T.leelavathi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL.

Present: Smt T. Leelavathi II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

Monday, the 22nd day of February, 2021.

O.S.No.498/2015

Paneeru Vijaya Lakshmi… Plaintif -Versus-

1. Paneeru Bala Nagamma

2. Paneeru Dhanunjeya Chari

3. Paneeru Tarakeswari

4. Paneeru Sailaja…Defendants ******

This suit came on 02.02.2021 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ravinuthala Durga Prasad and Sri S. Paneendranath, Advocates for the plaintif and of Sri Rachakonda Nataraj, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2 and

Sri C. Madduleti, Advocate for defendants 3 and 4, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into five equal shares and allot 1/5th share to the plaintif and 4/5th shares to defendants 1 to 4 equally and for suit costs.

2.The averments of plaint are that 1st defendant is the mother-in-law of plaintif, 2nd defendant is the son of plaintif’s husband through his 1st wife and defendants 3 and 4 are daughters of plaintif. She submits that plaint schedule property was originally purchased by Paneeru Balaiah Chari, who is the husband of 1st defendant. The said Balaiah Chari died in the month of February 1995 intestate, leaving behind him, his wife [1st defendant] and only son Naga

Brahmaiah Chari, plaintif, and her daughters [defendants 3 and 4] and 2nd defendant [1st wife’s son of Naga Brahmaiah Chari]. Subsequently Naga

Brahmaiah Chari died on 16.12.2014, leaving behind him, plaintif and defendants as his legal heirs. So that, the plaintif and defendants are exclusive legal heirs to succeed the plaint schedule property. She submits that they are all in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Plaintif is residing in the southern side portion of the schedule property, whereas the defendants 1 and 2 are residing in the northern side portion of the schedule property being a dwelling house, having two portions constructed by Naga

Brahmaiah Chari with his own funds. Plaintif submits that 1st wife of Naga

Brahmaiah Chari, who is the mother of 2nd defendant died in the year 1977.

After her death, Naga Brahmaiah Chari married her in the year 1981 and they 2 beget defendants 3 and 4. They resided in one of the portions of the plaint schedule property and defendants 1 and 2 resided in the other portion of the schedule property. After death of Naga Brahmaiah Chari, misunderstandings arose in between the plaintif and defendants and they were strained. On 11.11.2015 plaintif demanded the defendants for division of property and allot her share, but the defendants postponed the same on some pretext or the other.

Plaintif got held several panchayats with the elders for amicable partition, but in vain. Hence the plaintif is constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds.

3.Defendants made their appearance through their counsel and defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement, denying the allegations made against them and further submitted that plaint schedule property was purchased by 1st defendant and her husband Balaiah Chari and they have constructed a house in the schedule property with their hard labour, thereby the name of 1st defendant was mutated in the records for all purposes. After death of Balaiah Chari, 1st defendant became absolute owner of the schedule property. Since the mother of 2nd defendant died long back, 1st defendant and her husband looked after the welfare of 2nd defendant and they have brought him up. 1st defendant out of love and afection over 2nd defendant, got executed a registered gift deed in his favour, dated 15.04.2008 in respect of plaint schedule property and was inducted into possession of the same. Since then, the name of 2nd defendant was entered in the municipal records and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights till date. The said fact is fully aware to the plaintif and defendants 3 and 4. Defendants submit that after death of Balaiah Chari, 2nd defendant is looking after the welfare of 1st defendant. He have also contributed funds for the marriage expenses of defendants 3 and 4, as the plaintif is his step mother. Brahmaiah Chari, who worked as Carpenter, Gr.II in SRBC., Nandyal, died on 16.12.2014 after retirement, from service. He had received substantial retirement benefits from the department and kept the amounts in various banks as Fixed Deposits and he was drawing pension of Rs.30,000/- per month. Plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 exclusively withdrawn the said Fixed Deposits to a tune of Rs.4,00,000/- through ATM., during the ceremonies held after the death of

Brahmaiah Chari. Defendants submit that the plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 did not join the ceremonies of Naga Brahmaiah Chari, and the ceremonies were conducted by 2nd defendant as per custom. After completion of ceremonies and rituals, 2nd defendant came to know that plaintif colluding with defendants 3 and 4, withdrawn all the Fixed Deposits amount made by Brahmaiah Chari, without his knowledge and consent to a tune of Rs.50,00,000/-.

3

Defendants submit that husband of 3rd defendant by name Sunkari

Venkata Ramana is working as a Constable and through his influence, the Fixed

Deposit amounts were withdrawn by the plaintif and defendants 3 and 4. Thus, 2nd defendant filed a complaint to the II Town Police Station, Nandyal, but the same was not taken on record by the Police due to the influence of 3rd defendant’s husband. Later, 2nd defendant filed a private complaint on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandyal in C.F.R.No.2694/2015, complaining the

illegal activities done by said Venkata Ramana and the complaint was forwarded to II Town Police Station, Nandyal, but no action was taken by the Police.

Defendant submits that they have been demanding the plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 about the Fixed Deposits amount withdrawn by them and several panchayats were also held by the elders. In the said panchayats, plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 agreed that they have withdrawn the amount clandestinely and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to defendants 1 and 2 towards their share. Since then defendants 1 and 2 are demanding the plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to them, but the plaintif is dodging the matter. The plaintif filed the suit, as they demanded her to give their share of amount from Fixed Deposit. Defendants 1 and 2 submit that the plaintif filed the suit by suppressing the truth and approached the court with unclean hands, as such, plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 does not have any right, title and share over the plaint schedule property and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Defendants 3 and 4 filed their written statement, sailing with the plaintif and requested the court to pass preliminary decree as prayed by the plaintif.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for a partition and share over the plaint schedule property as alleged?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for a preliminary decree for partition as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, plaintif examined herself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 and also examined PW.2 on her behalf. On the other hand, defendants examined Dws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.B1 to B7 on their behalf.

7.Written arguments filed by the counsel for plaintif and defendants 1 to 4, separately. Heard on both sides.

4

8.ISSUE No.1:

[a]Plaintif by examining herself as PW.1, reiterated the contents of plaint in her examination-in-chief and further deposed that plaint schedule property was purchased by her father-in-law Balaiah Chari and the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 16.08.1976 marked as Ex.A2. Later he died intestate, leaving behind his wife [1st defendant], his son [plaintif’s husband] plaintif and defendants 2 to 4 as his legal heirs, thereby, they are all entitled for equal shares in the plaint schedule property. Subsequently plaintif’s husband

Naga Brahmaiah Chari, also died intestate in the year 2014. Therefore, the plaintif and defendants 1 to 4 are entitled for equal shares in the plaint schedule property. In support of her oral version, she got marked the genealogy tree as

Ex.A1. The certified copy of death certificate of Naga Brahmaiah Chari, as

Ex.A3. PW.1 deposed that she is residing in one of the portions of the plaint schedule property and the defendants 1 and 2 are residing in other portion of the schedule property. While so, there were misunderstandings between plaintif and defendants 1 and 2, thereby, she demanded the defendants 1 and 2 for partition of the plaint schedule property, but defendants did not co-operate or come forward for partition of the schedule property amicably. In proof of strained relationship between plaintif and defendants 1 and 2, PW.1 got marked the certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.652/2018 as Ex.A4, certified copy of

F.I.R in Cr.No.208/2016 as Ex.A5, certified copy of case diary part-II as Ex.A6 and the certified copy of rough sketch as Ex.A7.

PW.1 in her cross examination deposed that her father-in-law was a government employee in SRBC. She denied that her husband married her during the life time of his 1st wife. She stated that her husband worked as a Carpenter in SRBC., and retired from service on 31.05.2014 and died in the month of

December, 2014. PW.1 stated that her husband constructed a house in the plaint schedule property in the year 1996, but she have no documentary proof to that efect. She denied that the house in the schedule property was constructed by her father-in-law. She have no documents to show that she is in joint possession of plaint schedule property with defendants. She admitted that herself and her husband lived at SRBC., quarters, Nandyal. After retirement from service, her husband received cash of Rs.12,00,000/- towards retirement benefits. At present, she is receiving Rs.30,000/- per month towards pension. She admitted that her husband made Fixed deposits for a period of one year viz., a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- in APGB., Nandyal main branch on 15.09.2014 and Rs.6,00,000/- in

SBI main branch, Nandyal on 24.09.2014 and her husband had savings bank account in APGB main branch, Nandyal in A/C.No.19052017184, in which a cash of Rs.45,000/- is lying. Her husband also had another SB account in SBI main 5 branch, Nandyal in A/C.No.10840166487, for which, he have ATM card and check book. She admitted that all the Fixed Deposits were made out of the retirement benefits of her husband and she has withdrawn all the Fixed Deposits amount after maturity. She admitted that she has withdrawn from her husband’s account, Rs.40,000/- per day from 20.12.2014, in total Rs.4,63,957/- as her husband died on 16.12.2014 and she have not given any amount to defendants 1 and 2 from the retirement benefits of her husband. PW.1 stated that father-in- law of 3rd defendant is S. Venkateswarlu and he is a retired D.S.P., and the husband of 3rd defendant is Venkata Ramana Rao working as a Police Constable.

The father-in-law of 4th defendant by name Satyanarayana accompanied her to court. At present she is residing with 4th defendant i.e., after death of her husband. She denied that she filed C.C.652/2018 at the influence of father-in-law of 3rd defendant, after, filing of the present suit, only to pressurize 2nd defendant to come for a compromise in this suit.

[b]PW.2- K. Srinivasulu, who is a third party to the suit proceedings, deposed that plaintif is his junior maternal aunt and supported the version of PW.1 in all aspects in his examination-in-chief. He stated that on 27.09.2016 2nd defendant by using force and violence, break down the lock of plaintif’s portion of the house, threatened and assaulted her with dire consequences and driven her from the house illegally and residing in it, enjoying all the articles which are in the house belongs to P.W1, thus, plaintif lodged a complaint against the 2nd defendant on 27.09.2016 in III Town PS., Nandyal, which is subsequently numbered as C.C.652/2018 and pending for disposal on the file of JMFC., Nandyal. PW.2 in his cross examination deposed that plaint schedule site was purchased by Balaiah Chari, and the house is constructed by

Brahmaiah Chari. He stated that permission was granted to Brahmaiah Chari and 1st defendant for construction of the house in the plaint schedule site. He denied that the suit schedule property is the exclusive property of Balaiah Chari, and after his death, property devolved upon 1st defendant and being the absolute owner of the property, 1st defendant executed a gift deed on 15.04.2008 in favour of 2nd defendant and since then, 2nd defendant is the absolute owner of the schedule property.

[c]Defendant No.4 is examined as DW.1. She filed her chief afidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief, supporting the version of PW.1. In her cross examination, she deposed that her grandfather Balaiah Chari died when she was 10 years old. She admitted that the schedule property stands in the name of 1st defendant, but taxes were being paid by her father, for which, she have no documents to prove the same. She denied that defendants 1 and 2 6 demanded plaintif in the retirement benefits of their father, as such, plaintif filed the present suit and also got filed a false criminal case against 2nd defendant.

[d]3rd defendant is examined as DW.2. She filed her chief afidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief, supporting the version of PW.1 and

DW.1 in all aspects. DW.2 in her cross examination deposed that her father-in- law is a retired DSP and her husband works in Police department. She admitted that the schedule property site was purchased by her grandfather, but she denied that house is constructed by her grandfather. She admitted that her father along with their mother and themselves lived as a separate family, whereas defendants 1 and 2 lived as a separate family. She admitted that no legal notice was issued by their father during his life time to the defendants No.1 and 2 for partition of the schedule property. She pleaded ignorance whether any amount was given to defendants 1 and 2 out of the retirement benefits of her father. She denied that false criminal case was filed against 2nd defendant due to the influence of her husband and father-in-law as they worked in Police department.

[e]DW.3- G. Narasaiah, who is a third party to the suit proceedings, deposed that he know both parties to the suit and the husband of plaintif by name Brahmaiah Chari, who worked as Carpenter in SRBC., along with him and retired in the year 2014. He stated that plaintif demanded defendants 1 and 2 for amicable partition of the plaint schedule property, as they have no cordial relationship, but the 2nd defendant locked the portion of plaintif and assaulted her and driven her out of the house, since then, plaintif is residing with defendants 3 and 4. DW.3 in his cross examination, deposed that he worked in SRBC., from 1992 onwards but he have no record to show that he worked in SRBC. He stated that he do not know the house number of the plaintif but the plaintif is residing in Teachers Colony, Nandyal.

[f]To rebut the version of plaintif and defendants 3 and 4, 2nd defendant is examined as DW.4. He reiterated the contents of written statement in his examination-in-chief and further stated that schedule property was purchased by his grandfather and the house therein was constructed by 1st defendant with hard labour. After death of his grandfather, the property devolved upon his grandmother i.e., 1st defendant and she has been in possession of the property with absolute rights. His mother died in his tender age, as such, he was looked after by his grandfather and grandmother in the schedule property. Out of love and afection, 1st defendant executed gift deed in his favour in respect of plaint schedule property marked as Ex.B1. Since then, his name is 7 entered in the municipal records and he is paying tax to the Nandyal

Municipality. The demand notices in the name of 1st defendant marked as Ex.B2 and the demand notices in the name of 2nd defendant marked as Ex.B3. The house tax receipts are marked as Ex.B4. The water tax demand bill marked as

Ex.B5 and the water tax demand receipt is marked as Ex.B6. The extract of service register issued by Executive Engineer, SRBC., Circle-III is marked as

Ex.B7. He deposed that he is looking after the welfare of 1st defendant after the death of his grandfather till today and she is in his care and custody. He have also contributed funds for the marriage expenses of defendants 3 and 4, as plaintif is his step mother. Naga Brahmaiah Chari was retired from service few months prior to his death and he received substantial retirement benefits from the department and he made Fixed deposits in diferent banks and was getting a pension of Rs.30,000/- per month. The plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 collusively, withdrawn the Fixed Deposits amount and cash to a tune of

Rs.4,00,000/- through ATM immediately after the death of Naga Brahmaiah

Chari. The ritual ceremonies were performed by him, but the plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 did not attend the ceremonies. When he demanded for share in the Fixed Deposit amount, plaintif got filed the present suit and a police complaint against him at the instance of her son-in-law and his father, who are working in Police department. He deposed that plaintif never stayed in the plaint schedule property and the plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 have no share in the schedule property.

DW.4 in his cross examination deposed that his father and 1st defendant obtained permission for construction of a house in the suit site on 19.07.1996, accordingly a house is constructed therein. He also admitted that his father and grandmother constructed house in four cents of site and kept two cents of site vacant out of the total six cents of site purchased by his grandfather.

His grandfather died intestate and like-wise, his father also died intestate in the suit schedule property. He admitted that his father lived in one of the portions of the suit schedule property after his retirement. After death of his father, disputes arose between them and plaintif. He stated that the disputes are with regard to retirement benefits of his father. He admitted that he have not filed any document to show that he contributed money for the marriages of defendants 3 and 4. As per the Service register extract under Ex.B7, plaintif, defendants 3, 4 and himself are shown as legal heirs of his father. He denied that he beat and necked out plaintif from the plaint schedule property after death of his father on 27.09.2016.

[g]1st defendant is examined as DW.5. She filed her chief afidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief reiterating the contents of written 8 statement and further stated that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and thereby, she executed gift deed in favour of 2nd defendant.

The plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 have no right in the plaint schedule property. DW.5 in her cross examination deposed that her husband purchased schedule site under Ex.A2 and died in the year 1995 intestate. She stated that she purchased the property in favour of her husband, but she have no documents to that efect. She deposed that she constructed a house in the schedule site after death of her husband. Her son died in the suit schedule property and they have performed obsequies of her son in the schedule property. She denied that plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 lived with her son in the plaint schedule property. DW.5 denied that she have no right to execute a registered gift settlement deed in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of plaint schedule property.

She deposed that her son have no right over the schedule property, like-wise, plaintif and defendants 3 and 4. The entire retirement benefits of her son were taken away by plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 but she have no record to show that her son got retirement benefits of Rs.70,00,000/-.

[h]G. Sreenivasa Bhakta Vathsala Reddy is examined as DW6.

He filed his chief afidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief, stating that he know the defendants and the suit schedule property. He stated that 1st defendant constructed two portions house in plaint schedule property. At that time, he have lent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to her and she discharged his debt. The son of 1st defendant by name Naga Brahmaiah Chari worked in SRBC., Nandyal, died in the year 2014. Later, himself and one Siva Nagi Reddy of their village, held panchayat in the month of February, 2015 between plaintif and defendants 1 and 2 with regard to the amount deposited by Naga Brahmaiah Chari and withdrawn by the plaintif. In the said panchayat, plaintif accepted that she withdrawn the amount from the banks without giving share to defendants 1 and 2, and thereby she agreed to give Rs.20,00,000/- to defendants 1 and 2 towards their share, but she did not pay the same and filed the present suit. DW.6 in his cross examination deposed that 2nd defendant filed suit against plaintif claiming his father’s money and he mentioned the same in his chief afidavit. He stated that there is no written agreement between 2nd defendant and plaintif with regard to the panchayat held by him.

[i]Veera Brahma Chari is examined as DW.7. He filed his chief afidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief, supporting the version of DW.6 that a panchayt was held between plaintif and defendants 1 and 2 with regard to Fixed

Deposits and retirement benefits of Brahmaiah Chari, in which, plaintif agreed to give Rs.20,00,000/- to defendants 1 and 2 towards their share. DW.7 in his cross examination deposed that Balaiah Chari is his uncle by relation. Suit 9 schedule open site of six cents was purchased by Balaiah Chari under Ex.A2.

Balaiah Chari worked as Carpenter in SRBC., Nandyal, but he do not know when he died. He stated that his father purchased three cents and Balaiah Chari purchased six cents site at the same area. Plaintif received Rs.70,00,000/- which is the retirement benefits of Brahmaiah Chari. Thereafter a panchayat was held by Siva Nagi Reddy and Bhaktavatshala Reddy in the month of February, 2015, in which, he was also present. As per the panchayat resolution, plaintif have to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to 2nd defendant and then, there will be share in the plaint schedule property for plaintif and defendants.

9.As observed from the evidence available on record before the court, it is the version of plaintif that her husband Naga Brahmaiah Chari, after death of his 1st wife, married her and since then, they lived together and beget defendants 3 and 4. 2nd defendant is the son of her husband through his 1st wife.

The father of Naga Brahmaiah Chari by name Balaiah Chari purchased six cents of vacant site under Ex.A2, and then, the present house in the schedule site was constructed by her husband. Her husband worked as Carpenter in SRBC.,

Nandyal, and retired from service, and died on 16.12.2014 intestate. Thereby herself along with defendants 1 to 4 are the only legal heirs to succeed the plaint schedule property as Naga Brahmaiah Chari died intestate, and she is claiming 1/5th share each to herself and defendants 1 to 4. In support of her version, she got examined herself as PW.1 and also examined her relative as PW.2 and marked

Exs.A1 to A3 to show the relationship between them, the details of plaint schedule property and the death certificate of her husband. Pws.1 and 2 stated that 2nd defendant assaulted on PW.1 and necked her out of the plaint schedule house and since then, she is residing with her daughters i.e., defendants 3 and 4.

She filed a complaint against 2nd defendant in Cr.No.208/2016 and subsequently it was registered as C.C.652/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandyal and in support of the same, she marked the F.I.R. copy, case diary, rough sketch and charge sheet as Exs.A4 to A7.

10.Defendants 3 and 4 being the daughters of plaintif examined themselves as DW.1 and DW.2 and also examined a third party as DW.3, who supported the version of plaintif in all aspects and prayed the court to pass a preliminary decree, dividing the plaint schedule property into five equal shares and allot 1/5th share each to plaintif and defendants 1 to 4 equally.

11.On the other hand, defendants 1 and 2, who are none other than the mother and son [through 1st wife] of Naga Brahmaiah Chari, stated that six cents of site was purchased by the husband of 1st defendant under Ex.A2, thereafter, 1st defendant alone constructed house in the schedule site, as such, after death of 10 her husband, she have become the absolute owner of schedule property. Thus, 1st defendant executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of plaint schedule property, accordingly tax demand notices were issued to defendants 1 and 2 and they paid the taxes to the Municipality and in proof of the same, filed demand notices, receipts, water tax demand notices and receipts under Exs.B2 to B5. Ex.B2 demand notices shows the name of 1st defendant and the demand notices under Exs.B3 to B6 shows the name of 2nd defendant. The death certificate of Naga Brahmaiah Chari is marked as

Ex.A3.

