. All the efforts to bring back the 1st plaintiff to the company of plaintiff to the company of

Gangadhar are failed. Having noGangadhar are failed. Having no other go, he conveyed a mediation with the other go, he conveyed a mediation with the parents of 1st plaintiff and other elders on 12.02.2004 wherein the parents of plaintiff and other elders on 12.02.2004 wherein the parents of plaintiff and other elders on 12.02.2004 wherein the parents of 1st plaintiff executed a consent letter on the said date in favour of Gangadharplaintiff executed a consent letter on the said date in favour of Gangadharplaintiff executed a consent letter on the said date in favour of Gangadhar by stating that their daughter eloped with some other person and they have no by stating that their daughter eloped with some other person and they have no by stating that their daughter eloped with some other person and they have no objection to perform the second marriage to late Gangadhar. Prior to that the objection to perform the second marriage to late Gangadhar. Prior to that the objection to perform the second marriage to late Gangadhar. Prior to that the said Gangadhar also lodged a complaint before the SHO of Bangarupalyam said Gangadhar also lodged a complaint before the SHO of Bangarupalyam said Gangadhar also lodged a complaint before the SHO of Bangarupalyam stating that his wife 1st plaintiff was missing.aintiff was missing.

APCH000003242018 -5-

c) Having no other go late Gangadhar married the 1c) Having no other go late Gangadhar married the 1st defendant on c) Having no other go late Gangadhar married the 1 15.11.2004 at Kotilingalu temple at Karnataka as per Hindu rites and customs 15.11.2004 at Kotilingalu temple at Karnataka as per Hindu rites and customs 15.11.2004 at Kotilingalu temple at Karnataka as per Hindu rites and customs and in the said wedlock they gave birth to the defendants 2 and 3. Thus, the and in the said wedlock they gave birth to the defendants 2 and 3. Thus, the and in the said wedlock they gave birth to the defendants 2 and 3. Thus, the 1st defendant is legally wedded wife of late Gangadhar and the defendants 2 is legally wedded wife of late Gangadhar and the defendants 2 is legally wedded wife of late Gangadhar and the defendants 2 and 3 are his legitimate children. After the marriage Gangadhar settled in the and 3 are his legitimate children. After the marriage Gangadhar settled in the and 3 are his legitimate children. After the marriage Gangadhar settled in the house of 1st defendant at Bangalore by doing masonry works. As stated defendant at Bangalore by doing masonry works. As stated defendant at Bangalore by doing masonry works. As stated above even long prior to the marriage with above even long prior to the marriage with the 1st defendant, late Gangadhar defendant, late Gangadhar got separated from his brothers and after the marriage the parents of 1got separated from his brothers and after the marriage the parents of 1stgot separated from his brothers and after the marriage the parents of 1 defendant purchased a vacant site in the name of Gangadhar and presented defendant purchased a vacant site in the name of Gangadhar and presented defendant purchased a vacant site in the name of Gangadhar and presented the same to him since the 1the same to him since the 1st defendant happen to be their only daughter. defendant happen to be their only daughter.

With the amounts that were given by her parents the deceased Gangadhar With the amounts that were given by her parents the deceased Gangadhar With the amounts that were given by her parents the deceased Gangadhar slowly constructed plaint 'B' schedule property in the vacant site that was slowly constructed plaint 'B' schedule property in the vacant site that was slowly constructed plaint 'B' schedule property in the vacant site that was gifted by her parents, later after the death of Gangadhar being his LRs the gifted by her parents, later after the death of Gangadhar being his LRs the gifted by her parents, later after the death of Gangadhar being his LRs the name of 1st defendant was mutateddefendant was mutated in the municipal records and since then in the municipal records and since then she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute rights. The plaint 'B' schedule is the exclusive property of late Gangadhar and rights. The plaint 'B' schedule is the exclusive property of late Gangadhar and rights. The plaint 'B' schedule is the exclusive property of late Gangadhar and 1st defendant. The plaintiffs or anybody had no share whatsodefendant. The plaintiffs or anybody had no share whatsodefendant. The plaintiffs or anybody had no share whatsoever over the plaint 'B' schedule property.plaint 'B' schedule property.

d) Gangadhar died on 10.02.2017 due to cardiac problem at Bangalore. d) Gangadhar died on 10.02.2017 due to cardiac problem at Bangalore. d) Gangadhar died on 10.02.2017 due to cardiac problem at Bangalore.

The 1st defendant has spent considerable amounts for his treatment and the defendant has spent considerable amounts for his treatment and the defendant has spent considerable amounts for his treatment and the plaintiffs not cared enough to visit the hospital to see Gangadhar plaintiffs not cared enough to visit the hospital to see Gangadhar plaintiffs not cared enough to visit the hospital to see Gangadhar when he was on death bed. When the dead body was brought to his native village for on death bed. When the dead body was brought to his native village for on death bed. When the dead body was brought to his native village for cremation, the plaintiffs came to the village and created a cremation, the plaintiffs came to the village and created a cremation, the plaintiffs came to the village and created a scene seeking share in the properties without any humanity. The 3share in the properties without any humanity. The 3rd defendant has performed defendant has performed all the formalities for the cremation and other religious ceremonies of for the cremation and other religious ceremonies of for the cremation and other religious ceremonies of deceased Gangadhar and thus plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any share deceased Gangadhar and thus plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any share deceased Gangadhar and thus plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any share in the plaint schedule properties even by ouster. Prior to filing of the suit the in the plaint schedule properties even by ouster. Prior to filing of the suit the in the plaint schedule properties even by ouster. Prior to filing of the suit the plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 16.03.2017plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 16.03.2017 to the 1st defendant and others, defendant and others,

APCH000003242018 -6- in the said notice they have clearly admitted that deceased Gangadhar got in the said notice they have clearly admitted that deceased Gangadhar got in the said notice they have clearly admitted that deceased Gangadhar got divided with his brothers by divided with his brothers by metes and bounds after the marriage with the 1and bounds after the marriage with the 1st plaintiff, therefore the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any shaplaintiff, therefore the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any shaplaintiff, therefore the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any share in plaint 'A' schedule property and plaint 'B' schedule is situated at Bangalore and this 'A' schedule property and plaint 'B' schedule is situated at Bangalore and this 'A' schedule property and plaint 'B' schedule is situated at Bangalore and this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit on that ground alone the court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit on that ground alone the court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit on that ground alone the suit is liable to be dismissed.suit is liable to be dismissed.

e) There is no cause of action and admittedlye) There is no cause of action and admittedly the plaintiffs are not in the plaintiffs are not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the court fee paid joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the court fee paid joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the court fee paid under Sec.34(2) of APCF and SV Act is not correct and the suit is bad for nonunder Sec.34(2) of APCF and SV Act is not correct and the suit is bad for nonunder Sec.34(2) of APCF and SV Act is not correct and the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. Hence, liable to be dismissed with costs. joinder of necessary parties. Hence, liable to be dismissed with costs. joinder of necessary parties. Hence, liable to be dismissed with costs.

06. Basing on the respective pleadings and on available material, this Basing on the respective pleadings and on available material, this Basing on the respective pleadings and on available material, this

Court settled the following issues on 08.04.2025.Court settled the following issues on 08.04.2025.

1. Whether the plaint ‘A’ schedule property was originally Whether the plaint ‘A’ schedule property was originally Whether the plaint ‘A’ schedule property was originally belonged to late Appanna father of Late Gangadhar? belonged to late Appanna father of Late Gangadhar? belonged to late Appanna father of Late Gangadhar?

2. Whether the husband of 1 Whether the husband of 1 st plaintiff i.e., Gangadhar and plaintiff i.e., Gangadhar and defendants 4 to 11 were succeeded the plaint ‘A’ schedule defendants 4 to 11 were succeeded the plaint ‘A’ schedule defendants 4 to 11 were succeeded the plaint ‘A’ schedule property?

3. Whether ‘B’ schedule property is the self acquired Whether ‘B’ schedule property is the self acquired Whether ‘B’ schedule property is the self acquired property of late Gangadhar? property of late Gangadhar?

4. Whether the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is the exclusive Whether the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is the exclusive Whether the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is the exclusive property of late property of late Gangadhar and 1 st defendant?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for?

6. Whether the suit is bad for non Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary joinder of necessary parties?

7. Whether Court fee paid under Sec.34(2) of APCF and SV Whether Court fee paid under Sec.34(2) of APCF and SV Whether Court fee paid under Sec.34(2) of APCF and SV Act is correct? Act is correct?

