O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 1
APVS070001732017
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
AT ANAKAPALLI.
Present : VELAMALA NARESH, X Addl. District Judge, Anakapalli.
Friday this the 06th day of February, 2026
Original Suit No.47 /2017
Between:
1) Midatada Bangaramma, W/o. Paidam Naidu, Aged 35 years, Household duties, Residing at D. No.1-118, Anthakapalle Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Aadhar No.588606488645;
2) Maddu Lakshmi, W/o. Srinu, Aged 33 years, Household duties, Residing at D. No.11-32, Adireddypalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Aadhar No.724297421643; and
3) Barla Pavani, D/o. Koteswararao, Aged 22 years, Residing at D. No.1-118, Anthakapalle Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Aadhar No.260781556493. …Plaintiffs And:
1) Lagudu Appalanaidu, S/o. Late Simhachalam, Aged about 65 years, Cultivation, Residing at Anthakapalle Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District;
2) Lagudu Govinda, S/o. Appalanaidu, Aged about 31 years, Cultivation, Residing at Anthakapalle Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District;
3) Vanam Sree Rama Murthy, S/o. Swamy Naidu, Aged 37 years, Cultivation, Residing at Anthakapalle Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District; and
4) Vanam Narasinga Rao, S/o. Appalanaidu, Aged 38 years, Cultivation, Residing at Anthakapalle Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Defendants
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 2
This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 30-01-2026 in the presence of SriP. A. Narasimham, S. P. Naidu & B. Appa Rao, Ld. Advocates for Plaintiffs, and of N. S. V. Reddy, Ld. Advocate for Defendants 1 & 2, and 3rd & 4th Defendants were remained exparte as per docket dated 02-05-2018, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.Consequent to the filing of the suit, with the following averments, by the
Plaintiffs against the Defendants seeking passing of preliminary decree of
Partition of the plaint schedule properties into five equal shares and to put each of the Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 & 2 with one such share by metes and bounds and for future profits apart from maintenance to 3rd Plaintiff @
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month, apart from costs of the proceedings, the present judgment arises.
2.The 1st Plaintiff/Midatada Bangaramma, 2nd Plaintiff/Maddu Lakshmi, the 3rd Plaintiff/Barla Pavani’s Late mother Varalakshmi are daughters and the 2nd
Defendant/Lagudu Govinda is son of the 1st Defendant/Lagudu Appala Naidu through his wife Gangamma and the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the Defendants 1 & 2 constituted as Hindu undivided joint family to which D1 is acting as “kartha” - cum-“manager”.
(i)The joint family possessed plaint ‘A’ schedule mentioned immovable properties and ‘B’ schedule mentioned movables of gold, silver, brass, copper etc.
(ii)During the childhood of the 3rd Plaintiff Pavani, her mother
Varalakshmi died intestate.
(iii)The 1st Defendant improved the family properties, with the income of the family properties he purchased Ac.0-48 cents of land covered by Sy. No.318/1 (Item No.21 of plaint ‘A’ schedule) of Gorlavanipalem village of Sabbavaram mandal, the 2nd Defendant became greedy and he started
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 3 insisting his father D1 to implement his terms and thereby D2 could bring D1 into his folds and later they colluded together with a specific intention of avoid giving legitimate shares to the Plaintiffs, but to enrich the 2nd Defendant and in pursuance of their collusion, D1 & D2 stopped giving shares of income of the joint family to the Plaintiffs apart from neglecting the 3rd Plaintiff by not providing anything for her sustenance, and as such, the 3rd Plaintiff is entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) from
D1 & D2 for a period of three years preceding filing of the suit and apart from that the Defendants 1 & 2, by getting annual net agricultural income of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) are bound to provide educational expenses, residence, marriage expenses apart from maintenance.