12.As per the version of plaintif and defendants, the relationship between the parties could not be disputed. But DW.5, who is the 1st defendant herein, for the first time, stated before the court that she have no knowledge that her son married plaintif and beget defendants 3 and 4. She have also stated that her son might have married plaintif during the life time of his 1st wife and the marriage between plaintif and her son is not a valid marriage. As observed from the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2, they have categorically stated that 2nd defendant contributed money to the marriages of defendants 3 and 4, as they are born to his step mother, who is none other than the plaintif herein. There is no pleading in the written statement, disputing the relationship of plaintif with Naga Brahmaiah Chari, furthermore, the defendants 1 and 2 admittedly stated that plaintif is step mother of 2nd defendant, being the 2nd wife of Naga Brahmaiah Chari, gave birth to defendants 3 and 4. Therefore, the relationship of plaintif with Naga Brahmaiah Chari and the birth of defendants 3 and 4 could not be disputed by the defendants at a later point of time.

Defendants 1 and 2 cannot approbate and reprobate on the same issue and they are estopped from deviating from their earlier statement. The other important document i.e., Service Register of Naga Brahmaiah Chari marked as Ex.B7, which is filed by defendants themselves, categorically reveals that plaintif is the wife of Naga Brahmaiah Chari and the defendants 2 to 4 are the children of

Naga Brahmaiah Chari. Therefore, the relationship of plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 with Naga Brahmaiah Chari clearly proved that they are wife and children of Naga Brahmaiah Chari.

The counsel for plaintif and defendants 3 and 4 relied upon the following decisions:

1. SC.[2007] 10 SCC 21, 27 and 2008 [8] SCC 92, 107 in Bachhaj Nahar

Vs. Nilima Mandal & Another,wherein their Lordships held that “ It is settled

law that no amount of evidence can be looked into on a plea never put

forward. The issue on which there are no specific pleadings cannot be

adjudicated by a Civil Court ” 11

2. LAWS [APH] 1991 [7] 29 [Cited in ALT 1992 [1] 462] between

Veeramallau Venkataramayya Vs. Babhina Venkateswara Rao,wherein their

Lordships held that “ That Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act saves only

testamentary dispositions of joint family properties by coparceners and

those disposals by gifts are not saved and that such gifts are void ”.

3. 2020 [5] ALD Supreme Court Page No.49=2020 [5] ALT Supreme Court

Page No.1,wherein their Lordships held that “ The daughters cannot be

deprived of their right of equality conferred upon them by Section 6 of

the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, therefore the daughters can claim

the shares as a coparcener even the daughter born prior to 2005

amendment Act which was came into force on 09.09.2005 and even if

father co-parcener died before 2005 as the daughters have got right in

the ancestral properties as a coparcener by birth and not by way of

inheritance ”.

The counsel for defendants 1 and 2 relied upon the following decisions:

1. A IR 1979 Bombay 176 between Daddo Atmaram Patil and others,

Appellants Vs. Raghunath Atmaram Patil and others, Respondents, wherein their

Lordships held that “ Hindu Succession Act [30 of 1956], S 8 [a[ read with

Sec.3[i] and S. 4, Schedule Class I - ‘Son,daughters: …. Daughter of a

predeceased daughter” ….. Illegitimate son or daughter is not included

and hence they cannot invoke rules of Succession in S.8 [a] ”

2. AIR 1987 Bombay 182 between Shantaram Tukaram Patil and another,

Appellants Vs. Smt Dagubai Tukaram Patil and others, Respondents, wherein their Lordships held that “ Under S.16 [1], Hindu Marriage Act, as

substituted by Act 68 of 1976 a child of a marriage which is void under

the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, whether a decree of nullity is

passed or not, is an illegitimate child. Such a child does not acquire right

to property which a legitimate child would, but the legitimacy confers

upon him right to property of his parents under S.16[3], Hindu Marriage

Act.

3. 2003 [2] ALD 1987 [SC] between Jinia Keotin and others Vs. Kumar

Sitaram Manjhi and others, wherein their Lordships held that “ Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, illegitimate children, children born out of void or illegal

marriages, can claim maintenance. But they cannot claim

inheritance in ancestral properties on par with legitimate children ”

In the present case, it is no doubt that daughter and wife are entitled for a share in the property of Naga Brahmaiah Chari. It is also held by this court that plaintif is the wife and defendants 3 and 4 are daughters of plaintif and 12 deceased Naga Brahmaiah Chari. Accordingly they are entitled for a share in the property of Naga Brahmaiah Chari along with defendants 1 and 2 under

Succession Act. The decisions of Honourable High Court and Supreme Court referred by the defendant’s counsel, are not relevant to the present case facts, as the plea of illegitimate child and the relationship between plaintif and Naga

Brahmaiah Chari and defendants 3 and 4, was not pleaded by the defendants in their written statement, but claimed at a very belated stage, i.e., at the time of examination of DW.5 and at the time of arguing the present case, which could not be permitted as referred by the plaintif’s counsel in SC.[2007] 10 SCC 21, 27 and 2008 [8] SCC 92, 107 in Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & Another, wherein it is clearly held that “ It is settled law that no amount of evidence can

be looked into on a plea never put forward. The issue on which there are

no specific pleadings cannot be adjudicated by a Civil Court ”

13.2nd defendant, who is examined as DW.5 stated before the court that plaint schedule property is her exclusive property, as such, the plaintif and other defendants have no right over it. Further being the absolute owner of the property, she executed gift deed under Ex.B1 in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of her grand son i.e., 2nd defendant. DW.5 have not filed any document to show her absolute ownership over the plaint schedule property. It is her version that she purchased six cents of site in the name of her husband and thereafter, constructed the house in it, but no proof is filed to that efect.

DW.4, who is none other than the 2nd defendant herein stated in his cross examination that his father Naga Brahmaiah Chari along with his grandmother [1st defendant] obtained permission from Nandyal Municipality for construction of house in the plaint schedule property and they have constructed the same.

Even the utility bills such as electricity, water tax and the house tax demand notices were issued in the name of defendants 1 and 2 only, but there is no mention of the name of Naga Brahmaiah Chari in any record. As observed from

Exs.B2 demand notices dated 10.11.2007, 04.04.2006, 02.08.2004, 03.05.2005, 13.093.2007, 15.10.2008 were issued in the name of 1st defendant, but not in the name of Brahmaiah Chari. This shows that the demand notices were issued in the name of 1st defendant, even during the life time of Naga Brahmaiah Chari. It is the version of plaintif that the plaint schedule property is the joint family property and herself along with her husband during the life time of her husband, lived in one of the portions of the plaint schedule property and the defendants 1 and 2 lived in the other portion of the plaint schedule property, but, due to disputes between them and the high handed acts of the 2nd defendant, she was necked away from the house, thereby, she filed criminal complaint against 2nd defendant and since then, residing at her daughter’s house. Plaintif except 13 examining herself as PW.1 and her close relative as PW.2, did not put-forth any other evidence to prove that she resided in the plaint schedule property at any point of time. The F.I.R copy, case diary part-II, rough sketch and the charge sheet in C.C.No.652/2018 could not be relied upon in deciding that she resided in the plaint schedule property, and that the plaint schedule property is the joint family property without adducing any other evidence to prove the same. Though the plaintif pleaded that the house in the plaint schedule property is constructed by her husband with his own funds, did not put-forth any evidence to prove the same. Like-wise, there is no evidence on record to show that 1st defendant alone constructed the house in plaint schedule property. As elicited in the cross examination of PW.1, Dws.4 and 5, the house in the plaint schedule property was constructed in the year 1996, whereas the husband of 1st defendant died in the year 1995. It is also a fact that the husband of 1st defendant was also government employee, who worked as a carpenter in SRBC., and retired from service. In these circumstances, the construction of the house in the plaint schedule property with the self earned funds of 1st defendant or by the Naga

Brahmaiah Chari, is not proved by the plaintif or the defendants.

14.It is the version of plaintif that the plaint schedule property was purchased by her father-in-law and the house in it is constructed by her husband and thereby, it being an ancestral property, she is entitled for 1/5th share and defendants 1 to 4 are also entitled for 1/5th share each. According to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, a widow does not get any share in the ancestral property of the husband, but out of the property fallen to the share of deceased husband, she can claim share u/S.8 of Hindu Succession Act. In the present case, admittedly, the property is purchased by the father-in-law of plaintif.

Therefore, it is the self acquired property of father-in-law of plaintif, who is none other than the husband of 1st defendant. Therefore, after death of Balaiah Chari, the plaint schedule property devolved upon his wife and son Naga Brahmaiah

Chari u/S.8 of Hindu Succession Act with equal shares. Thereafter the share of

Nagaiah Brahmaiah Chari shall be divided equally between plaintif and defendants 1 to 4, being his wife, mother and children, u/S.8 of Hindu Succession

Act, as he died intestate. But, plaintif claiming 1/5th share directly from the ancestral property of her husband, is not tenable and the plaint is wrongly construed. According to Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, the plaint schedule property has to be notionally divided into two equal shares and one such share shall be allotted to 1st defendant and one such share shall be allotted to Naga

Brahmaiah Chari, thereafter, the share of Naga Brahmaiah Chari shall be divided into five equal shares and allot one each share to the plaintif and defendants 1 to 4. In such circumstances, the schedule property has to be divided into ten 14 equal shares and five shares shall be allotted to 1st defendant and the remaining five shares shall be allotted to plaintif and defendants 1 to 4 equally. Therefore the plaintif and defendants 2 to 4 would get 1/10th share each, whereas 1st defendant get 6/10th share.

15.But it is categorically elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 that after retirement of Naga Brahmaiah Chari, he died within few months and he made Fixed Deposits for one year of Rs.3,00,000/- in APGB main branch, Nandyal on 15.09.2014; Rs.6,00,000/- in SBI main branch account No.108401666487. He had an S.B. account, for which, he had ATM card and cheque book. Plaintif had withdrawn Rs.4,63,957/- from SBI account of her husband through ATM card after his death, by drawing Rs.40,000/- per day from 20.12.2014. She also admitted that she has withdrawn all the Fixed Deposits amount after maturity, which were made by her husband. Thus, Rs.9,00,000/- Fixed Deposits amount was withdrawn by plaintif and a sum of Rs.4,63,957/- cash was withdrawn by her which was lying in the S.B. account of Naga Brahmaiah Chari. In total she has withdrawn Rs.13,63,957/-, which is the self earned amount of Naga

Brahmaiah Chari. Plaintif also admitted that she have not given any amount to defendants 1 and 2 from the retirement benefits of her husband and from the amount withdrawn by her. The plaintif is entitled for 1/5th share out of the property allotted to deceased Naga Brahmaiah Chari. As per plaintif’s version, out of the plaint schedule property, she would get property worth of

Rs.2,13,740/- which is much lesser than the Fixed Deposit amount which was withdrawn by her and which belongs to deceased Naga Brahmaiah Chari and which has to be divided between herself and defendants 1 to 4 equally. At present she is receiving Rs.30,000/- per month as pension being the wife of Naga

Brahmaiah Chari. When Naga Brahmaiah Chari died intestate, his property has to be divided between his legal heirs according to Section 8 of Hindu Succession

Act. If the share of Naga Brahmaiah Chariin the plaint schedule property is divided into five equal shares, each share will be worth of Rs.2,13,740/- and the plaintif is entitled for only 1/5th share which is Rs.2,13,740/-. But the plaintif has taken away Rs.13,63,957/- which is the exclusive amount of Naga Brahmaiah

Chari and which has to be divided between herself and defendants 1 to 4 equally.

Moreover, the plaintif have not shown the F.D amounts in the plaint schedule and withdrawn the same exclusively without sharing with defendants 1 and 2, itself shows that plaintif approached the court with unclean hands, which is abuse of process of law. Therefore, the suit is bad for non joinder of all the properties in the plaint schedule for partition. Defendants 1 and 2 since from filing of written statement, pleaded that the plaintif have taken entire retirement benefits of Naga Brahmaiah Chari without giving any amount to 15 defendants 1 and 2 and thereby, they demanded her to give their share and at that time, panchayats were held by DW.6 and others, in which, plaintif agreed to give Rs.20,00,000/- to 2nd defendant, but she did not give the amount and when 2nd defendant demanded her to give the amount, she got filed the present suit and the criminal case against 2nd defendant. This version of defendants 1 and 2 is supported by one of the panchayatdar, who is examined as DW.6 and DW.7 who was present during the said panchayat. When the evidence of Dws.6 and 7 co- related with the admissions made by PW.1 in her cross examination, makes the court to believe the version of defendants 1 and 2. When the plaintif have already withdrawn the Fixed Deposit amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and a cash of

Rs.4,63,957/- belongs to Naga Brahmaiah Chari after his death, and, suppressing the same, filed the suit for partition of the ancestral property of Naga Brahmaiah

Chari, claiming equal share along with defendants 1 to 4, is absurd and untenable. My discussion supra clearly reveals that plaintif has withdrawn exclusively Rs.13,63,957/- belongs to Brahmaiah Chari, which has to be divided between herself and the defendants 1 to 4 equally, which is much more than her share in the plaint schedule property. Further plaintif suppressed the same and filed the suit, which reveals that she approached the Court with unclean hands.

Hence the plaintif is not entitled for partition and share in the plaint schedule property as claimed. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and against the plaintif.

16.ISSUE No.2:

In view of my detailed discussion and findings on Issue No.1, wherein, it is held that plaintif is not entitled for partition and share in the plaint schedule property, she is not entitled for a preliminary decree of partition as prayed for. Accordingly this issues is also answered in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and against the plaintif.

17.ISSUE No.3:

In the result, the suit is dismissed with the costs of defendants 1 and 2.

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

signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22 nd day of February, 2021.

II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NANDYAL

16

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

[Witnesses Examined] For Plaintif:

PW.1: P. Vijaya Lakshmi PW.2: K. Srinivasulu

For Defendants 3 & 4:

DW.1: P. Sailaja [4th defendant] DW.2: P. Tarakeswari [3rd defendant] DW.3: G. Narasaiah

For Defendants 1 & 2:

DW.4: P. Dhanunjaya Chari [2nd defendant] DW.5: P. Bala Nagamma [1st defendant] DW.6: G. Sreenivasa Bhakta Vathsala Reddy DW.7: Vadla Veerabrahma Chari

Exhibits Marked For Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Genealogy TREE

Ex.A2: Certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 16.08.1976 bearing

Doc.No.2678/1976 executed by S. Subba Rao, Ravindra Nath Tagore,

Vijaya Kumar [2 & 3 their General Power of Attorney holder Subba Rao,

Nandyal] in favour of Balaiah Chari.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Death certificate of P. Naga Brahmaiah Chari extract issued by Mee-seva authority, Nandyal, dt.16.12.2014.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of Charge sheet in C.C.No.652/2018 Ex.A5: Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.208/2016 Ex.A6: Certified copy of Case diary part - II Ex.A7: Certified copy of Rough sketch

For Defendants 1 & 2: Ex.B1: Original registered Gift deed in favour of 2nd defendant by 1st defendant in respect of plaint schedule property, dt.15.04.2008

Ex.B2: Original five demand notices issued by Nandyal Municipality in the name of 1st defendant Bala Nagamma in respect of plaint schedule property.

Ex.B3: Original demand notice issued by Nandyal Municipality in the name of 2nd defendant, dt.24.04.2016.

Ex.B4: Original two house tax receipts paid through Mee-seva by 2nd defendants Ex.B5: Original water tax demand bill in the name of 2nd defendant for the year 2016-2017, dt.03.01.2017 Ex.B6: Original water tax payment receipt through Mee-seva, dt.30.12.2017. Ex.B7: Copy obtained through RTI- Service Register Extract issued by Executive Engineer, SRBC., Circle No.3, dt.27.06.2015.

For Defendants 3 & 4: - Nil -

II ASCJ., NDL.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT -CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

KURNOOL

Present: Smt. T.Leelavathi,

Judge, Family Court -cum-

IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

Monday, the 9th day of February, 2026.

Appeal Suit No.90/2018

1. Smt.Kare Salamma, W/o.Late Kare Chinna Polaiah, aged 76 years, Hindu, House wife, H.No.4/191-C, Mamatha Nagar, Kurnool (Died and L.Rs.are Appellants 2 & 3 being her L.Rs are already on record)

2. Kare Venkata Ramudu, S/o.Late Kare Chinna Polaiah, aged 48 years, Hindu, R/o.H.No.78/2/1123, New Krishna Nagar, Kurnool.

3. Kare Gangamma, W/o.Late Bathula Narayana, Aged about 44 years, Hindu, House wife,

H.No.4/191-C, Mamatha Nagar, Kurnool. ... Appellants/

Plaintiffs.

-Versus-

1. Gopathi Venkata Ramudu, S/o.Late G.Venkata Reddy, aged 57 years, Hindu, Agriculturist. 2 Kare Jayamma, W/o.Badaraiah, aged 46 years, Hindu, House wife.

Both are residents of Mustapalli village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District.… Respondents/ Defendants.

On appeal against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.7/2014 dated 4.6.2018 made on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Between

1. Kare Salamma (Died)

2. Kare Venkata Ramudu.

3. Kare Gangamma.... Plaintiffs.

-And -

1. Gopathi Venkata Ramudu.

2. Kare Jayamma.… Defendants.

2

This appeal has come on 8.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s.G.Chalapathi Rao, Shaik Jaffar Hussain and A.Anil Kumar,

Advocates for appellants and of Sri Y.Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate for

Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2 remained ex-parte, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the fol- lowing:

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS.7/2014 dt. 4.6.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, the appellants/ plaintiffs preferred the present appeal to set aside the Decree and Judgment of the trial Court and prays the court to allow the appeal.

2.The appellants are plaintiffs, whereas the respondents are de- fendants in OS.7/2014.

3. Grounds of appeal:

(1) The Judgment and Decree of Hon'ble Trial Court, are against Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2) The Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the burden of proof and onus of proof of the facts in Issue, involved in the suit.

(3) The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the positive admission of the 1

Defendant in his Written Statement, that he had occupied the Item No.2 of the plaint schedule, 20 years ago, when the plaintiffs left the Village. The Trial Court was wrong in simply ignoring such positive admission of plaintiffs' title in his pleading, simply calling it as "unimportant and incidental statement." (4) The Trial Court failed to appreciate the established legal proposition that when the Defendant has pleaded Adverse Possession, against the plaintiff, it goes without saying, that the Defendant had admitted the title and previous possession of the plaintiffs over the said property.

3 (5) The Trial Court failed of appreciate the legal preposition that the burden of proving Adverse Possession, as pleaded by the 1 Defendant heavily lies on the 1

Defendant only.

(6) The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that 1st defendant had not adduced any reliable and independent oral or documentary evidence to prove his care of adverse possession against the plaintiffs.

(7) The Trial Court basically got confused about the subject matter of the present suit and the subject matter in another suit O.S. No. 80/2002, which suit was admittedly not inter-parties, and the Defendants in the present suit were not parties in that suit. In fact, the present suit was relating to the northern portion of the entitle land belonging to the plaintiffs situated in Sy. NO. 263.

(8) The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that defense of the 1"

Defendant taken in his written Statement were self-contradictory to each other.

In one breath, the 1" Defendant said that he had perfected his title over Item

No.2 of the plaint schedule by adverse possession and by another breath, he claims that he had purchased the said property from the 2nd Defendant, who is a stranger to the said property.

(9) The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that all the revenue records produced by the Defendant before it, was a clear fabricated and meddled records, crated even by forging the signatures of Tahsildars.

(10) The Trial Court is wrong in simply brushing aside the Regd. Gift Deed pertaining to the Item No.1 of the suit schedule, which was filed by the plaintiffs.

(11) The Trial Court was wrong in not giving its finding in respect of Issue no.1 and 4, framed in the above suit, in favour of the plaintiffs, in view of the clear admission of the 1 Defendant in his pleading and also in his evidence.

(12) The Trial Court is wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the 2nd Defendant was the owner of Item No.2 of the plaint Schedule, since his name was shown as Southern Boundary in the Schedule.

4 (13) The Trial Court is wrong in observing suit the plaintiffs have to prove their title over the suit schedule property, even though there is a clear cut admission of title and defense of adverse possession in the written statement of the 1

Defendant.

(14) The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the 1st Defendant had even gone to the extent of manipulating a pattadar pass book in his name, in such a way that the lands located in two Mandals were got interpolated in one pass book, which is a clear prima-facie proof of manipulation.

(15) The Trial Court is wrong in finding fault with the evidence of the official witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs, on the ground that they were confronted only with certified copies and not originals of Ex.A5 to A8.

(16) The Trial Court is wrong in finding fault with the mention of the of the name of Kare Chinna Polaiah as pattadar of the suit schedule property in the Revenue

Records marked as Ex.A5 to A8, even though he died in 1985 itself. The Trial

Court ought to have taken judicial notice of the fact that the revenue records seldom carry the names of dead persons as pattadars, even many years after their death, and it was not a fatal recital affecting those documents.

(17) The Trial Court is wrong in simply ignoring the valuable evidence of the official witnesses PW.2 and PW.3, who have clearly spoken that their signatures found in the revenue records produced before the court, by the 1st defendant, were forged ones, which clearly exposed the fabricated nature of the

Documents of the 1st Defendant.

