1
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOMPETA.
Present:- Smt. T. Haritha,
Senior Civil Judge, Tekkali
(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta.
Friday, this the 31st Day of March, 2023.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.76/2014
Between:
Yevvari Jagannadharao, Son of late Suryanarayana, aged about 42 years, Cultivation, resident of Kosangipuram village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District A.P. ... Plaintif.
And: Yevvari Hema Kumar, Son of late Suryanarayana, aged 55 years, Udayapuram, Palasa Town and post, Palasa mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.
.... Defendant.
This suit is coming on this day ie., on 17.03.2023 for final hearing
before me in the presence of Sri P.G. Rajaratnam and Sri K. Govardhan
Rao, learned advocates for Plaintiff and Sri G.S. sailendra, Advocate for defendant, and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for restraining the defendant, his relatives, agents, servants and workmen from ever interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property by way of granting permanent injunction and costs of the suit.
02.The brief averments of the plaint are that:-
The suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the plaintiff who got it by virtue of a registered Will, dated 24.02.1998 executed by the father of the plaintiff, voluntarily and while he was in sound disposing state of mind. Thereafter, the executant sold some of the properties and one of the item is Sl. No.6 in the Will which is an 2 extent of Ac.0.06 cents is given to the defendant by way of settlement deed. The executent died on 08.10.2012. Ever since, the death of the executant the plaintiff has been in continuous peaceful possession over the plaint schedule property without any interruption to the knowledge of all including the defendant. The defendant has nothing to do with the suit land and he has no right over the suit schedule properties. On the other hand the defendant admitted the title and possession of the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff has got title to and possession over the suit land. In token of his possession and enjoyment, the Revenue
Department issued Adangal/ Pahani in favour of the plaintiff on verification of the cultivation accounts maintained by the ground level revenue employee and thereafter by the supervisory staff certified the same on verification. As such that the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff is fact in so far as the suit schedule is concerned which is borne out by records as he obtained the Adangal / Pahani. In view of the differences between the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant is proclaiming in and around the village the he would forcibly occupy the suit land and disposes the suit land. Hence, this suit.
03.The defendant filed written statement. The averments of the written statement in precise are as follows:
The defendant denied the contents of the plaint and submitted that late Yavvari Suryanarayana has two sons who are plaintiff and defendant herein and they had some joint family properties.
Said Yavvari Suryanarayana filed a suit against the plaintiff and defendant in O.S. No.49/1994 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Palasa for partition and Partition was effected in between the coparceners under compromise decree and they have been in enjoyment of their respective 3 properties with absolute rights. The suit schedule properties fell to the share of late Yavvari Suryanarayana in the said decree and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties till his death.
Late Yavvari Suryanarayana died on 08.10.2012 leaving the plaintiff, defendant herein, his wife and his five daughters as his legal heirs.
The defendant further submitted that late Yavvari Suryanarayana executed a will dated 24.02.1998 for the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff under undue influence and pressure of the plaintiff and in which the plaintiff took prominent roll. But, late Yavvari
Suryanarayana, while his life time executed another last will in favour of the plaintiff, defendant and his five daughters dated 17.08.2008 cancelling the earlier will executed in favour of the plaintiff, in sound disposing state of mind and memory and the said will was made public by the defendant and all family members know about the existence of the said will. The will dated 17.08.2008 was trace out in the house after tow days of the death of late Yavvari Suryanarayana in the presence of all his legal heirs. Late Yavvari Suryanarayana used to reside in house fell to the share of the defendant at Kosangipuram village under the decree in O.S No.49/1994 and the plaintiff has no house at
Kosangipuram village and so he also used to reside with his father and mother in the said house and late Suryanarayana and along with his wife regularly used to visit and stay a long time in Palasa in the house of the defendant and defendant performed the obsequies of late Yavvari