(iv)In view of the attitude of D1 & D2, the Plaintiffs thought that it would not be safe for them to keep joint their shares of properties of the joint family with D1 & D2, for partition of schedule properties D1 & D2 agreed but on one pretext or the other they prolonged the issue consequently the Plaintiffs got issued demand notices to D1 & D2 through their counsel on 01-05-2017 seeking partition of schedule properties for enabling them to get their legitimate shares and providing of maintenance, residence, marriage expenses, etc., to the 3rd Plaintiff. However the Defendants even after receipt of demand notice did not comply the mandate of the notice, but they got filed caveat OPs before several Courts in Anakapalli with false averments through the act of which the Plaintiffs could understand that with a view to avoid giving legitimate shares to the Plaintiffs, D1 & D2 have been making hectic efforts for creation of documents in the names of their henchmen including D3 & D4 in respect of the plaint schedule properties which have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs with D1 & D2.
(v)Even if D1 & D2 succeed in creating any documents in respect of the plaint schedule properties, such documents do not bind the Plaintiffs who as per law have 1/5th share each in all the plaint schedule properties.
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 4
(vi)The refusal or abstinence of D1 & D2 in giving legitimate shares to the Plaintiffs in respect of the schedule properties forced the Plaintiffs to file the suit.
With the said averments, the Plaintiffs requested the Court to pass a preliminary decree of partition in their favour and against the Defendants for partitioning the plaint schedule properties into five equal shares and to allot one such share to each of them by metes and bounds and for giving past maintenance of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Only) by the Defendants 1 & 2 to the 3rd Plaintiff and for mesne profits apart from costs of the suit proceedings.
3.D3 to D4 remained exparte.
4.D2, with the following averments, filed his written statement which was adopted by D1 through a Memo.
(a) Most of the plaint averments, except the relationship of parties inter- se, are incorrect, and the suit is not maintainable under either law or facts.
(b) There is no joint family at all, and as such, the question of joint family properties does not arise.
(c)The plaint schedule properties fell towards the share of D2.
(d)The Plaintiffs got issued legal notice to D2 with false averments by suppressing real things.
(e)D1 is an employee in Dock Labour Board, Visakhapatnam and all the plaint schedule properties except Item No.19 of plaint ‘A’ schedule belonged to D2 as they are self acquired properties of D1.
(f)D1 maintained the entire family and acquired Item Nos. 1 to 18 and 20 to 23 of plaint ‘A’ schedule with his own earnings.
(g)D1 got performed marriages of the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and
Varalakshmi the mother of the 3rd Plaintiff by sustaining huge expenses and by
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 5 giving gold, cash etc. to his daughters and as such, there is no need for D1 for giving shares to the Plaintiffs in Item Nos. 1 to 18 and 20 to 23 of plaint ‘A’ schedule.
(h)When 3rd Plaintiff was one year old and in 1993, her mother
Varalakshmi died, since the date of death of Varalakshmi D1 & D2 looked after the welfare of the 3rd Plaintiff by sustaining the expenses of her studies and marriage and despite the said fact the 3rd Plaintiff colluded with the Plaintiffs 1 & 2 and she became a part to the present suit which contained false and frivolous allegations for getting illegal gain.
(i)For mature function of the 1st Plaintiff’s daughter Deepika, D1 and
D2 spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) and for 1st
Plaintiff’s son Anil Kumar’s treatment D1 & D2 spent Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs Only).
(j)D2 has a son/Narasimha who is physically challenged by suffering with 100% disability consequently D2 is being forced to spend more money for his maintenance and treatment apart from sustaining a lot of mental agony.
(k)Item No.19 of plaint ‘A’ schedule mentioned property of an extent of Ac.0-74 cents covered by Sy. No.554/6 and Ac.0-38 cents covered by
Sy. No.552/12 belonged to D2 as he got it from his maternal grandfather/
Nekkala Sunny through Registered Will, dated 16-06-1997 after the demise of
Sunny, subsequently the Revenue officials issued pattadar passbook and title deed book in favour of D2 in respect of the said property which has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of D2 being his separate and absolute property.
(l)The Plaintiffs never held joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and the Plaintiffs have no manner of right on the said properties which exclusively belonged to D1 & D2.
(m)The plaint schedule is incorrect.
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 6
(n)There is no cause of action for filing the suit.