(18) The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that were cited by the 1 Defendant, and which was

referred to in paras 29 and 30 of its Judgment, were in fact, adversely affecting the Case of the 1st Defendant.

(19) The Trial Court is wrong in observing that the plaintiffs have not discharged the burden to the 1st Defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiffs.

5 (20) The Trial Court is wrong in simply Ignoring the Issue about the claim of alleged Adverse Possession pleaded by the 1st defendant, by saying that the 1st defendant has not made any Counter Claim in the suit.

(21) The Trial Court is wrong in applying the legal principle that the plaintiffs have to succeed on the strength of their case, in the present case, in the light of the indirect admission of title of plaintiffs, by the 1st defendant while pleading

Adverse Possession.

(22) The Trial Court is wrong in not applying the ratio in the decision reported in 2013 (5) ALT 241, which was cited by the plaintiffs.

(23) The Trial Court is wrong is holding that the plaintiffs have not proved their possession, by ignoring the valuable Revenue Records.

24) The Trial Court is wrong in relying on the evidence of DW.1 to DW.4, in the light of the clear cut documentary evidence, in the form of revenue record filed by the plaintiffs.

The appellants prayed the court to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.7/2014 dt.4.6.2014 and decree the suit with costs.

4.After numbering of the appeal, the respondents made their appearance and contested the matter.

5.The parties hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and the defendants as arrayed in O.S.7/2014 before the trial court for the sake of convenience, discussion and to avoid any ambiguity in the appeal.

6. a. This suit is filed seeking declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule properties by cancelling the registered sale deed dated 30-07-2013 under D.No. 1402/2013 executed by defendant

No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 relating to item No.2 of plaint schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from entering into and disturbing the peaceful possession 6 and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties and for suit costs.

The plaint averments are that:

b.The plaintiff No.1 is the mother of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 by name Kare Chinna Polaiah. He died intestate in the year 1985 leaving behind him his estate and the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. During the life time of Kare Chinna Polaiah, his first wife's daughter by name Chintala Chinna Atchamma executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of sister of plaintiff No.2 i.e. plaintiff No.3 who is the daughter of second wife of Kare Chinna Polaiah, on 06-08-1979 relating to item No.1 of plaint schedule property when she was minor. The total extent of survey number No.263 is Ac.5-04 cents. Out of it, item No.1 was gifted to plaintiff

No.3 and rest of the plaint schedule property along with other properties were succeeded by plaintiffs 1 and 2 after death of Kare Chinna Polaiah. After his death, plaintiffs 1 and 2 shifted to Kurnool as plaintiff No.2 was doing private job and plaintiff No.1 was fell sick. However, now and then the plaintiffs 1 and 2 who are managing the properties, visiting the native place

Mustepalli and reside there for some time to look after the lands, to collect the lease amounts and the produce. As the defendant No.1 is a relation of plaintiffs, they leased out the plaint schedule properties to him and he used to give the produce on crop share basis equally. Even with regard to sharing of the produce, the plaintiffs are liberal in view of their relationship and confidence towards defendant No.1. The revenue authorities also got issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of plaintiff No.2 for total extent on 09-12-2013. When the plaintiffs requested the Tahsildar, Atmakur for separate passbook for item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff No.3 as per the gift deed dated 06-08-1979, after verification of 7 revenue records, concerned officer informed that for item No.2 which includes item No. 1 the defendant No.1 took passbook by showing the sale deed dated 30-07-2013 alleged to have been executed or defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. Then the plaintiff No. 2 applied for copy of document at mee-seva on 20-12-2013 and came to know about the sale deed created by defendants 1 and 2.

c.Taking advantage of absence of plaintiffs in the village, the defendant No.1 developed greedy eye to occupy the plaint schedule land permanently with the evil advise of others and created documents in collusion with defendant No. 2. However, the defendant No.2 has no any manner of right whatsoever to execute any document or sale deed in favour of 1st defendant. On 10-01-2014 the plaintiffs 1 and 2 came to Mustapalli

Village and held panchayathi before elders and the defendant No.2 expressed her innocence and the defendant No.1 insisted the plaintiffs to show the pattadar passbook and title deed. The defendant No.1 took the same to his hands and striken of the last entry and signature of the then

Tahsildar with his pen and tried to torn the passbooks. At Intervention of elders and plaintiff No.2, the passbooks were snatched from the defendant

No.1. Then, the defendant No.1 went away by making challenges that he will not allow the plaintiffs to enter into the plaint schedule lands. Still the

V.A.No.3 adangals clearly evident that husband of plaintiff No.1 is owner of entire extent of Sy.No.263 to extent of Ac.5-04 cents, but the name of enjoyer was wrongly noted as Manikyam who is a stranger to the plaint schedule property. Hence, the sale deed dated 30-07-2013 is not valid and void document and is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking for cancellation of sale deed dated 30-07-2013 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 by declaring that the plaintiffs are rightful owners of item No.2 and to grant permanent injunction. Hence, the suit.

8 d.Defendant No.2 remained exparte.

e.Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying material allegations mentioned in the plaint and submitted that Plaintiff No.1 is not legally wedded wife of Kare Chinna Polaiah. To the knowledge of the defendant No.1, one Eeramma is the wife of Chinna Polaiah. Said Chinna

Polaiah got legal heirs through said Eeramma He died leaving behind him his wife Eferamma and his legal heirs Pullaiah and Papulamma. Said

Papulamma got legal heirs by name Atchamma. It is true that the total extent in Sy.No 263 is Ac.5-04 cents. Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and another Ac. 1-25 cents in Sy No. 263 are situated abutting to the North of item No. 2 of the plaint schedule properties. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are not the owners of item No 1 property. One late Kare Chinna Polaiah of

Mustepalli Village is the owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property including another Ac 1-25 cents. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein filed a suit 0.S.No.80/2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur against the wife of late Kare Chinna Pullaiah by name Kare Lakshmidevi without adding her minor son and daughter by name Kare Rajulaiah and Kare Rajeswari and also against one Kare Rajula Reddy S/o late Rami Reddy without adding minor sons of late Rami Reddy, with regard to item No.1 of the plaint schedule property herein and for another Ac 1-25 cents and for other lands for declaration of title, possession and for permanent injunction and got exparte decree by misleading and by way of threat by dayadees. In said suit the name of defendant No.1 herein is shown as the owner of the land in Sy. No.263 i.e.

item No.2 of the plaint schedule property herein an Southern side of the property of that suit.

f.The defendant No.1 has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property for more than the statutory period without any objection or obstruction from anybody 9 especially from the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2. To the knowledge of the defendant No.1, the plaintiffs and defendant no.2 were the owners of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule and it is their ancestral property. The plaintiffs left the village and have been living at Kurnool for more than 20 years. At that time the defendant No.1 occupied the item No.2 of the plaint schedule to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule peacefully, continuously, publicly and openly to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 without any objection or intervention at any time. The defendant No.1 is now in possession of the item No.2 of the schedule property as on the date of the suit and his possession is settled and perfected the title by way of adverse possession also. The name of defendant

No.1 is in revenue records as the enjoyer for several years for more than statutory period of 12 years. The Tahsildar, Atmakur Mandal issued adangal for fasalies from 1412 to 1423. In recognition of peaceful possession and enjoyment of defendant No.1 for long period, the Tahsildar issued pattadar pass book and title deed after due enquiry in the village. The defendant No.1 dug a bore well on North-East corner in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in the year, 2010. An electric motor was also fixed to the bore well.

An acknowledgment was also issued by A.P.C.P.D.C.Ltd. to defendant No.1 in token of the application filed by him for new service connection dated 08-06-2011. The electricity department issued receipts for the electricity bills for July to October, 2012. A service No.0110000351 is provided to the bore well motor. The defendant No.1 also paid land revenue to the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property for faslies 1402, 1403 and 1405. The plaintiffs ought to have paid court fee for declaration and for cancellation of sale deed separately. The valuation of the suit for purpose of court fee is also wrong.

Plaintiffs have no right to seek cancellation of the document dated 30-07-2013 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. The registered gift deed dated 06-08-1979 is a created one and not binding on 10 the defendants. Suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable as the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property as on or prior to filing of the suit. The suit for mere declaration of title without asking further relief of possession is also not maintainable. The boundaries to the plaint schedule property are not correct. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

g. Plaintiffs filed rejoinder by denying all the material contentions laid down in the written statement.

h.Basing on the above pleadings of both sides, the trial court framed the issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Kare

Chinna Polaiah who is husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3?

2. Whether the plaintiff No.1 is not legally wedded wife of Kare Chinna

Polaiah and whether Yerramma is the wife of said Chinna Polaiah?

3. Whether the registered gift settlement deed dated 06-08-1979 relating to the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is valid or not?

4. Whether the plaintiffs alone are having right and possession over the plant schedule property?

5. Whether the possession of the defendant No.1 relating to the Item

No.2 of the plaint schedule property is perfected the title by way of adverse possession?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title over the plaint schedule properties by canceling the sale deed dated 30-07- 2013, as prayed for?

7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for?

8. Whether the suit is maintainable for declaration without asking further relief of possession?

11

9. To what relief?

8.During course of trial, the plaintiffs examined 2nd plaintiff as

PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8, through him defendant no.1 got marked

Exs.B1 and B2. The plaintiffs also examined the Tahsildars and one retired

Tahsildar as PWs.2 to 4.

On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as DW1 and marked Exs.B3 to B14 and also examined third parties to the suit as

DWs.2 to 4, marked Ex.B15. The defendants also examined the official witnesses as CWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.C1 and Exs.A9 & A10 through

CW1.

9.After considering the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs without costs, against which the present appeal is preferred.

10.Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellants/ plaintiffs preferred the present appeal.

11. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side in the appeal.

12.Heard on both sides. Written arguments filed by appellants counsel.

13.Now, the point that stood for consideration is :

“Whether the interference of this court is required with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.

No.7/2014 dt. 4.6.2018?”

14. POINT :

a.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court has erred in considering the evidence of plaintiff and the revenue records 12 submitted by the plaintiffs were not taken into consideration even when there is a finding by the trial court that defendant no.1 has failed to prove the adverse possession over the schedule property and considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs ought to have decreed the suit. Hence, prays to al- low the appeal and decree the suit.

b.On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st defendant submitted that 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property from long period. Accordingly, his name is entered into Revenue records considering his possession and enjoyment over the schedule property by the Revenue Authorities. Further, when the plaintiffs admitted the possession of the 1st defendant over the suit property, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title over the schedule property and that defendant no.1 has perfected his title over the plaint schedule property and the plaintiffs cannot rely upon the latches and weakness of the defendant no.1 evidence and pleadings and say that plaintiffs have proved their title. The learned defendant no.1 counsel submits that trial court Judge has rightly considered the evidence on record and dismissed the suit which requires no interference of this court.

15.As observed from the pleadings and evidence of both parties in the suit, it is the version of the plaintiffs that, the total extent of Ac.5-04 cents in Sy.No.263 of Mustepalli village belongs to Chinna Polaiah who is the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3, which is acquired by

Polaiah through his ancestors. Thus, they are in possession of the same with right and title dividing the total extent of Ac.5-04 cents. The plaintiffs further pleaded in their plaint that 1st wife’s daughter of their father Kare Chinna

Polaiah by name Chintala Chinna Atchamma executed Registered Gift settle- ment deed in favour of plaintiff no.3 in respect of Item no.1 of plaint schedule property, which is the part and parcel of Ac.5-04 cents in Sy.No.263.

13 the plaintiffs further pleaded that they succeeded Item no.2 of plaint schedule property after death of their father Kare Chinna Polaiah. It is the version of the plaintiffs that due to the job of the 2nd plaintiff and health problems of the 1st plaintiff they shifted their family to Kurnool by leasing out the plaint schedule property to defendant no.1. The Revenue Authorities recognized the right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of plaintiff no.2.

Thereafter, they approached Tahsildar, Atmakur to issue separate pass book for item no.1 of the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff no.3 as per the gift deed dt.6.8.1979 and at that time Tahsildar informed them that the title deed is issued in favour of 1st defendant in respect of item no.2 of the plaint schedule property basing on sale deed dt.30.7.2013 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiffs got filed the present suit to declare their right and title over the plaint schedule property and cancel the registered sale deed executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant in respect of Item no.2 of the plaint schedule property.

16.To substantiate the version of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs got ex- amined 2nd plaintiff as PW1 and to show the title over the plaint schedule property he got marked Gift settlement deed dt.6.8.1979 executed by Chin- tala Chinna Atchamma in favour of 3rd plaintiff in respect of Item no.1 of plaint schedule property. There is no explanation given by PW1, how Chin- tala Chinna Atchamma executed Ex.A1 in favour of 3rd plaintiff when the property is owned by his father Chinna Polaiah. Therefore, execution of

Ex.A1 by Chintala Chinna Atchamma in favour of 3rd plaintiff in respect of

Item no.1 of plaint schedule property is baseless as rightly discussed by the trial court. Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to prove Ex.A1 and they cannot rely upon Ex.A1 to prove their title over the item no.1 of plaint schedule property.

14

17.It is the version of the plaintiffs that plaint schedule property was leased out to 1st defendant as they were living at Kurnool and the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, but with an intention to grab the schedule property got created Ex.A2 without and basis of title through 2nd defendant in his favour. Therefore,

Ex.A2 can be brushed out in respect of the execution of sale deed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant in respect of Item no.2 of plaint schedule property.

18.It is the version of plaintiffs that entire extent in Sy.No.263 i.e.

Ac.5-04 cents belongs to Kare Chinna Polaiah being their ancestral property.

The plaintiffs did not put-forth any title conforming document to show that the plaint schedule property is owned by Kare Chinna Polaiah. PW1 got marked pattadar pass book and title deed belongs to him as Exs.A3 and A4 stating that after death of his father the Revenue Authorities recognized his possession and title over the suit land and mutated the same in his favour and issued pattadar pass book and title deed. As observed fromExs.A3 and

A4, the extent of land is Ac.2-50 cents in Sy.No.263 is entered and duly signed by MRO, Atmakur, Kurnool District mentioning that the same is en- tered basing on the judgment of Addl.Junior Civil Judge Court, Atmakur in

OS.80/2002 along with some other survey numbers. It is averred and put-

forth by PW1 that item no.2 of plaint schedule property is entered in Exs.A3 and A4 by Tahsildar, Atmakur, but the same is struck down by the 1st defen- dant taking them forcibly in a panchayath held before elders. It is also ob- served in Exs.A3 and A4 that the entry made in respect of Sy.No.263 for

Ac.2.54 cents is struck down and this entry is made subsequent to the entries made by the MRO, Atmakur, on 18.8.2004 i.e. after disposal of O.S.80/2002.

When it is the fact that Kare Chinna Polaiah died in 1985 itself, Item no.2 of plaint schedule property being entered in pattadar pass book and title deed of the 2nd plaintiff subsequent to disposal of OS.80/2002 and it is struck down 15 by defendant no.1 without adducing any evidence to that effect is not believ- able and it is rightly held by the trial court that there is no evidence put-forth by the plaintiffs to prove that 1st defendant has struck down the entries in

Exs.A3 and A4.

19.Further, Item no.2 of plaint schedule property being entered and struck down subsequent to the entries made by the Tahsildar, Atmakur in 2004 and also creates doubt on the version of the plaintiffs.

20.As per the evidence of PW1, they filed OS.80/2002 for declaration and title of the property of plaintiffs over the Item nos.1 to 4 of the plaint schedule property therein. Item no.1 of schedule property therein is Ac.2-50 cents in Sy.No.263 with specific boundaries showing the southern boundary as land of Goranthi Venkata Ramudu, who is none other than the 1st defen- dant herein. When the plaintiffs herein are the plaintiffs in OS.80/2002, themselves shown that 1st defendant is the boundary holder of item no.1 of suit property therein which is part and parcel of Sy.No.263, and that entering the properties as per the judgment in OS.80/2002 in the pattadar pass books and title deeds of plaintiff no.2 and claiming title over the entire suit schedule properties is beyond probabilities. If the 1st defendant is only lease holder of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs ought to have mentioned the Southern boundary of Item no.1 is their own land leased out to 1st defendant. In stead of it the plaintiffs mentioning that the Southern boundary holder is 1st defen- dant, will not be done by any prudent person.

21.Pattadar pass book and title deed of 1st defendant shows that

Ac.2-50 cents in Sy.No.263 is entered on 24.11.2009 itself i.e. much prior to execution of sale deed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant.

22.The plaintiffs relied upon the adangals marked as Exs.A5 to A10 to show their title over the plaint schedule property. It is settled principle of 16 law that the adangals and the revenue records will not confer the title of any party. Except they are relied for showing the possession of the parties.

Therefore, there is no document putforth by the plaintiffs to show their title over the plaint schedule property. But it is settled principle that ancestral properties in respect of which there are no documents, the parties can rely upon the age old Record of Holdings to prove their title over the schedule property. But the plaintiffs did not take pain to produce record of holdings

before the court. The plaintiffs relied upon attested copy of 1-B Namuna

showing that 1st defendant have got Ac.0-70 cents in Sy.No.466. Mere filing

Ex.C1 / 1-B Register extract that the defendants have got Ac.0-70 cents in

Sy.No.466 does not prove the title of the plaintiffs.

23.The appellants filed IA.No.57/2021 with a mortgage deed to re- ceive the same condoning the delay. The same is being herewith disposed along with the appeal. As observed from this document this is a mortgage deed in favour of Cooperative Society executed by Chinna Polaiah being the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 for an extent of Ac.5-08 cents in Sy.No.263. On careful examination of this document, it is observed that the survey number is over written as well as the extent. When the plaintiffs did not examine any person to prove this document and offer them for cross-examination to the defendants and when there are over writings in the survey number and the extent, this court cannot rely upon this document unless authenticity of the document is proved. Therefore, utterly there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property as per their pleadings.

24.The plaintiffs examined PWs.2 to 4 being the Tahsildars. PW2 /

T.Anjana Devi deposed that she did not sign in Exs.B6 and B7 i.e. adangals for the faslies 1417 to 1420 and 1412 to 1416. So her evidence is only in re- spect of disproving the Exs.B6 and B7.

17

25.PW3 / P.Muni Krishnaiah is also Tahsildar who worked at

Atmakur from 21.5.2013 to 16.2.2014 . He stated that he did not issue title deed and pass book in the name of 1st defendant for Katha Nos.469 and 638 of Aiddepalli village. In his cross-examination he admitted that he made online entry with regard to Katha No.638 of 1st defendant. He further stated that pattadar pass book was issued to 1st defendant with Khata No.469 to an extent of Ac.2-54 cents and the 1st defendant also obtained another pass book for Ac.0-70 cents in Sy.No.466 in Khata No.638. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 will not help the plaintiffs to prove his title, whereas the same will help him to impeach the credibility of the revenue documents filed by the defendant no.1.

26.PW4 / C.Venkateswara Prasad, Retired Tahsildar, worked at At- makur from 26.2.2009 to 23.6.2009 deposed that he issued Exs.B4 and B5 to the 1st defendant basing on the 1-B Register and proposal of VRO Linga

Reddy, but he have no personal knowledge about the possession and enjoy- ment of 1st defendant over the said property. Therefore, the evidence of PW4 also could not help the plaintiff to prove his title over the plaint schedule property except create doubt on the entries made by him in Exs.B4 and B5 belongs to the 1st defendant. Therefore, none of the documents filed and the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs i.e. Pws.2 to 4 does not prove the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

27.The 1st defendant by examining himself as DW1 marked Exs.B1 to B15. Exs.B1 and B2 are marked in the cross-examination of PW1. Ex.B1 &

B2 are the plaint copy in OS.80/2002 along with notice dt.17.10.2010 and

Exs.B3 to B5 being the Revenue records related to suit schedule property are marked by DW1. The plaintiff by examining Pws.3 and 4 disproved Exs.B6 to B9. Therefore, these documents are brushed out, whereas the entries in

Exs.B4 & B5 confirmed by PW4 in respect of Ac.2-50 cents in Sy.No.263 being the part of the suit schedule property.

18

28.The 1st defendant did not file any counter claim claiming the adverse possession over the plaint schedule property, but he pleaded in his written statement that he is in possession of the schedule property to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the villagers and perfected his title adverse to the plaintiffs and his possession is also recognized by the revenue authori- ties, accordingly his name is entered in the revenue records and he was issued with pattadar pass books and title deeds. Further to prove his posses- sion over the property he got examined Dws.2 to 4 , villagers of Mustepalli village, who deposed that he is in possession of the property for more than 15 years. The plaintiffs themselves stated that they have leased out the schedule property to the 1st defendant. Therefore, it is no doubt that posses- sion of 1st defendant is not in dispute.