Suryanarayana by spending his own money and all the family members also know the same. As this defendant is practicing Advocate, he has been residing at Palasa in the house fell to his share as it is convenient for his practice. By virtue of the will date 17.08.2008, this defendant 4 was given Ac.0.68 cents inSurvey No.38/2 and Ac.1.12 cents in Survey
No.49/1, and Ac.0.10 cents out of Ac.0.20 cents in Survey No.23/10 towards western side, which are shown as Item No.3, 4, 5 in the plaint schedule property. This defendant got mutated his name in the revenue records as owner of the properties devolved upon him by virtue of the said will, dated 17.08.2008. But, the plaintiff mislead the Revenue authorities and again he got mutated his name in the revenue records for the properties which devolved upon this defendant under the said will dated 17.08.2008. At the first instance when defendant got mutated in revenue records in his name as owner by virtue the will
dated 17.08.2008 in the application filed before the revenue authorities,
the plaintiff has also signed along with the defendant and requested the authorities to change the assessment / ownership of the defendant in the revenue records for the properties which devolved upon this defendant under the aforesaid will. The defendant also given a requisition dated 29.01.2014 to change his name for his properties which already issued in favour of the defendant, instead of Yavvari
Jagannadharao. Thus, the will dated 17.08.2008 was acted upon. The defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties devolved upon him by virtue of the will dated 17.08.2008, which are shown as Item No.3, 4 and an extent of Ac.0.10 cents towards western side of the Item No.5 of the plaint schedule properties. The item No.5 was divided by putting poles. But the plaintiff with malafide intention filed this suit against this defendant including separate properties of this defendant devolved upon him by virtue of the will
dated 17.08.2008 with false allegations. This defendant questioned the
plaintiff about the sale of his bit of land, which remains after acquisition 5 of his land for NH 5, situated in between the defendant’s land and NH-5 road which fell to his share in the above said decree in O.S. No.49 of 1994 and why has given the sale proceedings to his father-in-law by name Kancharana Peethambaram for performing the marriage of the younger daughter of Kancharana Peethambaram. Then disputes arose between this defendant and plaintiff and at the instance of the said
Pitambaram, the plaintiff pressed the earlier cancelled will in to operation and filed this suit with false allegations. The alleged will in favour of the plaintiff dated 24.02.1998 was cancelled expressly in the second and last will dated 17.08.2008 executed by late Yavvari
Suryanarayana in favour of this defendant his 5 daughters and plaintiff.
The alleged will dated 24.02.1998 was never acted upon.
The defendant further submitted that the suit schedule properties are self acquire Properties of late Yavvari Suryanarayana. As per the Will dated 17.08.2008, this defendant was given Ac.0.68 cents in
Survey No.38/2 and Ac.1.12 cents in Survey No.49/1 and Ac.0.10 cents out of Ac.0.20 cents in Survey No.23/10 towards western side, which are
Item Nos.3, 4, 5 in the plaint schedule property. This defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties shown in the suit schedule as Item No.3, 4 and 5 devolved upon him under the
Will dated 17.08.2008 to the knowledge of all including plaintiff even today. The revenue authorities also issued Adangal / Paharani to the defendant for the aforesaid his properties. This plaintiff was given
Ac.0.42 cents in Survey No.35/1 i.e., Item No.2 and Ac.0.10 cents out of
Ac.0.20 cents in S. No.23/10 towards Eastern side i.e., Item No.5 of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff never been enjoyed the aforesaid 6 suit schedule properties devolved upon this defendant by virtue of aforesaid will.
The defendant further submitted that the Item No.6 of the suit schedule property is actually Ac.1.42 cents was given to the 5 daughters of late Yavvari Suryanarayana. The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for the properties devolved upon him under will
dated 17.08.2008 besides including the properties devolved upon this
plaintiff and 5 daughters of late Yavvari Suryanarayana, devolved upon them under the Will dated 17.08.2008 basing on the earlier cancelled will dated 24.02.1998.
The defendant further submitted that the Adangal / Paharani filed by the plaintiff for the land in Survey No.47-2 is an extent of
Ac.3.36 cents out of Ac.5.16 cents is not correct. Actually the plaintiff got his share an extent of Ac.1.94 cents. Out of it the Government acquired about Ac.1.00 for NH-5 and remaining land sold. An extent of
Ac.0.90 cents remains with the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained the
Adangal for excess land. The plaintiff never enjoyed the properties Item
Nos.4, 3 and western side of 5 of the suit schedule properties and he has no right to claim injunction.
