Smt T.Haritha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GOOTY

Present: Smt T.Haritha,

Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.

Tuesday, this the 19th day of September, 2023.

Original Suit No.203 of 2015

Between: Sri Sri Sadguru Allee Peera Swamulavari Darga, Gudikal, Yemmiganur Mandalam, Kurnool District, represented by its President Sri Sri Sadguru Gazi Hussain Peera, S/o S.Ghouse Peera Saheb, Muslim, aged 58 years, Employee, residing at Gudikal village. …Plaintiff

And

Sangala Gopal, S/o Sangala Thippanna, Hindu, aged 50 years, Cultivation, residing at Nancherla village, Chippagiri Mandalam, Kurnool District.

…..Defendants

This suit came up finally on 31.08.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. G. Lakshmi Pathi, Advocate for the plaintiff and Mr. G.Venkata Reddy, Mr. G. Sreekanth Reddy, Advocates for the defendant and on perusing the material available on record, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this court made the following:

Original Suit No.228 of 2015

Between: Sangala Gopal, S/o Sangala Thippanna, Hindu, aged 50 years, Cultivation, residing at Nancherla village, Chippagiri Mandalam, Kurnool District. …Plaintiff

And

1)Sri Sri Sadguru Allee Peera Swamulavari Darga, Gudikal, Yemmiganur Mandalam, Kurnool District, represented by its President Sri Sri Sadguru Gazi Hussain Peera, S/o S.Ghouse Peera Saheb, Muslim, aged 58 years, Employee, residing at Gudikal village.

2)Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Station Road, Guntakal.

…..Defendants

This suit came up finally on 31.08.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. G.Venkata Reddy, Mr. G. Sreekanth Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff and Mr. G. Lakshmi Pathi, Advocate for the defendant and on perusing the material available on record, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this court made the following:

Common Judgment was pronounced in OS. 228/2015 and 203/2015. As per the orders in memo dated 24.02.2020 suit in OS.No.228/2015 and 203/2015 are clubbed together for joint trial and evidence is recorded in OS.203/2015.

2

: J U D G M E N T:

Original Suit No.203 of 2015

1.The suit is filed for declaration in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to the plaint schedule movable properties which are all kept in the locker No.A.34 in the State Bank of India, to hand over the same to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff is Spiritual Trust practicing devotion among the people the plaintiff is having devotees all over the A.P.State and other states. One Vadla

Laxmamma and her daughter V. Gurupadamma were the devotees of the plaintiff turst and they use to follow the preaching and philosophy of the trust. The said

Vadla Laxmamma had bequeathed her entire properties to her daughter and after her death to the plaintiff by executing a registered will deed on 23.06.1984 as per the said will after the death of her daughter the plaintiff is entitled for the plaint schedule properties. The Testator, died on 09.03.1997 at Guntakal and her daughter

V. Gurupadamma also died on 21.04.2003 and it was a sudden death. After the death of Gurupadamma the plaintiff became entitled to all the properties of the said woman. Accordingly, the house bearing No.17/307, came into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and also mutated in its name. the deceased women were having joint account in the State Bank of India, Guntakal Branch and also having a locker bearing No.34 in the said Bank. The said woman have kept all the jewelry and other items which are described in the plaint schedule as items No.1 to 31 the plaintiff is entitled to receive the plaint schedule movable sunder law as per the said registered will deed executed by late V. Laxmamma. The defendant has nothing to do with the properties of the said woman. But the defendant has made false claim for the plaint schedule properties. Then the plaintiff filed the O.P.48/2008 for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the plaint schedule items. The Honourable 3

Court held in the said O.P. that the succession certificate can be granted only debts and securities and left open the remedy of seeking of the same. Hence the plaintiff is now filing the suit for declaration. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement.

The brief averments of the Written Statement of defendant are as

follows:-

She denied the contents of the plaint and submitted that Gurupadamma died on 21.04.2003 at Guntakal. It is false to say that she has not left any legal heir. The defendant herein is a legal heir. Sangala Thippanna is the father of this defendant and Gurupadamma. Gurupadamma is the daughter of the 1st wife of Sangala

Thippanna whereas the defendant herein is the son of the second wife of Sangala

Thippanna. Gurupadamma has no children. It is true Vadla Lakshmamma had taken locker in S.B.I. Guntakal where she was keeping valuables in locker No.A.34. An extent of A.2.50 cents in Sy.No.2 of Nancherla village was given to Vadla

Lakshmamma and her daughter Gurupadamma as per compromise decree in

O.S.111/1949 on the file of District Munisiff Court, Bellary. From out of the income

of the said land Vadla Lakshmamma and her daughter Gururpadamma acquired movable and immovable properties. They had deposited their movable assets like, gold, silver and fixed deposit receipts etc in Bank locker A.34 in State Bank of India

Railway station road, Guntakal. The said Bank Locker was operated by Vadla

Lakshmamma and her daughter Gurupadamma during their life time and they died owning and possessing said properties kept in safe deposit locker No.A.34. S.B.I.

Guntakal. After death of Vadla Lakshmamma her daughter Gurupadamma succeeded to her estate as per law.

The plaintiff herein is the only legal heir surviving to Gurupadamma, be being step brother and a heir under Sec.15 of Hindu Succession act, 1956,. The 1st defendant herein made false claim to the said movable properties and filed 4

O.P.48/2008 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty for issue of Succession

Certificate under Sec.372 of Indian Succession Act. The said petition was dismissed on 04.02.2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge Gooty. The certified copies of the orders in O.P.48/2008 are filed herewith. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. It is all created to grab plaint schedule properties of Wadla Lakshmamma for their personal benefit. The plaintiffs claim is devoid of merits and substance. The plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed either in law or on facts. Prays to dismiss the suit.

4.In view of above pleadings, the followings issues are framed for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to plaint schedule movable properties which are kept in locker No. A.34 in SBI as per the registered will dated 23.06.1984 ?

2. Whether the defendant is entitled to the plaint schedule

movable property being the legal heir of Gurupadamma ?

3. To what relief ?

5.Plaintiff and attestor were examined as Pws.1& 2. Ex.A1 to A28 are marked.

Plaintiff evidence closed. Defendant himself got examined as Dw1 Ex.B1 is marked.

Defendant evidence closed. Written arguments of plaintiff is filed.

6.Heard both sides.

Original Suit No.228 of 2015

7.The suit is filed for declare the plaintiff as sole legal heir of late Vadla

Gurupadamma and entitle to inherit the movable assets deposited in safe deposit locker A.34 in SBI, Railway Station Road, Guntakal and for consequential relief of delivery of possession of sale assets to plaintiff by D2 and for costs.

8.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- 5

Vadla Lakshmamma is the first wife of Sangala Thippanna of Nancharla village of Chippagiri mandal. Gurupadamma is the daughter ofsaid Lakshmamma and Sangala Thippanna. After few years of marriage Lakshmamma deserted her husband Thippanna and living with her daughter at Guntakal till her death.

Gurupadamma also deserted her husband and living with her mother at Guntakal as she has no children. The said Sangala Thippanna contracted second marriage with

Chinnna Lakshmamma prior to coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and lived at Nancherla till their death. The plaintiff is their only son. Lakshmamma, wife of Thippanna died on 09.03.1997 at Guntakal and her only daughter Gurupadamma died on 21.04.2003. To an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.2 of Nancherla village was given to Vadla Lakshmamma and her daughter Gurupadamma as per compromise decree in Os.111/1949 on the file of District Munsif, Bellary and out of income of said land both of them acquired movable and immovable properties and they have deposited movables like gold, silver and FD receipts etc in Bank locker

A.34 in SBI, Railway station road, Guntakal. After the death of Lakshmamma,

Gurupadamma succeeded to her estate as per law. The plaintiff being the step brother of Gurupadamma u/Sec.15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is the only legal heir to Gurupadamma, but the 1st defendant made false claim to the said movable properties and filed OP 48/08 in SCJ Court, Gooty for issuance of Succession certificate u/Sec.372 of Indian succession Act and said petition was dismissed on 04.02.2015. Hence the suit.

9.The defendant filed written statement.

The brief averments of the Written Statement of 1 st defendant are as

follows:-

He denied the contents of the plaint and submitted that subsequently the daughter

V.Gurupadamma also suddenly died on 21.04.2003 at Guntakal leaving without any legal heirs. As per the will and wish of the testator and her said daughter all their 6 properties including the plaint schedule valuables devolved on the 1st defendant with absolute rights. The 1st defendant being the propounder of the will deed became entitled to all their properties which includes plaint schedule properties.

The said Vadla Laxmamma was also having a house bearing D.No.17/307, near

Vasavi Theatre, Guntakal which is described in the schedule of the said will deed was devolved on the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant became owner of the said house as per the will deed and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said house. The said house was also mutated in the name of the 1st defendant in the property Tax demand registers of Guntakal Municipality. The said Vadla

Laxmamma and her daughter had locker facility available to their joint account in the State Bank of India, Guntakal Branch. The Locker bearing No.A.34 was allotted to the deceased ladies. The deceased have left the fixed deposits, Gold ornaments, silver items, documents, silk sarees i.e., plaint schedule valuables in the said locker in the State Bank of India, Guntakal branch. The plaint schedule valuables belongs to the said women.

The 1st defendant is entitled under law to receive the valuables i.e., plaint schedule articles available in the said Locker as propounder of the will deed. The said V. Laxmamma had executed the said regd. Will deed, dated 23.06.1984 bequeathing entire property to her daughter and after her death to the 1st defendant. By virtue of the said will the 1st defendant is entitled to the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff has also created a fake will allegedly executed by

V. Gurupadamma seeing the items shown in the inventory after submission of the inventory report by the Advocate-Commissioner. It is clearly and categorically recited in the said will that all the properties movable and immovable should devolve on the 1st defendant - trust. The plaintiff has contested the said O.P. and after enquiry the Hon’ble Court dismissed the OP.48/2008 holding that succession certificate can be granted only in respect of the debts and securities and tthat this defendant sought succession certificate in respect of gold and silber ornaments 7 deposited in the safe custody in Locker which can not be granted. While holding so, also left open to the parties to work out the remedies in accordance with law. Then the 1st defendant has filed a suit before this Hon’ble court in OS.No.203/205 the file of this Hon’ble Court for declaration that the 1st defendant is entitled for plaint schedule movables kept in Locker No.34 against the plaintiff. The plaintiff is contesting the suit sand same is pending. The plaintiff is not all entitled for the plaint schedule items and the 1st defendant is above entitled for the same. The plaintiff taking advantage of the death of the said women folk has made false claim for the plaint schedule items. As a counter blast the plaintiff has filed the above suit. The suit has to be dismissed. The suit is not property valued. The plaintiff has given the market value of the gold and silver ornaments and other items for the year 2004 when the inventory of the locker has taken out. The court fee has to be paid on the present market value of the plaint schedule articles. The market value of the gold and silver increased and the present market value of the jewellary should be obtained and on that market value the court fee to be paid. Hence the suit is not maintainable.