8. To what relief? To what relief?

07. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Pws.1 to 3 of the plaintiffs, Pws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to were examined and Exs.A1 to

A9 were marked. PW.1 is A.Gayathri (1PW.1 is A.Gayathri (1st plaintiff), PW.2 is A.V.Parandama plaintiff), PW.2 is A.V.Parandama

Gowdu (third party), PW.3 is Avinash MR (third party). Ex.A1 is genealogical Gowdu (third party), PW.3 is Avinash MR (third party). Ex.A1 is genealogical Gowdu (third party), PW.3 is Avinash MR (third party). Ex.A1 is genealogical

APCH000003242018 -7- tree, Ex.A2 is office copy of notice dated 16tree, Ex.A2 is office copy of notice dated 16.03.2017 along with postal receipts .03.2017 along with postal receipts (3 in nos.), Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment of 4(3 in nos.), Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment of 4th defendant, Ex.A4 is un defendant, Ex.A4 is un served returned cover from the defendants 1 and 7, Ex.A5 is dated served returned cover from the defendants 1 and 7, Ex.A5 is dated served returned cover from the defendants 1 and 7, Ex.A5 is dated 17.04.2017 served copy of reply notice got issued by defendants 1, 4 and 7, 17.04.2017 served copy of reply notice got issued by defendants 1, 4 and 7, 17.04.2017 served copy of reply notice got issued by defendants 1, 4 and 7,

Ex.A6 is dated 15.03.2006 certified copy of registered sale deed executed by 6 is dated 15.03.2006 certified copy of registered sale deed executed by 6 is dated 15.03.2006 certified copy of registered sale deed executed by

K.Lavanya in favour of A.Gangadhar, Ex.A7 is dated 14.03.2018 1K.Lavanya in favour of A.Gangadhar, Ex.A7 is dated 14.03.2018 1K.Lavanya in favour of A.Gangadhar, Ex.A7 is dated 14.03.2018 1-B namuna obtained through Mee-seva, Ex.A8 is dated 14.03.2018 1seva, Ex.A8 is dated 14.03.2018 1-B namuna obtained B namuna obtained through mee-seva, Ex.A9 is certified seva, Ex.A9 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated copy of registered sale deed dated 16.10.2019 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of Lakkana bearing 16.10.2019 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of Lakkana bearing 16.10.2019 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of Lakkana bearing

Doc.No.4158/2019.

08. On behalf of the defendants 1 to 3 no oral or documentary evidence 08. On behalf of the defendants 1 to 3 no oral or documentary evidence 08. On behalf of the defendants 1 to 3 no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

09.Heard the counsel for plaintiffs. Heard the counsel for plaintiffs.

(a)The counsel for plaintiffs in his arguments initially concentrated about The counsel for plaintiffs in his arguments initially concentrated about The counsel for plaintiffs in his arguments initially concentrated about the defendants 1 to 3, who have not contested the suit though filed their the defendants 1 to 3, who have not contested the suit though filed their the defendants 1 to 3, who have not contested the suit though filed their written statement. His arguments very much concentrated about the written statement. His arguments very much concentrated about the written statement. His arguments very much concentrated about the contention of the defendants which is not acontention of the defendants which is not at all proved since they have not t all proved since they have not disputed the claim of plaintiffs through PWs.1 to 3, neither disputed by doing disputed the claim of plaintiffs through PWs.1 to 3, neither disputed by doing disputed the claim of plaintiffs through PWs.1 to 3, neither disputed by doing any cross examination nor adduced any evidence on their behalf. any cross examination nor adduced any evidence on their behalf. any cross examination nor adduced any evidence on their behalf.

(b) The counsel for plaintiffs also relied on a case law reported in (b) The counsel for plaintiffs also relied on a case law reported in (b) The counsel for plaintiffs also relied on a case law reported in 1999(3) Supreme Page 102 between Vidhyadhar vs Mankikrao and preme Page 102 between Vidhyadhar vs Mankikrao and preme Page 102 between Vidhyadhar vs Mankikrao and another, wherein the observation by their Lordships that : wherein the observation by their Lordships that :

“where a party to the suit does not appear in to the witness box “where a party to the suit does not appear in to the witness box “where a party to the suit does not appear in to the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that by the other side, a presumption would arise that by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct” the case set up by him is not correct”

APCH000003242018 -8-

By relying upon the case law the counsel for plaintiffs in his arguments By relying upon the case law the counsel for plaintiffs in his arguments By relying upon the case law the counsel for plaintiffs in his arguments very much contended that in absence of any material on behalf of the very much contended that in absence of any material on behalf of the very much contended that in absence of any material on behalf of the defendants absolutely their contentions through the written statement is not at heir contentions through the written statement is not at heir contentions through the written statement is not at all proved.

(c) The counsel for plaintiffs in his arguments also concentrated about (c) The counsel for plaintiffs in his arguments also concentrated about (c) The counsel for plaintiffs in his arguments also concentrated about the genealogical tree of late Appanna covered in Ex.A1 by showing the legal the genealogical tree of late Appanna covered in Ex.A1 by showing the legal the genealogical tree of late Appanna covered in Ex.A1 by showing the legal heirs of Appanna and appraised that the plaintiffs are entitled to get 45 shares and appraised that the plaintiffs are entitled to get 45 shares and appraised that the plaintiffs are entitled to get 45 shares out of the plaint 'A' schedule property. His arguments also contended about out of the plaint 'A' schedule property. His arguments also contended about out of the plaint 'A' schedule property. His arguments also contended about plaint 'B' schedule property which is the self acquired property of late plaint 'B' schedule property which is the self acquired property of late plaint 'B' schedule property which is the self acquired property of late

Gangadhar in which the plaintiffs 1 to 3 Gangadhar in which the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 2 and 3 being the and the defendants 2 and 3 being the illegitimate children of late Gangadhar are alone entitled to get share. illegitimate children of late Gangadhar are alone entitled to get share. illegitimate children of late Gangadhar are alone entitled to get share.

10. Though the defendants have filed their written statement initially, 10. Though the defendants have filed their written statement initially, 10. Though the defendants have filed their written statement initially, subsequently they have not turned up to contest the suit by doing crosssubsequently they have not turned up to contest the suit by doing crosssubsequently they have not turned up to contest the suit by doing cross examination of plaintiff’s side witnesses or to place any evidence on their examination of plaintiff’s side witnesses or to place any evidence on their examination of plaintiff’s side witnesses or to place any evidence on their behalf. Hence, this court is inclined to make the defendants exbehalf. Hence, this court is inclined to make the defendants exbehalf. Hence, this court is inclined to make the defendants ex-parte and to proceed with the matter by deciding the evidence of plaintiffs as exproceed with the matter by deciding the evidence of plaintiffs as exproceed with the matter by deciding the evidence of plaintiffs as ex-parte evidence on their behalf. Hevidence on their behalf. Hence, the following point is framed for ence, the following point is framed for determination.

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for?

11. POINT:

The case of the plaintiffs basing on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled The case of the plaintiffs basing on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled The case of the plaintiffs basing on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A9 is that, one late Gangadhar is huwith Exs.A1 to A9 is that, one late Gangadhar is husband of 1sband of 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The said Gangadhar is son of late Appanna and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The said Gangadhar is son of late Appanna and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The said Gangadhar is son of late Appanna and

Meenkashi. The said Appanna died in the year 2010 leaving behind him his Meenkashi. The said Appanna died in the year 2010 leaving behind him his Meenkashi. The said Appanna died in the year 2010 leaving behind him his seven sons and two daughters who are the defendants 4 to 11 and the seven sons and two daughters who are the defendants 4 to 11 and the seven sons and two daughters who are the defendants 4 to 11 and the husband of 1st plaintiff by name Gangadhar. It is also the further case of the plaintiff by name Gangadhar. It is also the further case of the plaintiff by name Gangadhar. It is also the further case of the plaintiffs that plaint 'A' schedule property is the ancestral property of late plaintiffs that plaint 'A' schedule property is the ancestral property of late plaintiffs that plaint 'A' schedule property is the ancestral property of late

APCH000003242018 -9-

Gangadhar and after the death of late Appanna the 4Gangadhar and after the death of late Appanna the 4th defendant has been defendant has been attending the plaint 'A' schedule prattending the plaint 'A' schedule property by sharing the usufruct to all the operty by sharing the usufruct to all the share holders including the husband of 1share holders including the husband of 1st plaintiff by name Gangadhar. plaintiff by name Gangadhar.

However after the death of Gangadhar on 10.02.2017 the defendants 4 to 11 However after the death of Gangadhar on 10.02.2017 the defendants 4 to 11 However after the death of Gangadhar on 10.02.2017 the defendants 4 to 11 are denying to provide share of the usufruct to the plaintiffs beingare denying to provide share of the usufruct to the plaintiffs beingare denying to provide share of the usufruct to the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of late Gangadhar. Hence, the present suit seeking partition of plaint 'A' heirs of late Gangadhar. Hence, the present suit seeking partition of plaint 'A' heirs of late Gangadhar. Hence, the present suit seeking partition of plaint 'A' schedule property among the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 11.schedule property among the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 11.schedule property among the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 11.