With the said averments, D2 requested the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.
5.Basing on the above pleadings, the then Presiding Officer of this Court, on 18-01-2021, framed and settled the following Issues.
1) Whether the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants or not?
2) Whether D1 is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties except Item No.19 as alleged by D1?
3) Whether D2 became the owner of the Item No.19 of the plaint schedule properties by virtue of the Will dated 16-06-1997 said to have been executed by one Nekkala Sanni as alleged by the Defendants or not?
4) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession as prayed for?
5) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for future prospects as prayed for?
6) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for past maintenance as prayed for?
7) To what relief?
6.For substantiating their version the Plaintiffs apart from getting examined a 3rd party as PW3, got examined the 1st Plaintiff as PW1 and 1st Plaintiff’s husband as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8.
7.For substantiating their version, the Defendants 1 & 2, apart from getting examined DW3, got themselves examined as DWs 1 & 2 respectively and got marked Exs.B1 to B19.
8.Arguments of the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the contesting Defendants 1 & 2 are heard and perused the record.
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 7
9. While perusing the record for the purpose of preparation and pronouncement of judgment, this Court minutely went through the record and after such perusal, this Court felt the framed Issues to be in apt and irrelevant to the advanced pleadings of both parties to the litigation and consequently this Court, with the aid of Order XIV R 5 of CPC, recasts the issues as hereunder after ordering for deletion of earlier framed issues.
1) Whether plaint ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties are joint family properties of D1 as claimed by the Plaintiffs?
2) Whether Item Nos. 1 to 18 and 20 to 23 of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties are self acquisitions of the 1st Defendant as claimed by him?
3) Whether Item No.19 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property is individual and absolute property of D2 by getting the same from his maternal grandfather
Nekkala Sunny through a Registered Will dated 16-06-1997 as claimed by
D2?
4) Whether the paid Court fee is correct?
5) Whether filing of the suit is bad on the score of non joinder of necessary parties?
6) Whether the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled to Preliminary decree of partition and Plaintiff No.3 is entitled for plaint mentioned maintenance as sought in the plaint?
7) And To what relief?
10.Since the contesting parties to the suit and their respective counsel are conscious and aware of their respective advanced contentions and since their adduced evidence covered the above mentioned recasted Issues, this Court felt that there is no need for giving opportunity to both counsel for adducing further evidence on the recasted Issues as was held by Hon’ble High Court of
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 8
AP reported in 2005 (4) ALT Page No.415 held in Sabbisetti Jaganmohana
Rao vs. Gowrisetti Satteyya wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that where both parties know the case of other side and adduced evidence on any Issue in controversy, non framing of specific Issue is of no consequence.
ISSUES 1 TO 3:
1) Whether plaint ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties are joint family properties of D1 as claimed by the Plaintiffs?
2) Whether Item Nos. 1 to 18 and 20 to 23 of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties are self acquisitions of the 1st Defendant as claimed by him?
3) Whether Item No.19 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property is individual and absolute property of D2 by getting the same from his maternal grandfather
Nekkala Sunny through a Registered Will dated 16-06-1997 as claimed by
D2?
11.Since admittedly both parties to the proceedings belonged to Hindu religion, the matter is required to be probed and decided with reference to
Hindu Enactments particularly Succession Act.
(i)Admittedly under Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 daughters, on par with sons, are entitled for share in the joint family properties being coparceners.
(ii)Admittedly, the Plaintiffs 1 & 2 and 3rd Plaintiff’s mother
Varalakshmi are daughters and 2nd Defendant is son of the 1st Defendant through his wife Gangamma and Varalakshmi died leaving behind her husband Koteswara Rao and daughter Pavani/3rd Plaintiff as her legal heirs, and as such, Plaintiffs 1 and 2, 3rd Plaintiff Pavani and her father Koteswara
Rao by representing the estate of deceased Varalakshmi, D1 and D2 became coparceners of the family of D1.