29.The defendant no.1 also examined the Tahsildar as CW1 and

VROs as C.Ws. 2 and 3. CW1 to CW3 confirmed the possession of the 1st defendant over the suit schedule property. They also stated that there are mistakes in the revenue records. As per the Fasli 1419 Chinna Polaiah is shown as pattadar for Ac.5-04 cents in Sy.No.263, two persons are shown as pattadars for the Fasli of the year 2011 i.e. Kare Chinna Polaiah and 1st defendant and the enjoyment extents are shown as Ac.2-50 cents for Kare

Chinna Polaiah and Ac.2-54 cents to the 1st defendant. Therefore, the 1st defendant is shown as pattadar and enjoydar for an extent of Ac.2-54 cents in Sy.No.263. The evidence of CW1 to CW3 can be considered in respect of the entries in the adangals and the VRO being the right persons to make entries, as they make physical verification in the villages and know about the enjoyment of the property by the enjoydars. Therefore, the Revenue adangals filed by the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant can be considered in re- spect of their enjoyment over the schedule property which revealed that 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the Ax.2.54 cents in Sy.No.263 19 as the pattadar and enjoydar. Therefore, the evidence put-forth by the plaintiffs is rightly discussed by the trial court and answered the issues considering the facts, evidence and law.

30.The appellants counsel relied upon the following decisions:

1. AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1480 between Chatti Konati Rao & others. Vs.

Palle Venkata Subba Rao, wherein their lordships held that “Mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. It means hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession, the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is ad- verse to the true owner”.

2. 2004(4) ALD 124 in a case between Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Govern- ment of India and others, wherein their lordships held that “Appellant’s claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes without saying that he admits by implication that he came into possession of the land lawfully under the agreement and con- tinued to remain in possession till date of the suit. Thereby, the plea of the ad- verse possession is not available to the appellant”.

3. Civil Appeal Nos.3159 – 3160 of 2019 in a case between Rajendra Kumar

Gupta Vs. Neelam Gupta and others, wherein their lordships held that “ Defendants failed to establish the time from which it was converted to adverse to the title of the plaintiff which is open and continuous for the prescrip- tive period. The requirements co-exist to constitute adverse possession are not established by them. So also, it can only be held that reckoning of the period of limitation from the date of commencement of the right of ownership of plaintiff over the suit land instead of looking into whether they had succeeded in pleading and establishing the date of commencement of adverse possession and 20 satisfaction regarding the prescriptive period in that regard, was rightly interfered with. Hence, the appeal is to be dismissed ”.

4. 2010 AIR SCW 5281 in a case between Meghmala & others Vs. G.-

Narasimha Reddy and others, wherein their lordships held that “ An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the trans action void ab initio. Suppression of material document would also amount to a fraud on the court”.

5. Civil Appeal No.5470 of 2025 in a case between Hussain Ahmed

Choudhury and others Vs. Habibur Rahman (dead) through L.Rs. And others, wherein their lordships hold that, “ It is settled position of law that the declara- tion of title is as good as a relief of cancellation of the sale deed or at least, a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff being void and thus non-est. It is also settled principle of law that the plaint must be read as whole and the actual relief sought can also be culled out from the averments of the plaint. Those reliefs can be granted, if there is evidence and circumstances justify- ing the grant of such relief, though not directly or specifically claimed, or asked as a relief. The courts have ample inherent powers and indeed it is their duty to share their declaration in such a way that they may operate to afford the relief which the justice of the case requires. Section 34 of the Act 1963 is not exhaustive of the case in which a declaratory decree may be made and the courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the Section”.

6. AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 2311, in a case between Jiten K.Ajmera and another Vs. M/s.Tejas Co-operative Housing Society, in which their lordships held that “When it is established that not-withstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge, or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. An Additional evidence can be produced in the appeal stage”.

21

7.1963 AIR 1526, in a case between K.Venkata Ramaiah Vs.

A.Seetharama Reddy and others, in which their lordships held that “ The court can receive additional evidence in the appeal stage, which enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause within the meaning of R.27 (1)(b) of

Order 41 of CPC”.

31.On the other hand, the learned defendant no.1 counsel relied upon the following Judgment of Apex court reported in AIR 1968 SUPREME

COURT 1165 between Nair Service Society Limited Vs. Rev.Father K.C.Alexan-

der & others, wherein their lordships held that “suit based merely on prior pos- session must be filed within 6 months, while a suit, under Section 8 based on proof of title may be filed within 12 years cannot be sustained”.

32.In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for relief of declaration of their title over the plaint schedule property and cancellation of the sale deed executed by 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant in re- spect of the Item no.2 of the plaint schedule and for permanent injunction thereon, as such, the plaintiff is burdened to prove their title over the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs filed the suit averring that total schedule property belongs to their father Kare Chinna Polaiah and after his death the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute title. At another breath, the plaintiffs relied upon Gift settlement deed marked as

Ex.A1 stating that their father’s 1st wife’s daughter by name Chintala Chinna

Atchamma executed Ex.A1 in favour of 3rd plaintiff, without any basis and reasons that how Chintala Chinna Atchamma acquired title over the Item no.1 of the suit property to execute Ex.A1 in favour of the 3rd plaintiff.

Therefore, the averments of the plaint itself created cloud on the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs did not put-forth any document to show the title of the Kare Chinna Polaiah over an extent of 22

Ac.5-04 cents in Sy.No.263 and likewise did not file any link document to sup- port the title of the Chintala Chinna Atchamma over an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.263. The plaintiffs harped on the contention of the 1st defen- dant that he is not in adverse possession of the plaint schedule property.

The plaintiffs failed in establishing their title over the plaint schedule prop- erty and trying to disprove the title of the 1st defendant which is pleaded by him as an adverse possession does not prove the title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cannot rely upon the lacunas and weakness of the defendant case.

The plaintiffs shall prove their title over the schedule property on their own legs which is not done by the plaintiffs herein.

33.Even the trial court has discussed at length on the point of ad- verse possession claimed by the defendant no.1 and gave a finding that de- fendant no.1 has failed to prove his adverse possession over the plaint sched- ule property and he has not even filed counter claim to that effect. There- fore, the citations referred by the Appellants counsel are not applicable to the present case facts.

34.The plaintiffs filed mortgage deed said to have been executed by

Kare Chinna Polaiah in favour of Mustepalli Cooperative Society by mortga ging the extent of Ac.5-04 cents in Sy.No.263, as such Kare Chinna Polaiah was the title holder of the property even as on 26.1.1962 itself, but as observed from this document the survey number as well as the extent portion in this document are over written and as seen with a naked eye there are alterations in the document, therefore this document cannot be taken on record while deciding the title of the party.

35.Therefore, in view of my above discussion and findings, I hold that the learned trial court Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence, law and facts and answered the issues on application of judicial mind and dis- 23 missed the suit which needs no interference of this court. Accordingly, the point is answered against the appellants / plaintiffs.

36.In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Senior

Civil Judge, Atmakur, in O.S. No.7/2014 dated 4.6.2018.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcription, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 9 th day of February, 2026.

Judge,

Family Court -cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

Copy to the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KURNOOL.

Present: Smt.T.Leelavathi, IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 26th day of March, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE NO.177/2019

Name of the accused.1.Boya Yerravandla Chenna Kesava Naidu @ Kesalu Naidu, S/o.Rangaswamy, 20 yrs., R/o.M. Pendekal village,Bethamcherla Mandal.

2.Mahanandigari Boya Mallesh, 19 yrs., S/o.Yerramala, R/o.M. Pendekal (V), Bethamcherla mandal.

3.BoyaYerravandlaRangaswamy,55yrs., S/o.Thimmaiah, R/o.M. Pendekal (V), Bethamcherla mandal.

Plea of the accusedA1 to A3 pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the JudgeA1 to A3arefound not guilty. Sentence or order In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences U/secs.120-B, 302 of IPC, A3 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.201 of IPC and A1 is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.201 r/w 34 of IPC, accordingly they are acquitted of the above said offences under

Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Mos.1, 2, 4 to 8 which are non valuable properties, are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and after confirmation that there is no appeal pending.

MO3 i.e. Yellow colour Honda Motor Bike

No.AP-21-AE-8157 shall be given to its registered owner on producing R.C. after appeal time.

Name of the policeCrime No.144/2016of Bethamcherla P.S. stationandcrime number.

2

The prosecution was conducted by Sri. Y.Prakash Reddy, Addl. Public

Prosecutor and the Accused is defended by Sri S.Chand Basha, Advocate for A1 and A2, Sri A.Srinivas Bhat, Advocate for A3.

The case was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Dhone in P.R.C.34/2018 to the Court of Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and the same was taken on file as Sessions Case

No.177/2019 and made over to this Court for trial as per law.

This case has come on 17.3.2025 for final hearing before me and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

[[

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Sc/ST Cell-1, Kurnool filed charge-sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences U/secs.201, 302, 120-B r/w 34 IPC, based on the first information report in crime No.144/2016 of Bethamcherla P.S.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- a. The deceased Mucchu Boya Thirumalesh and A1 to A3 are resident of M.Pendekal village. A3 is father of A1, and A2 is friend of A1.

LW1-Mucchu Parameswaraiah is the defacto complainant and father of deceased Mucchu Boya Thirumalesh and LW2-Mucchu Boya

Rameswaramma, LW15-Shantha Kumari @ Shanthi is daughter of A2 and younger sister of A1.

b.The deceased used to stalk LW15-Shanthi in the name of love and LW13-Boya Manohar informed the same to A1 to avoid further galatas.

A1 warned the deceased to mend his attitude in the presence of LW8-

Boya Yerramala Krishna @ Kittu and LW9-Boya Yerravandla Vijay Kumar @

Vijay, but the deceased did not mend his attitude. A1 developed grudge against the deceased for stalking his younger sister Shanthi and A1 3 hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased by discussing with his associate -

A2.

c.On 2.6.2016 at about 20.00 hours as per their plan, A2 accosted the deceased in the village and took with him towards Veldurthy road side on the pretext of chit-chatting. Meanwhile A1 joined with A2 and deceased and took the deceased to the outskirts of the village on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-21-AE-8157, where A1 took an axe and picked up quarrel with the deceased for stalking his sister Shanthi. Due to fear of the accused, the deceased tried to escape, but A2 caught hold the deceased, meanwhile A1 hacked him with an axe on head and neck of the deceased with an intent to kill him. As a result the deceased died on the spot and accused partially buried the dead body of the deceased in a pit which was dug for water shed in the fields of the A1 by non-governmental organization (NGO) to increase the ground water level. Later on knowing the same, through A1, on the next day morning, A3 went to their field along with A1 and A1 & A3 level the mud on the ditch where the dead body of the deceased was partly buried with intention to disappear the evidence of murder.

d.On 7.6.2016 at 12.00 noon, initially LW2 gave a report to

LW27/ SHO, Bethamcherla PS, basing on the report of LW2, LW27 registered a case in Cr.No.144/2016 as Man missing and submitted FIRs to all concerned. The SHO, Bethamcherla PS intensified the investigation to trace out the missing boy, suspecting the role of the accused. Due to fear of the police, A1 and A2 appeared and confessed the offence of murder of the deceased before LW19. Later LW19 recorded extra judicial confession of A1 and A2 on 19.6.2016 and produced before the Inspector of Police,

Bethamcherla PS/LW28.

4 e. Basing on the extra judicial confession of accused , LW18 re- registered this case altering the section of law from Boy Missing to 302, 201, 120-B r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation. A1 and A2 led the LW28 to the place where the dead body of the deceased was buried, later arrested A1 and A2 after recording their detailed confession in the presence of Lws.19 to 21. LW23 is Tahsildar, Bethamcherla Mandal on the requisition of LW28 who exhumed the dead body of the deceased and held inquest over the same in the presence of panchayatdars, seized clothes of the deceased under cover of inquest, and during inquest Lws.1 and 2 parents of deceased identified the dead body of the deceased as that of their son Muchu Boya Thirumalesh.

f.During course of investigation, LW28 arrested A1 and A2, seized an axe, spade (Chalika para) from the bushes as shown by A1 and

A2 on 30.6.2016 in the presence of panchayatdars. LW30-DSP, SC/ST Cell- 1, Kurnool took up further investigation as per the orders of the

Superintendent of Police,Kurnool, he examined the witnesses on various dates and recorded their statements and also seized blood stained clothes of A1 and motor cycle bearing No.AP-21-AE-8157 at the house of A1 which was used for commission of offence under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and also sent clothes of deceased and Axe to RFSL for chemical analysis and Asst.Director analyzed the above items and opined that blood detected on Items 1 and 3 and blood group could not be determined and blood not detected on Item no.2 and sent opinion. LW30 also forwarded the clothes of accused worn at the time of offence to RFSL and Asst. Director analyzed and opined that no blood was detected on

Items 1 & 2 vide RFSL file.

g.LW24 Medical Officer, Govt.Hospital, Banaganapalle, conducted spot postmortem on the dead body of deceased and opined 5 that the deceased died due to head injury (Haematema) due to sharp object and died prior to 15 to 20 days of postmortem examination. LW26-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Dhone recorded the statement of LW1 on 8.12.2016.

A3 got anticipatory bail and after completion of investigation LW30 filed charge sheet.

Thus, the A1 and A2 have committed an offence punishable U/s.120-

B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and A3 committed an offence U/s.201 of IPC.

Hence the charge.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone took cognizance for the offences U/secs.201, 302, 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC against the A1 to A3 and on their appearance, furnished all copies of documents to the accused as relied on by the prosecution and as required U/s.207

Cr.P.C. and committed the case against the A1 to A3 to the court of

Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool Division U/s.209(a) Cr.P.C. and the

learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool in turn made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of A1 to A3 before this court and on consideration, this court framed charges U/secs.120-B, 302 of IPC against

A1 and A2, U/sec.201 IPC against A3 and U/sec.201 r/w 34 of IPC against

A1, and read over and explained the said charges to A1 to A3 clearly in

Telugu, for which the accused 1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.23 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22 and Mos.1 to 8.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating 6 material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence, but Ex.D1 marked on their behalf .

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Written submissions filed on behalf of the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the charges levelled against the accused for the offences U/secs.120-B, 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT:

The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused got examined

Pws.1 to 23 and marked Exs.P1 to P22 and M.Os.1 to 8. The learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution by examining

PWs.1 to 4, 15 and PWs.18 to 23 and by marking Exs.P1 to P22 and MOs. 1 to 8 proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If any discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution need not be considered as it is a case of killing of a boy aged 18 years and prays the court to convict the accused for the offences U/secs.120-B, 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC.

On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that there are several discrepancies,inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Further, the complaint itself is not proper and there is no eyewitness to the incident and the confessional statement by the accused to the VRO is not trustworthy, as the VRO recorded the same to the dictation of Inspector and that the dead body exhumed from the fields of A3 is not the dead body of Mucchu Boya

Thirumalesh and prays to extend benefit of doubt and acquit A1 to A3. He also filed written arguments with catena of citations..

7

10. a. On considering the evidence on record before the court, it is observed that PW1 and PW2 being the parents of the deceased Mucchu

Boya Thirumalesh deposed that on 2.6.2016 there was an Orchestra programme in M.Pendekallu village and their son left home at 7.00 p.m.

along with PW4 to speak in the phone as signals are weak at their house and while Tirumalesh was returning home,A2 asked him to come with him, for which PW4 expressed to accompany him, but A2 did not permit PW4 to come with him and on the way PW3 saw them and when he questioned where they are going, Tirumalesh told him that they are going on some work, since then Mucchu Boya Thirumalesh did not returned home. Pws.1 and 2 thought that their son went to Orchestra and might have slept there, on the next day they enquired about their son through his friends and relatives, but could not trace him. Then PW2 filed a complaint before the police which is registered as Cr.No.144/2016 as man missing case.

After one week of registering the FIR, Bethamcherla police came to their house and enquired in the village and noted A1 and A2 are found missing.

On 19.6.2016 they came to know that A1 and A2 were surrendered before the VRO admitting that they committed murder of Boya Thirumalesh.

Immediately Pws.1 and 2 rushed to police station and came to know that

A1 hacked Tirumalesh with an axe on his neck and head and murdered him and buried him in their fields. Then they all went to the fields of A3 and MRO exhumed the dead body and conducted inquest over the dead body. Pws.1 and 2 further stated that their son wore black pant and Coffee and red colour T shirt and identified the dead body basing on the clothes.

A1 killed their son Tirumalesh as he was stalking his sister. Pws.1 and 2 in their cross-examination denied that they did not state before the police 8 that A2 took their son on 2.6.2016 while he was accompanied with PW4 and thereafter he is not seen.

b. PW3 being brother of PW1 corroborated the version of Pws.1 and 2 in all aspects and further stated that on 2.6.2016 Tirumalesh and PW4 went outside to speak on cell phone as signal is not good in the house at about 7.00 pm. After speaking in the phone they both returned to him and at that time A2 called Tirumalesh and he went with A2.

c. PW4 being Ashok Reddy, who is said to be the last person to see the deceased Boya Tirumalesh corroborated the version of Pws.1 to 3 in all aspects and further stated that while himself and Tirumalesh were returning back to village after talking in the phone, A2 called Tirumalesh and when PW4 expressed that he will also accompany them, A2 told him not to accompany them and thereby Tirumalesh along with A2 went to the outskirts of the village.

d.PW5 /Vadla Bramhaiah Achari also stated that he was informed in the village that A1 and A2 killed Tirumalesh and confessed the offence before the VRO and he was out of station on 2.6.2016.PW6 / Talari

Kullai Raju being the son-in-law of PW1 also corroborated the version of

Pws.1 to 4 in all aspects.

The evidence of Pws.1 to 6 being the parents, relatives and friends of deceased Boya Thirumalesh corroborated with each other stating that

Tirumalesh along with PW4 went to the outskirts of the village as there was no phone signal and in their return A2 called Tirumalesh to accompany him and told PW4 not to accompany them, since then

Tirumalesh was missing and thereafter on 19.6.2016 A1 and A2 confessed

before VRO that they killed Tirumalesh as he was stalking the sister of A1

and buried him in the fields of A3. But this version of Pws.1 to 4 is omitted 9 in the complaint givenby PW2 and even in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of

Pws.1 to 6. Further none of them witnessed A1 with deceased Tirumalesh on that day. So PW1 to PW6 came to know that Tirumalesh was killed by

A1 only on the confession of A1.

11.As seen from Ex.P1 report, it is the version of complainant /PW2 that their son went to talk in phone as there is no proper signal at their house and since then he is missing. There is no utterance even from the statement of PW4 that Tirumalesh and PW4 went to outskirts and in their return A2 called Tirumalesh to accompany him and avoided PW4 to come with them. Even PW4 who is said to be the last person to see the

Tirumalesu said to have been witnessed Tirumalesu went with A2 also did not tell the same to the parents of the Tirumalesu. Therefore, new version is brought before the court in the evidence which is lacking in the initial investigation of the prosecution and the case is built up only after confession of the A1 & A2. Therefore, unless there is proper corroborative evidence, the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 cannot be believed.

12.a.PW7- Boya Yerramala Krishna @ Kittu, PW8- Boya Yerramala

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay, PW9- Madiga Putakar Kittanna who are said to be the circumstantial witnesses to assert the intention of the accused in killing the Tirumalesh, that they witnessed A1 admonishing Tirumalesh for stalking his sister turned hostile to the case of prosecution stating that they do not know the case facts.

b.PW10 – Chenchala Moni Vijayudu @ Vijay being NGO could only depose that long back there was a open well in the fields of A3 and they conducted open well recharge in his fields and he came to know about murder that took place at M.Pendekal village through news paper.

10 c.PW11- Boya Manohar, PW12 – Boya Ashok, PW13-Boya

Yerrvandla Shantha Kumari @ Shanthi completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution stating that they do not know the deceased

Tirumalesh and that the reasons for the death of the Tirumalesh.

d.PW14 – Nagalakshmamma, VRA, deposed that 7 years back police called her to the field of Rangadu and she witnessed MRO along with others exhumed dead body in their presence and inquest was conducted and the MRO seized shirt and pant of the deceased and handed over the dead body to Pws.1 and 2. She do not know the reasons for the death of the Tirumalesh. PW14 denied that the field in which the dead body was exhumed does not belongs to A3.

e.PW15 – Maddilety Swamy, VRO who is the crucial witness in the case and as per the prosecution A1 and A2 confessed before this witness about the offence i.e. killing of Tirumalesh by A1. PW15 deposed that on 19.6.2016 at 7.00 a.m. C.I. called him through phone to come to police station and he went to police station and police shown him two accused who were kept in the cell and panchanama was drafted as per the dictation of the C.I. Bethamcherla and he do not know the contents of the confessional statement recorded by him.He recorded one confessional statement and another confessional statement was recorded by the C.I.