The defendant further submitted that the extent and boundaries of the Item No.1 schedule property are not correct. The actual extent of the Item No.1 suit schedule property is Ac.1.42 cents in three items out of Ac.5.16 cents. Southern boundary is Land of the defendant alone existing, but not land of plaintiff. The plaintiff has given the schedule for his convenient. The plaintiff has no title possession and enjoyment over the item No.3, 4 and 5 of the suit schedule properties and self acquired properties of defendant by virtue 7 of Will dated 17.08.2008 executed by his father, late Yavvari
Suryanarayana. The plaintiff has no right to claim injunction against the defendant. The suit is not maintainable under law. There is no cause of action for the suit. The alleged cause of action is not correct. The defendant prays the Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice.
4.Basing on the above pleadings of the respective parties the following issues were settled for consideration:
1) Whether the Will dated 24.02.1998 is valid and binding on the defendant ?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?
3) Whether the Will dated 17.08.2008 is true valid and binding on the defendant ?
4) To what relief ?
5.The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and one attestor examined as P.W.2 and got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.11. On behalf of the defendant , defendant himself got examined as D.W.1 and examined
D.W.2 and got marked Exhibits B.1 to B.6.
6.Heard both sides.
7.Issue No.1 :
Whether the Will dated 24.02.1998 is valid and binding on the defendant ?
In order to prove the Will dated 24.02.1998, the plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1. The plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit. The Will deed dated 24.02.1998 is marked as Ex.A.1. The plaintiff in order to prove the will deed under Ex.A.1, examined attestor of Ex.A.1 will deed as P.W.2. The
P.W.2 deposed that the executent that is father of the plaintiff and defendant called him to sign as attestor in his presence. He gave 8 instructions for preparing will. As per instructions, the Will was prepared. Then the testator affected his signature in his presence.
Then attestor signed in the presence of the testator. He identified the signature of the testator on Ex.A.1/ Will deed and Ex.B.1/ will deed.
P.W.1 deposed that he do not aware of the Will deed executed by his father under Ex.A.1. After his death only he came to know about the same. The defendant also admitted the execution of the Ex.A.1 will deed by his father. Plaintiff and defendant are own brothers. In view of admission of defendant, it has to be presumed that Ex.A.1 will deed was executed by their father. In Ex.B.1/ Will deed, dated 17.08.2008, their father has cancelled the Ex.A.1/ will deed dated 24.02.1998. It is well settled Law that the last Will will prevail. It is admitted by the both parties that their father died in the year 2012. The death certificate is filed. The plaintiff filed the Ration card, Family member certificate and health card etc., to show his father resided with him. Though the father resided along with plaintiff that is not a ground that the father shall not execute will deed and shall not transfer property to all his children.
Though, the father resided along with plaintiff, the testator got every right to distribute his properties as per his choice. Hence, those documents are not helpful to prove the case of the plaintiff.
8.In view of execution of Ex.B.1 will deed which is latest one and in view of the cancellation of Ex.A.1 Will deed by executing Ex.B.1
Will deed, the Ex.A.1 will deed, dated 24.02.1998 is not valid and not binding on the defendant.
9.Issue No.3:
Whether the Will dated 17.08.2008 is true valid and binding on the plaintiff and defendant ?
9
The defendant filed Will deed dated 17.08.2008. The same was marked as Ex.B.1. The defendant himself got examined as D.W.1 and he reiterated the contents of the written statement in his chief examination affidavit. In order to prove the Will deed under Ex.B.1, the defendant got examined the attestor of Ex.B.1 as D.W.2. He categorically deposed that the will deed under Ex.B.1 executed by the testator in his presence. In the presence of the testator, he affixed his signature as a witness on Ex.B.1 Will deed. The evidence of D.W.2 appears to be believable and trustworthy. A will has to be proved by examining at least one attestor of the said document. There is no necessity the will deed shall be registered. Ex.B.1 is unregistered will deed and the defendant able to prove the execution of will deed by examining the attestors. Thus he has discharged his burden lies on him.