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 9
(iii)Under the Amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005 if no family partition through proper document does not occur among the coparceners of the family prior to 20th December, 2004, regardless of gender every coparcener of the family is entitled for share in the ancestral joint family properties.
(iv)It is neither proved nor atleast contended by the Defendants that prior to 20th Dec. 2004 a valid and enforceable family partition took place in the family of D1 for partition of ancestral joint family properties.
(v)In view of substances of the immediate two preceding paragraphs, this Court holds that the Plaintiffs are coparceners on par with the
Defendants 1 and 2 and no property of the family of D1 was partitioned prior to 20-12-2004 and consequently this Court holds that the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 3rd
Plaintiffs’ father/Koteswara Rao are entitled for shares in the family properties of D1 provided the Plaintiffs succeed in proving that the schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of D1.
(vi)Unfortunately in their entire pleadings the Plaintiffs did not make a mention that D1 got ancestral properties through his lineal ascendants, the plaint schedule mentioned ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule immovable and movable properties either in total or partially contained ancestral properties of D1 and
D1 acquired any of the schedule properties with the help of the income deriving from such ancestral joint family nucleus of properties although burden of proof of the same is upon the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs alone.
(vii)The Plaintiffs relied Ex.A4 reveals Plot No.18 of plaint ‘A’ schedule of an extent of Ac.0-06 cents covered by Sy. No.639/9 of Anthakapalle village,
Sabbavaram mandal to be ancestral of D1 however the relevant recital of
Ex.A7, while disclosing the said extent of property to be of one Lavudu
Simhachalam whose relationship with the person or property of D1 was not proved or even not pleaded by the Plaintiffs, does not disclose Plot No.18 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to be ancestral of D1.
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 10
(viii) It is contended by the Plaintiffs that Plot No.17 of plaint ‘A’ schedule of an extent of Ac.0-03 cents covered by Sy. No.639/6 of
Anthakapalle village, Sabbavaram mandal to be ancestral of D1 however the relevant recital of Ex.A7, while disclosing its full extent of Ac.0-09 cents belonged to Lavudu Thata Pedamuthyam, Lavudu Yerrodu’s son Muthyalu,
Ramaswamy, Simhachalam, Chinamuthyam and Lavudu Yerrodu’s son
Muthyalu whose relationship with the person or property of D1 was not proved or even not pleaded by the Plaintiffs, does not disclose Plot No.17 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to be ancestral of D1.
(ix)It is contended by the Plaintiffs that Plot No.5 of plaint ‘A’ schedule of an extent of Ac.0-04 cents covered by Sy. No.265/5 of Anthakapalle village,
Sabbavaram mandal to be ancestral of D1 however the relevant recital of
Ex.A7, while disclosing its full extent of Ac.0-14 cents belonged to Lavudu
Chinamuthyam whose relationship with the person or property of D1 was not proved or even not pleaded by the Plaintiffs, does not disclose Plot No.5 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to be ancestral of D1.
(x)It is contended by the Plaintiffs that Plot No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule of an extent of Ac.0-03 cents covered by Sy. No.256/1, Plot No.3 of an extent of Ac.0-05 cents covered by Sy. No.263/12 and Plot No.6 of an extent of Ac.0- 20 cents covered by Sy. No.269/2 of Anthakapalle village, Sabbavaram mandal to be ancestral of D1 however the Plaintiffs could not place on record any sort of evidence particularly documentary to show that the said items of properties are ancestral or even family properties of D1.