Except him, no other person signed in the confessional statement on that day. Again on 29.1.2017, DSP and other police constables came to

Pendekal village and seized the bike, Yellow colour T-shirt and Addapancha under cover of panchanama and marked as Mos.1 and 2 and also seized

Yellow colour Honda Motor Bike No.AP-21-AE-8157 as MO3. Himself along with Talari Ramathimma Naidu signed in the seizure nama dated .

29.1.2017 marked as Ex.P8. He further stated that A1 and A2 did not come to Muddavaram village or confessed anything to him.

11

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested to cross-examine

PW15, as he is speaking against the confessional statement recorded by him and in his leading questions PW15 denied that A1 and A2 confessed

before him that they killed Tirumalesh and buried him in the fields of A3.

When he is cross-examined by the defence counsel, Pw15 deposed that when he reached Bethamcherla police station, A1 and A2 were in the cell and C.I. has shown them to him and that the police did not enquire A1 and

A2 in his presence. PW15 was recalled on 19.2.2024 and he further deposed that on 19.6.2016 he went to Bethamcherla police station to present written report marked as Ex.P9. He do not know the contents of

Ex.P9, but the signature and writing in it belongs to him. In his cross- examination he deposed that he drafted Ex.P9 on the dictation of the C.I.

and he did not produce accused before the police or the accused admitted the offence in his presence.

f.PW16 – Talari Venkateswarlu, VRA, deposed that on 19.6.2016

VRO called him to exhume the dead body of Tirumaleshu and accordingly they all went to the fields where murder took place and MRO conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, then himself and others signed in the inquest report.

g.PW17 – Shaik Aleem Basha, VRA, deposed that on 30.6.2016

Bethamcherla police called him to act as panch witness and himself along with VRO, Obanna went to police station and signed on the report.

h.PW18 – Jalla Sreenivasulu, deposed that on 30.6.2016 police called himself and Aleem Basha to police station and from there they went to Pendekallu village along with police. Police seized the axe and spade 12 near Tamarind tree under cover of seizurenama, in which they signed.

Ex.P10 is the seizure report, MO4 is Axe and MO5 is spade.

I.Pw19 – P.Anjana Devi, Tahsildar, deposed that on 19.6.2016,

C.I. of Bethamcherla P.S. gave requisition to him to exhume dead body of

Tirumalesu and conduct inquest over the same, accordingly she visited

Sarparayapuramvillage Sy.No.333/4 by 3.00 p.m. along with VRO and

VRA and two panchayatdars and exhumed the dead body. She noticed injuries on the head of the deceased and also on the neck. The dead body was wearing coffee colour T shirt and black pant ad black colour molathadu. Parents of the deceased identified the dead body as their son

Tirumaleshu. Then Pw19 conducted inquest over the dead body and during the course of inquest panchayatdars opined that Tirumaleshu was killed and buried in the fields. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to Pws.1 and 2. Ex.P11 is requisition given to her by CI of

Bethamcherla P.s. Ex.P12 is exhumation proceedings, Ex.P13 is inquest report.

PW19 in her cross-examination deposed that dead body was spoiled and bad smell was emitted. The dead body was exhumed at a distance of 50 to 100 feet to the road. Body was covered with loose soil, except identifying the clothes on the dead body, parents of the deceased has not given any specific identification marks of the deceased.

j.PW20- Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the Tirumalesu deposed that he found injuries on the dead body and death is due to said injuries. He found cut or stab injury 10 x 1 cm on the left side of the scalp deep penetrating injury and cut injury on the left side of the neck measuring 8 x 3 cm and marked postmortem report as Ex.P14.

13 k.PW21 – P.Pakkiraiah, Head constable, deposed that on 5.11.2016, DSP Muralidhar asked him to accompany to Pendekallu village and he secured the witness Boya Yerramala Krishna. He recorded the 161

Cr.PC. Statement of B.Y.Krishna. On 26.11.2016 again he accompanied the DSP to Pendekallu village and secured B.Y.Vijay Kumar, M.P.Kittanna and M.P.Chinna Karrenna and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. On 8.12.2016 DSP called Ch.Muni Vijayudu and recorded his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement. On 20.12.2016 he accompanied DSP to Pendekalluvillage, where they examined B.Manohar, Boya Ashok and Boya Yerramala

Shantha Kumari and recorded their statements.

l. PW22-R.G.Subramanyam, the Investigation Officer in this case, deposed that initially ASI Syed Haroon Rasheed registered FIR in

Cr.No.144/2016 under the head of boy missing, based on the complaint given by Pw2. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

He also issued look out notice to trace the missing boy.

On 16.6.2016 PW22 has taken over the investigation and verified the investigation done by Rasheed. Then he examined PWs.1,2,5 and

Krishnamurthy. On 19.6.2016 at about 10.00 hours while he was in the police station, VRO of M.Pendekallu village came and handed over A1 and

A2 along with confessional panchanama, based on which he altered the

FIR from boy missing to Secs.120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and issued altered FIR. He secured the panchayatdars PW15 and PW17 and also confessional statements of A1 and A2 and arrested them. He sent requisition to Tahsildar to exhume the dead body and also to conduct postmortem examination. Then he visited the scene of offence and after arrival of the officials the dead body of Mucchu Boya Thirumalesh was exhumed by the Tahsildar and conducted inquest over the dead body of 14 deceased. The Medical Officer, conducted postmortem in the spot. On 20.6.2016 A1 and A2 were sent to judicial custody. He filed requisition for police custody and took them to custody on 30.6.2016 , then he visited

Nadimigutta konda and seized weapons which were kept there by the accused. On 24.7.2016 he forwarded the seized material objects to RFSL for chemical analysis, the blood samples of the deceased along with his relatives were sent for DNA examination. On 21.10.2016 as per orders of the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, the investigation was handed over to DSP. Ex.P15 is the FIR, Ex.P16 is altered FIR, Ex.P17 is the rough sketch,

Ex.P18 is RFSL report dated 26.10.2016, Ex.P19 is RFSL report dated 27.2.2017 and Ex.P20 is RFSL report dated 6.6.2017.

PW22 in his cross-examination admitted that as per Ex.P1 PW1 stated that deceased received phone calls from Nellore through phone

No.99969 08413, 70320 60563, but he did not make any investigation with regard to said mobile numbers. On 7.6.2016 when he examined Pws.1 to 5 they did not state that deceased and Ashok Reddy (PW4) went to outskirts of the village, as they did not receive signals and on their return

A2 took deceased along with him to the outskirts of the village. Pws.1, 2 and 5 also did not inform that the deceased went with A2 while he was in the company of PW4 -Ashok Reddy. He further stated that he did not collect the finger prints of accused as well as finger prints available on the seized articles. He also stated that accused family and complainant family belongs to two rival political parties.

m.PW23 – D.Muralidhar, DSP, deposed that Superintendent of

Police, Kurnool has given proceedings dated .21.10.2016 directing him to re-investigate the matter in Cr.No.144/2016 of Bethamcherla P.S. On the same day he visited Bethamcherla village and perused the C.D. file and 15 investigation done by C.I. of Police, Bethamcherla. Then he visited

Pendekal village along with CI and secured Pws.4 to 7, examined them and recorded their statements. On 21.11.2016 he secured PW8, PW9 and

Madiga Chinna Karrenna and recorded their statements. On 29.1.2017 he secured panchayatdars PW15 and LW22 and proceeded along with Boya

Saleswari to the house of A3. On his enquiry, she produced blood stained clothes of A1 which were wearing by him at the time of offence and concealed by A3 and also she handed over the keys of the motor cycle which was used by the accused at the time of the offence, then he seized said items. He forwarded the blood stained clothes of A1 to RFSL under cover of memo filed by him marked as Ex.P21. Ex.P22 is the Authorization letter with letter of advise.

13.On careful observation of prosecution evidence, except the kith and kin of the deceased Boya Tirumaleshu, and other official witnesses, who exhumed the dead body from the fields of A3, none of the independent witness supported the prosecution case. Further the prosecution case is built up only on the confession of A1 & A2 said to have been recorded by

VRO on their surrender before him, who is examined as PW15, but he did not support the case of prosecution stating that A1 and A2 did not come to him or surrendered or confessed before him about the offence. But he was called by the police to come to Bethamcherla P.S. and he went there, he found A1 and A2 behind bars in the police station. Then he prepared the confession panchanama on the dictation of the Inspector and signed in it.

He even pleaded ignorance of the contents in the panchanama. Therefore confession to the VRO by A1 and A2 that they killed Tirumalesu with an axe and buried him in the fields of A3 has become doubtful, as there is nothing on the record except the confessional statement.

16 14.PW19 Tahsildar exhumed the dead body from the fields of A3 and the dead body was identified by Pws.1 and 2 being the parents of

Tirumalesu only by identifying the clothes on the dead body saying that their son was wearing black pant and coffee red colour T shirt on 2-6-2016.

Therefore, it is very important to verify the RFSL reports. The bone from the exhumed dead body was sent to RFSL along with the blood samples of

Pws.1 and 2 for conducting DNA test and the RFSL report dated 6.5.2017 marked as Ex.P20 discloses that Item No.3 (long bone) collected from the dead body is biologically not related to Muchu Boya Rameshwaramma (PW2) and Muchu Boya Parameswaraiah (PW1). PW19 Tahsildar in her cross-examination stated that Pws.1 and 2 did not give any identification marks of deceased Thirumalesu and identified the dead body as

Tirumaleshu only identifying the clothes on the dead body. Therefore, it has became doubtful whether the dead body is of Tirumaleshu or not.

15.Further, the police seized the crime weapons i.e. axe and spade under a tree on the confession of A1 and A2. The axe and spade being the agricultural implements are available in the villages, in such circumstances, the Investigation officer should have collected the finger prints on the weapons and got examined scientifically to prove the same that they were used for committing the offence. Even there is no proper seizure of the weapons by obtaining the signatures of the panch witnesses on the slips affixed to the weapons which is not done by him. Therefore, seizure of crime weapons also became doubtful. The RFSL report with regard to crime weapons shows that human blood is found, but could not determine whether the blood stains on the T shirt of the dead body and blood stains on the axe belongs to one and the same person. As per the prosecution, the dead body was exhumed only on the confession of the 17 accused and there is no eye witness or any other circumstantial evidence to establish that A1 & A2 killed Tirumaleshu using the said weapons.

16.The interesting point brought to light by the prosecution is that,

PW23 has taken up investigation and along with him Head constable visited the house of A1, after 6 months of incident, and on his investigation in the village by examining the witnesses and with the motherof A1, he came to know that father of A1 who is none other than A3 herein tried to screen off the evidences by washing the clothes of A1 which, he wore at the time of offence and that the wife of A3 has given

PW23 the clothes of A1 along with the motor bike key which was used by

A1. There is no evidence, except the evidence of DSP as PW23 to speak about this version and adding accused no.3 in this case. Further, the clothes seized by the DSP which are said to be the clothes of A1 which were wore by him at the time of offence were sent to RFSL and as per the

RFSL report under Ex.P19 no blood is detected on the said clothes. There is no evidence on record to show that A3 tried to screen off the traces of evidence and save A1. Further any prudent man would have destroyed such clothes if he intend to save his Son but preserving such clothes in the house to save his son itself creates doubt on the prosecution version..

Therefore, there is no basis about the involvement of A3 in the crime, except the version of PW23 which is not supported by any independent witnesses.

17.Learned counsel for the accused relied upon a list of citations dealing with each and every aspect with regard to failure of investigation, seizure of Mos.1 to 8 and the confession of A1 and A2 being recorded by VRO and where VRO / PW15 turned hostile to the case of prosecution and non identification of dead body and DNA reports.

18

ParticularsCitations

1.Prosecution has to prove its1. 2024 SAR Crl.158Pradeep Kumar Vs State of case beyond reasonable doubtHaryana

2. 2024 SAR Crl. 1238Lav Kumar @ Kanhiya Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh

2.Suspicion however strong it3.2024 SAR Crl. 547Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund cannot replace with proof ofand another Vs. State of M.P. offence

3.Proof in the case based on4. 2024 SAR Crl. 185Darshan Singh Vs. State of circumstantial evidence Punjab

5. 2024 SAR Crl.487Ravishanker Tandon Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

6. 2024 SAR Crl.499Arun Shankar Vs. State of M.P. 4Suppressingmaterial7. 1973 AIR SC 799Amar Chand Agarwalla Vs. evidence- fatalShanthi Bose.

8. 2019 AIR SC 1457Ankush Maruthi Shinde and others Vs. State of Maharastra. 5PWS.1 TO 5 conduct9.LAWS (SC)2020-8-56Boya Bogum Pedda Maddileti unnatural – not informing theand others Vs. State of A.P. incident at the earliest point of10.LAWS (SC)2020-10-43 Chuntharam Vs. State of time – fatalChhattisgarh

11. LAWS (SC) 2023-1-41 Jabir Vs. State of Uttarkhand. 11-A LAWS (SC)2019-12- 51

6. Motive not proved - fatalShankarVs.Stateof Maharashtra.

7.Motive13. 2024 SAR Crl.571Raghunatha and another Vs. State of Karnataka. 14.LAWS (SC)2021-3-8Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra.

15. 2025 SAR (Crl.) 231Nusrath Parween Vs. State of Jharkand.

8.Dead body identification16. LAWS (SC) 2019-9-5Umesh Tukaram Padwal Vs. State of Maharashtra.

17. 2024 SAR Crl.487Ravishanker Tandon Vs. State of Chattisgarh.

9.Seizure of weapon from open18. 2023 LIVE LAW (SC)Manjunath and others Vs. State of place – not proved961Karnataka.

19. 2024 Sar Crl. 327Krishan Vs. State of Haryana.

20. 2024 SAR Crl. 346Raj Naykar Vs. State of Chattisgarh. 10Weapon seized produced not21.LAWS (ORI) 2022-8-Sudhir Ojha Vs. State of Orissa. one and the same 130

11.Accused absconding not a22. 2024 SAR Crl.240Sekaran Vs state of Tamilnadu ground to believe he23. 2024 SAR Crl.91Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu Vs. committed the offenceState of H.P.

12.DNA REPORT 24.LAWS (SC) 2001-5-88Kanti Devi Vs. Poshi Ram

13.Relative witness – scrutinize25.2002 SAR Crl.749Mathura Yadav @ Madhura Mahato and other Vs. State of Bihar.

14. Interested witness – scrutinize26. 2025 SAR Crl.226George Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others.

15.Know witnesses names not27.LAWS (SC) 1975-2-37Ram Kumar Pandey Vs. State of disclosed in the complaint –M.P. fatal

16.Witness having seen not28.LAWS (SC) 2019-12- Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan Vs. informed – fatal51State of Gujrath. 29.LAWS (SC) 2019-1-27Digamber Vaishanav and another Vs. State of Chattisgarh.

17.Unnatural conduct – fatal30. 2024 SAR Crl.617Jasobanta Sahu Vs State of Orissa

18.Omissions31.LAWS (TLNG) 2022-8- Vondala Satyanarayana Vs. State 19 109of A.P.

19.Let hundred guilty be32. 2017 AIR SC 1657Krishnegowda and others Vs. acquitted, but one innocentState of Karnataka. shall not be punished

20.No moral punishment 33.1990 AIR SC 2148Chandran @ Surendran and another Vs. State of Kerala.

21.Conviction cannot be based on34. 2018 (3) CCR 87 DBRohita Bhuniya vs. State of Bihar. emotions.

22.Two views possible – view35. LAWS (SC) 2019-1-44 Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan. favourable to accused be taken.

The above referred decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and Apex Court are relevant to the present case facts, as there is no evidence on record to speak that A1 hacked the deceased Tirumaleshu and killed him and that

A2 being the associate of A1 made conspiracy and thereby A2 called

Tirimalesh to the outskirts of the village and killed him, as he was stalking the sister of A1 and buried him in their fields. Though the prosecution narrated before the court that Tirumaleshu was last seen with A2 as witnessed by PW4 did not put-forth the same version before the police in the initial stage at the time of filing of the complaint, which itself creates suspicion on the prosecution version. There is no utterance in the complaint or in the statements of Pws.1 to 6 about the same. At least there is no suspicion raised by the complainant against the accused in the complaint. When the police examined PW4 and recorded his statement, even at that point of time also there is no utterance from any of the prosecution witnesses that Tirumaleshu was last seen with A2. Further none of the circumstantial witnesses spoken that A1 warned Tirumaleshu earlier for stalking his sister and that was the motive behind killing the

Tirumaleshu. The entire evidence is silent with regard to the motive in killing Tirumaleshu by A1. When there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that A1 killed Tirumaleshu by using the axe and that A2 caught hold of Tirumaleshu while A1 killing him and that A3 destroyed the evidences, this court cannot just rely upon the doubtful confession which is 20 said to have been recorded by VRO/PW15 who did not support the prosecution case. Even the circumstantial evidences also did not give any key that A1 would have killed the Tirumaleshu.

18.Further the scientific evidence i.e. RFSL reports marked as Exs.P18 to P.20 also did not support the case of the prosecution. Ex.P18 being the

RFSL report dated . 26.10.2016 with regard to the examination of clothes of dead body exhumed from the fields of A3 and the weapon which was used at the time of offence,cannot be confined to the case as the report under Ex.,P18 does not give conclusive opinion. As per this report, human blood is detected on Items 1 and 3 i.e. T.Shirt on the dead body and the axe, but blood group of blood stains on these items could not be determined. Ex.P20 being the RFSL/ DNA report dated 6.5.2017 with regard to examination of blood samples collected from Pws.1 and 2 and long bone from the dead body exhumed from the field of A3 is not that of

Tirumalesu as the bone of the dead body did not match with the blood samples of the parents of Tirumalesu and that the prosecution did not challenge the report and thereby it has became final which has to be believed. Men may lie but the reasoned scientific evidence cannot.

Further, Ex.P19 being the RFSL report dated .27.2.2017 with regard to examination of clothes of A1 said to have been seized from the house of

A1 by DSP/PW23 after six months of the offence, itself is doubtful and that there are no blood stains on the clothes of A1.

Therefore, the prosecution version which relied upon the confessional statement of A1 & A2 said to have been recorded by the VRO/

PW15 and who did not support the case of prosecution, further, there is no utterance from the prosecution witnesses that A1 killed Tirumalsu and 21 they came to know it only on the confessional panchanama recorded by

PW15, thus utterly there is no evidence on record to speak about A1 that, he was with Tirumalesu on 2.6.2016 in the outskirts of the village or about the motive of A1 to kill Tirumalesu. Pw23 taking up investigation after four months of the incident and making A3 as an accused alleging that he destroyed the evidence by keeping the clothes of A1 in a bag and seizing the same from the house of A1 through his mother is not believable and reliable ,as no prudent person will keep such clothes in the house without destroying it. Even the scientific evidence under Exs.P18 to P20 disproved the case of prosecution. Mere availability of a dead body in the fields of

A3, and that A1 killed and buried it conspiring with A2, and A3 screened off the evidence cannot be believed without evidence. In a criminal case the prosecution shall prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in the light of my above discussion and relying upon the judgments cited by the defence counsel, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

19. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences

U/secs.120-B, 302 of IPC, A3 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.201 of IPC and A1 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.201 r/w 34 of IPC, accordingly they are acquitted of the above said offences under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Mos.1, 2, 4 to 8 which are non valuable properties, are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and after confirmation that there is no appeal pending.

22

MO3 i.e. Yellow colour Honda Motor Bike No.AP-21-AE-8157 shall be given to its registered owner on producing R.C. after appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.1, after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th day of March, 2025.

IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution. Defence.

PW1: Mucchu Boya Parameswariah. - None - PW2: Mucchu Boya Rameswaramma PW3: Mucchu Boya Nagaraju. PW4: Ketham Ashok Reddy. PW5: Vadla Bramhaiah Achari. PW6: Talari Kullai Raju. PW7: Boya Yerramala Krishna @ Kittu. PW8: Boya Yerramala Vijay Kumar @ Vijay. PW9: Madiga Putakar Kittanna. PW10: Chenchala Moni Vijayudu @ Vijay. PW11: Boya Manohar. PW12: Boya Ashok. PW13: Boya Yerravandla Shantha Kumari @ Shanthi. PW14: Nagalakshmamma. PW15: M.Maddilety Swamy, VRO. PW16: Talari Venkateswarlu, VRA. PW17: Shaik Aleem Basha, VRA. PW18: Jalla Sreenivasulu. PW19: P.Anjana Devi, Tahsildar. PW20: Dr.Sivasankarudu, CAS. PW21:P.Pakkiraiah, Head constable. PW22: R.G.Subramanyam, Inspector of Police. PW23: D.Muralidhar, Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Exhibits marked for. Prosecution.

Ex.P.1: Complaint given by PW2. Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW8.