10.The brief averments of the Written Statement of 2 nd defendant are as follows:-

The 2nd defendant is ready and to abide any orders passed by the Hon’ble

Court in the above case in this regard in respect of delivery of possession of the said movable assets lying in Locker No.A.34 with this 2nd defendant.

11.In view of above pleadings, the followings issues are framed for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for?

2. To what relief ?

12.Heard both sides.

8

13.The parties are referred as per OS.No.203/2015.

14.Issue Nos.1 & 2 in OS.No.203/2015:

The plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit. In order to prove the will deed i.d. Ex.A28 Pw2 was examined. Pw2 was attestor of the will deed. Pw2 attestor was examined he supported evidence of Pw1, he deposed the testator of the register will deed under Ex.A28 signed on the will deed in his presence and he signed in the presence of testator. The plaintiff with his evidence and with the evidence of attestor i.e., Pw2, proved that Ex.A28 original will deed dated 23.06.1984 is true, valid and binding on the both parties. The plea of the plaintiff is, in the ‘will deed’, it is mentioned by Lakshmamma/Testator, that

She was deserted by her husband. She had no sons. Gurupadamma is her only one daughter. Gurupadamma was deserted by her husband. Gurupadamma had no children. In Ex.A28 will it is mentioned the schedule house property i.e. immovable property shall devolve upon her daughter Gurupadamma and if necessary, she can sell the said property. In case of her sudden death it shall devolve upon plaintiff’s institution. Lakshmamma died on 06.06.2003. Her death certificate was marked as

Ex.A4. she died on 09.03.1997. The will came into force from 09.03.1997. It is mentioned in the page No.2 that entire movable property of executants i.e.(Silver,

Gold, Cash etc.,) of testator shall devolve on her daughter, that means after the death of Lakshmamma 09.03.1997 the property devolved on Gurupadamma. She bequeathed the property to Gurupadamma i.e. her daughter. Her daughter is entitled for movable property of executant. She died on 21.04.2003, Gurupadamma did not execute any will. She died intestate. As seen from the opinion of hand writing expert report, the defendant Gopal had forged the signature of

Gurupadamma and created a will deed. The said will deed is not valid. The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in Ex.A28 Original will it is mentioned, the immovable property devolve upon her daughter Gurupadamma in case of her 9 sudden death it shall devolve upon plaintiff’s institution. The will came into force from 09.03.1997 i.e., after death of Lakshmamma, then, the immovable property bequeathed to Gurupadamma, she became owner of the property, but as per the intention of the testator, under will deed under Ex.A28, Gurupadamma died intestate, hence the immovable property shall devolve upon plaintiff’s institution.

The plaintiff’s institution has got exclusive right, title over the immovable property.

The defendant also not claiming any right, title over immovable property.

15.The counsel for plaintiff argued that the intention of the testator is to bequeath movable properties also in favour of Gurupadamma, after her death in favour of plaintiff’s institution, for that reason only she mentioned she has “no nearest relatives”. The counsel for the defendant submitted the testator had bequeathed only immovable property at page No.2 of Ex.A28. It is declare that after her death, the movable property shall devolve on her daughter

Gurupadamma. She separately mentioned about her movable and immovable property. The counsel for the plaintiff submitted from the sentence Testator had declared unequivocal terminology that entire property both movable assets and house property shall devolve on the plaintiff’s institution. The sentence of page No.2 should be read in conjecture with the word ‘sadari’ on page No.3 of Ex.A28 will deed, the term sadarishould not be read in isolation, the term includes both movable and immovable properties and it should not be read in conjunction word recitals of page NO.1 and 2 of Ex.A28.

16.As seen from Ex.A28 will deed she has mentioned the movable property separately and immovable property separately, “sadari aasthi” referring to immovable property only is not tenable. After the death of Testator Lakshmamma, the movable properties were inherited by Gurupadamma. Gurupadamma became absolute owner after the death of Lakshmamma in the year 1997 she enjoyed the same till her death i.e. on 21.04.2003 Gurupadamma died intestate, the plaintiff filed Ex.A10 certified copy of suit register abstract in OS.No.268/1994 on the file of 10

District Munisiff Court, Gooty. In that case the Lakshmamma and Gurupadamma filed suit for partition against the defendant and his mother. From that document it is clear the defendant is step brother of Gurupadamma. Gurupadamma died intestate she has no husband or children, class-I schedule as per Sec.8 of Hindu

Succession reads as follows: they are no Class-I legal heirs to Gurupadamma.

Class-I of Hindu Succession Act is reads as follows:

The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve:

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre- deceased son or daughter) and the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.

However, if any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother it shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to above, but upon the heirs of the father; and any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to above, but upon the heirs of the husband.

Class-II heirs:

I. Father.

II. (1) Son’s daughter’s son, (2) son’s daughter’s daughter, (3) brother, (4) sister.

III. (1) Daughter’s son’s son, (2) daughter’s son’s daughter, (3) daughter’s daughter’s son, (4) daughter’s daughter’s daughter.

IV. (1) Brother’s son, (2) sister’s son, (3) brother’s daughter, (4) sister’s daughter.

V. Father’s father; father’s mother.

11

VI. Father’s widow; brother’s widow.

VII. Father’s brother; father’s sister.

VIII. Mother’s father; mother’s mother.

IX. Mother’s brother; mother’s sister.

Class-I heirs take simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs heirs in the first entry of Class-II shall be preferred to those in the second entry, those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry and so on in succession.

17.Counsel for defendant argued that if really the intention of the Testator is to bequeath movable and immovable property in favour of plaintiff institution. She could have mentioned as “sadari aasthulu”instead of “sadari aasthi”. “Sadari aasthi”is referred with regard to immovable property only. As per the will deed under Ex.A28 Testator Lakshmamma has no husband and sons. As per Ex.A28 will deed Gurupadamma has no husband, sons or daughter. As per general rules of succession in case of female Hindu the property shall devolve firstly upon the sons and daughters and husband. Secondly upon the heirs of the husband. Thirdly upon the mother and father. Fourthly upon the heirs of the father. They are no heirs of the husband, mother and father predeceased to Gurupadamma, defendant is heir of her father. The property was inherited by Gurupadamma from her mother, in such case, it shall devolve upon the heirs of the father i.e. defendant, son of her father, defendant is step brother of Gurupadamma. The counsel for plaintiff submitted the

Testator mentioned she has no nearest relatives, Testator never considered the defendant as their legal heir. After all it is the will and wish of the Testator that prevails and courts have no role to play in the case of wills. The will has to be implemented letter and spirit. He further argued that it is settled principal of law that the contents of will have to be appreciated in the context of circumstances under rules of succession. The will is not meant to be an expression of his or her desire. Ex.A28 is the last will of the Testator and it is the product of sound and disposing state of mind. Counsel for defendant argued that after the death of 12

Lakshmamma, Gurupadamma enjoyed the property for a period of 6 years and she became absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. She died intestate, being

Class-II legal heir of Gurupadamma, the defendant is entitled for movable properties which were kept in the Locker No.A.34 in SBI. The defendant alone entitled to the plain schedule movable property being Class-II legal heir of

Gurupadamma.

18.The plea of the defendant is not unable, in the will deed the Testator has expressed her intention by mentioning she has only one daughter and the daughter has no children. After their death, the property shall devolve on the plaintiff institute. She categorically mentioned she has no nearest relatives, she did not inherit any property from her husband, the property under the will deed is herself acquired property and the property received from her maternal home. The word “sadari aasthi”shall be read as her intention to devolve the movable and immovable property together. It should be read in conjecture with the recitals on page No.1 & 2 of Ex.A28 will deed. The testator declared that she had ‘no nearest relatives’ that means the defendant not looking after their welfare. She got filed partition suit against the defendant. After partition they had no cordial relation between them for that reason only she had decided to give the property to the plaintiff institute. From recitals of the will deed, it appears the intention of the testator is to give the property to the plaintiff institute. The will and wish of the testator prevails, a will has to be implemented in its latter and spirit. The defendant cannot take advantage to inherit the property by way of succession by reading the ‘sadari’in singular Form.

After reading the entire contents of the will deed it appears the intention of the testator shall not be read as single, it will apply to both movable and immovable property. The defendant did not approach the court and did not claim the property, even in Succession O.P filed by plaintiff, came to the court, after filing of this suit by the plaintiff institute. From that also it appears the defendant has no cordial relation with the testator, he is not aware of the will deed, in order to claim the property he 13 went to an extent of committing forgery of signature of Gurupadamma and fabricated a will deed with dishonest intention to grab the movable properties of the testator and Gurupadamma. Ex.A28 is the last will of the testator and the same has to be treated as will deed of Gurupadamma and their intention is to bequeath the property in favour of plaintiff institute. They got prepared the Ex.A28 will with sound and disposing state of mind.

19.In view of the above discussion the plaintiff is entitled to the plaint schedule movable properties kept in the Locker No.A.34 of State Bank of India, Guntakal.