12. The further case of the plaintiffs is that plaint 'B' schedule is self 12. The further case of the plaintiffs is that plaint 'B' schedule is self 12. The further case of the plaintiffs is that plaint 'B' schedule is self acquired property of lateacquired property of late Gangadhar who has purchased the said property Gangadhar who has purchased the said property under Ex.A6 registered sale deed on 15.03.2006 from his vendor K.Lavanya under Ex.A6 registered sale deed on 15.03.2006 from his vendor K.Lavanya under Ex.A6 registered sale deed on 15.03.2006 from his vendor K.Lavanya initially as vacant site and later constructed building in the said property and initially as vacant site and later constructed building in the said property and initially as vacant site and later constructed building in the said property and after his demise the plaintiffs 1 to 3 being his legal after his demise the plaintiffs 1 to 3 being his legal heirs and the defendants 2 heirs and the defendants 2 and 3 being the illegitimate children of late Gangadhar are entitled for partition and 3 being the illegitimate children of late Gangadhar are entitled for partition and 3 being the illegitimate children of late Gangadhar are entitled for partition of plaint 'B' schedule property. of plaint 'B' schedule property.

13. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that during pending proceedings 13. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that during pending proceedings 13. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that during pending proceedings the defendants 1 to 3 executed a shamthe defendants 1 to 3 executed a sham and nominal document for plaint 'B' and nominal document for plaint 'B' schedule in favour of the 12schedule in favour of the 12th defendant and the said document i.e., Ex.A9 defendant and the said document i.e., Ex.A9

dated 16.10.2019 which is registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.4158/2019 is dated 16.10.2019 which is registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.4158/2019 is dated 16.10.2019 which is registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.4158/2019 is

not binding on the plaintiffs.not binding on the plaintiffs.

14. Since the plaintiffs have got fil14. Since the plaintiffs have got filed the present suit by contending that ed the present suit by contending that plaint 'A' schedule property is the ancestral property of late Gangadhar and plaint 'A' schedule property is the ancestral property of late Gangadhar and plaint 'A' schedule property is the ancestral property of late Gangadhar and plaint 'B' schedule property is self acquired property of late Gangadhar and plaint 'B' schedule property is self acquired property of late Gangadhar and plaint 'B' schedule property is self acquired property of late Gangadhar and they being the legal heirs of late Gangadhar entitled to get shthey being the legal heirs of late Gangadhar entitled to get shthey being the legal heirs of late Gangadhar entitled to get share in the suit schedule properties the burden is only on the plaintiffs in order to prove their schedule properties the burden is only on the plaintiffs in order to prove their schedule properties the burden is only on the plaintiffs in order to prove their contention.

15. The plaintiffs in order to discharge their burden, besides examining 15. The plaintiffs in order to discharge their burden, besides examining 15. The plaintiffs in order to discharge their burden, besides examining the 1st plaintiff as PW.1 two third party witnesses to the proceedings asplaintiff as PW.1 two third party witnesses to the proceedings asplaintiff as PW.1 two third party witnesses to the proceedings as PWs.2 and 3.

APCH000003242018 -10-

16. Let us see the evidence of 116. Let us see the evidence of 1st plaintiff as PW.1 she has filed her plaintiff as PW.1 she has filed her chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint. Through this witness nine chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint. Through this witness nine chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint. Through this witness nine (9) documents were got marked. Out of them the first document is the (9) documents were got marked. Out of them the first document is the (9) documents were got marked. Out of them the first document is the genealogical tree of late Appanna and his wife Meenakshi who died intestate f late Appanna and his wife Meenakshi who died intestate f late Appanna and his wife Meenakshi who died intestate and their children who are seven sons and two daughters i.e., defendants 4 to and their children who are seven sons and two daughters i.e., defendants 4 to and their children who are seven sons and two daughters i.e., defendants 4 to 11 and late Gangadhar. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 were shown as wife and children 11 and late Gangadhar. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 were shown as wife and children 11 and late Gangadhar. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 were shown as wife and children of late Gangadhar and the defendants 1 to 3of late Gangadhar and the defendants 1 to 3 were shown as kept mistress and were shown as kept mistress and illegitimate children of late Gangadhar. illegitimate children of late Gangadhar.

17. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiffs 1 17. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiffs 1 17. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 being minors represented by their mother 1to 3 and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 being minors represented by their mother 1stto 3 and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 being minors represented by their mother 1 plaintiff as guardian to tplaintiff as guardian to the defendants 1, 4 and 7 through their counsel. A he defendants 1, 4 and 7 through their counsel. A perusal of the contents of the legal notice, reads the marriage of 1perusal of the contents of the legal notice, reads the marriage of 1st plaintiff perusal of the contents of the legal notice, reads the marriage of 1 with Gangadhar in the year 1997. with Gangadhar in the year 1997.

18. Here it is pertinent to refer the case of the plaintiffs through Ex.A2 18. Here it is pertinent to refer the case of the plaintiffs through Ex.A2 18. Here it is pertinent to refer the case of the plaintiffs through Ex.A2 notice which was got issued in the year 2017 i.e., prior to the filing of the suits got issued in the year 2017 i.e., prior to the filing of the suits got issued in the year 2017 i.e., prior to the filing of the suit.

For better appreciation Para No.3 is reproduced as under :or better appreciation Para No.3 is reproduced as under :- “No.3. my clients further states that as late Gangadhar went to “No.3. my clients further states that as late Gangadhar went to “No.3. my clients further states that as late Gangadhar went to

Bangalore on his business work as he is doing building contractBangalore on his business work as he is doing building contractBangalore on his business work as he is doing building contractor by metes and bounds divided from his family as such since more and bounds divided from his family as such since more and bounds divided from his family as such since more than 12 years late Gangadhar was living separately so also his than 12 years late Gangadhar was living separately so also his than 12 years late Gangadhar was living separately so also his brothers are living separately with their respective business, and brothers are living separately with their respective business, and brothers are living separately with their respective business, and slowly late Gangadhar neglected my clients developing illegaslowly late Gangadhar neglected my clients developing illegaslowly late Gangadhar neglected my clients developing illegal intimacy with No.1 of you”.intimacy with No.1 of you”.

19. As could be seen the above referred paragraph which is the 19. As could be seen the above referred paragraph which is the 19. As could be seen the above referred paragraph which is the contention of the plaintiffs prior to filing of the suit that late Gangadhar divided contention of the plaintiffs prior to filing of the suit that late Gangadhar divided contention of the plaintiffs prior to filing of the suit that late Gangadhar divided from his family by metesmetes and bounds and living separately from his family and bounds and living separately from his family members i.e., his brothers who are also living separately. This is the area bers i.e., his brothers who are also living separately. This is the area bers i.e., his brothers who are also living separately. This is the area

APCH000003242018 -11- where the plaintiffs contradicted their prime contention with regard to the where the plaintiffs contradicted their prime contention with regard to the where the plaintiffs contradicted their prime contention with regard to the division of plaint 'A' schedule property which is said to be the ancestral division of plaint 'A' schedule property which is said to be the ancestral division of plaint 'A' schedule property which is said to be the ancestral property and have been in joint property and have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs.

The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A2 is quite contradictory to their own The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A2 is quite contradictory to their own The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A2 is quite contradictory to their own version that late Gangadhar divided from his joint family and the division was version that late Gangadhar divided from his joint family and the division was version that late Gangadhar divided from his joint family and the division was with metes and bounds and living separately with his famiand bounds and living separately with his family members who are ly members who are also living separately. In those circumstances how the claim of plaintiffs being also living separately. In those circumstances how the claim of plaintiffs being also living separately. In those circumstances how the claim of plaintiffs being the legal heirs of late Gangadhar would be sustainable to seek partition of the legal heirs of late Gangadhar would be sustainable to seek partition of the legal heirs of late Gangadhar would be sustainable to seek partition of plaint 'A' schedule property which is said to be their joint family property andplaint 'A' schedule property which is said to be their joint family property andplaint 'A' schedule property which is said to be their joint family property and as per their own version late Gangadhar was already separated from the joint as per their own version late Gangadhar was already separated from the joint as per their own version late Gangadhar was already separated from the joint family.

20. Now it is relevant to refer the Para No.8 of Ex.A2 notice and it reads 20. Now it is relevant to refer the Para No.8 of Ex.A2 notice and it reads 20. Now it is relevant to refer the Para No.8 of Ex.A2 notice and it reads as follows :- “No.8. My clients further states that there is also an ancestral “No.8. My clients further states that there is also an ancestral “No.8. My clients further states that there is also an ancestral property to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of agricultural lands at property to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of agricultural lands at property to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of agricultural lands at

Kadathanayanapalle Kadathanayanapalle Kadathanayanapalle V.Kota V.Kota V.Kota Mandal Mandal Mandal which which which is is is worth worth worth of of of

Rs.25,00,000/-. The said land is in joint possession with an . The said land is in joint possession with an . The said land is in joint possession with an understanding to cultivate No.3 of you with the aid of all brothers o cultivate No.3 of you with the aid of all brothers o cultivate No.3 of you with the aid of all brothers in turn that No.3 of you used to provide usufruct to all the brothers in turn that No.3 of you used to provide usufruct to all the brothers in turn that No.3 of you used to provide usufruct to all the brothers derived from the agricultural land till the death of Gangadhar”.derived from the agricultural land till the death of Gangadhar”.derived from the agricultural land till the death of Gangadhar”.