23

Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW9. Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW11. Ex.P.6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW12. Ex.P.7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW13. Ex.P.8: Seizure panchanamadt 29.1.2017 Ex.P9: Report given by PW15 to police. Ex.P10: Seizure report dated 30.6.2016. Ex.P11: Requisition given to PW19 by CI of Bethamcherla PS. Ex.P12: Exhumation proceedings . Ex.P13: Inquest report . Ex.P14: Postmortem report. Ex.P15: FIR in Cr.No.144/2016 of Bethamcherla PS under head of boy missing. Ex.P16: Altered FIR. Ex.P17: Rough sketch. Ex.P18: RFSL report dated .26.10.2016. Ex.P19: RFSL report dated 27.2.2017. Ex.P20: RFSL report dated 6.6.2017. Ex.P21: Memo filed by PW23 to add A3 in the case. Ex.P22: Authorization letter along with letter of advise.

Defence:

Ex.D1: Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

Material Objects

MO1 : Yellow colour T.Shirt.

MO2 : Thick green colour Addapancha.

MO3: Yellow colour Honda Motor Bike No.AP-21-AE-8157.

MO4: Axe.

MO5: Spade.

MO6: Snuff red colour mixed blood stained T shirt.

MO7: Black colour jeans pant.

MO8: Two rows black waist thread.

IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

KURNOOL

Present: Smt. T.Leelavathi,

Judge, Family Court -cum-

IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

Tuesday, the 27th day of January, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.95/2015

1. A.Kamalakar Rao.

2. A.Sridhar.

3. A.Suresh.

4. Smt.A.Sarojamma.

5. A.Krishna Chaitanya.

6. A.Sudheer.…Plaintiffs

VERSUS

A.Manindra.…Defendant.

This suit has come on 26.11.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate for the Plaintiff and

SriM.R.Krishna and Sri K.Nagaraju, Advocates for Defendant, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into 5 equal shares and allot 1/5th share to each of the plaintiffs i.e. plaintiffs 1 to 3 and plaintiffs 4 to 6 jointly and 1/5th share to the defendant and for suit costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are :

a. One A.Siva Ramaiah, the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendant are the sons of late A.Venkata Seshaiah and plaint schedule properties are the ancestral 2 joint family properties of plaintiffs and the defendant. A.Siva Ramaiah died on 18.10.1999 leaving behind him the plaintiffs 4 to 6 being the wife and his sons as his legal heirs to succeed his share of property in the plaint schedule properties. A.Venkata Seshaiah being the father of the plaintiffs and defendant, during his life time acted as kartha of the Hindu Joint Family and he managed the plaint schedule properties on behalf of all the sharers, after death of Venkata Seshaiah in the year 2002, the defendant being the only person who is resident of Damagatla village where the plaint schedule properties are located and he being the agriculturist by occupation used to manage the plaint schedule joint family properties as kartha on behalf of all the sharers, as the plaintiffs are living away from the village due to their occupational exigencies. The defendant used to cultivate the plaint schedule properties and distribute the usufruct periodically to all the sharers towards their share after deducting the expenses incurred by him. The plaintiff always believed the defendant and they simply received the amount whatever given to them by the defendant.

b.While so, for the past one year, the defendant did not give any amount towards their share of profit from the schedule properties for the best reasons known to the defendant. Whenever the plaintiffs tried to raise the topic before him, the defendant used to give evasive and vague replies and divert the topic. Finally, in the month of June, 2015 when the plaintiffs increased pressure on the defendant for partition of the schedule properties, 3 he started slowly showing his true colours and expressed that plaint schedule properties has to be enjoyed by him alone as he is resident of Damagatla village and he will pay meagre amount to the plaintiffs to his convenience.

The plaintiffs after knowing the malafide intention of the defendant got issued legal notice dated 1.7.2015 calling upon the defendant for partition of the plaint schedule properties. The defendant received notice, but did not accept for partition of the schedule properties, but making efforts to alienate the suit schedule properties.

c.The plaintiffs submit that plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the plaintiffs 4 to 6 being the L.Rs of deceased Siva Ramaiah and the defendant are entitled for 1/5th share each in the suit schedule properties. Hence, they are constrained to file the suit for partition and for separate possession of the plaint schedule properties.

3.Defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and further submitted that during the life time of their father Venkata Seshaiah, properties were divided between them and each party was given their share and since then they are enjoying their respective properties with possession and mutation was also effected in Revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in the name of each party. This defendant, due to debts, sold away his share of property under registered sale deeds and the purchasers are in possession of those properties, even pattadar pass book and title 4 deeds were also issued in the name of purchasers. Therefore, there was pre- partition. Hence, the present suit for partition is not maintainable.

He further submitted that plaintiffs 1 to 3 and husband of 4th plaintiff are teachers in High School, 2nd plaintiff is a Diploma in Engineering and doing contract works and all of them are out of the village from the beginning. The defendant is permanent resident of Damagatla village and he is working as Branch Post Master with meagre salary. He alienated all the properties fallen to his share due to debts. His father Venkata Seshaiah originally purchased Ac.18-00 of land in Sy.No.196A, called Boggurolla Chenu and the said land was divided among all the sons and the father. Later their father gifted his share of property to the defendant under Registered Gift deed dt.5.3.1994 Sy.Nos.344/1, 344/2 and 344/3, Items 6 to 8 in the plaint schedule, were allotted to the share of the father. That land was also willed by father to this defendant under registered gift deed, later died in July, 2002.

During the life time of their father he lived with this defendant as he alone was living in the village. All the properties other than the Sy.No.196A were divided between the father and sons in the year 2001 and they are in possession of their respective shares and their names were also entered in the Revenue records. Further, the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not correct and there is no joint-ness in the property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

5

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by my Predecessor in office.

1. Whether the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties?

2. Whether the land in Sy.No.196/A was purchased by late A.Venkata Seshaiah, father of the parties and is liable for partition?

3. Whether the late A.Venkata Seshaiah gifted the suit property to the defendant under registered gift deed on 5.3.1994?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule properties into 5 equal shares and entitled for one such share?

5. Whether the purchasers are necessary parties to the said properties?

6. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiffs correct or not?

7. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined the 3rd plaintiff as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on their behalf. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3, and also examined DW2 and DW4 on his behalf and marked Exs.B4 to B21 and Ex.X1.

The evidence of DW3 was eschewed.

On verification of the record and the documents filed by defendant, it is observed that there is no document dt.5.3.1994 with nomenclature of registered Gift deed executed by A.Venkata seshaiah in favour of the defendant and it is only a pleading from written statement of the defendant.

But Ex.B1 with a nomenclature of Will Deed dt.11.1.2002 executed by

A.Venkata Seshaiah in favour of defendant is existing, as such ISSUE NO.3 is modified as:

6

3. “Whether late A.Venkata Seshaiah willed the suit property to the defendant under Registered Will deed dt.11.1.2002?”

6.Heard arguments on both sides. Written arguments filed on behalf of the defendant.

7. EVIDENCE

The plaintiffs to prove that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties and they are entitled for 1/5th share each got examined the 3rd plaintiff as PW1. He reiterated the contents of the plaint in his examination in chief.

In support of his oral version he got marked the following documents i.e.

Ex.A1Office copy of legal notice dt.1.7.2015

Ex.A2Postal receipts corresponding to Ex.A1.

Ex.A3Death certificate of A.Siva Ramaiah

Ex.A4Death certificate of A.Venkata Seshaiah.

Ex.A5Pattadar pass books belonging to plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 6.

Ex.A6Adangal extracts relating to Sy.Nos.196-A,344/1, 344/2 and 344/3 for Fasli 1425.

PW1 in his cross-examination deposed that their father died on 3.7.2022 and he do not know whether his father executed any Registered Will deed vide Doc.No.1/2002 of Book No.03 at Nandikotkur. His brother A.Siva

Ramaiah died in October, 1999. He denied that they partitioned their family properties even before the death of their elder brother A.Siva Ramaiah. He stated that he do not know in whose custody the title deeds books, 7 corresponding to Ex.A5 Paddar pass books are with. He admitted that they did not file any rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendant. He denied that Exs.A5 and A6 shows that there was earlier partition.

b.To rebut the evidence of plaintiffs, the defendant got examined himself as DW1 and he reiterated the contents of the written statement in his examination in chief and in support of his oral version, he got marked Exs.B1 to B3 i.e.

Ex.B1Registered will executed by Ambadasu Venkata Seshaiah, S/o.A.Siva Ramaiah, bearing Doc.No.1 of BK3/2002 at SRO, Nandikotkur.

Ex.B2Meeseva copy of Adangal in Sy.No.196/A standing in the name of 1st plaintiff.

Ex.B3Meeseva copy of Adangal in Sy.No.196/B standing in the name of 3rd plaintiff.

DW1 in his cross-examination deposed that plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties and in the year 1997 during the life time of their father they partitioned the plaint schedule properties. He denied that he mentioned in Para no.4 of his written statement that except the property in

Sy.No.196/A, other properties were divided in the year 2001. He further stated that Partition Deed was executed in 1997, but it is not available with him and he do not know with whom it is. He further stated that an extent of

Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.196 was sold to one Padmavathi in the year 2012 and he did not inform the same to the plaintiffs and he sold it to discharge the 8 debts. The land in Sy.No.196/A and 196-B to an extent of Ac.8-00 was purchased by his father even before his birth. He denied that Ex.B1 is forged and fabricated document and it is created subsequent to the death of his father. The attestors of Ex.B1 i.e. Narasaiah is the senior paternal uncle and

Prabhakar Rao is son of Narasaiah and they are residents of Nandikotkur.

c.One of the attestors of Ex.B1 by name A.Prabhakar Rao is examined as DW2. He deposed that the father of the plaintiffs and defendant executed the will in sound disposing state of mind and he himself dictated the contents to the scribe. His father Narasaiah was also present on the said date of document and the executant requested them to hand over the Will on or before his death. To his knowledge all the joint family properties were partitioned between them in the year 1997 itself. DW2 in his cross- examination deposed that he attested the Will and after execution of the Will he has not seen the will. Father of the defendant came to his home on the date of execution of the will and asked him to attest the Will. He do not know who scribed the Will and he do not remember the contents of the Will which he attested. He do not know on whose behalf he is giving evidence and he do not know who filed the suit.

d.The then Tahsildar M.Raja Sekhar Babu is initially examined as

DW3, but before his cross-examination he was transferred, as such the subsequent Tahsildar in office is examined as DW4 and the evidence of DW3 is eschewed.

9 e.DW4 produced 1-B Register, Adangal extract and ROR relating to the survey numbers standing in the name of the plaintiffs and the defendant which are marked as Exs.B4 to B21. DW4 in his cross-examination deposed that he received summons on 5.3.2025 and the summons are marked as Ex.X1. There is no mention in the summons what are the records to be brought before the court. He brought the records which were produced by the earlier Tahsildar, who attended before the court. He stated that there is no mention in the 1-B Register how the parties acquired the land and there is no mention of partition, but there is mention of ancestral property and he do not know when the said entries were made in 1-B register. He also admitted that joint family properties will be kept in the name of any joint family member as per their choice and they issue pattadar pass book in their names. He further deposed that defendant sold Ac.2-00 cents in Sy.No.196/A in 2010 under Doc.No.424/2010. He also stated that all the sale entries are not entered in 1-B register. In the 1-B register, the Survey numbers are rounded off and endorsed as sold out. He brought adangals from 1997 to 2023 as referred in the summons to the then Tahsildar,

Nandikotkur.

In view of the pleadings of the parties, it is necessary to discuss and answer Issue nos.2 and 3, before discussing the issues on joint family properties and partition. Therefore, issues 2 and 3 are discussed and answered together.

10

8. ISSUE NOS.2 AND 3:

2. Whether the land in Sy.No.196/A was purchased by late A.Venkata

Seshaiah, father of the parties and is liable for partition?

3.“Whether late A.Venkata Seshaiah willed the suit property to the defendant under Registered Will deed dt.11.1.2002?” a.Defendant contended that land in Sy.No.196/A was purchased by his father A.Venkata Seshaiah and it is exclusive property of A.Venkata

Seshaiah and that he executed Registered gift deed dated 5.3.1994 in favour of the defendant. To substantiate the same the defendant got examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 Registered Will dt.11.1.2002 executed by A.Venkata Seshaiah in favour of the defendant.

b.As observed from Ex.B1 it is termed as Will dated 11.1.2002 executed by A.Venkata Seshaiah S/o.Siva Ramaiah, “reciting that his wife is predeceased and he have four sons and his elder son is pre-deceased survived with two sons and a wife and the other four sons are plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendant, out of which Kamalakar, Sridhar and Suresh (Plaintiffs 1 to 3 herein) are residing in different places due to their employment and share of plaintiffs 1 to 3 was given to them earlier by way of partition. His well being is seen by defendant, as such the schedule property is being given to the defendant under the Will. As per the details of the Will deed schedule the property is ancestral property which was fallen to the share of A.Venkata 11

Seshaiah located in Damagatla village i.e. a House property with Door

No.2/48 and H.S.C.No.15 -Flour Mill and the landed property.

Sy.No.196-A Ac.2-00 Sy.No.344/1Ac.1-30 cents Sy.No.344/2Ac.2-50 cents. Sy.No.344/3Ac.0-92 cents Sy.No.342Ac.0-10 cents -------------------- TotalAc.6-80 cents. ------------------- Except this document, the defendant did not file any other document to show that the land in Sy.No.196/A was purchased by A.Venkata Seshaiah.

Moreover as per the recitals and the schedule of Ex.B1, it is ancestral property of A.Venkata Seshaiah and he got right over the property in view of partition, in which the schedule shown in Ex.B1 was fallen to his share, as such he got right over the property and he executed the Will deed in favour of the defendant. The other documents i.e. Exs.B2 to B21 filed by the defendant does not prove that the land in Sy.No.196/ A was purchased by late

A.Venkata Seshaiah.

c.Further, it is the version of the defendant that the property fallen to the share of A.Venkata Seshaiah was gifted to him under Ex.B1. As observed from Ex.B1 recitals, it discloses that it is a Will deed, but not a Gift deed. But it is a fact that A.Venkata Seshaiah executed Ex.B1 in favour of defendant bequeathing his share of property. To prove Ex.B1 defendant got examined one of the attestors of Ex.B1 as DW2, who categorically stated 12

before the court that A.Venkata Seshaiah himself came to his house and

requested him to act as attestor of the will being executed by A.Venkata

Seshaiah in favour of the defendant. Further A.Venkata Seshaiah is close relative of DW2. Father of DW2 along with DW2 attested Ex.B1 and nothing contra is elicited by the plaintiffs in the cross-examination of DW2 with regard to execution of Will by A.Venkata Seshaiah bequeathing his property in favour of defendant.

d.The other factors with regard to past partition of properties between the plaintiffs and defendant during the life time of their father

A.Venkata Seshaiah are not to the knowledge of DW2, as he was called before the court only to prove Ex.B1, this court cannot draw an adverse inference in respect of not having the knowledge of the partition between the plaintiffs and the defendant and their father before execution of Ex.B1 by A.Venkata

Seshaiah by the DW2 e.The plaintiffs examined the 3rd plaintiff as PW1 who pleaded ignorance of execution of Ex.B1 by their father in favour of the defendant and they could not adduce any rebuttal evidence to disprove the execution of

Ex.B1 by their father in favour of the defendant. Further, PW1 himself admitted that himself along with other plaintiffs are residing at different places and only the defendant is residing at their native village and the defendant looked after the welfare of their father. In such circumstances father of the plaintiffs and defendant executing Ex.B1 in favour of defendant 13 can be believed in view of the evidence of DW2. But the defendant did not prove that the land in Sy.No.196/A was purchased by his father and it was his exclusive property. It is elicited in the cross-examination of DW4 that the defendant sold Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.196/A vide Doc.No.424/2010 and the same is also entered in the 1-B register. When the defendant sold the land in

Sy.No.196/A in the year 2010 itself the plaintiffs did not object for the same or questioned the same in this suit, which discloses that Will Deed / Ex.B1 was acted upon, accordingly the defendant executed the sale deed in favour of third parties in the year 2010 itself as such it is not questioned by the plaintiffs. Therefore, in the light of my above discussion, I hold that defendant has proved that the Registered Will deed dt.11.1.2002 is executed by his father in his favour in respect of the properties shown in the Will deed.

Therefore, Issue no.2 is answered against the defendant. Issue no.3 is answered in favour of the defendant as against the plaintiffs.

9. ISSUE NOS.1 AND 4:

1. Whether the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule properties into 5 equal shares and entitled for one such share?

Both issues are discussed and answered together to avoid repetition as they are inter-linked.

14

It is the version of the plaintiffs that suit schedule properties are their ancestral joint family properties and that plaintiffs and the defendant are in joint possession of the schedule properties, but the defendant being the resident of Damagatla village is cultivating the lands and giving amounts /usufructs to the plaintiffs in respect of their shares, but he is avoiding to give any share of amount for the past one year, as such they issued legal notice to the defendant under Ex.A1, but the defendant in spite of receiving notice did not come forward for partition, as such they filed the suit seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties.

a.Plaintiffs examined 3rd plaintiff as PW1 and he asserted the same and further marked postal receipts of legal notice as Ex.A2, death certificate of Siva Ramaiah as Ex.A3, Death certificate of A.Venkata Seshaiah as Ex.A4.

PW1 also marked the pattadar pass books pertaining to plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 6.

These pattadar pass books discloses that the 1st plaintiff was given pattadar pass book – Patta No.467, and entries showing the following extents with

Survey numbers.

Sy.No.196/AAc.2-00

Sy.No.299/1Ac.0-36 cents

Sy.No.349Ac.0-85 cents.

As per the endorsement made in the last page of this pattadar pass book he availed subsidies under this pattadar pass book for the lands mentioned therein.

15 b.Pattadar pass book With Patta No.465 in the name of 2nd plaintiff/ A.Sridhar shows the land in Sy.No.200/4 with an extent of Ac.3-90 cents and the endorsement made in the last page of this pattadar pass book is that he availed subsidies under this pattadar pass book for the lands mentioned therein..

c.Pattadar pass book With Patta No.466 in the name of 3rd plaintiff/ A.Suresh shows the land in Sy.No.196/B with an extent of Ac.4-78 cents and the endorsement made in the last page of this pattadar pass book is that he availed subsidies under this pattadar pass book for the lands mentioned therein..

d. Pattadar pass book With Patta No.469 in the name of A.Siva

Ramaiah being the father of plaintiffs 5 and 6 and husband of 4th plaintiff shows the following extents with Survey numbers.

Sy.No.196/AAc.2-22

Sy.No.348Ac.1-37 cents.

The endorsement made in the last page of this pattadar pass book is that he availed subsidies under this pattadar pass book for the lands mentioned therein..

e.Therefore, the endorsements made in pattadar pass books shows that 1st plaintiff got an extent of Ac.3-21 cents, 2nd plaintiff got an extent of Ac.3-90 cents, 3rd plaintiff got an extent of Ac.4-78 cents and the 16 father of plaintiffs 5 and 6 got an extent of 3-59 cents and they also availed subsidies for their respective extents from the Government.

f.Adangal Pahani marked as Ex.A6 discloses that total extent in

Sy.No.196/A is Ac.8-22 cents and 1st plaintiff have Ac.2-00, A.Sivaramaiah have

Ac.2-22 cents and defendant have Ac.4-00 cents. The total extent in

Sy.No.344/3 is Ac.0-94 cents and it stands in the name of defendant. The total extent in Sy.No.344/1 is Ac.2-50 cents and it stands in the name of defendant.

g.It is the version of plaintiffs that there was no partition between the plaintiffs and defendant during the life time of their father and that the entries made by the revenue authorities is for their convenience to collect revenue.

h.On the other hand, the defendant marked Ex.B2 which is nothing but replica of Ex.A6 in Sy.No.196/A issued on 3.10.2016 showing Ac.2-00 in the name of 1st plaintiff and Ac.2-22 cents in the name of Siva Ramaiah. Ex.B3 is Adangal dt.3.10.2016 in respect of the Sy.No.196-B consisting of total extent is Ac.7-16 cents and third plaintiff got an extent of Ac.4-78 cents and the remaining extent is Ac.2-38 cents belongs to unknown persons. So, the land in Sy.No.196/B which is reflected even in the pattadar pass book of 3rd plaintiff is denied by the plaintiffs. Therefore, to give a just conclusion of the matter whether there was a past partition between the plaintiffs and defendant during the life time of their father and they are enjoying their 17 respective shares. The evidence of Tahsildar who produced Revenue Records would clarifies the same.

I.As per Manual register of 1-B Namuna showing that Pattadar pass books were issued to plaintiffs 1 to 3 and father of plaintiffs 5 and 6 i.e.