(xi)It is contended by the Plaintiffs that Plot No.4 of an extent of Ac.0- 16 cents covered by Sy. No.263/25, Plot No.13 of an extent of Ac.0-12 cents covered by Sy. No.278/12, Plot No.14 of an extent of Ac.0-08 cents covered by
Sy. No.635/8, Plot No.21 of an extent of Ac.0-48 cents (23 cents + 25 cents) covered by Sy. No.318/1, Plot No.23 of an extent of Ac.0-05 cents (including
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 11 30½ more cents totaling to 35½ cents) covered by Sy. No.596/4, Plot No.12 of an extent of Ac.0-22 cents covered by Sy. No.271/12, Plot No.9 of an extent of Ac.0-13 cents covered by Sy. No.270/26 and Plot No.10 of an extent of
Ac.0-27 cents covered by Sy. No.271/6 are ancestral of D1 whereas the undisputed and unchallenged Exs.B1, B2, B3, B5 & B6 (as one document),
B8, B10, B14 & B15 being Registered Sale Deeds and by carrying presumption of correctness of those documents establish Item Nos.4, 13, 14, 21, 23, 12, 9 & 10 to be self acquired of D1 having been purchased by him from his vendors mentioned in them and further Ex.B9 gift deed that was executed by D1 in favour of D2 establishes D2 to be individual and exclusive owner of Ac.0-11 cents of land consisting of house bearing D. No.1-176
Assessment No.16 and Sy. No.596/4.
(xii)Though the Plaintiffs filed Ex.A4 document discloses Item No.12 of the plaint schedule property to be ancestral of D1, yet the filed and proved
Ex.B10 sale deed discloses Plot No.12 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to be self acquired of D1.
(xiii) The Plaintiffs claimed that Plot No.20 of ‘A’ schedule property of an extent of Ac.0-21 cents covered by Sy. No.191/1A to be ancestral of D1 however the said item of property as admitted by the Plaintiffs witnesses particularly PW2 who admitted Plot No.19 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property belonged to D2’s maternal grandfather Nekkala Sunny from whom D2 got all the properties of Nekkala Sunny under undisputed Ex.B19 Will and the testimony of PW3 who admitted that Plot No.19 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property belonged to Nekkala Sunny and Registered Sale Deed, dated 13-05-1977 disclose D1’s mother Simhachalam to have purchased an extent of Ac.0-65 cents covered by Sy. No.191 and thereby the available evidence discloses Plot No.20 of the plaint schedule property to be the property of D1’s mother, and as such, the said item of the property does not constitute to be
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 12 ancestral or family property of D1, but it constitutes to be individual property of
D1, who being absolute owner of the same, gifted Plot No.20 of the ‘A’ schedule property to his son D2 even prior to filing of the suit u/Ex.B18 and as such, the said item of property is individual and exclusive property of D2.
(xiv) Though Plot No.15 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property of an extent of
Ac.0-09 cents covered by Sy. No.636/9 was claimed by the Plaintiffs to be ancestral of D1, yet Ex.B3 discloses the said item of property apart from Plot
No.14 to be self acquired of D1 in pursuance of Ex.B3.
(xv)Though Plot No.16 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property of an extent of
Ac.0-20 cents covered by Sy. No.636/19 was claimed by the Plaintiffs to be ancestral of D1, yet Ex.B4 discloses the said item of property to be self acquired of D1 in pursuance of Ex.B4.
(xvi) In the preceding paragraphs this Court concluded Plot No.21 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property to be self acquired of D1 in pursuance of Exs.B5 &
B6 sale deeds and admittedly prior to filing of the suit D1 settled the said extent of property upon his son D2 through Ex.B7 gift deed and as such, the said item of property is individual and exclusive property of D2.
(xvii) As admitted by the Plaintiffs witnesses, Plot No.19 of the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac.0-74 cents covered by Sy. No.551/6 and an extent of Ac.0-38 cents covered by Sy. No.552/12A is an individual and exclusive property of D2 who got it from his maternal grandfather Nekkala
Sunny under Ex.B19 Will.
(xviii)The Plaintiffs claimed Plot No.11 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property of an extent of Ac.0-28 cents covered by Sy. No.271/9 to be ancestral of D1 however Ex.B16 sale deed, while disclosing D1 to have purchased an extent of Ac.0-06½ cents covered by Sy. No.271/9 and an extent of Ac.0-05½ cents covered by Sy. No.273/3, and while disclosing the said property to be of self
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 13 acquired of D1, makes false the Plaintiff’s version that the said item of property is ancestral or family property of D1.