20.Issue No.1 in OS.No.228/2015:

The defendant was examined as Dw1. He filed Ex.B1 commissioner report to show availability of suit schedule property in locker of 2nd defendant. He did not file death certificates of Lakshmamma or Gurupadamma. He did not file any document pertaining to partition suit. His plea is he inherited the property by way of

Succession. He is Class-II legal heir of Gurupadamma. As per the will deed under

Ex.A28 also he got movable property as it is mentioned “Sadari aasthi” it refers only immovable property, it will not apply to movable property. In the will deed it is mentioned she was deserted by her husband, she has only daughter, after her death, the properties shall devolve on her daughter, in case of death of her daughter, the properties shall devolve on the plaintiff institute. She categorically mentioned she has no “nearest relatives”. Will deed was executed during life time of her daughter, by referring the intention of herself and her daughter. The entire contents of Ex.A28 will deed, it appears the intention of testator is to bequeath her properties to plaintiff institute after her death and after death of her daughter.

If there is no will deed, then only defendant will inherit the property by way of succession. Ex.A28 will deed has to prevail over succession. As per Ex.A28 will deed, the testator bequeathed her entire properties to plaintiff’s institution. The defendant has no right to inherit the property by way of succession. In view of above discussion, he is not entitled for declaration & recovery of possession as 14 prayed for. Suit filed by defendant is liable to be dismissed.

21.In view of the above discussion the plaintiff is entitled to the plaint schedule movable properties kept in the Locker No.A.34 of State Bank of India, Guntakal.

22.Issue No.2 in OS.228/2015:

In the result, suit in OS.228/2015 is dismissed without costs.

23.Issue No.3 in OS.203/2015:

In OS.No.203/2015 is decreed without costs declaring the plaintiff institute

Vadla Gurupadamma and entitled to inherit movable assets of Gurupadamma deposited in safe deposit locker No.A-34, in State Bank of India, Railway station road, Guntakal and consequential relief of delivery of possession of sale assets.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of September, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge, Gooty

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff Defendant PW.1: Sadguru Gazi Hussain PeeraDW.1:Sangala Gopal Pw2: Narasimha Reddy

Exhibits marked for the plaintiff

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Registered Trust deed dated 12.05.1942.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of resolution at page 29 in the book of plaintiff-trust appointing president.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Registered will deed dated 23.06.1984 executed by Vadla Lashmamma under document No.9-1984 (marked subject to objection and proof and relevancy).

Ex.A4: Death Certificate of Vadla Lakshmamma dated 06.06.2003 issued by the commissioner, Guntakal Municipality.

Ex.A5: Death Certificate of V. Gurupadamma issued by the commissioner, Guntakal Municipality dated 06.06.2003.

15

Ex.A6: Notice, dated 15.07.2003 got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Ex.A7: Office copy of reply notice, dated 04.08.2003 got issued by the plaintiff.

Ex.A8: Acknowledgment card served on the advocate.

Ex.A9: Copy of representation, dated 31.05.2003 given by the plaintiff to State Bank of India, Guntakal Branch.

Ex.A10: Certified copy of suit register extract in OS.No.268/1984 on the file of District Munsiff, Gooty.

Ex.A11: Certified copy of Order in OPS No. 48/2008, dated 04.02.2015.

Ex.A12: Certified copy of Original petition No.48/2008, dated 02.04.2004.

Ex.A13: Certified copy of Commission warrant, dated 25.06.2005 to make inventory of the locker.

Ex.A14: Certified copy of notice, dated 06.12.2005 issued by the advocate commissioner to chief manager, State Bank of India.

Ex.A15: Certified copy of Letter by the commissioner to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Guntakal dated 01.09.2005.

Ex.A16: Certified copy of Notice, dated 06.12.2005 issued by the Commissioner to the parties.

Ex.A17: Certified copy of the report, dated 06.12.2005 of the Advocate Commissioner.

Ex.A18: Certified copy of Commissioner report for obtaining valuation certificate,

date 31.07.2007.

Ex.A19: Water charges paid receipt dated 25.07.2005.

Ex.A20: Water charges paid receipt, dated 27.10.2009.

Ex.A21: charged paid receipt, dated 29.12.2012.

Ex.A22: charged paid receipt, dated 17.03.2014.

Ex.A23: Property tax paid receipt, dated 27.10.2009.

Ex.A24: Property tax paid receipt, dated 25.03.2015.

Ex.A25: Property tax paid receipt, dated 31.03.2015.

Ex.A26: Opinion report of Hand writing expert P.T.Ashok Kashyap, dated 25.11.2011.

Ex.A27: Nine photo – endorsement of disputed and admitted signature.

Ex.A28: Original will, dated.23.06.1984.

16

Exhibits marked for defendant

Ex.B1: Certified copy of Commissioner report, dated 30.12.2005 in OP.No.3/2004 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntakal.

Sr.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GOOTY

Present: Smt T.Haritha,

Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.

Tuesday, this the 19th day of September, 2023.

Original Suit No.203 of 2015

Between: Sri Sri Sadguru Allee Peera Swamulavari Darga, Gudikal, Yemmiganur Mandalam, Kurnool District, represented by its President Sri Sri Sadguru Gazi Hussain Peera, S/o S.Ghouse Peera Saheb, Muslim, aged 58 years, Employee, residing at Gudikal village. …Plaintiff

And

Sangala Gopal, S/o Sangala Thippanna, Hindu, aged 50 years, Cultivation, residing at Nancherla village, Chippagiri Mandalam, Kurnool District.

…..Defendants

This suit came up finally on 31.08.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. G. Lakshmi Pathi, Advocate for the plaintiff and Mr. G.Venkata Reddy, Mr. G. Sreekanth Reddy, Advocates for the defendant and on perusing the material available on record, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this court made the following:

Original Suit No.228 of 2015

Between: Sangala Gopal, S/o Sangala Thippanna, Hindu, aged 50 years, Cultivation, residing at Nancherla village, Chippagiri Mandalam, Kurnool District. …Plaintiff

And

1)Sri Sri Sadguru Allee Peera Swamulavari Darga, Gudikal, Yemmiganur Mandalam, Kurnool District, represented by its President Sri Sri Sadguru Gazi Hussain Peera, S/o S.Ghouse Peera Saheb, Muslim, aged 58 years, Employee, residing at Gudikal village.

2)Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Station Road, Guntakal.

…..Defendants

This suit came up finally on 31.08.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. G.Venkata Reddy, Mr. G. Sreekanth Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff and Mr. G. Lakshmi Pathi, Advocate for the defendant and on perusing the material available on record, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this court made the following:

Common Judgment was pronounced in OS. 228/2015 and 203/2015. As per the orders in memo dated 24.02.2020 suit in OS.No.228/2015 and 203/2015 are clubbed together for joint trial and evidence is recorded in OS.203/2015.

2

: J U D G M E N T:

Original Suit No.203 of 2015

1.The suit is filed for declaration in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to the plaint schedule movable properties which are all kept in the locker No.A.34 in the State Bank of India, to hand over the same to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff is Spiritual Trust practicing devotion among the people the plaintiff is having devotees all over the A.P.State and other states. One Vadla

Laxmamma and her daughter V. Gurupadamma were the devotees of the plaintiff turst and they use to follow the preaching and philosophy of the trust. The said

Vadla Laxmamma had bequeathed her entire properties to her daughter and after her death to the plaintiff by executing a registered will deed on 23.06.1984 as per the said will after the death of her daughter the plaintiff is entitled for the plaint schedule properties. The Testator, died on 09.03.1997 at Guntakal and her daughter

V. Gurupadamma also died on 21.04.2003 and it was a sudden death. After the death of Gurupadamma the plaintiff became entitled to all the properties of the said woman. Accordingly, the house bearing No.17/307, came into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and also mutated in its name. the deceased women were having joint account in the State Bank of India, Guntakal Branch and also having a locker bearing No.34 in the said Bank. The said woman have kept all the jewelry and other items which are described in the plaint schedule as items No.1 to 31 the plaintiff is entitled to receive the plaint schedule movable sunder law as per the said registered will deed executed by late V. Laxmamma. The defendant has nothing to do with the properties of the said woman. But the defendant has made false claim for the plaint schedule properties. Then the plaintiff filed the O.P.48/2008 for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the plaint schedule items. The Honourable 3

Court held in the said O.P. that the succession certificate can be granted only debts and securities and left open the remedy of seeking of the same. Hence the plaintiff is now filing the suit for declaration. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement.

The brief averments of the Written Statement of defendant are as

follows:-

She denied the contents of the plaint and submitted that Gurupadamma died on 21.04.2003 at Guntakal. It is false to say that she has not left any legal heir. The defendant herein is a legal heir. Sangala Thippanna is the father of this defendant and Gurupadamma. Gurupadamma is the daughter of the 1st wife of Sangala

Thippanna whereas the defendant herein is the son of the second wife of Sangala

Thippanna. Gurupadamma has no children. It is true Vadla Lakshmamma had taken locker in S.B.I. Guntakal where she was keeping valuables in locker No.A.34. An extent of A.2.50 cents in Sy.No.2 of Nancherla village was given to Vadla

Lakshmamma and her daughter Gurupadamma as per compromise decree in

O.S.111/1949 on the file of District Munisiff Court, Bellary. From out of the income

of the said land Vadla Lakshmamma and her daughter Gururpadamma acquired movable and immovable properties. They had deposited their movable assets like, gold, silver and fixed deposit receipts etc in Bank locker A.34 in State Bank of India

Railway station road, Guntakal. The said Bank Locker was operated by Vadla

Lakshmamma and her daughter Gurupadamma during their life time and they died owning and possessing said properties kept in safe deposit locker No.A.34. S.B.I.

Guntakal. After death of Vadla Lakshmamma her daughter Gurupadamma succeeded to her estate as per law.

The plaintiff herein is the only legal heir surviving to Gurupadamma, be being step brother and a heir under Sec.15 of Hindu Succession act, 1956,. The 1st defendant herein made false claim to the said movable properties and filed 4

O.P.48/2008 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty for issue of Succession

Certificate under Sec.372 of Indian Succession Act. The said petition was dismissed on 04.02.2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge Gooty. The certified copies of the orders in O.P.48/2008 are filed herewith. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. It is all created to grab plaint schedule properties of Wadla Lakshmamma for their personal benefit. The plaintiffs claim is devoid of merits and substance. The plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed either in law or on facts. Prays to dismiss the suit.

4.In view of above pleadings, the followings issues are framed for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to plaint schedule movable properties which are kept in locker No. A.34 in SBI as per the registered will dated 23.06.1984 ?