Exs.B4 to B8,

Doc.Names Katha No.Sy.Numbers Extent of land in Acres

Ex.B41st plaintiff / A.Kamalakar467196/A 2-00cents 299/1 0-36cents 3490-85 cents

Ex.B53rd plaintiff / A.Suresh466196/B4-78 cents

Ex.B6A.Ravindra RaoNo Khata 200/10-94 cents number

Ex.B7A.Siva Ramaiah, Father of 469196/A, 2-00cents plaintiffs 5 & 63481-37 cents

Ex.B8Defendant/ A.Manindra470196/A, 2-00cents 342 0-10cents 344/1 1-30cents 344/2 2-50cents 344/30-94 cents

The property of defendant was sold and he is retained only with Ac.0- 10 cents in Sy.No.342.

As per Ex.B9 & B19 – Adangal, one M.Thippa Reddy S/o.Narayana

Reddy got Ac.0-94 cents in Sy.No.344/3 and he purchased the same. It is the version of the defendant that said extent was sold to Thippa Reddy.

Ex.B10 & B20 disclose that land in Sy.No.342 an extent of Ac.2-68 cents, in which Ac.0-90 cents stands in the name of Mohammed Rafi and 18

Ac.1-10 cents shown in Katha no.803 and Ac.0-68 cents shown as surplus land, which are stands in the name of B.Ramagovindu and it is purchased by them. It is also the defendant version that this land is sold by him to them.

As per Ex.B11 & B21 – Adangal in Sy.No.299 total extent is Ac.2-18 cents.

Names Khata No.Extent of land

1.A.KamalakarRao, S/o.A.Seshaiah.467Ac.0-36 cents

Ex.B.12 shows the plaintiff nos.1, 4 and 5 are in possession of Ac.4-22 cents in Sy.No.196/A.

As per Ex.B13 an extent of Ac.4-78 cents is in possession and enjoyment of 3rd plaintiff in Sy.No.196/B.

As per Ex.B14 one T.Kantha Reddy is in possession and enjoyment of

Ac.0-72 cents of land in Sy.No.200-H.

As per Ex.B15 A.Siva Ramaiah father of Plaintiffs 5 and 6 is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1-37 cents in Sy.No.348.

As per Ex.B16 1st plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-85 cents in Sy.No.349.

As per Ex.B17 Madireddy Thippa Reddy is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1-37 cents in Sy.No.344/1 purchased by him. As per the defendant the said land is sold by him to Thippa Reddy.

As per Ex.B18 an extent of Ac.0-14 cents in Sy.No.344/2A and Ac.2-36 cents in Sy.Nos.344/2B and said land is in possession and enjoyment of 19

Thippa Reddy and it is the version of defendant that he sold the same to

Thippa Reddy.

10.As observed from Exs.B4 to B21 different extent of lands in different survey numbers has been shown in the pattadar pass books under

Ex.A5 stands in the name of plaintiffs and defendant showing that they are in possession and enjoyment of the said respective extents. Further, the entries made in their respective names covered under Ex.B1clears there was partition between them and the propertybequeathed in favour of the defendant by his father and subsequently after death of father of the plaintiffs and defendant, the defendant acquired the said property and he sold the same to one Thippa Reddy and Mohammed Rafi and they are in possession and enjoyment of the properties sold to them by the defendant and the Revenue records discloses entries in their names accordingly. The defendant did not put-forth any sale deeds showing the sales made by him to

Thippa Reddy and Mohammed Rafi, but the Revenue records i.e., adangals and 1B discloses that Thippa Reddy, Mohammed Rafi and Boya Ramagovindu got possession and enjoyment over the respective lands as they purchased the said property. Further, Revenue records submitted by Tahsildar shows that defendant sold his entire share of property and retained only Ac.0-10 cents of land. When the defendant sold the property as shown in the revenue adangals, the plaintiffs without disclosing the same, filed the suit for partition saying that there was no partition earlier, but filed pattadar pass 20 books showing the entries made therein in respect of their respective names saying that it was made for collecting revenue cannot be believed, as they have also taken subsidy and 1B register also disclosed the same, which discloses that there was past partition between the plaintiffs and defendant during life time of their father A.Venkat Seshaiah. Further, Ex.B1 Will Deed executed by father of plaintiffs and defendant discloses that there was partition between them and property fallen to the share of A.Venkata

Seshaiah has been bequeathed in favour of defendant as the defendant is looking after the welfare of Venkata Seshaiah. Therefore, the version of defendant supported by Exs.B1 and the revenue records under Exs.B2 to B21 establishes that plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of their respective extent of property as shown in Exs.A5 & A6 giving support to the version of the defendant that there was part partition, as such the property fallen to the share of plaintiffs is entered into their revenue records, accordingly pattadar pass books were issued to them. Further, it is also elicited in the cross- examination of PW4 that defendant sold an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.196/A in 2010 under Doc.No.420/2010 but plaintiffs filing the suit in 2015 not even questioning the sales made by the defendant in respect of the landed property also establishes that there was past partition, but the plaintiffs filed the chance suit seeking for partition claiming partition suit properties are joint family properties. Therefore, in the light of my above discussion, I hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition of the property, having failed 21 to prove the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. Hence, these two issues are answered in favour of the defendant as against the plaintiffs.

11. ISSUE NO.5:

5. Whether the purchasers are necessary parties to the said properties?

In view of my discussion and findings on issue nos.1 to 4, wherein it is held that plaintiffs did not question the sales made by the defendant in respect of the schedule properties and did not file any rejoinder even after filing the written statement discloses that there was past partition, accordingly the defendant sold the property and if the version of plaintiffs has to be believed they ought to have made purchasers of the schedule properties as necessary parties claiming partition. Hence, this issue is also answered in favour of the defendant as against the plaintiffs.

12. ISSUE NO.6:

6.Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiffs correct or not?

In view of my discussion and findings on Issue nos.1 to 5 wherein it is held that plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit schedule property is joint family property and that they have got their respective share in the schedule properties as per earlier partition, court fee paid by the plaintiffs under

Section 34(2) of APCF and S.V.Act is not proper and the plaintiffs have to pay the court fee U/sec.34(1) of APCF & SV Act. Hence, the plaintiffs shall pay court 22 fee U/s.34(1) of APCF Act. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the defendant as against the plaintiffs.

13. ISSUE NO.7: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is dismissed, but in view of the relationship between the parties without costs. The plaintiffs are hereby directed to pay court fee U/sec.34(1) of APCF Act. Office is directed to prepare decree after paying Court Fee by the plaintiffs u/s.34(1) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 27 th day of January , 2026.

Judge,

Family Court-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

PW1: A.Suresh.DW1: A.Manindra.

DW2: A.Prabhakar Rao.

DW3: M.Rajasekhar Babu (Tahsildar, Nandikotkur - Eschewed on 20.2.2025)

DW4: Srinivasulu, Tahsildar.

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For plaintiffs:

Ex.A1Office copy of legal notice dt.1.7.2015

Ex.A2Postal receipts corresponding to Ex.A1.

23

Ex.A3Death certificate of A.Siva Ramaiah

Ex.A4Death certificate of A.Venkata Seshaiah.

Ex.A5Pattadar pass books belonging to plaintiffs 1 to 3 and father of plaintiffs 5 & 6.

Ex.A6Adangal extracts relating to Sy.Nos.196-A,344/1, 344/2 and 344/3 for Fasli 1425.

For Defendant:

Ex.B1Registered will executed by Ambadasu Venkata Seshaiah, S/o.A.Siva Ramaiah, bearing Doc.No.1 of BK3/2002 at SRO, Nandikotkur.

Ex.B2Meeseva copy of Adangal in Sy.No.196/A standing in the name of 1st plaintiff.

Ex.B3Meeseva copy of Adangal in Sy.No.196/B standing in the name of 3rd plaintiff.

Ex.B4Attested copy of 1-B namuna shows pattadar pass book issued in favour of 1st plaintiff A.Kamalakar in Katha No.467 for Sy.Nos.196/A to an extent of Ac.2-00, Sy.No.299/1 to an extent of Ac.0-36 cents and Sy.No.349 to an extent of 0.85 cents.

Ex.B5Attested copy of 1-B namuna shows pattadar pass book issued in favour of A.Suresh / 3rd plaintiff in Katha No.466 for Sy.No.196/B to an extent of Ac.4-75 cents.

Ex.B6Attested copy of 1-B namuna shows pattadar pass book issued in favour of A.Ravindra Rao (no Khat number) general Khata number was issued as 5066 for Sy.No.200/I to an extent of Ac.0-94 cents.

Ex.B7Attested copy of 1-B namuna shows pattadar pass book issued in favour of A.Sivaramaiah in Katha No.469 for Sy.Nos.196/A to an extent of Ac.2-00, Sy.No.348 to an extent of Ac.1-37 cents.

Ex.B8Attested copy of 1-B namuna shows pattadar pass book issued in favour of A.Manindra Rao/ defendant in Katha No.470 for Sy.Nos.196/A to an extent of Ac.2-00, Sy.No.344/1 to an extent of ac.1- 30 cents, Sy.No.344/2 to an extent of Ac.2-50 cents, Sy.No.344/3 to an extent of Ac.0-94 cents and all the extents wre sold by Manindra and the extent retained with him is Sy.No.342 Ac.0-10 cents cents.

Ex.B9Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.344/3 total extent is Ac.0-94 cents stands in the name of M.Thippa Reddy S/o.M.Narayana Reddy in Khata No.1454.

Ex.B10Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.342, total extent is Ac.2.68 cents 24 stands in the name of (1)Mohammed Rafi to an extent of Ac.0-90 cents in Khata No.770 and (2) B.Ramagovindu to an extent of Ac.1-10 cents in Khata No.803 and the Surplus land is Ac.0-68 cents.

Ex.B11Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.299/1, total extent is 2-18 cents stands in the names of (1) V.Veeraiah Ac.0-04 cents in Khata No.59 ; (2) Chinna Achaiah to to an extent of Ac.0-04 cents in Khata No.52 (3) V.Murthamma to an extent of Ac.0-04 cents inKhata No.139 (4) .Rajeswara Rao to an extent of Ac.0-36 cents in Khata No.196 (5) A.Kamalakar Rao to an extent of Ac.0-36 cents in Khata No.467 (6) Subramaneswara Achari to an extent of Ac.0-05 cents in Khata No.532 and (7) Khajamiah to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents, Khata No.893 and surplus land is ac.1-09 cents.

Ex.B12Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.196/A, total extent is Ac.4.22 cents stands in the name of (1) Kamalakar to an extent of Ac.2-00 in Khata No.467 and (2) A.Sivaramaiah to an extent of Ac.2-22 cents in Khata No.469.

Ex.B13Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.196/B, total extent is Ac.7-16 cents stands in the name of (1) Suresh to an extent of Ac.4-78 cents in Khata No.466 and the surplus land is Ac.2-38 cents and Rastha is ac.2- 68 cents.

Ex.B14Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.200/H, total extent is Ac.4-56cents stands in the name of (1) T.Kantha Reddy to an extent of Ac.0-72 cents in Khata No.157 and the surplus land is Ac.3-84 cents.

Ex.B15Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.348, total extent is Ac.1-77 cents stands in the name of (1) B.Laxmidevi to an extent of Ac.0-20 cents in Khata No.60, (2) B.Venkatalaxmi to an extent of Ac.0-20 cents in Khata No.61 and (3) A.Sivaramaiah to an extent of Ac.1-37 cents in Khata No.469.

Ex.B16Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.349, total extent is Ac.0-85 cents stands in the name of (1) A.Kamalakar to an extent of Ac.0-85 cents in Khata No.467

Ex.B17Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.344/1, total extent is Ac.1-30 cents stands in the name of (1)Madireddy Thippa Reddy to an extent of Ac.1-30 cents in Khata No.1454.

Ex.B18Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.344/2 is sub divided into 344/2A to an extent of Ac.0-14 cents and Sy.No.344/2B to an extent of Ac.2-36 cents stands in the name of Madireddy Thippa Reddy to an extent of Ac.0-14 cents in Sy.No.344/2A and Ac.2-36 cents in Sy.No.344/2B in Khata No.1454.

Ex.B19Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.344/3, total extent is Ac.0-94 cents 25 stands in the name of Madireddy Thippa Reddy in Khata No.1454.

Ex.B20Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.342, total extent is Ac.2.68 cents stands in the name of (1) S.Mohammed Rafi to an extent of Ac.0-90 cents in Khata No.770 and (2) Boya Ramagovindu to an extent of Ac.1-10 cents in Khata No.803. The surplus land is Ac.0-68 cents.

Ex.B21Attested copy of Adangal in Sy.No.299/1, total extent is Ac.2.18 cents stands in the name of (1) A.Rajeswara Rao to an extent of Ac.0-36 cents in Khata No.196 and (2) A.Kamalakar to an extent of Ac.0-36 cents in Khata No.467.

Ex.X1 : Witness summons issued to Tahsildar, Nandikotkur.

Judge,

Family Court-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE: KURNOOL

Present: Smt. T.Leelavathi,

Judge, Family Court, Kurnool.

Thursday, the 18th day of September, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.84/2016

Smt.Shailaja Singh.… Plaintiff.

- Vs.-

1. K.R.Kesari Singh.

2. K.Raja Rajeshwari.

3. K.Brijesh Singh.

4. Dr.K.Gayathri Devi.

5. Anjushree Dinesh.

6. Vyshnavi Singh.…Defendants.

This suit has come on 18.7.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Yedire Srinivasulu, Sri R.Yogender Singh, Sri

S.T.P.L.Narasimha Chary, Advocates for plaintiff and Sri M.Indra Vijaya

Rao, Advocate for Defendant nos.1, 5, 6, Sri B.K.Rama Seshanna,

Advocate for D3, Defendant no.4 having remained ex-parte, Defendant no.2 died, and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed for partition of plaint schedule property into five equal shares and deliver one such share to the plaintiff with metes and bounds and pass final decree.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that :

a.The plaintiff, defendants 3, 4 and one Dinesh Singh (died) are the children of defendants 1 and 2, Dinesh Singh being elder son died leaving behind his wife and daughter as his legal heirs and they are shown as Defendants 5 and 6.

22 b.Plaintiff and defendants 1, 3 to 6 constitute Hindu Joint family. Defendants 1 and 2 are of old aged and their affairs are managed by 3rd defendant, 1st defendant is puppet in the hands of 2nd defendant and 2nd defendant is totally under the sway of 3rd and 4th defendants.3rd defendant got married twice. 5th and 6th defendants were driven away by defendants 1 and 2 after death of Dinesh Singh.

1st wife of the 3rd defendant was tormented by defendants 2 to 4 and she divorced the 3rd defendant. 2nd wife of 3rd defendant also ran away to her maternal home as she is unable to bear the torture in the hands of defendant no.3 at the behest of 2nd and 4th defendants. 4th defendant is rolling in riches and supporting 3rd defendant to usurp the plaint schedule properties and the share of plaintiff is spoiled by 3rd defendant at the cost of other co-parceners. 1st Defendant was heavily indebted due to losses. To screen the properties 1st Defendant created a will

dated 24.7.1991 alleging that plaint schedule properties are the

properties fell to the share of his father between himself and his father and that his father bequeathed the same to him. Subsequently, 1st

Defendant created another will dated 24.12.1994 alleging that plaint schedule properties fell to the share of his father in the partition between himself and his father and his father bequeathed same to his daughter-in-law i.e. 2nd defendant herein. Plaintiff submits that actually properties are the ancestral properties of the joint family and there was no partition between 1st Defendant and his father at any point of time and they are the joint family properties.

c.The defendants with a malafide intention to screen the properties from the reach of creditors of 1st Defendant got filed a collusive suit by 2nd defendant in OS.7/2007 against 1st Defendant on the file of Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, Kurnool seeking 33 declaration of her title to the plaint schedule properties on the strength of the Will dated .28.12.1994 and the suit was decreed in Lok-Adalath.

The Wills dated 24.7.1991 and 28.12.1994 are invalid as the plaint schedule properties covered by the wills are not absolute self-acquired properties of the testator and he have no right to bequeath them either to his son or daughter-in-law.

d.After passing of Lok-Adalath award, defendants 1 to 4 acted hand in glove with each other and tried to dispossess the plaint schedule properties alleging that they are the absolute properties of the 2nd defendant by depriving share of the plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6.

The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff, defendants 1, 3 to 6 and they are not self acquired properties of 1st defendant or his father. 3rd defendant with active support of defendants 1, 2 and 4 behaving high handedly against the plaintiff and trying to usurp the entire plaint schedule properties and prepared to demolish the existing structures. If he succeeds in his endeavour, all the parties will be put to hardship apart from foregoing their share of property which is existing on the land in the form of building and fetching rents to a tune of Rs.50,000/- per month.

e.The plaintiff submits that her marriage is performed with average standard person and presently staying at Hyderabad and facing hardship to fetch even single square meal a day. She was given two mulgis (shops) as Sreedhana at the time of marriage which is nothing but a peanut of the vast property. The plaintiff submits that she issued legal notice on 27.11.2015 questioning the high handed act of defendants 1 and 2. There was no response from them, but 3rd defendant came personally to the plaintiff on 20.4.2016 and told her to 44 forego her share as the property is gifted to him and he is the absolute owner. When the plaintiff refused the same, 3rd defendant abused her and threatened her with dire consequences. The alleged conveyances made by 1st Defendant or 2nd defendant are void ab-intio and the documents are not valid. Thus, again on 26.4.2016 the plaintiff got issued notice to 3rd defendant marking the copies to defendants 1, 2 and 4 demanding partition and separate possession of her share in the plaint schedule properties. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 received the notices, but the postal cover of 3rd defendant was refused. She submits that defendants are in possession of the joint family properties and not coming forward for partition in spite of receiving the notice. Hence, the suit.

3.Defendant no.2 died during pendency of the suit.

Defendants 1, 3, 5 and 6 made their appearance, whereas Defendant no.4 remained ex-parte. 1st Defendant filed his written statement which is also adopted by Defendants 5 and 6. Defendant no.3 filed his separate written statement.

4. a. 1st Defendant in his written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and further submitted that the plaintiff have no right over the plaint schedule properties and they are exclusively belongs to the 3rd defendant and 3rd defendant is making arrangements to develop his properties. He submits that their family is well reputed family in the Kurnool city and their ancestors by name

Anantha Ram Singh and his brother K.Ramchander Singh acquired several vast immovable properties and also succeeded the estate of their ancestors. They both lived together and enjoyed and got divided their properties orally on 19.4.1975. As per the said partition father of 55 1st defendant namely K.Ramchander Singh got the properties which includes the plaint schedule properties. The partition between Anantha

Ram Singh and Ramchander Singh was recognized by the Income Tax

Officer, Kurnool vide proceedings No.GIR No.A 201 dated 1.11.1978 recognizing the oral partition and then the Kurnool Municipality gave an endorsement dated 23.11.1978 mutating the house Nos.1/28 to 1/33,

Main Bazar, Kurnool in the name of K.Ramchander Singh and he enjoyed the property fell to his share which includes the plaint schedule properties during his life time and they are treated as own and self acquired properties as there was partition between him and his brother.

b.K.Ramchander Singh had four children through his wife

Smt.Sumithra Bai i.e. one son namely K.R.Kesari Singh (D1) and three daughters namely Smt.Leela Bai, Smt.Shyamala and Smt.Samyuktha.

There was partition between K.Ramchander Singh and his son 1st defendant on 1.4.1982 and it was reduced into writing in Memorandum of partition dated 5.4.1982. The said partition is admitted by all the family members and it was also recognized by Income tax department and award was also passed by the Department vide Proceedings

No.GI.No.R-201 dated 29.3.1990. The said partition and properties fallen to the share of 1st defendant in the partition as sales made by him is not questioned by anybody including the plaintiff until the date. The details and description of the properties and shares of K.Ramachander

Singh and 1st defendant are given below.

Properties fallen to the share of K.Ramchander Singh.

1. Shop Nos.1-28, 1-29, 1-29A, 1-29B, 1-30A, 1-30B and 1-31, Main

Bazar, Kurnool.

2. Half share in H.No.1-30, Main Bazar, Kurnool.

66

3. D.No.1-29C (that was under occupation of Chowk Post Officer) Main

Bazar, Kurnool.

4. 1/4th share in land and building standing in the name of Nataraj

Cinema Theatre out of Ac.1-26 cents in Sy.No.122 in Ward No.40 of

Kurnool.

5. Half share in the vacant site in Sy.No.122 of Kurnool and other movable properties as detailed in the memorandum of partition.

Properties fallen to the share of K.R.Kesar Singh / D1

1. Shop Nos.1-32, 1-33, Main bazar, Kurnool.

2. Half share in H.No.1-30, Main Bazar, Kurnool.

3. Rice Mill building in D.Nos.19-26C and 19-26D in 19th ward, Main

Bazar, Kurnool.

4. Garage and store building in D.No.19-26E 19th ward, Kurnool

5. 1/4th share in land and building standing in the name of Nataraj

Cinema Theatre out of Ac.1-26 cents in Sy.No.122 in Ward No.40 of

Kurnool.