This contention of plaintiffs is also contra to their earlier versiThis contention of plaintiffs is also contra to their earlier versiThis contention of plaintiffs is also contra to their earlier version when stated in Para No.3 that late Gangadhar was divisioned from his family by stated in Para No.3 that late Gangadhar was divisioned from his family by stated in Para No.3 that late Gangadhar was divisioned from his family by metes and bounds and living separately since 12 years. As per the version of and bounds and living separately since 12 years. As per the version of and bounds and living separately since 12 years. As per the version of plaintiffs in Para No.8 the other ancestral property available is Ac.5.00 cents of plaintiffs in Para No.8 the other ancestral property available is Ac.5.00 cents of plaintiffs in Para No.8 the other ancestral property available is Ac.5.00 cents of agricultural lands at Kadathanayanapalle ofat Kadathanayanapalle of V.Kota Mandal.

21. Now coming to the case of plaintiffs with regard to plaint 'A' 21. Now coming to the case of plaintiffs with regard to plaint 'A' 21. Now coming to the case of plaintiffs with regard to plaint 'A' schedule property. It was shown in four itemsschedule property. It was shown in four items, they are Sy.No.321/5 they are Sy.No.321/5 – Ac.0.57

APCH000003242018 -12- cents, Sy.No.321/15 – Ac.0.02 cents in RCC residential buildingAc.0.02 cents in RCC residential buildingAc.0.02 cents in RCC residential building, Sy.No.322/13 – Ac.0.17 cents and Sy.No.322/16 Ac.0.17 cents and Sy.No.322/16 – Ac.0.41 cents and all the items are Ac.0.41 cents and all the items are surrounded with common boundaries. The schedule items 1 to 4 referred in surrounded with common boundaries. The schedule items 1 to 4 referred in surrounded with common boundaries. The schedule items 1 to 4 referred in plaint 'A' schedule is completely silent in Ex.A2 legal notice. The extent of plaint 'A' schedule is completely silent in Ex.A2 legal notice. The extent of plaint 'A' schedule is completely silent in Ex.A2 legal notice. The extent of

Ac.5.00 cents in Kadathanayanapalle which is the ancestral property of adathanayanapalle which is the ancestral property of adathanayanapalle which is the ancestral property of

Gangadhar is not at all found in the plaint 'A' schedule. In those circumstances Gangadhar is not at all found in the plaint 'A' schedule. In those circumstances Gangadhar is not at all found in the plaint 'A' schedule. In those circumstances it is for plaintiffs to explain that how the plaint 'A' schedule is available for it is for plaintiffs to explain that how the plaint 'A' schedule is available for it is for plaintiffs to explain that how the plaint 'A' schedule is available for partition contra to their pleadings covepartition contra to their pleadings covered in Ex.A2 notice. When they have red in Ex.A2 notice. When they have contended the division of Gangadhar among his other brothers when living contended the division of Gangadhar among his other brothers when living contended the division of Gangadhar among his other brothers when living separately 12 years prior to the issuance of Ex.A2 notice, it is for the plaintiffs separately 12 years prior to the issuance of Ex.A2 notice, it is for the plaintiffs separately 12 years prior to the issuance of Ex.A2 notice, it is for the plaintiffs to explain the properties which are not partitioned among Gangato explain the properties which are not partitioned among Gangato explain the properties which are not partitioned among Gangadhar and his brothers if at all left any whether or not available for partition. The other brothers if at all left any whether or not available for partition. The other brothers if at all left any whether or not available for partition. The other property which is an extent of Ac.5.00 cents referred in Ex.A2 is not the property which is an extent of Ac.5.00 cents referred in Ex.A2 is not the property which is an extent of Ac.5.00 cents referred in Ex.A2 is not the present suit schedule. In those circumstances the own contention of plaintiffs present suit schedule. In those circumstances the own contention of plaintiffs present suit schedule. In those circumstances the own contention of plaintiffs to claim partition of plaint 'A' schedule is completely fumbled through their own rtition of plaint 'A' schedule is completely fumbled through their own rtition of plaint 'A' schedule is completely fumbled through their own document covered in Ex.A2.document covered in Ex.A2.

22. In this context it is relevant to refer the arguments submitted by the 22. In this context it is relevant to refer the arguments submitted by the 22. In this context it is relevant to refer the arguments submitted by the counsel for plaintiffs by relying on the case law reported in counsel for plaintiffs by relying on the case law reported in counsel for plaintiffs by relying on the case law reported in 1999 Supreme (SC) Page 326 between Vidhyadhar vs Mankikrao and another, between Vidhyadhar vs Mankikrao and another, between Vidhyadhar vs Mankikrao and another, which was already referred in the preceding paragraph. Absolutely the case law relied already referred in the preceding paragraph. Absolutely the case law relied already referred in the preceding paragraph. Absolutely the case law relied upon by the counsel for plaintiffs is not in dispute and this court would draw upon by the counsel for plaintiffs is not in dispute and this court would draw upon by the counsel for plaintiffs is not in dispute and this court would draw presumption that the defendants intentipresumption that the defendants intentionally not entered into the witness box onally not entered into the witness box since if at all entered the same would go against to the case of the since if at all entered the same would go against to the case of the since if at all entered the same would go against to the case of the defendants. However the same is not sufficient to discharge the burden of the defendants. However the same is not sufficient to discharge the burden of the defendants. However the same is not sufficient to discharge the burden of the plaintiffs in their claim for partition which is a comprehensive reliplaintiffs in their claim for partition which is a comprehensive reliplaintiffs in their claim for partition which is a comprehensive relief.

23. Since the defendants have remained ex23. Since the defendants have remained ex-parte is not a ground to parte is not a ground to relieve the plaintiffs from their burden to place evidence either to prove the relieve the plaintiffs from their burden to place evidence either to prove the relieve the plaintiffs from their burden to place evidence either to prove the fact that plaint 'A' schedule property is their joint family property being the fact that plaint 'A' schedule property is their joint family property being the fact that plaint 'A' schedule property is their joint family property being the

APCH000003242018 -13- ancestral property of late Appanna or to prove the other fact that the said te Appanna or to prove the other fact that the said te Appanna or to prove the other fact that the said property is not yet divisioned among the family members and the same is property is not yet divisioned among the family members and the same is property is not yet divisioned among the family members and the same is available for partition. In this case the contention of the plaintiffs to claim available for partition. In this case the contention of the plaintiffs to claim available for partition. In this case the contention of the plaintiffs to claim partition of plaint 'A' schedule as their joint famipartition of plaint 'A' schedule as their joint family property and acquired the ly property and acquired the said property as ancestral property of late Appanna by showing four items in said property as ancestral property of late Appanna by showing four items in said property as ancestral property of late Appanna by showing four items in different survey numbers with common boundaries, for the reasons best different survey numbers with common boundaries, for the reasons best different survey numbers with common boundaries, for the reasons best known the said items were not referred in Ex.A2 which is the legal notice got known the said items were not referred in Ex.A2 which is the legal notice got known the said items were not referred in Ex.A2 which is the legal notice got issued by them by contending that there was a division of late Gangadhar with sued by them by contending that there was a division of late Gangadhar with sued by them by contending that there was a division of late Gangadhar with his brothers and living separately 12 years which is completely ruled out the his brothers and living separately 12 years which is completely ruled out the his brothers and living separately 12 years which is completely ruled out the case of the plaintiffs.

24. The plaintiffs also got marked the revenue record covered in Exs.A7 24. The plaintiffs also got marked the revenue record covered in Exs.A7 24. The plaintiffs also got marked the revenue record covered in Exs.A7 and A8. Ex.A7 is the 1--B Namuna dated 14.03.2018, wherein the name of B Namuna dated 14.03.2018, wherein the name of pattadhar is Apanna son of Ballappa for the property in Katha No.441 in three pattadhar is Apanna son of Ballappa for the property in Katha No.441 in three pattadhar is Apanna son of Ballappa for the property in Katha No.441 in three different survey numbers. However there is no mention in Col.No.8 with different survey numbers. However there is no mention in Col.No.8 with different survey numbers. However there is no mention in Col.No.8 with regard to the nature of acquisition of thregard to the nature of acquisition of the said property by the pattadhar. e said property by the pattadhar.