(xix) Ex.B13, while falsifying Plot No.8 of ‘A’ schedule mentioned property and survey number, establishes D1 to have purchased an extent of
Ac.0-10 cents covered by Sy. No.255/14 within the mentioned boundaries and consequently the said item of property is not ancestral or family property of
D1, but it is self acquired by D1.
(xx)Ex.B12, while falsifying Plot No.7 of ‘A’ schedule mentioned property and survey number, establishes D1 to have purchased an extent of
Ac.0-09 cents covered by Sy. No.259/3 within the mentioned boundaries and consequently the said item of property is not ancestral or family property of
D1, but it is self acquired of D1.
(xxi) Ex.B11, while falsifying Plot No.2 of ‘A’ schedule mentioned property and survey number, establishes D1 to have purchased an extent of
Ac.0-15 cents covered by Sy. No.257/11 within the mentioned boundaries and consequently the said item of property is not ancestral or family property of D1, but it is self acquired of D1.
(xxii) Ex.B17, while falsifying Plot No.11 of ‘A’ schedule mentioned property and survey number, establishes D1 to have purchased an extent of
Ac.0-10 cents covered by Sy. No.273/3 and Ac.0-08 cents covered by Sy.
No.273/17 within the mentioned boundaries and consequently the said item of property is not ancestral or family property of D1, but it is self acquired of D1.
(xxiii)The 1st Plaintiff/PW1 instead of denying D1’s version that he used to work as employee in Dock Labour Board, Visakhapatnam, with his self earnings he purchased all the plots except 19 of plaint ‘A’ schedule and as such, the said items of properties are his self acquired, pleaded ignorance by deposing that she has no knowledge that her father was employee in Dock
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 14
Labour board, Visakhapatnam and he became retired from his service and further PW1, while admitting that her father/D1 has three brothers Muthyal
Naidu, Simhachalam and Surya Narayana, did not claim that father of D1 used to have ancestral properties, there occasioned family partition in respect of the said properties among the coparceners and in the said family partition
D1 got all items of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties towards his share.
(xxiv) PW2 the husband of PW1 by corroborating with the version of D1 admitted that D1 used to have employment in Visakhapatnam and he has no knowledge of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties except Item No.19 and similarly even PW1 who started and continued contending that she alone used to do cultivation in the cultivable lands covered by plaint ‘A’ schedule surprisingly admitted that she cannot give details of the properties mentioned in plaint ‘A’ schedule.
(xxv) PW3 who claimed to be village elder cum a person served as
Vice Sapranch of the village of D1 and who was alleged to have acted as one of the elders for settling the property disputes of D1 and D2 with the Plaintiffs deposed that he has no knowledge that D1 used to work in Dock Labour
Board though he and D1 hailed from and is residing in the same village, he cannot furnish particulars of the properties succeeded by D1 and he came to the Court for giving evidence on the request of PW1.
(xxvi) At this stage it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble High Court of AP reported in 2005 4 ALD Page 291 held in Pabbiti
Anjaneyulu vs. Pabbiti N. Ratnamaiah Chetty wherein the decision delivered Court held that property in the name of member of joint family, even, if proof of joint family exists, does not lead to presumption that property held by member of family to be joint unless and until anyone asserting that any item of property is joint establishes the same by acceptable evidence.
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 15
(xxvii) In view of the afore referred to decision, the Plaintiffs are legally bound to establish that the joint family has income yielding properties, such properties used to yield lot of income, such accrued income used to leave some surplus funds even after meeting all necessities of joint family and with such surplus income derived from joint family properties, one or more members of joint family purchased properties benami in their or in the names of others. However inspite of the said legal obligation, the Plaintiffs neither succeeded nor atleast evinced interest in discharging the said burden of proof and as a consequence thereof this Court is left with no other option than to hold that the properties stood in the names of D1 & D2 are their self acquired unconnecting with the joint family and its funds.
(xxviii) In view of the afore discussion, this Court holds that Plot Nos.1 to 18 and 21 to 23 of plaint ‘A’ schedule are not ancestral, but self acquired of
D1, Plot No.19 is individual and exclusive property of D2 and Plot No.20 is exclusive property of D1’s mother/Lagudu Simhachalam, W/o. Simhachalam and accordingly Issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered.