2. Whether the defendant is entitled to the plaint schedule

movable property being the legal heir of Gurupadamma ?

3. To what relief ?

5.Plaintiff and attestor were examined as Pws.1& 2. Ex.A1 to A28 are marked.

Plaintiff evidence closed. Defendant himself got examined as Dw1 Ex.B1 is marked.

Defendant evidence closed. Written arguments of plaintiff is filed.

6.Heard both sides.

Original Suit No.228 of 2015

7.The suit is filed for declare the plaintiff as sole legal heir of late Vadla

Gurupadamma and entitle to inherit the movable assets deposited in safe deposit locker A.34 in SBI, Railway Station Road, Guntakal and for consequential relief of delivery of possession of sale assets to plaintiff by D2 and for costs.

8.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- 5

Vadla Lakshmamma is the first wife of Sangala Thippanna of Nancharla village of Chippagiri mandal. Gurupadamma is the daughter ofsaid Lakshmamma and Sangala Thippanna. After few years of marriage Lakshmamma deserted her husband Thippanna and living with her daughter at Guntakal till her death.

Gurupadamma also deserted her husband and living with her mother at Guntakal as she has no children. The said Sangala Thippanna contracted second marriage with

Chinnna Lakshmamma prior to coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and lived at Nancherla till their death. The plaintiff is their only son. Lakshmamma, wife of Thippanna died on 09.03.1997 at Guntakal and her only daughter Gurupadamma died on 21.04.2003. To an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.2 of Nancherla village was given to Vadla Lakshmamma and her daughter Gurupadamma as per compromise decree in Os.111/1949 on the file of District Munsif, Bellary and out of income of said land both of them acquired movable and immovable properties and they have deposited movables like gold, silver and FD receipts etc in Bank locker

A.34 in SBI, Railway station road, Guntakal. After the death of Lakshmamma,

Gurupadamma succeeded to her estate as per law. The plaintiff being the step brother of Gurupadamma u/Sec.15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is the only legal heir to Gurupadamma, but the 1st defendant made false claim to the said movable properties and filed OP 48/08 in SCJ Court, Gooty for issuance of Succession certificate u/Sec.372 of Indian succession Act and said petition was dismissed on 04.02.2015. Hence the suit.

9.The defendant filed written statement.

The brief averments of the Written Statement of 1 st defendant are as

follows:-

He denied the contents of the plaint and submitted that subsequently the daughter

V.Gurupadamma also suddenly died on 21.04.2003 at Guntakal leaving without any legal heirs. As per the will and wish of the testator and her said daughter all their 6 properties including the plaint schedule valuables devolved on the 1st defendant with absolute rights. The 1st defendant being the propounder of the will deed became entitled to all their properties which includes plaint schedule properties.

The said Vadla Laxmamma was also having a house bearing D.No.17/307, near

Vasavi Theatre, Guntakal which is described in the schedule of the said will deed was devolved on the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant became owner of the said house as per the will deed and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said house. The said house was also mutated in the name of the 1st defendant in the property Tax demand registers of Guntakal Municipality. The said Vadla

Laxmamma and her daughter had locker facility available to their joint account in the State Bank of India, Guntakal Branch. The Locker bearing No.A.34 was allotted to the deceased ladies. The deceased have left the fixed deposits, Gold ornaments, silver items, documents, silk sarees i.e., plaint schedule valuables in the said locker in the State Bank of India, Guntakal branch. The plaint schedule valuables belongs to the said women.

The 1st defendant is entitled under law to receive the valuables i.e., plaint schedule articles available in the said Locker as propounder of the will deed. The said V. Laxmamma had executed the said regd. Will deed, dated 23.06.1984 bequeathing entire property to her daughter and after her death to the 1st defendant. By virtue of the said will the 1st defendant is entitled to the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff has also created a fake will allegedly executed by

V. Gurupadamma seeing the items shown in the inventory after submission of the inventory report by the Advocate-Commissioner. It is clearly and categorically recited in the said will that all the properties movable and immovable should devolve on the 1st defendant - trust. The plaintiff has contested the said O.P. and after enquiry the Hon’ble Court dismissed the OP.48/2008 holding that succession certificate can be granted only in respect of the debts and securities and tthat this defendant sought succession certificate in respect of gold and silber ornaments 7 deposited in the safe custody in Locker which can not be granted. While holding so, also left open to the parties to work out the remedies in accordance with law. Then the 1st defendant has filed a suit before this Hon’ble court in OS.No.203/205 the file of this Hon’ble Court for declaration that the 1st defendant is entitled for plaint schedule movables kept in Locker No.34 against the plaintiff. The plaintiff is contesting the suit sand same is pending. The plaintiff is not all entitled for the plaint schedule items and the 1st defendant is above entitled for the same. The plaintiff taking advantage of the death of the said women folk has made false claim for the plaint schedule items. As a counter blast the plaintiff has filed the above suit. The suit has to be dismissed. The suit is not property valued. The plaintiff has given the market value of the gold and silver ornaments and other items for the year 2004 when the inventory of the locker has taken out. The court fee has to be paid on the present market value of the plaint schedule articles. The market value of the gold and silver increased and the present market value of the jewellary should be obtained and on that market value the court fee to be paid. Hence the suit is not maintainable.

10.The brief averments of the Written Statement of 2 nd defendant are as follows:-

The 2nd defendant is ready and to abide any orders passed by the Hon’ble

Court in the above case in this regard in respect of delivery of possession of the said movable assets lying in Locker No.A.34 with this 2nd defendant.

11.In view of above pleadings, the followings issues are framed for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for?

2. To what relief ?

12.Heard both sides.

8

13.The parties are referred as per OS.No.203/2015.

14.Issue Nos.1 & 2 in OS.No.203/2015:

The plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit. In order to prove the will deed i.d. Ex.A28 Pw2 was examined. Pw2 was attestor of the will deed. Pw2 attestor was examined he supported evidence of Pw1, he deposed the testator of the register will deed under Ex.A28 signed on the will deed in his presence and he signed in the presence of testator. The plaintiff with his evidence and with the evidence of attestor i.e., Pw2, proved that Ex.A28 original will deed dated 23.06.1984 is true, valid and binding on the both parties. The plea of the plaintiff is, in the ‘will deed’, it is mentioned by Lakshmamma/Testator, that

She was deserted by her husband. She had no sons. Gurupadamma is her only one daughter. Gurupadamma was deserted by her husband. Gurupadamma had no children. In Ex.A28 will it is mentioned the schedule house property i.e. immovable property shall devolve upon her daughter Gurupadamma and if necessary, she can sell the said property. In case of her sudden death it shall devolve upon plaintiff’s institution. Lakshmamma died on 06.06.2003. Her death certificate was marked as

Ex.A4. she died on 09.03.1997. The will came into force from 09.03.1997. It is mentioned in the page No.2 that entire movable property of executants i.e.(Silver,

Gold, Cash etc.,) of testator shall devolve on her daughter, that means after the death of Lakshmamma 09.03.1997 the property devolved on Gurupadamma. She bequeathed the property to Gurupadamma i.e. her daughter. Her daughter is entitled for movable property of executant. She died on 21.04.2003, Gurupadamma did not execute any will. She died intestate. As seen from the opinion of hand writing expert report, the defendant Gopal had forged the signature of

Gurupadamma and created a will deed. The said will deed is not valid. The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in Ex.A28 Original will it is mentioned, the immovable property devolve upon her daughter Gurupadamma in case of her 9 sudden death it shall devolve upon plaintiff’s institution. The will came into force from 09.03.1997 i.e., after death of Lakshmamma, then, the immovable property bequeathed to Gurupadamma, she became owner of the property, but as per the intention of the testator, under will deed under Ex.A28, Gurupadamma died intestate, hence the immovable property shall devolve upon plaintiff’s institution.

The plaintiff’s institution has got exclusive right, title over the immovable property.

The defendant also not claiming any right, title over immovable property.

15.The counsel for plaintiff argued that the intention of the testator is to bequeath movable properties also in favour of Gurupadamma, after her death in favour of plaintiff’s institution, for that reason only she mentioned she has “no nearest relatives”. The counsel for the defendant submitted the testator had bequeathed only immovable property at page No.2 of Ex.A28. It is declare that after her death, the movable property shall devolve on her daughter

Gurupadamma. She separately mentioned about her movable and immovable property. The counsel for the plaintiff submitted from the sentence Testator had declared unequivocal terminology that entire property both movable assets and house property shall devolve on the plaintiff’s institution. The sentence of page No.2 should be read in conjecture with the word ‘sadari’ on page No.3 of Ex.A28 will deed, the term sadarishould not be read in isolation, the term includes both movable and immovable properties and it should not be read in conjunction word recitals of page NO.1 and 2 of Ex.A28.

16.As seen from Ex.A28 will deed she has mentioned the movable property separately and immovable property separately, “sadari aasthi” referring to immovable property only is not tenable. After the death of Testator Lakshmamma, the movable properties were inherited by Gurupadamma. Gurupadamma became absolute owner after the death of Lakshmamma in the year 1997 she enjoyed the same till her death i.e. on 21.04.2003 Gurupadamma died intestate, the plaintiff filed Ex.A10 certified copy of suit register abstract in OS.No.268/1994 on the file of 10

District Munisiff Court, Gooty. In that case the Lakshmamma and Gurupadamma filed suit for partition against the defendant and his mother. From that document it is clear the defendant is step brother of Gurupadamma. Gurupadamma died intestate she has no husband or children, class-I schedule as per Sec.8 of Hindu

Succession reads as follows: they are no Class-I legal heirs to Gurupadamma.

Class-I of Hindu Succession Act is reads as follows:

The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve:

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre- deceased son or daughter) and the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.

However, if any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother it shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to above, but upon the heirs of the father; and any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to above, but upon the heirs of the husband.

Class-II heirs:

I. Father.

II. (1) Son’s daughter’s son, (2) son’s daughter’s daughter, (3) brother, (4) sister.

III. (1) Daughter’s son’s son, (2) daughter’s son’s daughter, (3) daughter’s daughter’s son, (4) daughter’s daughter’s daughter.