Similarly Ex.A8 is also another 1Similarly Ex.A8 is also another 1-B Namuna dated 14.03.2018, wherein the B Namuna dated 14.03.2018, wherein the name of pattadhar is Appanna son of Appanna for the property in Katha pattadhar is Appanna son of Appanna for the property in Katha pattadhar is Appanna son of Appanna for the property in Katha

No.300099 for the property in Sy.No.321/16 and similarly the relevant column No.300099 for the property in Sy.No.321/16 and similarly the relevant column No.300099 for the property in Sy.No.321/16 and similarly the relevant column in Col.No.8 with regard to the nature of acquisition Col.No.8 with regard to the nature of acquisition of the said property by the said property by pattadhar is left blank.

25. By relying on Exs.A7 and A8 the plaintiffs through the evidence of 25. By relying on Exs.A7 and A8 the plaintiffs through the evidence of 25. By relying on Exs.A7 and A8 the plaintiffs through the evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 wants to contend that plaint 'A' schedule is their joint family PWs.1 to 3 wants to contend that plaint 'A' schedule is their joint family PWs.1 to 3 wants to contend that plaint 'A' schedule is their joint family property. No explanation is offered by the plaintiffs to show any nexus to their . No explanation is offered by the plaintiffs to show any nexus to their . No explanation is offered by the plaintiffs to show any nexus to their case with EXs.A7 and A8 which do not show any details about the nature of case with EXs.A7 and A8 which do not show any details about the nature of case with EXs.A7 and A8 which do not show any details about the nature of property which is said to be their ancestral property. In either way the case of property which is said to be their ancestral property. In either way the case of property which is said to be their ancestral property. In either way the case of plaintiffs is fumbled and coplaintiffs is fumbled and considering the contents of Ex.A2, where there is a nsidering the contents of Ex.A2, where there is a mention about division by late Gangadhar with mention about division by late Gangadhar with metes and bounds with his and bounds with his brothers who are all living separately. Thus, the own contention of plaintiffs is brothers who are all living separately. Thus, the own contention of plaintiffs is brothers who are all living separately. Thus, the own contention of plaintiffs is

APCH000003242018 -14- completely inconsistent to their pleadings and unablcompletely inconsistent to their pleadings and unable to prove their case that e to prove their case that plaint 'A' schedule is their ancestral property and available for partition even plaint 'A' schedule is their ancestral property and available for partition even plaint 'A' schedule is their ancestral property and available for partition even after division as referred in Ex.A2 document.after division as referred in Ex.A2 document.

26. The further case of the plaintiffs seeking division of plaint 'B' 26. The further case of the plaintiffs seeking division of plaint 'B' 26. The further case of the plaintiffs seeking division of plaint 'B' schedule, which is the self acqwhich is the self acquired property of late Gangadhar. Ex.A6 is the uired property of late Gangadhar. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of late Gangadhar when certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of late Gangadhar when certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of late Gangadhar when purchased the property from his vendor. purchased the property from his vendor.

27. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of registered sale deed executed by 27. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of registered sale deed executed by 27. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of registered sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favodefendants 1 to 3 in favour of 12th defendant on 16.10.2019 i.e., after the defendant on 16.10.2019 i.e., after the institution of suit.

28. The counsel for plaintiffs relied on a case law reported in 28. The counsel for plaintiffs relied on a case law reported in 28. The counsel for plaintiffs relied on a case law reported in 2007

Supreme (AP) Page 696 between Mohd. Ikramuddin vs Sangram Bosle, Supreme (AP) Page 696 between Mohd. Ikramuddin vs Sangram Bosle, Supreme (AP) Page 696 between Mohd. Ikramuddin vs Sangram Bosle, wherein the observation by their Lordships of Howherein the observation by their Lordships of Hon’ble High Court of AP that:n’ble High Court of AP that:

“when the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed, in fact, he need “when the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed, in fact, he need “when the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed, in fact, he need not ask for cancellation of sale deed as the cancellation implies not ask for cancellation of sale deed as the cancellation implies not ask for cancellation of sale deed as the cancellation implies that the person suing should be an actual or constructive party to that the person suing should be an actual or constructive party to that the person suing should be an actual or constructive party to a valid or operative doca valid or operative document and a third party like the ument and a third party like the plaintiff/petitioner is not bound by a document of the description in plaintiff/petitioner is not bound by a document of the description in plaintiff/petitioner is not bound by a document of the description in question and is not obliged to sue for cancellation”.question and is not obliged to sue for cancellation”.

The counsel for plaintiffs by relying on the citation submitted his The counsel for plaintiffs by relying on the citation submitted his The counsel for plaintiffs by relying on the citation submitted his argument that the document covargument that the document covered in Ex.A9 is not binding on the plaintiffs ered in Ex.A9 is not binding on the plaintiffs and they have no need to ask for the cancellation of the document since they and they have no need to ask for the cancellation of the document since they and they have no need to ask for the cancellation of the document since they are not the parties to the said document. are not the parties to the said document.

29. Absolutely the said contention of the plaintiffs is undisputed. Since 29. Absolutely the said contention of the plaintiffs is undisputed. Since 29. Absolutely the said contention of the plaintiffs is undisputed. Since the plaintiffs are not parties to the proceedings covered in Ex.A9 the question are not parties to the proceedings covered in Ex.A9 the question are not parties to the proceedings covered in Ex.A9 the question of seeking cancellation of Ex.A9 document does not arise. However the case of seeking cancellation of Ex.A9 document does not arise. However the case of seeking cancellation of Ex.A9 document does not arise. However the case of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property is concern the same is of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property is concern the same is of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property is concern the same is

APCH000003242018 -15- self acquired property of Gangaself acquired property of Gangadhar, who died intestate and the contention of dhar, who died intestate and the contention of plaintiffs that 1st plaintiff is the wife and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of plaintiff is the wife and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of plaintiff is the wife and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of late Gangadhar respectively remains unchallenged since none of the parties late Gangadhar respectively remains unchallenged since none of the parties late Gangadhar respectively remains unchallenged since none of the parties to the proceedings denied or disputed the saito the proceedings denied or disputed the said contention by challenging the d contention by challenging the evidence of plaintiffs. Not only that the defendants 1 to 3 though contended evidence of plaintiffs. Not only that the defendants 1 to 3 though contended evidence of plaintiffs. Not only that the defendants 1 to 3 though contended that the said property covered in Ex.A6 was purchased by the parents of 1that the said property covered in Ex.A6 was purchased by the parents of 1stthat the said property covered in Ex.A6 was purchased by the parents of 1 defendant in the name of late Gangadhar and with the amounts earned by defendant in the name of late Gangadhar and with the amounts earned by defendant in the name of late Gangadhar and with the amounts earned by the

Gangadhar the building was constructed, did not come forward to put forth the Gangadhar the building was constructed, did not come forward to put forth the Gangadhar the building was constructed, did not come forward to put forth the said contention to the plaintiffs when placed evidence through PWs.1 to 3. In said contention to the plaintiffs when placed evidence through PWs.1 to 3. In said contention to the plaintiffs when placed evidence through PWs.1 to 3. In absence of any such contention from the defendants absolutely the plaint 'B' absence of any such contention from the defendants absolutely the plaint 'B' absence of any such contention from the defendants absolutely the plaint 'B' schedule property which is the self acquired property of late Gangadhar hich is the self acquired property of late Gangadhar hich is the self acquired property of late Gangadhar covered in Ex.A6 document and after the demise of Gangadhar the said covered in Ex.A6 document and after the demise of Gangadhar the said covered in Ex.A6 document and after the demise of Gangadhar the said property being the estate of deceased Gangadhar is succeeded by the property being the estate of deceased Gangadhar is succeeded by the property being the estate of deceased Gangadhar is succeeded by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 2 and 3 being the legal heirsplaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 2 and 3 being the legal heirsplaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 2 and 3 being the legal heirs of deceased

Gangadhar.

30. However, let us see the plaint 'B' schedule which is situated at 30. However, let us see the plaint 'B' schedule which is situated at 30. However, let us see the plaint 'B' schedule which is situated at

Doddakanehalli village, Varathur Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk, Bangalore Doddakanehalli village, Varathur Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk, Bangalore Doddakanehalli village, Varathur Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk, Bangalore shows that the said property is situated at Bangalore which is not within the shows that the said property is situated at Bangalore which is not within the shows that the said property is situated at Bangalore which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. l jurisdiction of this court.

31. For better appreciation, the provisions of Sec.16 to 18 of CPC are 31. For better appreciation, the provisions of Sec.16 to 18 of CPC are 31. For better appreciation, the provisions of Sec.16 to 18 of CPC are reproduced as follows:-

16. Suits to be instituted where subject 16. Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate.

Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suSubject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suSubject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits

(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,

(b) for the partition of immovable property,for the partition of immovable property,

(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property,charge upon immovable property,

APCH000003242018 -16-

(d) or the determination of any other rightor the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable to or interest in immovable property,

(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property,for compensation for wrong to immovable property,

(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the propertwhose jurisdiction the property is situate:

Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may, wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may, wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.business, or personally works for gain.