The plaintiff only relying on old will deed. The father died in the year 2012. The Ex.B.1 will deed is his last deed. It will prevail and it is only valid and binding on the both parties.
10.The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant is an Advocate and plaintiff is a farmer and both are brothers. Item No.2 is Ac.1-92 cents out of that Ac.0.50 cents sold by their father. But, the said fact was not mentioned either in the plaint or in the evidence of P.W.1. He further argued that Item No.6 father executed a registered will to plaintiff. After Will he sold remaining
Ac.0.42 cents with regard to Item No.6, Ac.0.06 cents gift deed was executed to defendant and remaining property was succeeded by the plaintiff. The said fact was also not pleaded by the plaintiff nor deposed by the plaintiff. The counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that father died and thereafter defendant relying on unregistered will and 10 claiming Item No.6 and extent not correct does not arise. Extent of five items is, Item No.1 is Ac.1-80 cents, Item No.2 in Survey No.49/1 is Ac.1- 12 cents, Item No.3 in Survey No.23/4 is Ac.0.06 cents, Item No.4 in
Survey No.35/1 is Ac.0.92 cents, and Item No.5 in Survey No.23/10 actual extent is Ac.0.42 cents, Survey No.23/10 is Ac.0.20 cents actual extent is Ac.0.25 cents. Survey No.38/2 extent is Ac.0.68 cents as per the revenue record, it is only Ac,0.08 cents. The plaintiff did not mention how much extent were sold in what survey number. The property in which Survey number was given as gift, no document is filed. P.W.1 in his evidence, he deposed how Ex.A.1 came into existence without pleading and evidence argument is put-forth by the counsel for the plaintiff cannot be relayed on in order to prove the case of the plaintiff. The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant created Ex.B1 will deed subsequent to the death of his father and it is a forged document and he failed to remove suspicious circumstances around the execution of the said will on which he has been claiming the suit property. The evidence of D.W.2 is also not supporting the due execution and its surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The other two attestors of the alleged will deed in favour of the defendant such as
Sankar Rao Patnaik and Balaram Krishnamma Dora were not chosen examined though the Balaram Krishnamma Dora is his own nephew. It is not necessary to examine all the attesters of the will deed, examining of one attestor itself is sufficient. And this is not a suit for declaration of title, this is only a suit for perpetual injunction simpliciter, so the contention of counsel for the plaintiff, is not tenable.
11.The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff by filing Exs.A.1 to A.11 and by examining himself as a witness 11 substantiated the plaint and proved his case and on the other hand,
Ex.B.1 is the forged document and it is brought under suspicious circumstances with anti date. The evidence of D.W.1 and 2 do not conspire due execution of Ex.B.1 as required under settled Law and other documents also not supporting his case. As seen from the evidence, the P.W.1 was not present at the time of preparing Ex.A.1 will deed. He do not know about the mental condition of father. The plaintiff did not file even rejoinder denying the Ex.B.1 will deed and what are the suspicious circumstances around the Will deed. When the plaintiff is not aware of the will deed, it has to be informed by the attestor. Attestor P.W.2 deposed that he never informed about the execution of will deed to the plaintiff. The father is under care and custody of plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff got created Ex.A.1 will deed.
Ex.B.1 will deed was executed in sound and disposing state of mind in the presence of attestors. Hence, Ex.B.1 will deed is valid.
12.The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in Survey
No.23/10 Ac.0.20 cents was shown, in Survey No.35/1 – Ac.1-92 cents was shown, those are wrong extents. Mentioning of wrong extents is not a valid ground. The plaintiff mentioned the actual extent available on ground in the plaint schedule. If, really he did so, he could have mentioned the same in his pleading and evidence. In the absence of the such pleading and evidence, the argument of the plaintiff is not tenable.