ISSUE NO.5
5) Whether filing of the suit is bad on the score of non joinder of necessary parties?
12.As admitted by the Plaintiffs, the 3rd Plaintiff/Pavani’s mother/
Varalakshsmi died during her childhood by leaving the 3rd Plaintiff and her father/Koteswara Rao as her legal heirs and despite such admission the
Plaintiffs without proving or even pleading the 3rd Plaintiffs father Koteswara
Rao to be no more, did not implead the said Koteswara Rao as one of the parties to the suit though under the provisions of Hindu law he gets ½ share in the properties if any of his wife Varalakshsmi.
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 16
(i)While admitting D1 to have three brothers and one sister and while not claiming occasioning of any family partition among them in respect of their alleged ancestral properties, the Plaintiffs did not implead the brothers and sister of D1 in the suit though even as per the version of the Plaintiffs the said unimpleaded persons too have interest in the schedule properties.
(ii)During the course of cross examination of DW1, the Plaintiffs admitted Plot No.20 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property stood n the name of D1’s mother/ Simhachalam, D1, along with brothers, jointly purchased some off the schedule properties, Plot Nos.17 & 18 of plaint ‘A’ schedule are in the names of his elder brother/Lagudu Muthyalaiah and Plot No.5 of schedule property stood in the name of his junior paternal uncle/Lagudu China Muthyam even as per Ex.A7 and inspite of the said fact the Plaintiffs did not implead the said title holders of the said items in the schedule though as per the admission of the
Plaintiffs the said unimpleaded persons have right and interest in the said items of properties.
In view of the afore reasons, this Court holds that filing of the suit is bad on the score of nonjoinder of necessary properties in the absence of whom effectual adjudication of the matter cannot be had, and accordingly Issue No.5 is answered.
ISSUE NO.4
4) Whether the paid Court fee is correct?
13.Admittedly plaint ‘B’ schedule property contained movables of gold and silver ornaments, furniture, brass and other utensils which have certain values in the public market.
(i)At this stage it is appropriate to have a glance at of Sec.7 of AP
Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act which runs thus:
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 17
Determination of market value:- Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market value of any property, such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.
Inspite of the above referred to legal mandate, the Plaintiffs did not file into Court the market value certificates of plaint ‘B’ schedule mentioned movables existed as on the date of filing of the suit, and as such, the paid
Court fee based on baseless and imaginary value of plaint ‘B’ schedule movables cannot at any cost be said to be in accordance with the mandate covered by Sec.23 of AP Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.
(ii)While answering Issues 1 to 3 this Court concluded the Plaintiffs to have no joint possession and enjoyment of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and consequently this Court holds that the Court fee paid by the Plaintiffs under Sec.34 (2) of AP Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act in respect of plaint ‘A’ schedule mentioned immovable properties is not according to law since the
Plaintiffs ought to have properly valued the suit claim and Court fee thereof be paid as mandated under Sec.34(1) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee & Suit
Valuation Act.
(iii)The Plaintiffs sought for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Twenty Thousand Only) towards past maintenance of 3rd Plaintiff for a period of one year preceding filing of the suit @ Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand Only) per month however the 3rd Plaintiff, being married woman and by having her husband living, cannot claim maintenance from her maternal grandfather/D1 and maternal uncle/D2 and at best she can claim maintenance from her father/Koteswara Rao if she proves that she was unmarried by the date of filing of the suit or from her husband Gowri Naidu if she proves that she was married by the date of filing of the suit, but not from both or either of D1 & D2 and further the Court fee is payable for recovery of
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 18 maintenance amount of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand
Only), but it was paid on Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand
Only) consequently it is not in accordance with Sec.22 of Andhra Pradesh
Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, this Court holds that the paid
Court fee for the claimed reliefs of the suit is not in accordance with but in contravention of the relevant provisions of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee & Suit
Valuation Act. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is answered.