Explanation: In this section “property” means property situate in [India].In this section “property” means property situate in [India].In this section “property” means property situate in [India].

17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different 17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different 17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.

Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situaimmovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit te within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate :portion of the property is situate :

Provided that, in respect of the value of the subjectProvided that, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.tire claim is cognizable by such Court.

18. Place of Institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts 18. Place of Institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts 18. Place of Institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain.

(1) Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts, any immovabof which of two or more Courts, any immovable property is situate, any le property is situate, any one of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged one of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged one of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to

APCH000003242018 -17- entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the e suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the e suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction:local limits of its jurisdiction:

Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.

(2) Where a statement has not been recorded under subWhere a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and an section (1), and an objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court that a decree or objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court that a decree or objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court that a decree or order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having jurisdiction where the property is sjurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or Revisional Court ituate, the Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the institution of the suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the the institution of the suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the the institution of the suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there hascourt having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there hascourt having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a consequent failure of justice. consequent failure of justice.

32. The provisions of law as referred above and Sec.17 of CPC which 32. The provisions of law as referred above and Sec.17 of CPC which 32. The provisions of law as referred above and Sec.17 of CPC which shows the suit can institutshows the suit can institute in any one of the places where the property is in any one of the places where the property is situated in different areas. In the case on hand the claim of plaintifsituated in different areas. In the case on hand the claim of plaintifsituated in different areas. In the case on hand the claim of plaintiffs is sustainable only in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property which is situated at sustainable only in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property which is situated at sustainable only in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property which is situated at

Bangalore and invariably the plaintiffs have to institute the suit before the Bangalore and invariably the plaintiffs have to institute the suit before the Bangalore and invariably the plaintiffs have to institute the suit before the courts at Bangalore where the territorial jurisdiction of the plaint 'B' schedule courts at Bangalore where the territorial jurisdiction of the plaint 'B' schedule courts at Bangalore where the territorial jurisdiction of the plaint 'B' schedule property is situated, but not at Chittooris situated, but not at Chittoor, even though the plaintiffs and even though the plaintiffs and defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of this court. Since the plaint 'B' defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of this court. Since the plaint 'B' defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of this court. Since the plaint 'B' schedule property is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at schedule property is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at schedule property is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at

Chittoor absolutely the plaiChittoor absolutely the plaintiffs are not entitled for their relief seeking partition ntiffs are not entitled for their relief seeking partition of immovable property i.e., plaint 'B' schedule property which is situated at of immovable property i.e., plaint 'B' schedule property which is situated at of immovable property i.e., plaint 'B' schedule property which is situated at

Bangalore not comes under the territorial jurisdiction of this court.Bangalore not comes under the territorial jurisdiction of this court.Bangalore not comes under the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

33. In view of the above discussion as the plain33. In view of the above discussion as the plaintiffs on whom the burden tiffs on whom the burden lies to prove their contention that plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are lies to prove their contention that plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are lies to prove their contention that plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are

APCH000003242018 -18- available for partition and this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, even available for partition and this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, even available for partition and this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, even though placed evidence through PWs.1 to 3 and their own documents whthough placed evidence through PWs.1 to 3 and their own documents whthough placed evidence through PWs.1 to 3 and their own documents which is contra to their case made this court that they have failed to prove their contra to their case made this court that they have failed to prove their contra to their case made this court that they have failed to prove their contention that plaint 'A' schedule is their joint family property available for contention that plaint 'A' schedule is their joint family property available for contention that plaint 'A' schedule is their joint family property available for partition and 'B' schedule is though the self acquired property of late partition and 'B' schedule is though the self acquired property of late partition and 'B' schedule is though the self acquired property of late

Gangadhar the same is Gangadhar the same is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. not within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

Thereby the plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden. Hence, not entitled for Thereby the plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden. Hence, not entitled for Thereby the plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden. Hence, not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly point is answered. the reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly point is answered.

34. In the result, suit is dismissed. There is no order as . In the result, suit is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2026.day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. Sunk kara Sridevi

VIII Additional District Judge, VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor Chittoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS: : DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS:

PW.1 : A.Gayathri (1st plaintiff)plaintiff)-None- PW.2 : A.V.Parandama Gowdu (third party)PW.2 : A.V.Parandama Gowdu (third party) PW.3 : Avinash MR (third party)PW.3 : Avinash MR (third party)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Genealogical treeEx.A1: Genealogical tree

Ex.A2: Office copy of notice dt. 16.03.2017 along with postal receipts Ex.A2: Office copy of notice dt. 16.03.2017 along with postal receipts Ex.A2: Office copy of notice dt. 16.03.2017 along with postal receipts (3 in nos.) Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment of 4Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment of 4th defendant

Ex.A4: Un-served returned cover from the defendants 1 and 7served returned cover from the defendants 1 and 7

Ex.A5: Dated 17.04.2017 served copEx.A5: Dated 17.04.2017 served copy of reply notice got issued by y of reply notice got issued by defendants 1, 4 and 7defendants 1, 4 and 7

APCH000003242018 -19-

Ex.A6: Dated 15.03.2006 certified copy of registered sale deed executed Ex.A6: Dated 15.03.2006 certified copy of registered sale deed executed Ex.A6: Dated 15.03.2006 certified copy of registered sale deed executed by K.Lavanya in favour of A.Gangadharby K.Lavanya in favour of A.Gangadhar

Ex.A7: Dated 14.03.2018 1Ex.A7: Dated 14.03.2018 1-B namuna obtained through Mee-sevaseva

Ex.A8: Dated 14.03.2018Ex.A8: Dated 14.03.2018 1-B namuna obtained through mee-sevaseva

Ex.A9: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 16.10.2019 executed Ex.A9: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 16.10.2019 executed Ex.A9: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 16.10.2019 executed

By defendants 1 to 3 in favour of Lakkana bearing Doc.No.4158/2019. By defendants 1 to 3 in favour of Lakkana bearing Doc.No.4158/2019. By defendants 1 to 3 in favour of Lakkana bearing Doc.No.4158/2019.

DEFENDANTS : Nil Id/- SSD

VIII A.D.J.,

Chittoor

APCH000007592024

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR

Present: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi,

VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

Wednesday, this the 22nd (twenty-second) day of April, 2026

E.P.No.88 of 2024

ARB.No.71 of 2017

Between: M/s. Shriram Finance Limited (formerly known as M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited), represented by its Authorized Signatory and General Power of Attorney holder G.Vijay Kumar, S/o G.Ramana Reddy, Hindu, aged about 27 years, having branch office at Ward No.5, Opp. Gangavaram Panchayat Office, Madanapalli Road, Gangavaram Town & Mandal, Gangavaram, Palamaner, Chittoor District - 517408. ..Decree Holder

And:

1. L.M.Mahesh, S/o Munirathnam Naidu, Hindu, aged about 47 years, D.No.3-25-1, Chintalagunta Post, Venkatagirikota Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. Nagaraju, S/o Ramappa, Hindu, aged about 42 years, residing at D.No.25, Majara Ramapuram Village, Avan Post, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka-563131 (This EP proceeded against 1st judgment debtor only) .. Judgment Debtors

This petition is coming on for hearing before me on 20.04.2026 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.C.Kishore Kumar, Advocate for decree holder and of Sri S.Gopal, Advocate for 1st Judgment debtor; and upon perusing the counter and other material on record the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This EP is filed under Order XXI Rule 37 and 38 of CPC to issue warrant of arrest and to send the 1st Judgment debtor to civil prison towards the realization of the award amount.

APCH000007592024 -2-

02. The case of the decree holder through its Senior Relationship

Executive and Special Power of Attorney Holder in his affidavit supported to the application in brief is that, the decree holder company filed the arbitration case against the respondents/judgment debtors for recovery of amount and it was awarded in favour of decree holder company by virtue of award dated 27.04.2017. After passing of the award the representatives of decree holder company made persistent demands for payment of amount, but the judgment debtors failed to comply the same. The 1st judgment debtor is doing real estate business, having ready cash of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs towards their business requirements and also doing transport commission business and seasonal business and earning Rs.1 to 2 lakhs per month, inspite of having sufficient means and intentionally refusing and neglecting to pay the award amount.

Hence, the EP for arrest and detention of the 1st Judgment debtor in Civil

Prison for the realization of the award amount.