IV. (1) Brother’s son, (2) sister’s son, (3) brother’s daughter, (4) sister’s daughter.

V. Father’s father; father’s mother.

11

VI. Father’s widow; brother’s widow.

VII. Father’s brother; father’s sister.

VIII. Mother’s father; mother’s mother.

IX. Mother’s brother; mother’s sister.

Class-I heirs take simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs heirs in the first entry of Class-II shall be preferred to those in the second entry, those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry and so on in succession.

17.Counsel for defendant argued that if really the intention of the Testator is to bequeath movable and immovable property in favour of plaintiff institution. She could have mentioned as “sadari aasthulu”instead of “sadari aasthi”. “Sadari aasthi”is referred with regard to immovable property only. As per the will deed under Ex.A28 Testator Lakshmamma has no husband and sons. As per Ex.A28 will deed Gurupadamma has no husband, sons or daughter. As per general rules of succession in case of female Hindu the property shall devolve firstly upon the sons and daughters and husband. Secondly upon the heirs of the husband. Thirdly upon the mother and father. Fourthly upon the heirs of the father. They are no heirs of the husband, mother and father predeceased to Gurupadamma, defendant is heir of her father. The property was inherited by Gurupadamma from her mother, in such case, it shall devolve upon the heirs of the father i.e. defendant, son of her father, defendant is step brother of Gurupadamma. The counsel for plaintiff submitted the

Testator mentioned she has no nearest relatives, Testator never considered the defendant as their legal heir. After all it is the will and wish of the Testator that prevails and courts have no role to play in the case of wills. The will has to be implemented letter and spirit. He further argued that it is settled principal of law that the contents of will have to be appreciated in the context of circumstances under rules of succession. The will is not meant to be an expression of his or her desire. Ex.A28 is the last will of the Testator and it is the product of sound and disposing state of mind. Counsel for defendant argued that after the death of 12

Lakshmamma, Gurupadamma enjoyed the property for a period of 6 years and she became absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. She died intestate, being

Class-II legal heir of Gurupadamma, the defendant is entitled for movable properties which were kept in the Locker No.A.34 in SBI. The defendant alone entitled to the plain schedule movable property being Class-II legal heir of

Gurupadamma.

18.The plea of the defendant is not unable, in the will deed the Testator has expressed her intention by mentioning she has only one daughter and the daughter has no children. After their death, the property shall devolve on the plaintiff institute. She categorically mentioned she has no nearest relatives, she did not inherit any property from her husband, the property under the will deed is herself acquired property and the property received from her maternal home. The word “sadari aasthi”shall be read as her intention to devolve the movable and immovable property together. It should be read in conjecture with the recitals on page No.1 & 2 of Ex.A28 will deed. The testator declared that she had ‘no nearest relatives’ that means the defendant not looking after their welfare. She got filed partition suit against the defendant. After partition they had no cordial relation between them for that reason only she had decided to give the property to the plaintiff institute. From recitals of the will deed, it appears the intention of the testator is to give the property to the plaintiff institute. The will and wish of the testator prevails, a will has to be implemented in its latter and spirit. The defendant cannot take advantage to inherit the property by way of succession by reading the ‘sadari’in singular Form.

After reading the entire contents of the will deed it appears the intention of the testator shall not be read as single, it will apply to both movable and immovable property. The defendant did not approach the court and did not claim the property, even in Succession O.P filed by plaintiff, came to the court, after filing of this suit by the plaintiff institute. From that also it appears the defendant has no cordial relation with the testator, he is not aware of the will deed, in order to claim the property he 13 went to an extent of committing forgery of signature of Gurupadamma and fabricated a will deed with dishonest intention to grab the movable properties of the testator and Gurupadamma. Ex.A28 is the last will of the testator and the same has to be treated as will deed of Gurupadamma and their intention is to bequeath the property in favour of plaintiff institute. They got prepared the Ex.A28 will with sound and disposing state of mind.

19.In view of the above discussion the plaintiff is entitled to the plaint schedule movable properties kept in the Locker No.A.34 of State Bank of India, Guntakal.

20.Issue No.1 in OS.No.228/2015:

The defendant was examined as Dw1. He filed Ex.B1 commissioner report to show availability of suit schedule property in locker of 2nd defendant. He did not file death certificates of Lakshmamma or Gurupadamma. He did not file any document pertaining to partition suit. His plea is he inherited the property by way of

Succession. He is Class-II legal heir of Gurupadamma. As per the will deed under

Ex.A28 also he got movable property as it is mentioned “Sadari aasthi” it refers only immovable property, it will not apply to movable property. In the will deed it is mentioned she was deserted by her husband, she has only daughter, after her death, the properties shall devolve on her daughter, in case of death of her daughter, the properties shall devolve on the plaintiff institute. She categorically mentioned she has no “nearest relatives”. Will deed was executed during life time of her daughter, by referring the intention of herself and her daughter. The entire contents of Ex.A28 will deed, it appears the intention of testator is to bequeath her properties to plaintiff institute after her death and after death of her daughter.

If there is no will deed, then only defendant will inherit the property by way of succession. Ex.A28 will deed has to prevail over succession. As per Ex.A28 will deed, the testator bequeathed her entire properties to plaintiff’s institution. The defendant has no right to inherit the property by way of succession. In view of above discussion, he is not entitled for declaration & recovery of possession as 14 prayed for. Suit filed by defendant is liable to be dismissed.

21.In view of the above discussion the plaintiff is entitled to the plaint schedule movable properties kept in the Locker No.A.34 of State Bank of India, Guntakal.

22.Issue No.2 in OS.228/2015:

In the result, suit in OS.228/2015 is dismissed without costs.

23.Issue No.3 in OS.203/2015:

In OS.No.203/2015 is decreed without costs declaring the plaintiff institute

Vadla Gurupadamma and entitled to inherit movable assets of Gurupadamma deposited in safe deposit locker No.A-34, in State Bank of India, Railway station road, Guntakal and consequential relief of delivery of possession of sale assets.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of September, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge, Gooty

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff Defendant PW.1: Sadguru Gazi Hussain PeeraDW.1:Sangala Gopal Pw2: Narasimha Reddy

Exhibits marked for the plaintiff

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Registered Trust deed dated 12.05.1942.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of resolution at page 29 in the book of plaintiff-trust appointing president.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Registered will deed dated 23.06.1984 executed by Vadla Lashmamma under document No.9-1984 (marked subject to objection and proof and relevancy).

Ex.A4: Death Certificate of Vadla Lakshmamma dated 06.06.2003 issued by the commissioner, Guntakal Municipality.

Ex.A5: Death Certificate of V. Gurupadamma issued by the commissioner, Guntakal Municipality dated 06.06.2003.

15

Ex.A6: Notice, dated 15.07.2003 got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Ex.A7: Office copy of reply notice, dated 04.08.2003 got issued by the plaintiff.

Ex.A8: Acknowledgment card served on the advocate.

Ex.A9: Copy of representation, dated 31.05.2003 given by the plaintiff to State Bank of India, Guntakal Branch.

Ex.A10: Certified copy of suit register extract in OS.No.268/1984 on the file of District Munsiff, Gooty.

Ex.A11: Certified copy of Order in OPS No. 48/2008, dated 04.02.2015.

Ex.A12: Certified copy of Original petition No.48/2008, dated 02.04.2004.

Ex.A13: Certified copy of Commission warrant, dated 25.06.2005 to make inventory of the locker.

Ex.A14: Certified copy of notice, dated 06.12.2005 issued by the advocate commissioner to chief manager, State Bank of India.

Ex.A15: Certified copy of Letter by the commissioner to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Guntakal dated 01.09.2005.

Ex.A16: Certified copy of Notice, dated 06.12.2005 issued by the Commissioner to the parties.

Ex.A17: Certified copy of the report, dated 06.12.2005 of the Advocate Commissioner.

Ex.A18: Certified copy of Commissioner report for obtaining valuation certificate,

date 31.07.2007.

Ex.A19: Water charges paid receipt dated 25.07.2005.

Ex.A20: Water charges paid receipt, dated 27.10.2009.

Ex.A21: charged paid receipt, dated 29.12.2012.

Ex.A22: charged paid receipt, dated 17.03.2014.

Ex.A23: Property tax paid receipt, dated 27.10.2009.

Ex.A24: Property tax paid receipt, dated 25.03.2015.

Ex.A25: Property tax paid receipt, dated 31.03.2015.

Ex.A26: Opinion report of Hand writing expert P.T.Ashok Kashyap, dated 25.11.2011.

Ex.A27: Nine photo – endorsement of disputed and admitted signature.

Ex.A28: Original will, dated.23.06.1984.

16

Exhibits marked for defendant

Ex.B1: Certified copy of Commissioner report, dated 30.12.2005 in OP.No.3/2004 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntakal.

Sr.C.J.

1 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT) :

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt. T.Haritha

Judge, Family court-cum-VII Addl. District Judge,Ananthapuramu

FAC/III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 26 st day of September, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 82 /2014

Between:-

G.Omprakash S/o G.Venkateswarlu, Aged 49 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Civil Engineer, D.No.2/304, III Road, Ananthapuramu town. At present R/o Flat No.S1, Kavitha Nilayam, Behind RR Law College, Yellareddy Guda, Hyderabad.73. --- Plaintiff.

AND

1. P.Triveni @ Madhavi Reddy W/o M.Yogananda Reddy, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Sinecure, C/o Ravi Prakash, D.No.1-1210, Upstairs, beside Sri Balaji Vidya Mandir, Alamuru Road, R/o Rudrampeta village, Ananthapuramu Mandal. Dist.

2. M.Yogananda Reddy, Father’s not now known, Aged 53 years, Hindu, Business C/o Ravi Prakash, D.No.1-1210, Upstairs, beside Sri Balaji Vidya Mandir, Alamuru Road, R/o Rudrampeta village, Ananthapuramu Mandal. Dist.

3. Ravi Prakash, Father’s name not known, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Business, C/ o Ravi Prakash, D.No.1-1210, Upstairs, beside Sri Balaji Vidya Mandir, Alamuru Road, R/o Rudrampeta village, Ananthapuramu Mandal Dist.

4. Pulijayanarayana Siva Prasad Reddy S/o P.Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, D.No.13-2-164, Shiridi Nagar, Ananthapuramu town & District.

5. M.Sivashankar Naidu, Father’s name not known, Hindu, Business, R/o D.No.28-3-526, Ist Main, 6th Cross, Sharada Nagar, Ananthapuramu town & Dist. --- Defendants.

Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

2

This suit is coming on 08.09.2025, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.Chitharanjan, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri Allu Narayanappa,

Advocate for Defendants 1,3 and 5 and 4th defendant set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

-: J U D G M E N T :-

1. This suit is filed to declare the right title and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and men from encroaching the plaint schedule property.

2. The contents of the plaint in brief are that:-

(i) The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property form its absolute owners Boddupalli Venkatalakshmamma and R.Nagalakshmi vide registered sale deed Dt. 7070/1995 on 02.12.1995 on the face of document is 01.12.1995 and since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The 1stvendor by name Boddupalli

Venkatalakshmamma purchased the plot No.25 as mentioned in the plaint schedule property from her the then absolute owner in 1948 vide a registered sale deed Dt. 2572/1948 and her mother by name Boddupalli Lakshumamma purchased plot No.26 and 27 as mentioned in the plaint schedule property from her the then absolute owner in 1948 vide registered deed 2571/1948 the vendor of them was one and the same. Later, the death of Boddupalli Lakshumamma the daughter of her by name Boddupalli Venkatalakshmamma and the grand- daughter of her by name R.Nagalakshmi jointly sold the plaint schedule

Digitally Signed by property to the plaintiff.

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

3 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014

(ii) While so, the defendants herein at about a few days back accompanied by their men entered into the plaint schedule property proclaiming that they have right and title over the suit schedule property alleging that they purchase. The plaintiff however could resist the same. The defendants openly proclaiming that they can encroach the plaint schedule property as they have abundant political support and official support and they can succeed in encroaching the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit.

3. The 4th defendant remained exparte. 1st and 5th defendant adopted the written statement of 3rd defendant.

4.The 3rd defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that the suit survey number was laid lay out Vide LP No.52/1982 by the Ananthapuramu Municipality and the 1st defendant purchased the plot No.25 vide document No.7585/1994 under a registered sale deed with specific boundaries and measurements and her vendor and vendor’s vendors got the property since 1943 vide document No.

2459/1943 and the land owners laid lay out and sold the plot to various persons and the plaintiff and his vendors are nothing to do with the land in suit survey number and there are no measurements of the plot number and boundaries for the said plot numbers and its extents in the suit schedule is not correct and not tallied with the lay out plan. The suit is not maintainable as the true owners of the plot numbers are not added as parties to the suit and the suit against 2nd defendant is abated and the present suit is liable to dismissed on that ground alone and the suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

4

The plaintiff is neither title nor possession over the suit schedule property and the documents filed by the plaintiff along with plaint are self serving and created for the purpose of filing the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed:

1. Whether the registered sale deed Dt. 01.12.1995 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of his title and relief of consequent permanent injunction against the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of his title and relief of consequent permanent injunction against the defendants?

4. To what relief?

6. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. Plaintiff evidence is closed. The 3rd defendant is examined as DW1 and got examined one D.Durganjali, Town Planning

Supervisor of Ananthapuram Municipal Corporation as DW2 and got marked

Ex.B1 to B17. Defendant evidence is closed.

7. Heard both side.

Issue No.1.: Whether the registered sale deed Dt. 01.12.1995 is true, valid

and binding on the defendants?

8.The plaintiff himself got examined as PW1. The burden lies on him to prove that the registered sale deed Dt. 01.12.1995 is true and valid. The plaintiff must have succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

5 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014 weakness of the defendants case. The sale deed Dt.02.12.1995 is marked as

Ex.A1. As per Sec.68 of the Indian Evidence Act the attestor of Ex.A1 sale deed has to be examined to prove the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff did not examine the attestor of Ex.A1 sale deed. Thus, the plaintiff failed to prove that the contents of Ex.A1 as per Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff did not examine her vendors, to prove the execution of sale deed. The plaintiff failed to prove the contents of Ex.A1 sale deed. The plaintiff who came to the court for declaration has to prove the execution of Ex.A1 sale deed from the persons who have valid title. Except Ex.A1 sale deed, the plaintiff did not file any document in order to prove his possession from date of purchase i.e. 1995 till date of filing the suit i.e. in the year 2014. He did not know the person who got acquainted about the suit schedule property and he did not examine any neighbouring land owner in order to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the vendor of Ex.A1 sale deed that the possession was delivered to him to the vendor on the date of execution of Ex.A1 sale deed. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff failed to discharge burden lies on him. Except self serving testimony of PW1, no other evidence is available to prove the contents of Ex.A1. The vendor, attestor of

Ex.A1 not examined. The neighbouring land owner not examined. Thus, the plaintiff failed to prove that the Ex.A1 registered sale deed Dt. 01.12.1995 is true, valid and binding on the defendants. Thus, this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of his title

against the defendants? Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

6

9.PW1 reiterated the averments of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit in support of his evidence and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. During cross examination, he deposed that “he has been working as Civil Engineer in a private company at Hyderabad. He did not know the total extent of land in

Sy.No.50 paiki 52 pyki. It appears that there is a road on eastern side of the schedule property. There is a rod on southern side. Road is located on 4 sides of schedule property. He purchased Ac.0.10.85 cents. He do not know the number of the plots and do not know the extent of each plot. He do not know the extent of Ac.0.19.85 cents is covered in how many plots. He got the schedule property surveyed by the private surveyor before purchasing the same. He did not file the survey report before this court. His vendor purchased the land in the year 1947. He sold some part of the schedule property to her daughter in the year 1948. He has seen the schedule in 1947 and 1948 document . The extent of land in 1948 document is Ac.0.30 cents. He can not say the correct extent of land in 1947 document. He can not remember the boundaries mentioned in 1947 and 1948 document. He did not file lay out plan

before this court. The suit schedule property is located in Ananthapuramu

Municipal Corporation limits. The width of the road on four sides is about 30 to 35 feet”. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that the boundaries of the property purchased by him are roads. There are roads on four side of the suit schedule property. As per the schedule mentioned in the plaint the boundaries are road on four side of the suit schedule property. The link documents of the sale deed 07.12.1948 vide document No. 2571/1948 and 2572/1948 the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A3 and A4, the eastern side boundary for plot Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

7 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014

No.25,26 and 27 is plot No.28 in Sy.No.53. The western side of the boundary to the plot No.25 is land belongs to others. From the averments of Ex.A3 and A4 and from the evidence of PW1 and the contents of Ex.A1 and schedule enclosed to the plaint itself clearly show that the boundaries in the link documents and boundaries in the plaintiff’s sale deed did not tally and creates ambiguity regarding identity of the property. Plaintiff failed to proved that he has valid title over suit schedule property. Thus, issued answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of consequential

perpetual injunction against the defendants?

10.A perpetual decree can only be granted if the plaintiff is clear and free from doubts. There is no clarity in boundaries and identity of the schedule property. In such a case, the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed in title suit. The plaintiff did not file any approved layout. No approved lay out plan is produced nor filed that the property shown to be the part of recognized, surveyed or subdivided. The plaintiff himself admitted that he is not aware of layout plan with regard to the suit schedule property. Without proper identification of the suit schedule property and as unidentifiable, passing of decree is unacceptable.

The suit is with vague schedule and is liable to dismissal under order 7 rule 3

CPC. The burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the valid title. The boundaries in Ex.A1 sale deed and boundaries in the link document i.e. Ex.A2 and A3 did not tally. The plaintiff failed to discharge his burden that the boundaries are tallied. The defendants need not prove better title and the plaintiff must have

Digitally Signed by stands on the strength of his own title and it is a well settled principle. A

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

8 declaration is a discretionary relief under section 34 of Specif Relief Act. The plaintiff came to the court with doubtful documents, unexplained delay, vague boundaries. Hence he is not entitled for relief or perpetual injunction.

11.The plaintiff has to prove his right, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has to prove unlawful interference by the defendants. The plaintiff simply stated that since one week prior to filing of the suit, the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Except document filed under Ex.A1, he did not file any document with regard to his possession from 1995. Even if there is no document, it is bounden duty of the plaintiff adduce atleast oral evidence in order to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden lies on him. The defendants got summoned lay out pertaining to Sy.No.50 and 52 of Kakkalapallil village of Ananthapuramu

Municipality. As per said lay out plan No.52/1982 produced by DW2, the western boundary is others plot and not road for plot No.25,26 and 27 as claimed by the plaintiff. No layout approval number was mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiff under Ex.A1. He did not examine his vendor, to prove his possession, as well as possession of his vendor. No neighbours were examined in order to prove the possession of the suit schedule property. The evidence of PW1 is sufficient to believe that he has no idea about the suit schedule property, has no knowledge about suit schedule property and somebody/vendors might have cheated him. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff miserably failed to discharge his burden lies on him as well as right, Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

9 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014 title and possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly the issue is answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.4: To what relief:

12. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 26 st day of September, 2025.

Judge, Family Court-cum

Ananthapuramu

FAC/III Addl. District Judge,

(Fast Track Court) Digitally Signed by Ananthapuramu.

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

10

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Plaintiff:

PW1 : G.Omprakash.

Witnesses examined for Defendants :

DW1: Poluru Ravi Prakash DW2: D.Durganjali, Town Planning Supervisor.

Documents marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original registered sale deed No.7070/1995 Dt. 01.12.1995 executed by Boddupalli Venkatalakshmamma and R.Nagalakshmi in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of sale deed No.2572/1948 Dt. 07.12.1948 executed by Sreenivasulu in favour of Boddupalli Venkatalakshmamma.

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Sale deed No.2571/1948 Dt. 07.12.1948 executed by Sreenivasan and Sreeramulu in favour of Bhagyalakshmamma.

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of Sale deed No.306/1947 Dt. 08.02.1947executed by Sreenivasan in favour of Sreeramulu.

Documents filed for Defendants :

Ex.B1: Certified copy of Sale deed No.2459/1943

Ex.B2: Certified copy of Sale deed No.2509/1943

Ex.B3: Certified copy of Sale deed No.306/1947

Ex.B4: Certified copy of Sale deed No.2718/1982

Ex.B5: Certified copy of Sale deed No.3978/1982

Ex.B6: Certified copy of Sale deed No.4144/1982

Ex.B7: Certified copy of Sale deed No.4282/1982

Ex.B8: Certified copy of Sale deed No.5342/1982

Ex.B9: Certified copy of Sale deed No.5526/1982

Ex.B10: Certified copy of Sale deed No.89/1992

Ex.B11: Registered General Power of Attorney Document No.307/1992

Ex.B12: Registered sale deed Document No.7585/1994

Ex.B13: Certified copy of meseva plot NO.7 document no.2437/2014 Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

11 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014

Ex.P14: Me-seva copy of document No.15031/2018

Ex.B15: Sale deed of Plot NO.7 document No.3139/2019.

Ex.B16: Authorization letter

Ex.B17: Attested copy of Land plan.

FAC/ III A.D.J.

Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

1 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT) :

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt. T.Haritha

Judge, Family court-cum-VII Addl. District Judge,Ananthapuramu

FAC/III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 26 st day of September, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 82 /2014

Between:-

G.Omprakash S/o G.Venkateswarlu, Aged 49 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Civil Engineer, D.No.2/304, III Road, Ananthapuramu town. At present R/o Flat No.S1, Kavitha Nilayam, Behind RR Law College, Yellareddy Guda, Hyderabad.73. --- Plaintiff.

AND

1. P.Triveni @ Madhavi Reddy W/o M.Yogananda Reddy, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Sinecure, C/o Ravi Prakash, D.No.1-1210, Upstairs, beside Sri Balaji Vidya Mandir, Alamuru Road, R/o Rudrampeta village, Ananthapuramu Mandal. Dist.

2. M.Yogananda Reddy, Father’s not now known, Aged 53 years, Hindu, Business C/o Ravi Prakash, D.No.1-1210, Upstairs, beside Sri Balaji Vidya Mandir, Alamuru Road, R/o Rudrampeta village, Ananthapuramu Mandal. Dist.

3. Ravi Prakash, Father’s name not known, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Business, C/ o Ravi Prakash, D.No.1-1210, Upstairs, beside Sri Balaji Vidya Mandir, Alamuru Road, R/o Rudrampeta village, Ananthapuramu Mandal Dist.

4. Pulijayanarayana Siva Prasad Reddy S/o P.Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, D.No.13-2-164, Shiridi Nagar, Ananthapuramu town & District.

5. M.Sivashankar Naidu, Father’s name not known, Hindu, Business, R/o D.No.28-3-526, Ist Main, 6th Cross, Sharada Nagar, Ananthapuramu town & Dist. --- Defendants.

Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

2

This suit is coming on 08.09.2025, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.Chitharanjan, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri Allu Narayanappa,

Advocate for Defendants 1,3 and 5 and 4th defendant set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

-: J U D G M E N T :-

1. This suit is filed to declare the right title and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and men from encroaching the plaint schedule property.

2. The contents of the plaint in brief are that:-

(i) The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property form its absolute owners Boddupalli Venkatalakshmamma and R.Nagalakshmi vide registered sale deed Dt. 7070/1995 on 02.12.1995 on the face of document is 01.12.1995 and since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The 1stvendor by name Boddupalli

Venkatalakshmamma purchased the plot No.25 as mentioned in the plaint schedule property from her the then absolute owner in 1948 vide a registered sale deed Dt. 2572/1948 and her mother by name Boddupalli Lakshumamma purchased plot No.26 and 27 as mentioned in the plaint schedule property from her the then absolute owner in 1948 vide registered deed 2571/1948 the vendor of them was one and the same. Later, the death of Boddupalli Lakshumamma the daughter of her by name Boddupalli Venkatalakshmamma and the grand- daughter of her by name R.Nagalakshmi jointly sold the plaint schedule

Digitally Signed by property to the plaintiff.

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

3 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014

(ii) While so, the defendants herein at about a few days back accompanied by their men entered into the plaint schedule property proclaiming that they have right and title over the suit schedule property alleging that they purchase. The plaintiff however could resist the same. The defendants openly proclaiming that they can encroach the plaint schedule property as they have abundant political support and official support and they can succeed in encroaching the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit.

3. The 4th defendant remained exparte. 1st and 5th defendant adopted the written statement of 3rd defendant.

4.The 3rd defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that the suit survey number was laid lay out Vide LP No.52/1982 by the Ananthapuramu Municipality and the 1st defendant purchased the plot No.25 vide document No.7585/1994 under a registered sale deed with specific boundaries and measurements and her vendor and vendor’s vendors got the property since 1943 vide document No.

2459/1943 and the land owners laid lay out and sold the plot to various persons and the plaintiff and his vendors are nothing to do with the land in suit survey number and there are no measurements of the plot number and boundaries for the said plot numbers and its extents in the suit schedule is not correct and not tallied with the lay out plan. The suit is not maintainable as the true owners of the plot numbers are not added as parties to the suit and the suit against 2nd defendant is abated and the present suit is liable to dismissed on that ground alone and the suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

4

The plaintiff is neither title nor possession over the suit schedule property and the documents filed by the plaintiff along with plaint are self serving and created for the purpose of filing the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed:

1. Whether the registered sale deed Dt. 01.12.1995 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of his title and relief of consequent permanent injunction against the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of his title and relief of consequent permanent injunction against the defendants?

4. To what relief?

6. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. Plaintiff evidence is closed. The 3rd defendant is examined as DW1 and got examined one D.Durganjali, Town Planning

Supervisor of Ananthapuram Municipal Corporation as DW2 and got marked

Ex.B1 to B17. Defendant evidence is closed.

7. Heard both side.

Issue No.1.: Whether the registered sale deed Dt. 01.12.1995 is true, valid

and binding on the defendants?

8.The plaintiff himself got examined as PW1. The burden lies on him to prove that the registered sale deed Dt. 01.12.1995 is true and valid. The plaintiff must have succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

5 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014 weakness of the defendants case. The sale deed Dt.02.12.1995 is marked as

Ex.A1. As per Sec.68 of the Indian Evidence Act the attestor of Ex.A1 sale deed has to be examined to prove the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff did not examine the attestor of Ex.A1 sale deed. Thus, the plaintiff failed to prove that the contents of Ex.A1 as per Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff did not examine her vendors, to prove the execution of sale deed. The plaintiff failed to prove the contents of Ex.A1 sale deed. The plaintiff who came to the court for declaration has to prove the execution of Ex.A1 sale deed from the persons who have valid title. Except Ex.A1 sale deed, the plaintiff did not file any document in order to prove his possession from date of purchase i.e. 1995 till date of filing the suit i.e. in the year 2014. He did not know the person who got acquainted about the suit schedule property and he did not examine any neighbouring land owner in order to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the vendor of Ex.A1 sale deed that the possession was delivered to him to the vendor on the date of execution of Ex.A1 sale deed. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff failed to discharge burden lies on him. Except self serving testimony of PW1, no other evidence is available to prove the contents of Ex.A1. The vendor, attestor of

Ex.A1 not examined. The neighbouring land owner not examined. Thus, the plaintiff failed to prove that the Ex.A1 registered sale deed Dt. 01.12.1995 is true, valid and binding on the defendants. Thus, this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of his title

against the defendants? Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

6

9.PW1 reiterated the averments of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit in support of his evidence and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. During cross examination, he deposed that “he has been working as Civil Engineer in a private company at Hyderabad. He did not know the total extent of land in

Sy.No.50 paiki 52 pyki. It appears that there is a road on eastern side of the schedule property. There is a rod on southern side. Road is located on 4 sides of schedule property. He purchased Ac.0.10.85 cents. He do not know the number of the plots and do not know the extent of each plot. He do not know the extent of Ac.0.19.85 cents is covered in how many plots. He got the schedule property surveyed by the private surveyor before purchasing the same. He did not file the survey report before this court. His vendor purchased the land in the year 1947. He sold some part of the schedule property to her daughter in the year 1948. He has seen the schedule in 1947 and 1948 document . The extent of land in 1948 document is Ac.0.30 cents. He can not say the correct extent of land in 1947 document. He can not remember the boundaries mentioned in 1947 and 1948 document. He did not file lay out plan

before this court. The suit schedule property is located in Ananthapuramu

Municipal Corporation limits. The width of the road on four sides is about 30 to 35 feet”. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that the boundaries of the property purchased by him are roads. There are roads on four side of the suit schedule property. As per the schedule mentioned in the plaint the boundaries are road on four side of the suit schedule property. The link documents of the sale deed 07.12.1948 vide document No. 2571/1948 and 2572/1948 the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A3 and A4, the eastern side boundary for plot Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

7 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014

No.25,26 and 27 is plot No.28 in Sy.No.53. The western side of the boundary to the plot No.25 is land belongs to others. From the averments of Ex.A3 and A4 and from the evidence of PW1 and the contents of Ex.A1 and schedule enclosed to the plaint itself clearly show that the boundaries in the link documents and boundaries in the plaintiff’s sale deed did not tally and creates ambiguity regarding identity of the property. Plaintiff failed to proved that he has valid title over suit schedule property. Thus, issued answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of consequential

perpetual injunction against the defendants?

10.A perpetual decree can only be granted if the plaintiff is clear and free from doubts. There is no clarity in boundaries and identity of the schedule property. In such a case, the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed in title suit. The plaintiff did not file any approved layout. No approved lay out plan is produced nor filed that the property shown to be the part of recognized, surveyed or subdivided. The plaintiff himself admitted that he is not aware of layout plan with regard to the suit schedule property. Without proper identification of the suit schedule property and as unidentifiable, passing of decree is unacceptable.

The suit is with vague schedule and is liable to dismissal under order 7 rule 3

CPC. The burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the valid title. The boundaries in Ex.A1 sale deed and boundaries in the link document i.e. Ex.A2 and A3 did not tally. The plaintiff failed to discharge his burden that the boundaries are tallied. The defendants need not prove better title and the plaintiff must have

Digitally Signed by stands on the strength of his own title and it is a well settled principle. A

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

8 declaration is a discretionary relief under section 34 of Specif Relief Act. The plaintiff came to the court with doubtful documents, unexplained delay, vague boundaries. Hence he is not entitled for relief or perpetual injunction.

11.The plaintiff has to prove his right, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has to prove unlawful interference by the defendants. The plaintiff simply stated that since one week prior to filing of the suit, the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Except document filed under Ex.A1, he did not file any document with regard to his possession from 1995. Even if there is no document, it is bounden duty of the plaintiff adduce atleast oral evidence in order to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden lies on him. The defendants got summoned lay out pertaining to Sy.No.50 and 52 of Kakkalapallil village of Ananthapuramu

Municipality. As per said lay out plan No.52/1982 produced by DW2, the western boundary is others plot and not road for plot No.25,26 and 27 as claimed by the plaintiff. No layout approval number was mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiff under Ex.A1. He did not examine his vendor, to prove his possession, as well as possession of his vendor. No neighbours were examined in order to prove the possession of the suit schedule property. The evidence of PW1 is sufficient to believe that he has no idea about the suit schedule property, has no knowledge about suit schedule property and somebody/vendors might have cheated him. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff miserably failed to discharge his burden lies on him as well as right, Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

9 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014 title and possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly the issue is answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.4: To what relief:

12. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 26 st day of September, 2025.

Judge, Family Court-cum

Ananthapuramu

FAC/III Addl. District Judge,

(Fast Track Court) Digitally Signed by Ananthapuramu.

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

10

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Plaintiff:

PW1 : G.Omprakash.

Witnesses examined for Defendants :

DW1: Poluru Ravi Prakash DW2: D.Durganjali, Town Planning Supervisor.

Documents marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original registered sale deed No.7070/1995 Dt. 01.12.1995 executed by Boddupalli Venkatalakshmamma and R.Nagalakshmi in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of sale deed No.2572/1948 Dt. 07.12.1948 executed by Sreenivasulu in favour of Boddupalli Venkatalakshmamma.

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Sale deed No.2571/1948 Dt. 07.12.1948 executed by Sreenivasan and Sreeramulu in favour of Bhagyalakshmamma.

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of Sale deed No.306/1947 Dt. 08.02.1947executed by Sreenivasan in favour of Sreeramulu.

Documents filed for Defendants :

Ex.B1: Certified copy of Sale deed No.2459/1943

Ex.B2: Certified copy of Sale deed No.2509/1943

Ex.B3: Certified copy of Sale deed No.306/1947

Ex.B4: Certified copy of Sale deed No.2718/1982

Ex.B5: Certified copy of Sale deed No.3978/1982

Ex.B6: Certified copy of Sale deed No.4144/1982

Ex.B7: Certified copy of Sale deed No.4282/1982

Ex.B8: Certified copy of Sale deed No.5342/1982

Ex.B9: Certified copy of Sale deed No.5526/1982

Ex.B10: Certified copy of Sale deed No.89/1992

Ex.B11: Registered General Power of Attorney Document No.307/1992

Ex.B12: Registered sale deed Document No.7585/1994

Ex.B13: Certified copy of meseva plot NO.7 document no.2437/2014 Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

11 of 11 III ADJ COURT OS 82/2014

Ex.P14: Me-seva copy of document No.15031/2018

Ex.B15: Sale deed of Plot NO.7 document No.3139/2019.

Ex.B16: Authorization letter

Ex.B17: Attested copy of Land plan.

FAC/ III A.D.J.

Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2025.09.26 14:58:20 +0530

1

APAN010000682026

BEFORE THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM- VII

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present: Smt. T. Haritha,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Court,

Anantapuramu.

Friday, this the 24th day of April, 2026.

F.C.O.P. No. 68/2026

Between:

1. Palipi Mounika, W/o. Bikki Viswateja, D/o. Palipi Adinarayana, Hindu, aged about 29 years, residing at D.No.6-3-945, Maruthi Nagar, 2nd Cross, Ananthapuramu City and District.

2. Bikki Viswateja, S/o. Dr. Bikki Krishna @ Kristappa, Hindu, aged about 34 years, residing at D.No.1-457, Alwyn Colony, Penukonda Town and Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District.

… Petitioners

Vs

- NIL - … Respondent

This petition came before this court on 17.04.2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Y.Manthesh, Advocate for the petitioners and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon considering the material evidence and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act by the petitioners praying this court to grant a decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage dated 21.04.2024.

Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2026.04.24 16:20:21 +0530

2

2.It is averred in the petition that the 1st petitioner is the wife of 2 petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 21.04.2024 at M.J.R.

Function Hall, Srinivasa Mangapuramu, Tirupathi, as per Hindu rates and customs prevailing in their community, in the presence of the both side family members, friends, elders and relatives. After the marriage of the 1" petitioner joined the at her matrimonial house at Penukonda and their marriage was consummated, but not blessed with children, since they lived together for one week only. It is submitted that later owning to differences in temperament habits, tastes, thoughts, and increasing incompatibility, the relationship between the petitioners 1 and 2 is deteriorated resulted several reconciliations which did not, however, last for any length of time. Finally, after serious discussions and in order to avoid further deterioration in relationship which might reflect on their families and friends, the petitioners 1 and 2 out of their free will and accords separated from 30.04.2024, and they never to return to each other the petitioners. therefore finally separated owning to irreconcilable differences in the habits, temperament and difference in trivial matters. It is submitted that as per the advice of elders and well wishers of both parties, the 2 petitioner agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- toward the permanent alimony of 1 petitioner in full and final settlement and the 1" petitioner also agreed for the same and she received the said permanent alimony amount from the 2nd petitioner. The petitioners are already exchanged their belongings. It is agree by both parties that with that permanent alimony, the 1" petitioner will lost her rights over the person and property of 2nd petitioner and both the petitioners are agreed that they will not file any criminal or civil cases against each other in the present and in the future also. When there were panchayats held in the presence of elders and the same are ended in failure and when both the petitioners are agreed

Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2026.04.24 16:20:21 +0530

3 to take divorce on mutual consent, that no similar petition is filed for the same relief in any other court, that there is no collusion in filing this petition. Hence the petition.

3. Both petitioners attended for counseling before the District Legal

Services Authority, Ananthapuramu and compromise was effected between the petitioners as per Annexerure-D on the following terms and conditions:

(1)Mediation was held on 15.04.2026 both parties were present. The parties with the assistance of mediator/conciliator and their counsels voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above mediation dispute and differences.

(2)The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this settlement in the presence of the mediator. Both parties present and the following settlement has been arrived at between the parties hereto :

i)The Petitioners i.e both parties will lead their own lives without interference of each other since there is irretrievable breakdown of their marriage ; ii)The First Petitioner has agreed to receive a sum of Rs 2,00,000- 00( Rupees Two Laks only) from the Second Petitioner towards permanent alimony and final settlement of disputes between them. The Second Petitioner voluntarily agreed to pay the same ; iii)The petitioner No.1 agreed that she has received he money as agreed in the application from the 2nd petitioner ; iv)The both the parties voluntarily agreed that there will not be any more monetary claims between each other against their person and property hereafter anymore in what so ever in any form, in any given circumstances after the conclusion of the settlement agreed herein and dissolution of their marriage. The First Petitioner voluntarily agreed that, she will not claim any rights over the person and property of the 2nd petitioner or his family members ;

Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2026.04.24 16:20:21 +0530

4

v)The Second Petitioner agreed that he will not claim any right or rights of the person and property of the First Petitioner ; vi)The Petitioners are not having any children and there are no liabilities or obligations pending between them ; vii)The petitioners agreed that their earlier disputes are amicably settled by them and in the mediation and hence they are no complaints against each other ; viii)Both Parties agreed that shall not trouble in any manner whatsoever, including sending messages or comments in social media on their past life. Both parties shall not be sharing pictures/ photographs/ clips of their past life, present or future in social media in any form. Both agreed that they will not file any complaints before any police station or authority against each other regarding their past life and incidents since the differences are amicably settled between them and the Petitioner No.1 is suitably compensated.

ix)Since both the parties arrived to mutual consent under the above terms, both the parties agreed to pray Hon'ble Judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu to dissolve their marriage solemnized on 21-04-2024 at M.J.R. Function Hall, Srinivasa Mangapuram, Tirupathi, according to the Hindu Customs and rituals, as the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down, the contents of the same are without any coercion or under undue influence ;

4.The petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW.1 and the petitioner No.2 himself examined as PW.2. Exs.P.1 to P.4 are marked. Petitioners’ evidence is closed.

5.Heard the Petitioners and perused the material on record.

6.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce by

mutual consent U/sec. 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act?

Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2026.04.24 16:20:21 +0530

5

POINT:

7.The petitioners 1 and 2 were examined as P.W.1 and PW.2 and

Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 were marked. The petitioners admitted their marriage.

They mutually agreed for divorce. They have been living separately more than two years. They deposed that there is no change in their decision for taking divorce. The observation period of six months is dispensed with

U/Sec.13-B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act as per orders in I.A.No.210/2026, dt.17.04.2026. They have no children. They both entered into mutual agreement before the Mediation Center voluntarily and they affixed their signatures on the terms of settlement as per Annexure-D under Ex.P.4. The 1st petitioner has received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) by way of Demand Draft towards her permanent alimony from the 2nd petitioner.From their evidence, it is clear that all the disputes relating to their marriage have been settled. There is no chance for their reunion. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed, granting decree of divorce U/Sec.

13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act by dissolving the marriage on mutual consent between the petitioners 1 and 2 solemnized on 21.04.2024. No costs.

The case disposed off as settled before Mediation Center. The petitioners are entitled for order copy on free of costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2026.

Judge, Family Court –cum-

VII Addl. District & Sessions Court, Anantapuramu.

Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2026.04.24 16:20:21 +0530

6

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioners:- Respondent:

PW.1 : Palipi Mounika. - None -

PW.2 : Bikki Viswateja.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Petitioners

Ex.P.1Original Wedding Card of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, dt.21.04.2024.

Ex.P.2Original Marriage Photograph of the of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, dt.21.04.2024.

Ex.P.3Xerox copy of Demand Draft.

Ex.P.4Agreement before Mediator as per Annexure-D.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondent

-NIL-

Judge, Family Court –cum-

VII Addl. District & Sessions Court, Anantapuramu.

Digitally Signed by

TADIPARTHI HARITHA

Date: 2026.04.24 16:20:21 +0530