6. Half share in the vacant site in Sy.No.122 of Kurnool and other movable properties as detailed in the memorandum of partition.

7. AC.11-00 cents of land situated at Karivena and other liabilities.

c.After partition between K.Ramchander Sing and 1st defendant they took possession of their respective share of the property and were in separate possession of the same and it is not questioned by anybody till date . After partition of their respective shares, they are enjoying the same on their own as separate properties as those properties lost the character of ancestral property and they enjoyed their respective properties as self acquired properties. Being so, Ramchander Singh in his 76 years of age, in sound disposing state of mind, executed Registered Will dated 25.7.1991 bequeathing all his 77 properties in favour of his wife Sumithra Bai with limited rights of enjoyment during her life time and thereafter vested remainder to his only son 1st defendant herein, which is the fact known to one and all including the plaintiff. Thereafter, there were misunderstandings between K.Ramchander Singh and 1st defendant and Ramchander Singh who was dissatisfied with the acts of 1st defendant, with an intention to safeguard his property and to protect his properties from being wasted by 1st defendant, as 1st defendant started demanding his father to sell away some of the properties and to give him money to meet his personal expenses, thus he got executed an unregistered Will dated 28.2.1994 where under he cancelled the earlier Registered Will executed by him on 25.7.1991 and bequeathed his properties to the 2nd defendant who is the wife of the 1st defendant. In the said will half share in the house bearing No.1-30, Main Bazar, Kurnool was bequeathed in favour of his wife Sumithra Bai with limited rights and thereafter vested remainder to the 2nd defendant. In the said Will

K.Ramchander Singh bequeathed 1/4th share in Nataraj Theatre, Dharma

Pet, Kurnool in favour of 1st defendant and except his share in Nataraj

Theatre he bequeathed all his movable and immovable properties in favour of 2nd defendant. Thereafter, K.Ramchander Singh died on 16.11.1995. After death of K.Ramchander Singh the Will dt.28.12.1994 has come into force and 2nd defendant became absolute owner of Item

Nos.1 to 3 and 5. As per the desire of the propounder of the will,

Sumithra Bail enjoyed half share of the house with the limited rights and she died intestate on 19.9.1999. Thereafter the 2nd defendant became absolute owner of the half share in house bearing No.1-30.

d.1st defendant who got 1/4th share in the Nataraj theater as per the Will has already sold it to others and the said will is not 88 questioned by anybody including the plaintiff till date. Hence, the Will was acted upon and the 2nd defendant being the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as per the Will dt.28.12.1994 executed registered Gift deed in favour of her son/3rd defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff have no share in the plaint schedule property. 1st defendant has wasted several valuable properties to meet his vices and demanded 2nd defendant to provide money by selling some of the properties to meet his unlawful desires of continuing his illicit contacts with woman and tried to deal with the properties detailed in the plaint schedule. As such, the 2nd defendant filed OS.7/2007 against the 1st defendant and on the advise of the court the matter was referred to Lok-adalath and Lok- adalath award was passed on 9.4.2007, in which 2nd defendant is declared as owner of the plaint schedule properties in OS.7/2007 by virtue of Will dt.28.12.1994 executed by K.Ramchander Singh. 2nd defendant never cared about her health and welfare either by the plaintiff or her husband. The plaintiff kept an eagle eye over wealth of 2nd defendant and instead of taking care of her, tortured her parents and brothers to provide property to her. 2nd defendant knowing the selfishness of the plaintiff did not agree to provide properties to the plaintiff.

e.On the other hand, 3rd defendant took care of parents I.e.

defendants 1 and 2 in all aspects and also got performed heart surgeries. Thus, 2nd defendant executed registered gift deed dt.30.12.2015 in favour of 3rd defendant in respect of the plaint schedule properties and delivered possession of the same. Since then 3rd defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and no one have got right in the same. The marriage of the plaintiff was performed in great scale by presenting 99 valuable gold, silver and other valuable articles running in lakhs in those days by incurring heavy debts to satisfy the demands of the plaintiff and her in-laws and despite of that he also executed a registered gift deed for valuable properties as admitted by her, but not satisfied with the same got filed the present suit with a malafide intention. 3rd defendant took responsibility of family and also discharged several debts of 1st defendant and strived by sacrificing his life for betterment of the family and welfare of his parents. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. Defendant no.3 filed separate written statement which is nothing but replica of the written statement of 1st defendant.

Defendants 5 and 6 adopted the written statement of 1st defendant 6.Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule properties into five equal shares and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share by metes and bounds?

2. To what relief?

6. During course of trial, the plaintiff examined herself as Pw1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on her behalf. On the other hand, defendants examined 1st defendant as DW1 and marked Ex.B1 to B9 and also examined 3rd defendant as DW2 and he marked Exs.B10 to B13 on behalf of the defendants.

7.Heard on both sides.

8. ISSUE NO.1:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule properties into five equal shares and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share by metes and bounds?

1010 a.The plaintiff to prove that plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties and that she is entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties got examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint in her examination in chief and in support of her oral version got marked the following documents.

Ex.A.1:Original Registered Gift Deed dated .18.1.2000 executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2:Endorsement issued by Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool under Rs.No.4847/A/3/2000 with Assessment No.1016034718/719 FOR d.nO.1- 30-1 AND 1-30-2 (two)

Ex.A.3:Office copy of the legal notice dated 25.4.2016.

Ex.A.4: Postal receipts six in number.

b.PW1 in her cross-examination deposed that she was born in 1973 and she is B.Com Graduate and subsequently she completed

P.G.Diploma course in computer applications. Her marriage was performed with one Charan Singh, Bombay and at that time she was aged about 27 years. They shifted their famiy to Hyderabad and then her husband left to Saudi Arabia. They have only one daughter. She started working in software company as a customer service executive and presently working as Ajile led and in a comfortable position. She pleaded ignorance what are the other properties possessed by their family despite of the suit properties. She do not know what are the properties sold by her father and also do not know the list of the properties of her father had and she did not make enquiry about the same. On further question she deposed that her father constructed

Nataraj Theatre and sold it. She admitted about Ramchander Singh is brother of Anantha Ram Singh and also admitted partition between them. In the said partition plaint schedule properties along with other 1111 properties fell to the share of her grand father Ramchander Singh. She admitted that her grandfather executed a Will in the year 1991 and due to the behaviour of 1st defendant i.e. illicit contacts with other woman, her father was living separately from her grandfather. She denied that her grandfather revoked the will of 1991 and executed another Will on 28.12.1994 bequeathing property for life time enjoyment to the grandmother and vested remainder to the 2nd defendant. She admitted about filing of OS.7/2007 by her mother and passing of Lok-Adalath award. She also have knowledge that 2nd defendant executed gift deed in favour of 3rd defendant basing on the Lok-Adalath Award. She admitted that she did not mention about partition between Ramchander

Singh and Anantha Ram Singh and the partition between 1st defendant and his father. She admitted that 3rd defendant joined their mother in

Apollo Hospital at Chennai for Heart valve re-placement and he bore all expenses. She again stated that 4th defendant being Doctor at Chennai has borne all the expenses. She also admitted that 1st defendant was also admitted in Apollo Hospital for Open Heart Surgery and further stated that 1st defendant met with road accident and sustained multiple injuries to his right leg, but she do not know that he was bed-ridden for 5 months consequently. She was not informed about her father’s open heart surgery, as such she did not visit him. She also have no knowledge that her mother was in hospital for 2 to 3 weeks prior to her death.

9. a. To rebut the version of the plaintiff, the defendants examined 1st defendant as DW1. He reiterated the contents of written statement in his examination in chief and in his cross-examination by 3rd defendant counsel got marked the following documents:

1212

Ex.B1:Xerox copy of the proceedings of Income Tax Office dated 1.11.1978.

Ex.B2:Copy of the proceedings of Income Tax Office dated 29.3.1990

Ex.B3:Certified copy of Unregistered Will dated 28.12.1994

Ex.B4:Lok-Adalath Award in OS.7/2007 on the file of I Addl.District Court, Kurnool.

Ex.B5:Registered Gift deed dated .30.12.2015

Ex.B6:Registered Will of the year 1991 in favour of 1st defendant.

b.DW1 who is sailing with 3rd defendant got admitted in his cross-examination by D3 about the partition between Anantha Ram

Singh and Ramchander Singh on 19.4.1975 and the same being recognized by the Income tax Department, Kurnool under Exs.B1 and B2 and subsequently Ramchander Singh being the father of 1st defendant executed first Will under Ex.B6 and thereafter executed Ex.B3 cancelling

Ex.B6 and bequeathed his property giving life time estate to his wife and vested remainder to D2 (wife of 1st defendant) and basing on the said Will 2nd defendant filed OS.7/2007 and the matter was settled

before Lok-Adalath under Ex.B4 and subsequently 2nd defendant

executed Registered Gift Deed dated 30.12.2015 under Ex.B5 in favour of 3rd defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property.

c.In the cross-examination by the plaintiff counsel, he stated that he is retired Government servant and a pensioner. Unless he has spectacles he cannot read anything. He deposed that D5 and D6 are wife and daughter of his son Dinesh Singh who died earlier. He denied that D5 and D6 were harassed by him and they are living at Bombay, but stated that D5 and D6 are their family members and their welfare is looked after by Defendant no.3 and at present they are living at Mumbai due to employment. He admitted that original Wills dated .24.7.1991 1313 and 28.12.1994 are not filed before the court and he cannot say the reasons for the same. He admitted that he executed Ex.A1 Gift deed in favour of the plaintiff conveying the property i.e. two shops bearing

Nos.1-30-1 and 1-30-2 and the properties were handed over to the plaintiff. Previously he owned Nataraj Theater and it fell to the share of his father, they both have equal shares in the theater, but theater was sold by him along with his younger son and eldest daughter-in-law.

Plaintiff and Defendant no.4 are not parties to that sale transaction. He pleaded ignorance that Nataraj Theater was sold in court auction and his creditors got sold the property. He admitted that execution of agreement of sale dated 6.6.1994 in the name of Parvathamma wife of

Advocate by name Shankarappa of Nandikotkur and they filed suit for specific performance of contract in OS.41/1999. He pleaded ignorance that he mortgaged the same property to one Guru Raja Rao on 27.5.1995 and Guru Raja Rao obtained a decree against Defendants 1 and 3 in OS.218/2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Kurnool. DW1 stated that S.V.Mohan Reddy cleared all his debts, out of the sale consideration amount of Nataraj theater.

d.DW1 further stated that he sold several properties and none of his children questioned the sale of Nataraj Theater or other properties. He denied that his children thought that share will be given to them in the rest of the properties, as such they kept quiet. He denied that the Award in OS.7/2007 is a collusive award. He further stated that plaintiff used to demand for cash and gold from 2nd defendant without considering her health condition. Further, the plaintiff delivered a child at Hyderabad and they borne all the expenses. He admitted that plaintiff is suffering from cancer at final stage.

1414

The Wedding card of plaintiff along with receipts of Lions Club are marked as Ex.B7. Letter written by 1st defendant to plaintiff is marked as Ex.B8 and postal cover is marked as Ex.B9.

e.DW2 who is none other than 3rd defendant filed his chief affidavit reiterating the contents of his written statement and in support of his oral version got marked the following documents.

Ex.B10: Original memorandum of partition dated 5.4.1982 took place in between late K.Ramchander Singh and K.P.Kesari Singh/D1

Ex.B11: Original Proceedings dated 29.3.1990 of Income tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurnool (2 in number)

Ex.B12: Original endorsement dated 13.6.2008 issued by Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool in favour of 2nd defendant.

Ex.B13: Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.7/2007 filed by K.Raja Rajeswari / D2 against K.R.Kesar Singh / D1..

DW2 in his cross-examination deposed that he is doing construction business in the name of Aditya Construction, but he is not maintaining any separate office and that himself and 1st defendant are residing jointly. He admitted that he did not plead about partition between 1st defendant, himself and Dinesh Singh. He denied that there is only one Will dated 24.7.1991 and other Will dated .28.12.1994 is a created one. The certified copy of agreement of sale – cum – irrevocable General Power of attorney dated 6.8.2003 is marked as

Ex.A5. He denied that to give colour and sanctity to Ex.B3, his parents filed OS.7/2007 and that to scree off properties from the reach of creditors of 1st defendant, they got created Ex.B3.

10.As observed from the evidence available on record before the court, it is observed that plaintiff by examining herself as PW1 1515 deposed that suit properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendants 1, 3 to 6, as such she have 1/5th share in the plaint schedule properties. In support of her oral version she got marked the

Gift deed executed by her father /1st defendant in her favour in respect of two shop rooms with Door Nos.1-30-1 and 1-30-2 and the same was delivered to her and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same by receiving rents of the said two shops. Ex.A2 is the Proceedings issued by Municipal Corporation, Kurnool mutating the name of plaintiff for the property covered under Ex.A1. Ex.A3 is the notice issued by the plaintiff to D1 & D2 calling for partition of the plaint schedule property, Ex.A4 is the postal receipts.

11.PW1 in her cross-examination categorically admitted that there was partition of property between her grandfather K.Ramchander

Singh and his brother Anantha Ram Singh and they enjoyed their respective shares, as their exclusive property. Subsequently, there was partition of property between her grandfather and her father / 1st defendant and her father lived away from her grandfather due to his vices. 1st defendant who is none other than the father of plaintiff sold

Nataraj theatre along with D3, D5 and D6 under Ex.A5, in which the partition between Ramchander Singh and Anantha Ram Singh was referred as well as the partition between Ramchander Singh and 1st defendant is also referred. Further, there is also recital about the partition between 1st defendant and his two sons i.e. 3rd defendant and deceased Dinesh Singh, which shows there is no joint family property.

Therefore, the evidence of plaintiff discloses that there was partition between her grandfather and her grandfather’s brother, and thereafter partition between her grandfather and her father / D1 and 1616 thereafter the properties were fallen to the share of grandfather, at first bequeathed to her father under a Registered will / Ex.B6 in 1991, but subsequently Ex.B6 was cancelled and another unregistered Will under

Ex.B3 was executed by Ramchander Singh bequeathing his share of property giving life estate to his wife Sumithra Bai and vested remainder to the 2nd defendant who is none other than the wife of 1st defendant as 1st defendant is demanding his father to dispossess the property and give money to him to meet his vices. Subsequent to death of Sumithra

Bai the entire property devolved upon the 2nd defendant and she became absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties. As the 1st defendant was demanding the 2nd defendant to sell the properties and give money to him, the 2nd defendant to safeguard her properties filed

OS.7/2007 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kurnool and the

same was referred to Lok-Adalath and Lok-Adalath award was passed declaring the plaint schedule properties are the absolute properties of 2nd defendant basing on the unregistered will of 1994 / Ex.B3 executed by Ramchander Singh. Acting upon the said Lok-Adalath award the 2nd defendant executed a registered Gift deed under Ex.B5 in favour of 3rd defendant in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Though the plaintiff disputed about the Lok-Adalath award/ Ex.B4 and execution of gift deed under Ex.B5 by 2nd defendant in favour of 3rd defendant, did not question the Lok-Adalath award until filing of this suit, even though she have knowledge of the same on the date of passing of award itself.

Moreover, admittedly Ex.A1 was executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff and she is enjoying the same as her exclusive property and she did not include the said property in the suit for partition of the same.

12.On the other hand, defendants by filing the proceedings of

Income Tax Office, Kurnool dated 1.11.1978 under Ex.B1 and 29.3.1990 1717 under Ex.B2 proved the partition between 1st defendant, 3rd defendant and deceased Dinesh Singh was recognized by Income Tax Department, as well as the earlier partition between Anantha Ram Singh and

Ramchander Singh. Therefore, when once the properties are divided they have lost the character of coparcenery and joint family property.

Further, Ramchander Singh executed unregistered Will under Ex.B3

dated 28.12.1994 bequeathing his share of property in favour of his

daughter-in-law who is defendant no.2 herein, after death of

Ramchander Singh and his wife Sumithtra Devi, 2nd defendant became absolute owner of the property and the same is also recognized by court of law in the Lok-Adalath award passed in OS.7/2007 under Ex.B4 under which the rights of 2nd defendant was declared and it was not questioned by anybody including plaintiff until filing of the present suit.

Thereby, the 2nd defendant executed registered Gift deed on 30.12.2015 in favour of 3rd defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property under Ex.B5.

13.The learned defendants’ counsel relied upon the following decisions:

I. 2000 (5) ALT 577, Board OF Trustees OF THE Port OF

Visakhapatnam Vs. Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok-Adalat –

cum Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam

and another, wherein their lordships held that:

Lok-Adalat Award is deemed to be a decree of Civil Court passed on compromise and it is final and the award is not subject to judicial review.

ii. 2024(1) ALT 783 (AP), Thatha Venkata Balaji Vs.

Smt.Gudela Ranga Mani, wherein their lordships held that:

The best evidence in the case is an admission of opposite party and the admissions are valuable evidence, because the 1818 party herself admits it being true. Thus, it may reasonably presume to be so until the presumption is rebutted. Hence, the fact admitted must be taken to be established. The court has to consider various parameters so as to appreciate the oral evidence on the point by testing the same on the touchstone of the two important yardsticks viz., the probabilities and surrounding circumstances among various other parameters.

In the case on hand, Lok-Adalath award was passed in OS.7/2007 long back on 9.4.2007 and it is to the knowledge of plaintiff herein and she never questioned the said Lok-adalath award until filing of the present suit. Further Ex.A5 agreement of sale - cum – irrevocable

General Power of attorney dated 6.8.2003 executed by Defendants 1,3, 5 and 6 is also not questioned by the plaintiff till date and further the plaintiff herself admitted about the partition between her father and grandfather, as such her grandfather executed Ex.B3 Will in favour of her mother which cannot be disputed and thereafter to the knowledge of plaintiff Ex.B4 Lok-Adalath Award was passed and then 2nd defendant executed Ex.B5 in respect of the plaint schedule properties in favour of 3rd defendant cannot be questionedby the plaintiff. Therefore, admittedly, the plaint schedule property is not ancestral property or joint family property and that it was exclusive property of Ramchander

Singh and it devolved upon 2nd defendant and subsequently to 3rd defendant under valid documents. Hence, the above referred decisions are squarely applicable to the present case facts.

14. When the past partition is proved by the defendants and it is also admitted by the plaintiff in her cross-examination and that plaintiff did not question the sale of Nataraj theater and certain other properties under Ex.A5 which are said to be the joint family properties 1919 as per the admission of the plaintiff and the plaintiff not showing the properties given to her under Ex.A1 as joint family properties shows the malafide intention of the plaintiff to grab the suit schedule property by hook and crook and got filed the present suit.

Therefore, in the light of my above discussion, I hold that suit property is not liable for partition and the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in it and the suit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

15.ISSUE NO.2: To what relief?

In view of my foregoing discussion and findings in issue no.1, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as claimed by her and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

16.In the result, the suit is dismissed and in the circumstances of the case considering the relationship between the parties without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcription corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court this the 18 th day of September, 2025.

IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For plaintiffs: For defendants:

PW1: K.Shailaja Singh DW1: K.R.Kesar Singh.

DW2: K.R.Brijesh Singh.

Exhibits marked For plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1:Original Registered Gift Deed dated .18.1.2000 executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff.

2020

Ex.A.2:Endorsement issued by Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool under Rs.No.4847/A/3/2000 with Assessment No.1016034718/719 for D.Nos.1- 30-1 and 1-30-2 (two)

Ex.A.3:Office copy of the legal notice dated 25.4.2016.

Ex.A.4: Postal receipts six in number.

Ex.A.5:Agreement of sale - cum – irrevocable General Power of attorney

dated 6.8.2003 executed by D1, D3, D5 and D6.

For defendants:

Ex.B1:Xerox copy of the proceedings of Income Tax Office dated 1.11.1978.

Ex.B2:Copy of the proceedings of Income Tax Office dated 29.3.1990

Ex.B3:Certified copy of Unregistered Will dated 28.12.1994

Ex.B4:Lok-Adalath Award in OS.7/2007 on the file of I Addl.District

Court, Kurnool.

Ex.B5:Registered Gift deed dated .30.12.2015

Ex.B6:Registered Will of the year 1991 in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.B7:Wedding card of the plaintiff along with receipt of Lions Club.

Ex.B8:Letter written by 1st defendant to plaintiff

Ex.B9:Postal cover.

Ex.B10:Original memorandum of partition dated 5.4.1982 took place in between late K.Ramchander Singh and K.P.Kesari Singh/D1

Ex.B11Original Proceedings dated 29.3.1990 of Income tax Officer,

Ward-1, Kurnool (2 in number)

Ex.B12Original endorsement dated 13.6.2008 issued by Kurnool

Municipal Corporation, Kurnool in favour of 2nd defendant.

Ex.B13Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.7/2007 filed by K.Raja Rajeswari against K.R.Kesar Singh / D1.

IV ADJ, KNL.