The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, the plaintiff got the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.1 will deed. As per the discussion at
Issue No.1, Ex.A.1 will deed is not valid, no right, title, was conferred by the testator tot he plaintiff. Their father did not bequeath all the suit schedule properties. Some of the properties were alloted to his brother 12 and sisters, with greedy mind he has shown the properties, which were alloted to his brother and sisters also. This proves plaintiff is wrongly claiming the possession and enjoyment over those properties as if those properties exclusively belongs to him. The counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff taken care of parents and the same was evidence from document Nos.10 to 12. Thus, the plaintiff is able to prove that the parents are in their custody and there are no chances for executing the Ex.B.1 Will deed. The defendant never looked after his parents and he did not even see the dead body of his mother. Those two points are valid to believe Ex.A.1 will deed. It is not necessary all the children shall take care of the parents, when more than one child is there. The parents will reside with the children as per their choice. That doesn’t mean the parents shall execute will deed in favour of the one son or daughter who has taken care of them. Property belongs to the testator, he has got liberty to execute will deed and to distribute his property among his children as per his wish, the testator that is their father executed a will deed bequeathing some properties to his son and some properties to his daughters also. The plaintiff has no right to question the discretion exercised by their father. Ex.B.1 was validly executed and proved by examining attestor of the Will deed. It is his last Will.
13.In view of the above discussion , the will deed dated 17.08.2008 executed by their father is true, valid and binding on the defendant as well as the plaintiff.
14.Issue No.2:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?
13
The case of the plaintiff is that his father has bequeathed the plaint schedule property in his favour by virtue of Will deed under
Ex.A.1. His father died in the year 2012. After the death of his father he has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
He obtained Adangal pertains to suit schedule property. When the defendant tried to interfere into his possession and enjoyment, he got issued a legal notice, dated 14.04.2014 to the defendant and the same was marked as Ex.A.7. He got issued a notice to the Tahsildar and
District Collector. Those documents were marked as Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.9.
By filing those documents, the plaintiff is able to prove the cause of action for filing of this suit.
15.The plaintiff in order to prove his possession, he himself got examined as P.W.1. No 3rd parties were examined in support of his version. Thus, there is no oral evidence in order to prove the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property except, his self serving testimony. There is no corroborating evidence in order to prove the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
The plaintiff is relying on Will deed of 1998 under Ex.A.1 which was cancelled by executing Ex.B.1 will deed in the year 2008. Ex.B.1 Will deed was proved by examining the attestor as D.W.2. P.W.2, who is attester of Ex.A.1 will deed also admitted the signature of testator under
Ex.B.1 Will deed. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the evidence of
D.Ws.1 and 2, it is proved that Ex.B.1 Will deed is genuine document. It is settled Law that last Will of testator will prevail. Ex.B.1 is only valid.
Plaintiff claiming possession basing on cancelled Will. He did not get any right over the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1. As per 14
Ex.B.1, the plaint schedule properties were not bequeathed to him. He don’t have any right, possession over the plaint schedule property.
16.In order to prove his possession over plaint schedule property he filed adangals pertains to the Fasali 2013. The extent of Item No.1, 3 and 4 are not tallied with the adangal. Adangal for Item No.5 was not filed by the plaintiff. As per Ex.B.1 Will deed Item No.3, 4 Ac.0.10 cents out of Ac.0.20 cents in Item No.5 were allotted to the defendant. The defendant also filed adangals. The extent mentioned in the Adangals of the defendant is tallied. Those stand in the name of the defendant. The defendant filed Adangal for Ac.0.10 cents for item No.5 of the suit schedule property. The Item No.1 of suit schedule property was allotted to the daughters by their father by virtue of Will deed under Ex.B.1. But, the plaintiff gave wrong boundaries for Item No.5 as per Ex.B.1 will deed father alloted Eastern side Ac.0.10 cents to the plaintiff. Western side
Ac.0.10 cents to the defendant. But the plaintiff intentionally showed wrong boundaries for Item No.5. Item No.2, as per Adangal there is an extent of Ac.0.42 cents but, the plaintiff had showed the extent of
Ac.0.92 cents . The Item No.3 is Ac.1-12 cents. It is also Ac.1-12 cents but, the same was allotted to the defendant under Ex.B.1 Will deed.