03. The brief averments of the counter filed by the 1 st Judgment are as follows:

(a) He denied all the allegations in the affidavit by contending that originally decree holder filed the arbitration case before the sole arbitrator behind the back of judgment debtor and the said matter was ex-parte decree without his knowledge. The decree holder has not sent any copy of award to the judgment debtor to prefer any appeal or not given any chance to challenge the ex-parte award and by suppressing the same filed the EP to harass the 1st judgment debtor. As per the provisions of Sec.34 of Arbitration and conciliation Act it must sent the copy of award to the judgment debtors within 30 days of the award by giving chance to challenge the award before any competent court and also in proper time to prefer an appeal, contra to the same and violating the provisions the decree holder without filing sufficient

APCH000007592024 -3- documents i.e., proof of service of award, filed the present EP to harass the 1st judgment debtor and on that ground the EP is liable to be dismissed.

(b) The EP amount alleged by the decree holder was also already paid by the 1st judgment debtor and he has cleared the loan amount and not due of any loan amount. Further the decree holder never demanded the judgment debtors for the loan amount and all these years they have played fraud against the 1st judgment debtor and by getting fraudulent ex-parte decree which shows the conduct of the decree holder.

(c) The judgment debtor is an un-employee and his entire family depending on his relatives and he has two unmarried daughters who are students and his son is also a student and studying with the mercy of his relatives and also from the scholarship provided by the Government, he has no sufficient income to maintain his family. He is a diabetes not doing any business. Hence, petition is liable to be dismissed.

04. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the decree holder company PW.1 was examined and no documents were got marked. PW-1 is

K.Muni Prathap. On behalf of 1st Judgment debtor RW-1 was examined and no documents were marked. RW.1 is L.M.Mahesh.

05. Heard the counsel for decree holder and counsel for 1st Judgment debtor.

(a) The Counsel for decree holder in his arguments submitted that evidence of RW.1 is sufficient that he has got sufficient means and intentionally avoiding the payment of EP amount.

(b) Per contra the counsel for 1st judgment debtor in his submission contended that there is no iota of evidence in proof of the avocation of judgment debtor referred in the EP. Not only that the evidence of PW.1 does not show any material about the means of 1st judgment debtor is enough to dismiss the EP.

APCH000007592024 -4-

06. Now the point for determination is:- Whether the decree holder company is entitled to get warrant of arrest under Order XXI Rule 38 of CPC towards realization of the award amount as prayed for?

07. POINT:- On perusal of the record and after hearing the contentions of respective sides show, that the decree holder company filed the ARB.No.71/2017 against the judgment debtors 1 and 2 for recovery of the amount and it was allowed on 27.04.2017 by way of award against the judgment debtors 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

08. The case of the decree holder basing on the evidence of PW.1 is that the 1st judgment debtor is having sufficient means and inspite of its repeated demands, never came forward to pay the amount covered under the award and with a dishonest intention and bad faith, he refused to pay the amount covered under the EP. Hence, for the issuance of arrest warrant against him in order to commit him to civil prison for the realization of the decretal amount.

09. The case of the 1st judgment debtor basing on the evidence of

RW.1 is that he has no means.

10. Since the decree holder company got filed the present EP contending that the 1st Judgment debtor has got sufficient means and intentionally refusing and neglecting the payment of award amount, the burden is only on the DHR in order to prove its contention.

11. In this context, it is relevant to refer the citations reported in (1)

Gubbala Rama Rao Vs., Kopanathi Suryanarayana reported in 2007 (2)

ALD page 363, wherein the observation by their Lordships of Hon’ble High

Court of A.P. that “the proviso to Sec.51 lays down that where the decree is for payment of money, execution by detention in prison should not be

APCH000007592024 -5- ordered unless the court is satisfied that judgment debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same”

12. In another citation reported in V.Balachandra Naidu Vs., Dr

V.Gurubhushana Naidu, in Civil Revision Petition No.5605/2010 wherein the observation by their Lordships of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. that “in an execution petition filed by arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in a civil prison, the initial onus of proof will be on the decree holder to establish that the judgment debtor has got sufficient means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof, but has willfully refused or neglected to pay the same with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree”.

13. In another citation reported in Jolly George Varghese case before their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court when held that “the initial burden of proving that the judgment debtor has means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and that he is refusing or neglecting to pay the same, would be on the decree holder in view of the composite effect of Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, since the decree holder wants the court to give a decision or judgment of the liability of the judgment debtor to pay the decretal amount and secondly the decree holder would fail on that question if no evidence at all were given by either side."

In the above case law their Lordships also held that “the simple default to discharge is not enough. There must be some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay".

APCH000007592024 -6-

14. In catena of citations before Hon’ble Apex Court, it is expressed that the courts are expected to be cautious while making order of arrest in execution of decree since it involves personal liberty and it is necessary for the courts to examine whether other modes of recovery are available to the decree holder and whether it is absolutely necessary to order arrest for recovery of the decreetal amount.

15. Let us see the evidence of decree holder whether or not discharged its burden to prove its contention. The decree holder company to discharge its burden examined its Assistant Business Manager as PW.1. He filed his chief affidavit contending that 1st judgment debtor is doing real estate business, transport commission business, seasonal business and getting

Rs.1 to 2 laksh per month besides having ready cash of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs. The entire affidavit of PW.1 is silent either with regard to the name and style of the business or the place of the said business where it was established by the 1st judgment debtor. Admittedly no document is produced on behalf of the decree holder in proof of the means of 1st judgment debtor having ready cash of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs on hand. PW.1 was thoroughly cross examined by the counsel for 1st judgment debtor. It shows the decree holder company filed the present EP seven years after the date of award and they have not issued any notice demanding for payment of EP amount after the award.

16. The initial cross examination concentrated about the acknowledge- ment in proof of the service of copy of award not filed before the court. The later portion of the cross examination shows that they have not furnished the details of the businesses and the place of its office. They have not seen personally the cash of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs in the hands of judgment debtor. He has admitted that they have not produced any documents in proof of the income of judgment debtor on his respective businesses. The cross examination of PW.1 is quite enough that except the oral testimony of PW.1

APCH000007592024 -7- there is no other material on record to show the means of 1st judgment debtor who has been doing number of businesses and earning lakhs of rupees on the said avocation. Except the evidence of PW.1 there is no other material on behalf of the decree holder company to prove its contention that 1st judgment debtor has sufficient means and getting income on number of businesses and even then intentionally avoiding the payment with a bad faith to cause loss to the decree holder.

17. The other evidence available before this court is the evidence of 1st judgment debtor as RW.1, he filed his chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the counter. During the cross examination initially it focused about the house bearing D.No.3-25-1 which is residential house of 1st judgment debtor and given the said door number even in the loan transaction which is said to be the own house of 1st judgment debtor which was denied by the witness, the later portion of the cross examination is that no medical record is produced in proof of his illness i.e., diabetes. The case of the decree holder is suggested to the witness that 1st judgment debtor has sufficient means and intentionally deposing false, which was denied by the witness. The entire cross examination of RW.1 is also silent about the means of judgment debtor as referred in the affidavit of PW.1 about the number of businesses and income in lakhs of rupees on the said businesses. The counsel for decree holder has not elicited either the name and style of the businesses or the place where the said businesses are doing by the 1st judgment debtor. In absence of any material in the cross examination of RW.1 including the details of house property owned by the 1st judgment debtor and the income if at all derived from the said house property in order to show the means of 1st judgment debtor as contended by the decree holder.

APCH000007592024 -8-

18. The counsel for 1st judgment debtor also relied on a case law reported in 2023 (2) ALT Page 633 between K.Koteshwar Rao vs

MD.Phayaz, wherein the observation by their Lordships that:

“the decree holder did not produce any evidence establishing that the 1st judgment debtor has means to discharge the decree amount, except pleading that he is an advocate, practicing at

Palasa. Therefore, no material which would show that the trial court exercised the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”.

19. In another case law reported in 2019 (4) ALD Page 107 between

Korada Narayana Rao vs Kudara Mutyalu, wherein the observation by their

Lordships that:

“as the order for arrest has to the effect of depriving the liberty of the person the conditions set out by the Higher Courts should be scrupulously followed. As held by courts on many earlier occasions, unless there is deliberate intention not to pay despite possessing sufficient means, an order of arrest should not be granted”.

The observation by their Lordships in the above case law is similarly applicable to the case on hand and the decree holder company failed to place any evidence on its behalf either to prove the sufficient means of 1st judgment debtor or his deliberate intention to avoid the payment of decreetal amount.

20. In view of the above discussion as the decree holder company has failed to prove its contention that the 1st judgment debtor has sufficient means and even then intentionally avoiding the payment of EP amount and thereby failed to discharge its burden. Accordingly point is answered.

APCH000007592024 -9-

21. In the result, the EP is dismissed against 1st Judgment debtor on merits. There is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. Sunkara Sridevi

VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

For Decree holder: For 1st Judgment debtor

PW.1 : K.Muni Prathap RW.1: L.M.Mahesh

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

Decree holder: NIL 1st Judgment debtor: NIL

Id/- SSD

VIII A.D.J.,

Chittoor.

1

In the court of the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge ::

Chittoor

Present: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi

VIII Addl.District & Sessions Judge, FAC IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, the 22nd (Twenty second) day of July, 2024

Crl.M.P.No. 549 of 2024

Cr.No. 32 of 2024 of Irala Police Station

Between: Bandarla Hemachandra Babu, S/o Annaiah, aged about 48 years, Coolie, R/o 5-2/a, K.Guravaiah Gari Palli, Moram Palli, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.

.... Petitioner/Accused.

And

The State rep. by the Station House Officer, Irala P.S., … Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 22.7.2024 in the presence of Sri K.Poornachandra, Advocate for petitioner/Accused and Smt.P.Himabindu,AdditionalPublicProsecutorforthe respondent/prosecution. Upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed U/sec. 438 Cr.P.C to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused to release him in the event of his arrest by the respondent/police in connection with the case in Cr.No.32/2024 of Irala

P.S., for the offences punishable U/secs.7B r/w 8B of A.P. Prohibition

Amendment Act.

2. The circumstances give rise to file this application are as follows: on 16.4.20224 at 2.30 p.m in-front of the house of accused at

Komatiguravaiahgaaripalle the Sub Inspector of Police, Irala P.S found the accused in custody of 06 liters of I.D arrack in a plastic can and on seeing the police party he skulk away by leaving the contraband.

2

After lifting the sample the remaining contra band was seized under the cover of Police proceedings and it was registered as a case in

Cr.No. 32 of 2014 under the provisions of Excise Laws and the investigation is on.

03. The case of the petitioner in brief is that:

He is innocent and not committed any offence and only to harass him and to defame him in the society a false case was registered and he is ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties for his appearance.

04. Notice is given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and memo is filed to that effect.

05. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP.

(a) The counsel for petitioner in his arguments submitted that by considering the age of the petitioner and the age of investigating officer it is absolutely not possible to skulk away from the spot and it is a false case registered for statistical purpose .

(b) Per contra learned APP submitted that it is a case of illegal custody of I.D arrack and still the arrest of accused is pending.

06. The point arose for determination in this petition is as follows:

Whether anticipatory bail u/Sec.438 Cr.P.C. can be

granted to release the petitioner/accused in the event of

arrest by the respondent/police in Cr.No.32/2024 of Irala

PS for the offence punishable u/Sec7-B r/w 8(B)of APP

Amendment Act ?

07. P O I N T:

As seen from the case-diary, on 16.4.2024 at 2.30 p.m in the

S.HO of Irala P.S found the accused in the custody of I.D arrack infront of his house of Komatiguravaiahgaaripalle and on seeing the police party he skulk away by leaving the contra band and the contra 3 band was seized under the cover of Police Proceedings and it was registered as Cr.No.32 of 20224 under the Provisions of Excise Laws and investigation was on.

08. On perusal of the C.D reveals that except forwarding the lifted sample to the analyst there is no progress in the stage of investigation. The CD also reveals that the presence of accused was not found at the time of seizure. Taking into consideration of the absence of accused at the time of seizure, the quantity which is also only 6 litres and no past criminal antecedents of the petitioner made this court inclined to allow the prayer however subject to imposing conditions.

09. In the result,petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, petitioner/Accused is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in the case in Cr.No. 32 of 2024 of Irala P.S., on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000-00 ( Rupees Twenty thousands only) with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the police officer, who would cause affect the arrest of petitioner. On such release, the petitioner/Accused is directed to appear before the Station House

Officer, Irala P.S., on every Monday and Friday between 10.00 a.m to 5.00 p.m for a period of two months or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier. It is needless to state that the petitioner/accused shall co-operate with the investigating agency and make himself available for interrogation.

Dictated to Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced in

open court, this the 22nd day of July, 2024.

sd/- Smt. Sunkara Sridevi

VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, FAC IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copy to: II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor Copy to: The SHO, Irala P.S. Copy to the counsel for petitioner on payment of usual charges.

In the court of the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor

Present: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi, VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC/IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Wednesday, the 3rd (third) day of July, 2024

Crl.M.P.No.510 of 2024

Cr.No.117 of 2024 of Chittoor II Town Urban P.S.

Between: Athoram Raja @ N.Raja, S/o M.Arjun, aged about 45 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.5-35/2, Indra Nagar, Mangasamudram, Santhapet Post, Chittoor Rural, Chittoor District …Petitioner/Accused No.2 And: The State rep. by the Station House Officer, Chittoor II Town Urban P.S. … Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on 01.07.2024 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri V.Venkatachalam, Advocate for petitioner/A2 and of Smt. P.Himabindu,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant, Upon hearing the

arguments on both sides and other material papers on record, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A2 to release him in the event of arrest by the respondent/police, in connection with the case in Cr.No.117/2024 of Chittoor II Town Urban PS., for the offences punishable under Sections 7 r/w 8 (b)(i) of APP, Act 1995.

02. The circumstances give rise to file this application are as follows:

On 01.06.2024 at 10.00 AM at the house of A1 in Chittoor, the accused No.1 was arrested by the ASI of Chittoor II Town P.S., under the cover of mahazarnama and seized non-duty paid Karnataka liquor after lifting the sample and A2 was absconded, the mahazarnama was registered as case in Cr.No.117/2024 under

Section 7 r/w 8 (b)(i) of APP, Act 1995 by the Station House Officer, Chittoor II Town

Urban P.S., and investigation is on.

03. The averments of the petition in brief are as follows:

He is innocent, not committed any offence, basing on the confessional statement of A1 his name was included, he is ready to produce sufficient sureties for his appearance .

04. Notice is given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and memo is filed to that effect, no counter was filed on behalf of prosecution.

-2-

05. Heard both sides.

(a) The counsel for petitioner in his arguments submitted that petitioner is innocent and law abiding citizen. A1 was arrested along with non-duty paid

Karnataka liquor and due to political rivalry the name of A2 was added and A1 was already on bail.

(b) Per-contra learned APP. Contended that A1 was arrested with a huge quantity of non-duty paid Karnataka liquor and A2 is supplier and still absconding, the investigation is pending and the IO has to ascertain the names of the persons and the particulars from whom the contraband was supplied to A1.

06. The point arose for determination in this petition is as follows:

Whether anticipatory bail u/Sec.438 Cr.P.C. can be granted to release the petitioner/A2 in the event of arrest by the respondent/police Cr.No.117/2024 of Chittoor II Town Urban PS., for the offence punishable under Sections 7 r/w 8 (b)(i) of APP, Act 1995 ?

07. P O I N T:

As could be seen from the material part of the record and case diary on 01.06.2024 at 10.00 AM at the house of A1, A1 was arrested along with non-duty paid Karnataka liquor in 575 packets by the ASI of Chittoor II Town PS under the cover of seizure mahazarnama and A2 is supplier and still absconding. The mahazarnama was registered as Cr.No.117/2024 under the provisions of excise laws and the investigation is on.

08. The CD reveals, except forwarding the lifted sample to the analyst there is no progress in the stage of investigation. Prima-facie huge quantity is involved and the investigating agency is still searching for the persons who are behind the offence so also their sources to supply of ID arrack to the 1st accused. Taking into consideration of the stage of investigation which is at threshold and if at all released on anticipatory bail there is every possibility to recur the similar offences, hence this court is not inclined to allow the prayer for the release of the petitioner/A2 on anticipatory bail. Accordingly point is answered.

09. In the result petition is dismissed.

Typed to dictation by the bench typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 3rd day of July, 2024.

Sd/- Smt. Sunkara Sridevi

VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC/IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

-3-

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copy to: Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Court, Chittoor Copy to: The SHO, Chittoor II Town Urban P.S. Copy to the counsel for petitioner on payment of usual charges.

In the Court of the IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor

Present: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi, VIII Addl. District Judge, FAC IX Addl. District Judge, Chittoor.

Wednesday, this the 8th (Eighth) day of May, 2024

E.P.No. 140 of 2023

ACP No. 455 of 2019

Between:

M/s IndusInd Bank Limited, represented by its Power of Attorney Holder, having its Corporate Office at New No.34, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600017 now being represented by K.Balakrishna, S/o Sreeramulu Naidu, aged about 33 years , holding office at Plot No.203/A, Chenji Plaza, 2nd Floor, Opp. SBI Bank, K.T Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

…Decree Holder And:

C.Rajendra …Judgment Debtor

This petition is coming on this day before me for notice and upon perusing the material papers on record and in the presence of

Smt. M.B.Swaroopa lakshmi, Advocate for Decree Holder, and this Court delivered the following:

D O C K E T O R D E R

The counsel for DHr filed memo that not pressing the E.P against JDr.

Heard. Memo is recorded. E.P against JDr is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 8 th day of May, 2024

Sd/- Smt. Sunkara Sridevi

VIII Addl. District Judge, FAC IX Addl. District Judge, Chittoor.