ISSUE NO.6
6) Whether the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled to Preliminary decree of partition and Plaintiff No.3 is entitled for plaint mentioned maintenance as sought in the plaint?
14.In view of the specific observations given in Issues 1 to 5, this Court holds that the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are not entitled to preliminary decree of partition and the 3rd Plaintiff is not entitled for any maintenance and accordingly, Issue
No.6 is answered.
ISSUE NO.7:
7) And To What relief?
15.In view of the specific observations given in Issues 1 to 6, the suit deserves to be dismissed.
16. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 06th day of February, 2026.
Sd/- (V. NARESH)
X Addl. District Judge, Anakapalli.
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 19
Appendix of evidence
No. of witnesses examined for
Plaintiffs:
P.W.1: Midatada Bangaramma P.W.2: Maddu Srinu P.W.3: Gorle Apparao
Defendants:
D.W.1: Lagudu Appala Naidu D.W.2: Lagudu Govind D.W.3: Lagudu Simhachalam
No. of exhibits marked for
Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1Office Copy of Registered Lawyer's Notice got issued by the Plaintiffs to Defendants 1 & 2, dated 01-05-2017; Ex.A2Original Postal Receipts two in number, dated 05-05-2017;
Ex.A3 Original Postal Acknowledgments from Defendants 1 & 2, dated 09-05-2017; Ex.A4Certified Copy of 1-B for some of the lands in Anthakapalli Village in the name of the 1st Defendant, dated 08-09-2016; Ex.A5Certified Copy of 1-B for the lands in Tekkalipalem Village in the name of the 1st Defendant, dated 02-05-2017; Ex.A6Certified Copy of 1-B for the lands in Sabbavaram Revenue village in the name of 1st Defendant, dated 02-05-2017; Ex.A7Settlement Fair Adangal relating to Item Nos.17 & 18 of plaint schedule property (marked through DW1); and Ex.A8Certified Copy of Gift Deed, dated 04-01-2021 (marked through DW2).
Defendants:
Ex.B1Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.1057/1983 with reference to Item No.4, dated 06-04-1983; Ex.B2Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.1823/1983 with reference to Item No.13, dated 04-06-1983; Ex.B3Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.158/1988 with reference to Item No.15, dated 30-01-1988;
JUDGMENT
O. S. No.47/2017 X ADJC/AKP 20
Ex.B4Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.4984/1985 with reference to Item No.16, dated 20-12-1985; Ex.B5Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.1284/1987 with reference to Item No.21, dated 04-06-1987; Ex.B6Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.2931/1984 with reference to Item No.21, dated 04-06-1984; Ex.B7Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.1739/2017 with reference to Item No.21, dated 23-06-2017; Ex.B8Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.1537/1991 with reference to Item No.23, dated 12-06-1991; Ex.B9Extract of Registered Gift Settlement Deed brg. Doc. No.1847/2017 with reference to Item No.23, dated 03-07-2017; Ex.B10 Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.6259/2017 with reference to Item No.12, dated 06-09-2007; Ex.B11Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.2776/1999 with reference to Item No.2, dated 14-07-1999; Ex.B12 Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.3336/2003 with reference to Item No.7, dated 13-08-2003; Ex.B13 Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.114/2001 with reference to Item No.8, dated 29-01-2001; Ex.B14 Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.2422/2004 with reference to Item No.9, dated 04-06-2004; Ex.B15 Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.46/2002 with reference to Item No.10, dated 09-01-2002; Ex.B16 Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.176/2009 with reference to Item No.11, dated 07-02-2009; Ex.B17 Extract of Registered Sale Deed brg. Doc. No.1057/2008 with reference to Item No.11, dated 05-05-2008; Ex.B18 Extract of Registered Gift Settlement Deed brg. Doc. No.1740/2017 with reference to Item No.20, dated 23-06-2017; Ex.B19 Extract of Registered Will Deed brg. Doc. No.1190/1997, dated 16-06-1997.
Sd/- (V. NARESH)
X Addl. District Judge, Anakapalli.
JUDGMENT