Item No.4 , the plaintiff has shown Ac.0.68 cents but, as per Adangal his extent is only Ac.0.08 cents. For Item No.5, he did not file any adangal.
The defendant filed adangal for Ac.0.10 cents out of Ac.0.20 cents which was allotted to his share. As per the adangal, the extent mentioned by the plaintiff are not tallied. It appears that the plaintiff did not approach the Court with true facts and suppressed the material facts i.e., Ex.B.1
Will deed and also relation between plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff 15 is guilty of suppressing material facts which are within his personal knowledge.
17. P.W.1 in his evidence admitted his father expressed his desire to give some property to his daughters also he bequeathed one acre of land to his sister Ex.A.1 Will deed. He admitted his father executed a settlement deed in favour of his brother that is defendant in respect of Item No.6 prior to his death. He also admitted in the house alloted his brother, his parents were resided and he was allowed to live along with the parents by his brother. The contention of the plaintiff is his father was residing with him hence, there is no chance for execution of will deed in favour of the defendant and his sister does not arise.
Though the father is residing with him, he got executed settlement deed in favour of his brother/ defendant three months prior to his death.
From that also there are chances of executing Ex.B.1 will deed by the testator. The testator has distributed his property among his children .
He has allotted some properties to 2 sons and also daughters. He has allotted properties to all his children. Hence, the testator did not execute the will deed as he transferred entire property in favour of one person does not arise.
18.In the cross examination , he deposed he filed this suit as per the revenue records but not measuring the land on ground. He sold some property of Kosangipuram after the death of his father to one
Penta Bommeswara Rao of Palasa. As per the revenue records he could have mentioned the same. As per the revenue records i.e., Adangal but the extent showed by the plaintiff is not tallied with the extent mentioned in the adangal. And the items of the property extent allotted under Ex.B.1 will deed and the suit schedule properties are different .
16
The suit schedule properties were not allotted to the plaintiff as per
Ex.B.1 Will deed.
19.In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands and he suppressed the material facts. The plaintiff has no right, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction.
20.Issue No.4:
To what relief ?
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs as both are brothers.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court this the 31st day of March, 2023.
Senior Civil Judge, Tekkali
(FAC) Senior Civil Judge,
Sompeta.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined.
For plaintif: For Defendant:
PW.1: Yavvari Jagannadha RaoD.W.1: Yavvari Kema Kumar
P.W.2: Kintali RamannaiduD.W.2: Netcherla Joga Rao
Documents marked.
For Plaintif:
Ex.A-1: Original registered will deed, dated 24.02.1998 executed by father of plaintiff and defenant. Ex.A-2: Adangal for Fasali 1423 in respect of Survey number 38/2
Ex.A-3: Adangal for Fasali 1423 in respect of Survey number 35/1
Ex.A-4: Adangal for Fasali 1423 in respect of Survey number 47/2
Ex.A-5: Adangal for Fasali 1423 in respect of Survey number 49/1
Ex.A-6: Death certificate of Sri Yavvari Suryanarayana
Ex.A-7: Office copy of lawyer notice, dated 14.04.2014 issued by the plaintiff to defendant.
17
Ex.A-8: Acknowledgement, dated 16.04.2014, Tahsildar, Palasa
Ex.A-9: Acknowledgement dated 16.04.2014, District Collector, Srikakulam
Ex.A-10: Household card issued by Government of A.P.
Ex.A-11: Family health card issued by Government of A.P.
For Defendant:
Ex.B-1: Un-registered will dated 17.08.2008 executed by father of plaintiff and defendant. Ex.B-2: Adangal for Fasali 1422 in respect of Survey No.49/1
Ex.B-3: Adangal for Fasali 1422 in respect of Survey No.38/2
Ex.B-4: Adangal for Fasali 1422 in respect of Survey No.23/10A
Ex.B-5: Letter addressed to Tahsildar, Palasa
Ex.B-6: Postal receipt.
Senior Civil Judge, Tekkali
(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta.