Smt V.Satya Lakshmi Prasanna Vanapalli

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt.V.Satya Lakshmi Prasanna

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nandigama

Monday, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Original Suit No. 111 of 2016.

Between:

1.Tati Rudreswara Rao, S/o. Venkaiah (Died)

2. Tati Venkata Ramana **, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 37 years, Kirana shop and Cultivation, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

3.Tati Murali Krishna, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu,aged about 35 years, Kirana shop, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

4. Tati Siva Krishna, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 33 years, Teacher, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

5. Tati Hari Krishna, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu, aged 30 years, Medical shop, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

6. Kola Nandini, W/o. Srinivasa Rao. Hindu, House-wife, aged about 25 years, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

7. Tati Gopi Raja, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu, Student, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Anasagaram Village,Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

8. Tati Vamsi Krishna, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu,Aged about 24 years, Student, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

(Plaintiffs 2 to 8 are added as per order dt. 29.3.2023 in I.A.No.57/2023)

......Plaintiffs

And:

1. Tati Rama Krishna, S/o. Jagannadha Rao, aged about 48 years, Lecturer, R/o. Raithupet, Nandigama, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District 2.Tati Narendra, S/o. Jagannadha Rao, Hindu Aged 46 years, LIC Agent, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Nandigama Town & Mandal, Krishna District

3. Tati Raghava Rao, S/o. Jagannadha Rao, Hindu, Aged 44 years, Business, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District

4. Vonkera Lalitha Kumari,W/o.Vigneswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, House-wife, R/o. Anasagaran Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District .

5. Tati Lakshmi, W/o. late Prasad Rao, Hindu, aged about 53 years, House-hold, R/o. Anasagaram (v), Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

6. Adapa Ramadevi, D/o. Prasad Rao & W/o Seshagiri, Hindu, aged about 40 years, House-wife, R/o. Anasagaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District .

7. Tati Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Raghavaiah, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Cultivation, R/o. Anasagaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

8. Tati Koteswara Rao, S/o. Raghavaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, R/o Ansagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

9. Tati Yasodana Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, aged about 68 years, Astrologist R/o. 32-1-24/1, Cinema Street, Iswarya Enclave, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...... (Died)

10. Tati Joshi Prakash Rao, S/o Kotaiah ...... (Died) 11.Tati Dhanunjaya Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, S/o Kotaiah, Hindu, aged 60 years, Astrologist, R/o. Anasagaram village Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

12.Tati Lakshmi, W/o. late Satya Sankara Prasad, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Coolie, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal,

Krishna District.

13. Tati Kokila, D/o. late Satya Sankara Prasad , Hindu, aged about 15 years, Student, R/o. Anasagaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

14. Tati Pavani, D/o. late Satya Sankara Prasad, Hindu, 15 years, Student, R/o. Anasagaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

15.Mallempudi Timoti, S/o. late Harinath @ Philip Haranath Babu, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Student, R/o. Vegetable Market, Nandigama Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

16. Mallempudi Samuel @ Sundar Singh, S/o. Late Harinath @ Philip Harinath Babu, Hindu, Aged 42 years, R/o. Vegetable Market, Nandigama Town & Mandal, Krishna District.

17. Mallempudi Lurthia, S/o. Late Harinath @ Philip Harinath Babu, Hindu, Aged 45 years, R/o. Vegetable Market, Nandigama Town & Mandal, Krishna District.

18. Sunkara Devi, W/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 46 years, Housewife, R/o. Kanchala village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

19. Panakala Ashwini Naga Vinutha, D/o. Panakala Shyam Prasad and his wife Alivelu, 27 years, D.No. 1-4-266, RTC Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

20. Panakala Sai Aravind, S/o. Panakala Shyam Prasad and his wife Alivelu, 25 years, D.No.1-4-266, RTC Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

21. Panakala Sai Ashok, S/o. Panakala Shyam Prasad and his wife Alivelu, 25 years, D.No.1-4-266, RTC Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

22. Tati Chakradhar. S/o. Joshi Prakash Rao, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Door No. 61-88/10-2A, Ramalingeswara Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

23. Tati Sasidhar, S/o. Joshi Prakash Rao, Hindu, Aged about 35 years, Door No. 18-7-524/1, Kandigal Gate, Hyderabad, Telangana .... (DIED)

24. Tati Sridhar, S/o Joshi Prakash Rao, Hindu, Aged about 33 years, Door No. 5-342, K.B. Nagar, Nandigama Town & Mandal, Krishna District.

...... Defendants.

This original suit came up on 26.2.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri P.L.Narasimha Rao and Sri A.Sridhar, Advocates for the plaintiffs and Sri E.Ranga Rao, Advocate for defendants Nos. 7 and 8 and Sri

N.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for Defendant Nos.11 to 15 and 17 to 21, and

Sri D.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for defendant Nos.9,10, and 22 to 24 (suit against defendants 9,10, and 23 abated) and defendants Nos.1 to 6, and 16 were remained ex-parte and upon perusing the entire material on record, and after hearing on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for partition of plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares and for allocation of one such share to him by metes and bounds and for the costs of the suit.

1. The avermen ts of plaint in brief, are that :

(i).One Tati China Kotaiah had Ac.1.43 cents of agricultural land in

R.S.No.452/3 of Anasagaram village, Nandigama, Krishna District. He had three sons namely Tati Pitchaiah, Rama Swamy, and Narasaiah.

In turn, each of them has got one son namely Tati Kotaiah, Venkaiah, and Tati Rangaiah respectively. During the lifetime of China Kotaiah and of his three sons, no partition was affected in respect of the above referred agricultural lands and all of them died intestate. Subsequently, the son of Rama Swamy by name Tati Venkaiah died intestate around 55 years ago, leaving behind his only son Rudreswara Rao, who is the plaintiff herein. Tati Rangaiah also died around 48 years ago, leaving behind his four sons. Out of his children, his eldest son Jagannadha

Rao also died around 12 years ago, leaving behind his three sons and one daughter, who are arraigned as defendants Nos. 1 to 4 herein.

The 2nd son of Rangaiah also died around 16 years ago, leaving behind his wife Lakshmi and their daughter Adapa Rama Devi who are shown as defendants Nos. 5 and 6. His 3rd and 4th sons are alive, and they were shown as defendant Nos. 7 and 8.

(ii).The only son of Pitchaiah by name Tati Kotaiah died around 25 years ago, leaving behind his 4 sons and three daughters. His three sons were joined as defendant Nos. 9 to 11 and the legal heirs of his 4th son late Satya Sankara Prasad were added as defendant Nos. 12 to 14. Out of his three daughters, the 2nd daughter by name Sunkara

Devi is alive, and she was added as 15th defendant. The legal heirs of his eldest daughter Gnana Sundaramma and younger daughter

Alivelamma were shown as defendants 6 to 18 and defendant Nos.19 to 21, respectively. The 3 sons of defendant No.10 were shown as defendants Nos. 22 to 24.During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died intestate, leaving behind his children, and they were added as plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 8 as per orders in I.A. No.57/2023 dt.

29.3.2023.

2. The plaint schedule properties as described supra originally belonged to Tati China Kotaiah, and after his demise they were in the joint possession and enjoyment of his 3 sons, and after their demise, their respective sons came into its joint possession and enjoyment till their respective demise. Thereafter, the plaint schedule properties were devolved upon the 1st plaintiff and defendants jointly. Since then, they have been in continuous and joint possession and enjoyment of the above-referred-to properties without any interruption from any corner. During his lifetime, the only son of Tati Pitchaiah by name

Kotaiah worked as Village Munsif. He being the head of all three families of grandsons of late China Kotaiah, he managed to mutate his name in the revenue records in respect of schedule property and continued as enjoyer of the above-referred property as per the

Adangals. Said Kotaiah died around 25 years ago. However, even after his demise, the plaintiff and the legal heirs of late Raghavaiah and Kotaiah have been in continuous and joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties by raising seasonal crops therein until the last 10 years. Thereafter, as most of the defendants

Nos. 9 to 21 have been residing at different places, they have no access to cultivate the plaint schedule properties; therefore, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 raised grass for their cattle feed .

3.While the factual aspects stood thus, after formation of state capital of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, Guntur District, which is nearer to the plaint schedule property, the cost of the lands in the surrounding areas abnormally increased. Due to the said reason and also by taking advantage that the plaint schedule properties stood in the name of late Tati Kotaiah in revenue records, his legal heirs who are defendants Nos. 9 to 21 herein with a malafide intention to grab the entire schedule property by themselves brought into existence a partition deed dated 07.05.2013 vide doc.No.1559/2013 as if the schedule property belonged to late Tati Pitchaiah,and after his demise, his son late Tati Kotaiah inherited it. As per the partition deed, they divided the plaint schedule properties into A to G of schedule.

Subsequently, based on such partition deed, defendant No.10 and his 3 sons partitioned the ‘B’ schedule item that was said to have fallen to the share of 10th defendant into A and B schedules and got registered another partition deed dt.26.06.2013 vide doc. No 2069/2013. Hence, 3 sons of 10th defendant were added as defendants 22 to 24.

4. While the factual aspects stood thus, around 15 days back prior to the presentation of the plaint, while the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 were ploughing the plaint schedule properties for raising grass, defendant No.11 who is the resident of Anasagaram village, lodged a report before the police at Nandigama. After they were called to the police station, in the meantime the defacto complainant therein levelled the plaint schedule property in one night by demolishing 8 water tubs existing in the schedule land. At that juncture, the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3, 7, and 8 came to know about the execution of partition deed dt.7.05.2013 between the defendants 9 to 21 and the subsequent registered partition deed dt. 26.06.2013 between the 10th defendant and his 3 sons.

5. In fact, the schedule property which is the ancestral property of 3 sons of late Tati China Kotaiah, is liable to be devolved upon all the legal heirs of late Kotaiah, late Venkaiah, and late Rangaiah, and each branch is entitled to an equal share of 1/3rd in the suit schedule property. Subsequent to the complaint given by defendant No.11 to the police at Nandigama, he along with other defendants Nos. 12 to 24 have been seriously trying to alienate the plaint schedule properties with a malafide intention to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 8. As such, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for partition and also seeks the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 9 to 24 from alienating the plaint schedule property or any part of it to the third parties. Hence, the suit.

6.After receipt of the summons, initially defendants Nos. 1 to 8 remained ex parte. However, subsequently, defendants Nos. 7 and 8 filed I.A. 389/2022 and got set-a-side the ex parte order dated 07.09.2016. They filed their written statement supporting the case and contentions advanced by the plaintiff stating that the plaint schedule property is an ancestral property of grandsons of late Tati China

Kotaiah and these defendants are entitled to a 1/3rd share therein, being the legal heirs of Tati Raghavaiah. Hence, they prayed to decree the suit and allot the share as per their entitlement .

7.Defendant No.9 filed his written statement denying the plaint pleadings, and also the entitlement of the plaintiff to get the decree for partition of plaint schedule properties as prayed for. His written statement was adopted by defendant No.10, 20 to 24 by way of Memo.

8.The brief averments of written statement filed by the defendant

No.9 are as follows :

(i).He denied all the material assertions of plaint, and inter-alia, further stated that the plaint schedule property never be the property belonged to late China Kotaiah, who is the common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants. In fact, Tati Pitchaiah and Tati Veera

Bhadraiah jointly purchased an extent of Ac.2.86 cents in

R.S.No.452/3,and they have Ac.1.43 cents each therein.

Subsequently, Tati Kotaiah who is the father of defendant No.9 inherited the share of the property purchased by his father Tati

Pitchaiah. Accordingly, his name was mutated in the revenue records.

He also got pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the above referred property. Since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as an absolute owner till his demise. Thereafter, his legal heirs i.e defendant Nos.9 to 21 succeeded to his estate, including the plaint schedule property, and divided it among them under a partition deed dt. 7.5.2013. In turn, the share of defendants Nos.10 was again divided among him and his three sons under partition deed dt. 26.06.2013. Since the date of the above referred partition deeds, defendant No. 9 to 24 are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of their respective shares with absolute rights without any interruption from anybody. Therefore,there is no property as described in the plaint schedule that is available for partition among the plaintiff and defendants as sought for. In fact, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants 1 to 8 have any manner of right, title, or interest to seek partition of above referred properties and they are not the co-parceners nor co-sharers of the plaint schedule property at any point of time. Therefore, they have no right to question the validity of partition deeds executed between the legal heirs of late

Kotaiah.

(ii). In respect of land to an extent of Ac.1.43 cents belonged to Tati

Veera Bhadraiah; his son Tati Kondala Rao succeeded to such property after the demise of his father, subsequently, he settled an extent of Ac.0-95 cents out of the above land in favour of his daughter

Karri Padmavathi. Accordingly, her name was mutated in the revenue records, and she is also in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property settled in her name. Later on, disputes arose between her father Tati Kondala Rao, and one Puppala Rama Narasaiah with regard to the extent of Ac.1.43 cents belonged to Tati Veera

Bhadraiah. In that connection, the said Rama Narsaiah and others filed a declaration suit in O.S.137/2023 alleging that they have equal rights in the said property against Kondala Rao and his daughter Karri

Padmavathi. Consequently, Karri Padmavathi filed another suit in

O.S.380/2003 against Rama Narsaiah and others for the declaration of

her right and possession in respect of Ac.1.43 cents. Both suits were clubbed together, a joint trial was conducted, and a common judgment was rendered by the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandigama, whereby the suit filed by Rama Narsaiah in O.S.137/2003 was dismissed, whereas O.S.380/2003 filed by Karri Padmavathi was decreed. In the above two suits, the plaintiff herein gave his evidence as D.W.4 on behalf of Puppala Ram Narasaiah. In that suit, he categorically deposed that he has a share in the rest of Ac.1.43 cents i.e plaint schedule property in the group of Tati Kotaiah, Chapala

Venkatramaiah, and others instead of his heirs. The evidence in the above suit is contrary to the pleadings in the present case. Since he could not succeed in the earlier litigation, the plaintiff filed the present suit with all false pleas with a view to cause loss to the defendants. His failure to issue prior notice for partition speaks volumes about the falsity of his contentions. In fact, there is no land as described in the plaint schedule, and the boundaries were also incorrect. As of now the schedule property is divided into 18 separate bits. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of partition and even his contentions about his joint possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties is also false as such the court fee paid is incorrect. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

9.Defendant No.11 filed his written statement with same averments. His Written statement was adopted by the defendants 12 to 15, and 17 to 21.

10.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial.

1). Whether the plaintiffs and the defendants are in joint possession of the suit schedule property?

2). Whether the suit schedule property is the ancestral/joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants?

3). Whether the registered partition deed dated 07.05.2013 executed among the defendants 9 to 21 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?

4). Whether the registered partition deed dated 26.06.2013 executed among the defendants 10, 12 to 24 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?

5). Whether the Tati Veerabhadraiah and Tati Pitchaiah purchased the land of Ac.2.86 cents in a Doc. No: 452/3 having Ac. 1.43 cents and whether Tati Kotaiah S/o. Pitchaiah inherited the suit schedule property?

6). Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is correct ?

7). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties into three (3) equal shares and for allocation of one such share to the plaintiffs with separate possession, as prayed for ?

8). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration that the registered partition deeds dated 7.5.2013 vide Doc.No. 1559/2013 and another dated 26.06.2013 with Doc.No.2069/2013 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?

9). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 29 to 24 from alienating the suit schedule property in any third person in any manner, as prayed for?

10). To what relief ?

11. During course of the trial, 7th plaintiff was examined as P.W1. He got marked Ex.A 1 and A2. On the other hand, defendant No.11 was examined as

DW1.Ex.B1 to B5 are marked through him. Defendants 7 and 8 and 22 to 24 did not choose adduce any evidence.

12.Heard the learned counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants 11 to 15 and 17 to 21. Arguments on behalf of D7, D8 and D.22 to 24 treated as heard.

Issues 1 to 9 :

13.It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule property, which is an extent of Ac.1.43 cents of agricultural land in R.S.No.452/3 of

Anasagaram village, belonged to Tati China Kotaiah who is the grandfather of the plaintiff’s father Tati Venkaiah and his cousins Tati Kotaiah and Tati

Rangaiah. The original owner Tati China Kotaiah and his three sons, Tati

Pitchaiah, Tati Rama Swamy, and Tati Narasaiah died intestate without partitioning the above extent of land among themselves either during the lifetime of Tati China Kotaiah or after his demise. Subsequently, the schedule property equally devolved upon the sons of Tati Pitchaiah, Tati Rama Swamy, and Tati Narsaiah namely Tati China Kotaiah, Tati Venkaiah and Tati

Rangaiah. Being the head of their 3 families, Tati Kotaiah managed the plaint schedule properties, and by misusing his powers as a village Munsiff, he got his name exclusively mutated in the revenue records and continued as pattadar and possessor of the plaint schedule property even though it is the ancestral property of all the legal heirs of Tati Pitchayya, Tati Rama Swamy, and Tati Narasaiah. Hence, they claimed that the schedule property which is ancestral in nature, is liable to be partitioned into 3 equal shares and the plaintiff representing the branch of Tati Venkaiah is entitled to 1/3 rd share therein.

14.Conversely, defendant Nos. 11 to 15, 7 to 21, and 22 to 24 filed their written statement contending that the plaint schedule property is the self- acquired property of Tati Pitchayya, who is the eldest son of Tati China

Kotaiah. The said Tati Pitchayya purchased the above property along with Tati

Veera Bhadraiah in total to an extent of Ac. 2.86 cents, and after the demise of the original owner Tati Pitchaiah his share of land to an extent of Ac.1.43 cents which is the plaint schedule property herein, was legally and validly devolved upon his only son Tati Kotaiah who is the father of defendants Nos.

9 to 15 and grandfather of defendants 16 to 24. As such, his name was duly mutated in the revenue records,and after his demise, initially his children i.e his 4 sons and 3 daughters, divided the same among themselves, and thereafter defendant No.10 and his sons defendants Nos. 22 to 24 again partitioned the share of property that had fallen to the 10th defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff, and defendants Nos. 1 to 8 who are legal heirs of Tati

Venkaiah, S/o. Rama Swamy, and Tati Rangaiah, S/o. Narasaiah have no kind of interest in the schedule land and they are not entitled to get any share therein. Since the contesting defendants categorically denied the entitlement of the plaintiff to seek partition of the plaint schedule properties in the manner as prayed for in the plaint, and on the other hand, they are claiming partition of such property, stating that it is the ancestral property of all the parties to the suit, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to late Tati China Kotaiah, and being legal heirs of his three sons Tati Pitchaiah, Tati Rama Swamy, and Tati Narasaiah, all the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to get an equal share of 1/3rd representing the branches of Tati Kotaiah and his cousins Tati Venkaiah and Tati

Rangaiah.

15.To discharge their burden, plaintiff No.7 who isone of the sons of the original plaintiff, was examined as P.W.1. In his chief affidavit, he has reiterated all the material assertions made by his father as pleaded in the plaint. In support of his oral evidence, he got marked partition deeds executed between the defendant Nos. 10 to 24 as Ex.A1 and A2. He was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the defendant Nos. 11 to 15 and defendants 17 to 21 in part. Subsequently, his further cross-examination was deferred at the request of the defendants' counsel. Later on, he did not turn up even though several adjournments were given at the request of plaintiff’s counsel. Consequently, his evidence was eschewed as per the docket order dt.11.03.2024. Generally, it is the procedure adopted in practice that whenever a witness did not turn up after his examination in part, the appropriate step would be to close his evidence. But, in the case at hand, the entire chief examination and cross-examination of PW.1 in part were eschewed by this court from the consideration and thereafter the plaintiffs did not make any bona fide effort either to set aside that docket order or to adduce any further evidence on their behalf. As such, there is no oral or documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs on record.

16. As per their pleadings, the plaintiffs claimed that the schedule property is their ancestral property as it belonged to late Tati China Kotaiah, who is a great-grandfather of their father Tati Rudreswara Rao. However, there is no evidence on record to show that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to said Tati China Kotaiah. The plaintiff failed to produce any deed of conveyance to show that said Tati China Kotaiah had purchased the schedule property and they have not even examined any other independent witnesses to say that the schedule property is the ancestral property of said

Tati China Kotaiah. The material on record shows that there are some revenue records that stood in the name of Tati Kotaiah who is the father of defendants Nos. 9 to 15, and they show that the schedule property is the self- acquired property of late Tati Pitchaiah, who is the eldest son of Tati China

Kotaiah and he is the father of common ancestor of defendants 9 to 24. As can be seen from the plaint pleadings, it is an admitted fact that said Tati

Pitchaiah had one son Tati Kotaiah. As per the material available on record, pattadar passbook, title deed,and Adangal were issued in the name of the said Kotaiah. Even though the original plaintiff contended that being the head of three families of said Tati Kotaiah, Tati Venkaiah, and Tati Rangaiah, by taking advantage of his designation as a Village Munsiff, said Kotaiah managed to get his name mutated in the revenue records, such a contention does not stand for scrutiny. If at all, his name has been mutated by illegal means and in the manner as contended by the plaintiffs; certainly his cousins

Tati Venkaiah, and Tati Rangaiah and, after their demise their legal heirs i.e., the original plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 would have questioned the illegality of such entries before the appropriate forum. But as per the plaint pleadings they have not taken any such steps and kept silent, which supports the legality of these entries in the revenue records.

17.Moreover, even though it is another contention of the plaintiffs that, despite such mutation, all the plaintiffs and defendants were in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, they failed to file any revenue record, particularly account No.3 Adangal, to show that some of them, much less any one of them, were shown as enjoyer and possessor of the plaint schedule property at any point of time after the demise of Tati

Kotaiah and his cousins Tati Venkaiah and Tati Rangaiah. If really, the plaint schedule property is his ancestral property, no genuine claimant would wait for decades together without claiming his share therein. Therefore, this court concludes and holds that the plaintiffs utterly failed to prove their case and contentions by adducing sufficient evidence. Lack of any form of evidence in support of their plaint pleadings suggests that originally the plaintiff Tati

Rudreswara Rao filed this suit with false assertions.

18.On the other hand, to prove the defence put forward by the defendants Nos. 11 to 15 and 17 to 21 they examined defendant

No.11 as D.W.1. His chief affidavit is nothing but a replica of their written statement contents. Even though he was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, no material could be elicited in support of their case, except, about the relation between the plaintiffs and defendants that they are the legal representatives of Tati

Kotaiah, Tati Venkaiah, and Tati Rangaiah who are the grandsons of

Tati China Kotaiah. Coming to the documentary evidence adduced on their behalf, he got marked Exs. B1 to B5 and they are pattadar pass - book issued in the name of Tati Kotaiah, title deed stands in the name of said Kotaiah. Ex.B3 consists of 3 Adangals for the fasali years 1402, 1403, 1409, and 1411-1415 in respect of the plaint schedule property.

Ex.B4 is attested copy of RSR issued by Deputy Tahsildar,

Nandigama and Ex.B5 is Account No.3 of Adangal for the fasali year 1425.

19. Upon perusal of Ex.B4 which is the attested copy of RSR, it shows that the total extent of land in R.S.No. 452/3 is Ac.2.86 cents and it stood equally in the name of Tati Veerabhadrayya and Tati

Pitchayya. Even though an RSR is not a standalone document to prove the title of an individual, it is one of the relevant documents in the determination of ownership. Ex.B4 shows the ownership of Tati Pitchaiah, who is the paternal grandfather of defendants Nos. 9 to 15, and it is his self-acquired property.

Therefore, being the only son of said Pitchaiah, the father of defendant Nos. 9 to 15 by name Tati Kotaiah, had inherited the same from his father and accordingly got his name mutated in the revenue records as evinced from the entries in Exs.B1 and B2 pattadar passbook and title deeds. Upon a collective consideration of Exs. B1, B2, and B4, this court holds and concludes that the plaint schedule property is not the ancestral property of late China Kotaiah’s sons, and as a sequel it is to be further held that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 are not entitled to seek a share therein.

20.Further, the entries in Ex.B3 and B5 Adangals proved that in recognition of Pitchaiah's ownership of suit lands, his name has been continued in revenue records for a long length of time, and after his demise, his only son Tati Kotaiah came into possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of that property. Under such circumstances, it is to be held that the exclusive and self-acquired property of late Tati Pitchaiah cannot be ordered for partition among the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 7 and 8. Under these circumstances this court holds and concludes that the defendants 9 to 15 duly inherited the plaint schedule property from their late father Tati Kotaiah and subsequently they legally devided the same under Ex.A1/ partition deed.

Thereafter, the share of 10th defendant was again devided among him and his 3 sons under Ex.A2 partition deed. Thus, they are legally valid and binding upon the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 8. Therefore, as the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendants Nos. 11 to 15 and 17 to 21, supported and proved their pleadings, this court is of the considered opinion that the suit property is not amenable to partition as sought for. As a result, the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed with costs.

Issue.10 :

21. In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined for)

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1: Tati Gopi Raja.

For Defendants:

D.W.1: Tati Dhanunjaya Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao.

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Extract copy of Registered Partition deed dt 07.05.2013 vide doc. No. 1559/2013 obtained from Mee seva executed among Tati Yashodhana Rao, Dhanunjaya Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao and others.

Ex.A.2: Extract copy of Registered Partition deed dt 26.06.2013 vide doc. No. 2069/2013 obtained from Mee seva executed among T.Joshi Prakasa Rao,Chakradhar, Sasidhar and Sridhar.

For Defendants:

Ex.B1: Pattadar passbook issued in the name of Tati Kotaiah ( Father of D.W.1)

Ex.B2: Title deed book issued in the name of T. Kotaiah ( Father of D.W.1).

Ex.B.3: True extract of No.3 Adangal for Fasali 1402/1992-1993, 1403/1993-1994,1994-1995, 1409/99-2000, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1415 in respect of the suit schedule property.

Ex.B.4: Attested copy of RSR in respect of suit schedule property issued by the Tahsildar, Nandigama.

Ex.B.5: Certifide copy of No.3 Adangal for fasali year 1425 issued in respect of the suit schedule property.

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt.V.Satya Lakshmi Prasanna

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nandigama

Monday, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Original Suit No. 111 of 2016.

Between:

1.Tati Rudreswara Rao, S/o. Venkaiah (Died)

2. Tati Venkata Ramana **, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 37 years, Kirana shop and Cultivation, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

3.Tati Murali Krishna, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu,aged about 35 years, Kirana shop, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

4. Tati Siva Krishna, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 33 years, Teacher, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

5. Tati Hari Krishna, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu, aged 30 years, Medical shop, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

6. Kola Nandini, W/o. Srinivasa Rao. Hindu, House-wife, aged about 25 years, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

7. Tati Gopi Raja, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu, Student, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Anasagaram Village,Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

8. Tati Vamsi Krishna, S/o. late Rudreswara Rao, Hindu,Aged about 24 years, Student, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

(Plaintiffs 2 to 8 are added as per order dt. 29.3.2023 in I.A.No.57/2023)

......Plaintiffs

And:

1. Tati Rama Krishna, S/o. Jagannadha Rao, aged about 48 years, Lecturer, R/o. Raithupet, Nandigama, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District 2.Tati Narendra, S/o. Jagannadha Rao, Hindu Aged 46 years, LIC Agent, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Nandigama Town & Mandal, Krishna District

3. Tati Raghava Rao, S/o. Jagannadha Rao, Hindu, Aged 44 years, Business, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District

4. Vonkera Lalitha Kumari,W/o.Vigneswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, House-wife, R/o. Anasagaran Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District .

5. Tati Lakshmi, W/o. late Prasad Rao, Hindu, aged about 53 years, House-hold, R/o. Anasagaram (v), Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

6. Adapa Ramadevi, D/o. Prasad Rao & W/o Seshagiri, Hindu, aged about 40 years, House-wife, R/o. Anasagaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District .

7. Tati Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Raghavaiah, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Cultivation, R/o. Anasagaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

8. Tati Koteswara Rao, S/o. Raghavaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, R/o Ansagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

9. Tati Yasodana Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, aged about 68 years, Astrologist R/o. 32-1-24/1, Cinema Street, Iswarya Enclave, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...... (Died)

10. Tati Joshi Prakash Rao, S/o Kotaiah ...... (Died) 11.Tati Dhanunjaya Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, S/o Kotaiah, Hindu, aged 60 years, Astrologist, R/o. Anasagaram village Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

12.Tati Lakshmi, W/o. late Satya Sankara Prasad, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Coolie, R/o. Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

13. Tati Kokila, D/o. late Satya Sankara Prasad , Hindu, aged about 15 years, Student, R/o. Anasagaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

14. Tati Pavani, D/o. late Satya Sankara Prasad, Hindu, 15 years, Student, R/o. Anasagaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

15.Mallempudi Timoti, S/o. late Harinath @ Philip Haranath Babu, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Student, R/o. Vegetable Market, Nandigama Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

16. Mallempudi Samuel @ Sundar Singh, S/o. Late Harinath @ Philip Harinath Babu, Hindu, Aged 42 years, R/o. Vegetable Market, Nandigama Town & Mandal, Krishna District.

17. Mallempudi Lurthia, S/o. Late Harinath @ Philip Harinath Babu, Hindu, Aged 45 years, R/o. Vegetable Market, Nandigama Town & Mandal, Krishna District.

18. Sunkara Devi, W/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 46 years, Housewife, R/o. Kanchala village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

19. Panakala Ashwini Naga Vinutha, D/o. Panakala Shyam Prasad and his wife Alivelu, 27 years, D.No. 1-4-266, RTC Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

20. Panakala Sai Aravind, S/o. Panakala Shyam Prasad and his wife Alivelu, 25 years, D.No.1-4-266, RTC Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

21. Panakala Sai Ashok, S/o. Panakala Shyam Prasad and his wife Alivelu, 25 years, D.No.1-4-266, RTC Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

22. Tati Chakradhar. S/o. Joshi Prakash Rao, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Door No. 61-88/10-2A, Ramalingeswara Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

23. Tati Sasidhar, S/o. Joshi Prakash Rao, Hindu, Aged about 35 years, Door No. 18-7-524/1, Kandigal Gate, Hyderabad, Telangana .... (DIED)

24. Tati Sridhar, S/o Joshi Prakash Rao, Hindu, Aged about 33 years, Door No. 5-342, K.B. Nagar, Nandigama Town & Mandal, Krishna District.

...... Defendants.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for partition of plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares and for allocation of one such share to him by metes and bounds and for the costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 8.8.2016.

Plaint numbered on : 8.8.2016.

Particulars of suit claim:

For partition of plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares and for allocation of one such share to him by metes and bounds and for the costs of the suit. The suit is valued U/s 34 (2) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act .

The market value of the plaint schedule property as per MVA issued by Sub- Registrar, Kanchikacherla is at Rs… 49,00,000/-

The value of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff is Rs….16,33,333/- 3/4th value of the Market Value of the plaintiff is Rs.. 12,25,000/-

On which a fixed C.F of Rs. 200/- is paid U/s 34(2) of APCF and

S.V.Act, 1956.

The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction is

Rs. 12,25,000/- U/s 50 (2) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

Cause of action:-

The cause of action for the suit arose on and from 29.7.2016 when the 11th defendant lodged a complaint before the Nandigama Police Station against the defendants 3,7,8 and son of the plaintiff on the basis of fraudulent registered partition deed dt. 7.5.2013 and 26.6.2013 claiming title over the entire plaint schedule property and all of sudden in a night, he got levelled the plaint schedule property and the defendants 9 to 24 are vehemently trying to alienate the plaint schedule property and subsequently at Anasagaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna district where the plaint schedule property is situated which is within the jurisdiction of the court.

This original suit came up on 26.2.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri P.L.Narasimha Rao and Sri A.Sridhar, Advocates for the plaintiffs and Sri E.Ranga Rao, Advocate for defendants Nos. 7 and 8 and Sri N.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for Defendant Nos.11 to 15 and 17 to 21, and Sri D.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for defendant Nos.9,10,and 22 to 24 (suit against defendants 9,10, and 23 abated) and defendants Nos.1 to 6, and 16 were remained ex-parte and upon perusing the entire material on record, and after hearing on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth the order and made the

DECREE.

1. That the suit be and the same is here by dismissed.

2. That the plaintiff do pay a sum of Rs.34,335/- to the defendants 11 to 15, 17 and 21 and Rs.80,402/- to the defendant Nos.9,10, and 22 to 24 towards costs of the suit.

3. That the costs Memo filed by the plaintiff is certified at

Rs.40,602/- ( A copy of schedule is herewith attached along with decree )

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama.

Memorandum of costs.

For the plaintiff : For the defendants :

S.No.ParticularsPlaintiffForFor defds. Rs.defds.15,19,10,22,23 7 to 21

1.Vakalat2.002-002-00

2.Plaint fees200.00

3.Stamp on petitions-

4.Process Fee200-00

5.Court fee affixing - on document

6.Publication 0.00 Charges

7.Commissioner Fee0.00

8.Advocate’s Fee30,000-0025,000-0060,000-00

9.Junior Adv.fee10,000-008,333-0020,000-00

10.Writing Charges100-00500-00200-00

11.Typing Charges100-00500-00200-00 Total costs Rs40,602-00 34,335-00 80,402-00

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama.

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt.V.Satya Lakshmi Prasanna

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nandigama

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Original Suit No.11/2018.

Between:

1. Raghavapurapu Navyasree, D/o Divakar, Hindu, aged 12 years, Student, R/o Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Raghavapurapu Sai Sahiti ,D/o Divakar, Hindu, aged 8 years, Student R/o Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

( plaintiffs 1 and 2 being minors rep. by their mother and natural Guardin, Raghavapurpu Usha Rani, W/o Divakar, Hindu, aged 33 years,House wife, R/o Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District. Plaintiffs. And:

1. Raghavapurapu Divakar, S/o Ramalingeswara Rao, Hindu, aged 40 years, R/o.D.No.9-36, Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

2. Burugula Ratnakumari, W/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 45 years, House wife, R/o.D.No. 7-127, Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

3. Panuganti Brahmam, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years ,R/o Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

2

4. Grandhi Venkata Nagalakshmi, W/o. Sangaiah, Hindu, aged 36 years, Housewife, R/o Door No. 10-108, Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

5. Sunkara Rajyalakshmi, W/o Peda Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged 31 years, House wife, R/o Door No. 8-94, Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

6. Chunduri Mangalamba, W/o Babu Rao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Housewife, R/o Plot No. 402, Vijay Sai Plaza, Rajula Bazaar, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada city, Krishna District.

Defendants

This original suit came up on 7.4.2026, before me for arguments in the presence ofSri. T.V.V.S. Sarma, Advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri.P.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No. 1 and of Sri

V.Prabhakar Rao, Advocates for defendants 2 to 4, and of Sri. P.

Koteswara Rao, Advocate for defendant 5, and of Sri. G.V. Sravan

Kumar,Advocate for defendant 6, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the mother of minor plaintiffs against their father and others for partition of item Nos. 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties into three equal shares, and for allocation of one such share each to them by metes and bounds by declaring that the sale deeds dated 01.04.2015 and 3 3.11.2018 executed in favour of the 5th and 2nd defendants and registered mortgage deed dt 22.6.2015 stood in the name of 6th defendant are not binding upon them, and for costs of the suit.

2. The avermen ts of plaint in brief, are that:

(i). Item Nos. 1 to 3 of plaint schedule properties which are a vacant site of 36 Sq.Yards in R.S.No.446/1, a house site to an extent of extent of 181.6 Sq.Yards consists of RCC building bearing D.No.9-36 in R.S.No.367/2, and another house site of 390 Sq. Yds in R.S.No.459/2 situated at

Kanchikacherla are the ancestral properties of plaintiffs' paternal grandfather by name Ramalingeswara Rao. He acquired the above referred to properties in a partition effected between him and his brothers on 17.6.2000 under a registered partition list. Subsequently, in the partition of joint family properties between him and his two sons including defendant

No.1 herein and his brother Murali, effected under a registered partition deed dt.13.10.2014, the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of 1st defendant. Since then he had been in 4 possession of enjoyment of the above properties. Defendant

No.1 addicted to bad vices like consumption of alcohol and gambling; as such, he did not take care of the plaintiffs and their mother Usha Rani and he harassed his wife both physically and mentally. Finally, in the month of December 2014 he deserted and neglected his wife and children. Since then, the plaintiffs and their mother have been residing separately at their maternal grandparents' house in

Kanchikacherla, and leading their lives with their financial assistance. Though the mother of the plaintiff approached her husband and requested him to provide educational expenses of their minor daughters and for their maintenance, he has not evinced any interest to provide the amounts as requested .

(ii).While the matter stood thus, the mother of the minor plaintiffs came to know through their relatives and villagers that a tom tom was held in the village for attachment of item

No.2 of plaint schedule properties by the court for realization of debts borrowed by the 1st defendant from 3rd parties for his bad vices. After thorough enquiry, she came to know that 5 defendant No.1 had already sold out item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties to the 5th defendant under a registered sale deed dt 1.4.2015 for a consideration of Rs.1,62,000/-.

Like wise, he also disposed of item No.3 of the plaint schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed dt 3.11.2014. In turn, the defendant No.2 sold away an extent of 97 Sq. Yards to the 4th defendant under a registered sale deed dt. 20.8.2015. On the same day, he disposed of the remaining extent in favour of the 3rd defendant under a registered sale deed bearing No.7449/2015. Apart from that, her husband also executed a mortgage deed in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in the name of 6th defendant under a registered mortgage deed dated 22.6.2015.In fact, the above documents are sham and nominal and created by defendant 1 for the purpose of defeating the legitimate rights of his minor daughters.

(iii).After she learnt about 3rd party interest created by defendant No.1 in item Nos 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties as described above, the mother of minor plaintiffs 6 requested her husband and also demanded him to cancel the above referred sale deeds and mortgage deed and to co-operate in partitioning the plaint schedule properties among their minor daughters and their father and for allocation of 2/3rd share to the minor plaintiffs. He did not chose to comply with the above demands and requests. Therefore, having no other option, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit for the reliefs as mentioned above. Hence this suit.

2.After receipt of summons, defendants 1 to 5 made their appearance. However, despite lapse of statutory period defendant No.1 failed to file his Written statement.

Accordingly, his right to file written statement was forfeited as per docket order dt.14.8.2018. Defendant 6 remained ex parte.Defendant No.s 2 to 5 filed their common written statement denying the entitlement of the plaintiff’s to claim the reliefs as sought for in their plaint. Inter alia, they further stated that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of paternal grandfather of plaintiffs by name Rama

Lingeswara Rao, who had acquired them and some other 7 properties in the family partition effected between him and his brothers under partition list dated.17.6.2000. They also admitted that in the subsequent partition effected between said Ramalingeswara Rao and his two sons, the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of defendant No .1.

However, they denied the allegations made in the plaint that defendant No.1 has disposed of the plaint schedule properties for his bad vices by creating some false and sham documents in the name of defendant Nos 2 to 6.

(ii). After acquisition of the plaint schedule properties under the registered partition deed dt 13.10.2014, the 1st defendant intended to construct an R.C.C. building in item

No.2 of the plaint schedule property, for which he offered to sell item No.3 of schedule properties. After negotiations, the 2nd defendant purchased the same for a sale consideration of Rs.

5,85,000/- under a registered sale deed dt 3.11.2014. As per the recitals of the above sale deed, it is categorically mentioned that the vendor has disposed of the schedule property for the 8 benefit of his family. Later on, he also sold away item No.1 of the plaint schedule property for his family necessities to the 5th defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- under a registered sale deed dt 1.4.2015.Even in the registered mortgage deed dt.

22.6.2015 executed in the name of the 6th defendant it is mentioned that the mortgagor has borrowed the amount for his family expenses. Therefore, defendant No.1 has disposed of item Nos 1 and 3 of plaint schedule properties and mortgaged

Item No.2 for his legal necessities.

(iii).In fact, there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit which was filed in collusion with their father Raghavarapu Diwakar. Even as on the date of present suit, the plaintiffs and their mother Usha Rani were residing along with the 1st defendant under a common roof in item No.2 of plaint schedule RCC building. In proof of their joint living there is a house hold white ration card issued in the name of the 1st defendant on 26.2.2018 containing the photograph of defendant 1, his wife, and children. That itself shows that the 9 documents executed in the name of defendants 2 to 6 are valid and binding upon the plaintiffs.Under the above circumstances, the plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property and even the valuation of suit is improper and court fee paid therein is insufficient for the reason that in view of alienation of item

No.s 1 and 3 of suit schedule properties in the name of 5th and 2nd defendants, the plaintiffs are not in their joint possession along with defendant No.1.Therefore, their suit deserves to be dismissed with costs.

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

1. Whether the suit schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the first defendant ?

2. Whether the registered sale deed dt 01.04.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the fifth defendant, registered mortgage deed dt 22.06.2015 executed by the first defendant in favour of 6th defendant, registered sale deed dt. 03.11.2018 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, are null and void not binding on the plaintiffs ?

10

3. Whether the registered sale deed dt 20.8.2015 executed by the second defendant in favour of fourth defendant vide document No. 7445/2015 and another registered sale deed dt 20.08.2015 executed by the second defendant, in favour of third defendant are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs ?

4. Whether the valuation of the suit in the plaint is correct ?

5. Whether court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct ?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties into three equal shares and for allocation of two such shares to the plaintiffs with separate possession thereof holding that the registered sale deeds and mortgage deeds executed by the defendants 1 and 2, are not binding on the plaintiffs ?

7. To what relief?

5. During course of the trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, their mother was examined as P.W.1 and she got marked Exs A1 to A6. At the stage of cross-examination of

PW1, the suit was dismissed for default and subsequently restored to its file as per orders in I.A.No. 287/2015. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the defendants.

11

6.Heard the counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants and perused the material on record.

7. Issues 1 to 6:

Since all these issues are inter related, for the sake of convenience in marshaling of facts and appreciation of evidence, this court would like to take up them together for discussion. The plaintiffs filed the instant suit seeking partition of the plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares and for allocation of one such share to each one of them. In their pleadings,they have specifically claimed that all the above properties are the ancestral properties of their grandfather who had acquired the same in the partition of his father’s joint family properties among his brothers in 2000, and in a subsequent partition of his joint family properties between him and his sons viz., Defendant No.1 and one Murali, the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of their father/ defendant 1. They also contended that even though both plaintiffs are the members of their joint 12 family headed by the defendant No.1 as ‘Karta’, ignoring their rights, he alienated the plaint schedule properties for his personal expenses and for his bad vices. They further contended that he neglected the plaintiffs and their mother without seeing their welfare, and despite a number of oral demands and requests he did not show any concern to pay the amounts for their maintenance or to come forward for partition of the plaint schedule properties by initiating steps for cancellation of deeds of conveyance executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6.

On the other hand, defendants 2 to 5 denied the plaintiffs entitlement to the relief as prayed for, by contending that all the schedule properties were legally disposed of by defendant No.1 for his family necessities.

Therefore, all those alienations would be binding upon the plaintiffs who are minors.

8.In the case at hand, there is no dispute about mode of acquisition of the plaint schedule properties by the father of defendant No.1, and subsequent devolution of 13 those properties upon him in a partition effected by way of a registered partition deed executed in the month of October 2014. Up on a perusal of documents marked on behalf of minor plaintiffs, they show that the father of the plaintiffs had disposed of item No.1 of in favour of the 5th defendant and item No.3 in favour of the 2nd defendant for valuable sale consideration for the benefit of his family and their joint family necessities.

9 Even though, the mother of minor plaintiffs reiterated the plaint averments in her chief affidavit that those alienations are malafide and illegal in the eye of law, during her cross-examination by defendant No.1 and other defendants, she categorically admitted that her husband had alienated the plaint schedule properties for the benefit of their joint family to meet the educational expenses of their children and other urgent necessities of their joint family. She further admitted that all the above alienations would be binding upon all the members of their joint family including the minor children. In this context it will be 14 helpful to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Sri Narayana Bal and Others Vs Sri

Sridhar Sutar and others reported in (1996) 8 SCC 54 wherein it was held that, “ Joint Hindu family is capable of acting

through it’s ‘karta’ or the adult member of the

family in management of joint hindu family

property. Where a karta has alienated the joint

family property either for legal necessity or for the

benefit of estate it would bind the interest of all

individual members of the family even when they

are minors".

10. Therefore, when it is evident from the documents exhibited by the plaintiffs that their father had legally disposed of item Nos. 1 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties for the legal necessities of their joint family, and

P.W.1 also admitted that the object behind the above transfers is legally valid, this court is of the considered opinion that the sale deeds executed infavour of 2nd and 5th defendants and mortgage deed executed in the name of 6th 15 defendant are legally valid; and thus, binding upon the plaintiffs. Consequently, this court holds and concludes that they have no right to challenge those transfers and thereby to seek partition of the plaint schedule schedule properties as urged in their plaint. Accordingly, issues No.1 to 6 are answered.

11. Issue No.7:

In view of the findings recorded in issues No.1 to 6, this court concludes and holds that the suit deserves to be dismissed.

12. In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer,transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 17th day of April 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama.

16

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined for)

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintiffs:- For Defendants

P.W.1: Raghavapurapu Usha Rani..None ..

Documents marked on behalf of plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of the registered partition deed dt. 13.10.2014 executed among Raghavarapu Ramalingeswara Rao, Raghavarapu Murali and the 1st defendant.

Ex.A.2: Certified copy of registeed sale deed dt 3.11.2014 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant.

Ex.A.3: Certified copy of sale deed dt 1.4.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 5th defendant.

Ex.A.4: Certified copy of registeed Mortgage deed dt 26.2.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 6th defendant.

Ex.A.5: Certified copy of registeed sale deed dt 20.08.2015 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 4th defendant.

Ex.A6 : C.C. of registered sale deed dt 20.8.2015 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 3rd defendant.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:- NIL.

Civil Judge(Senior Division)

Nandigama.

17

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt.V.Satya Lakshmi Prasanna,

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nandigama

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Original Suit No.11/2018.

Between:

1. Raghavapurapu Navyasree D/o Divakar, Hindu, aged 12 years, Student, R/o Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Raghavapurapu Sai Sahiti D/o Divakar, Hindu, aged 8 years, Student R/o Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

( plaintiffs 1 and 2 being minors rep. by their mother and natural Guardin, Raghavapurpu Usha Rani W/o Divakar, Hindu, aged 33 years,House wife R/o Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

... Plaintiffs.

And:

1. Raghavapurapu Divakar S/o Ramalingeswara Rao, Hindu, aged 40 years, R/o D.No. 9-36, Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

2. Burugula Ratnakumari W/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 45 years, House wife R/o D.No.7-127, Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

3. Panuganti Brahmam S/o Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years, R/o Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

18

4. Grandhi Venkata Nagalakshmi W/o Sangaiah, Hindu, aged 36 years, Housewife, R/o Door No. 10-108, Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

5. Sunkara Rajyalakshmi W/o Peda Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged 31 years, House wifem, R/o Door No. 8-94, Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

6. Chunduri Mangalamba W/o Babu Rao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Housewife, R/o Plot No. 402, Vijay Sai Plaza, Rajula Bazaar, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada City, Krishna District.

...Defendants

This suit is filed by the mother of minor plaintiffs against their father and others for partition of item Nos 1 to 3 of plaint schedule properties into three equal shares and for allocation of one such share to them by declaring that sale deeds dated 01.04.2015 and 3.11.2018 executed in favour of the 5th and 2nd defendants and registered mortgage deed dt 22.6.2015 stood in the name of6th defendant as null and void and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 22.1.2018.

Plaint numbered on: 23.1.2018.

Particulars of suit claim:

For partition of plaint schedule property is into 3 equal share s and allotment of 2 shares to the plaintiff with metes and bounds and separate possession thereof :

19

Value of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as per market value certificate issued by the Sub -Registrar,

Kanchikacherla, dt 27.12.2017 is ………….Rs. 3,92, 400-00

Value of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property as per market value certificate issued by the Sub -Registrar,

Kanchikacherla, dt 27.12.2017 is ………….Rs. 7,78, 480-00

Value of the item No.3 of the plaint schedule property as per market value certificate issued by the Sub -Registrar,

Kanchikacherla, dt 27.12.2017 is …….Rs.. 14,43,000-00

Total market value is …. Rs.. 26,13,980-00

The value of 2/rd plaintiff’s share is Rs.. 17,42,653-00 3/4th value of the plaintiff’s share is Rs.. 13,06,990-00

Total suit value is Rs.. 13,06,990-00

On Rs. 13.06,990/- a C.F of Rs. 200 is paid U/s 34 (2) of A.P.C.F .S.V.Act.

The cause of action for the suit arose on and from the year 2014 when the 1st defendant neglected and deserted the plaintiff’s and their mother Usha Rani to their fate; on and from when the mother of the plaintiffs +came to know about the Tom Tom conducted by the Court authorities in the village for attachment of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, on and from when the mother of the plaintiffs

Usha Rani enquired and came to know about the alienattions made by 20 the 1st defendant in respect of the plaint schedule properties on and from when the mother of the plaintiffs several times demanded the 1st defendant to cancel the sale deeds and cooperate for partition of the plaint schedule properties, but the 1st defendant did nto come forward to cooperate for partition of the plaint schedule properties; and subsequently at Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District, where the plaint schedule properties are situated, which are wihtin the jurisdiction of the court.

This original suit came up on 7.4.2026, before me for arguments in the presence ofSri. T.V.V.S. Sarma, Advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri.P.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No. 1 and of Sri

V.Prabhakar Rao, Advocates for defendants 2 to 4, and of Sri. P.

Koteswara Rao, Advocate for defendant 5, and of Sri. G.V. Sravan

Kumar,Advocate for defendant 6, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court, this court doth the order and made the

DECREE.

1. that the suit be and the same is here by dismissed

2. that there be no costs.

( Copy of schedule is here with attached )

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 17th day of

April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama.

21

Memorandum of costs.

No costs Memo filed on either side.

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama.

22

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt.V.Satya Lakshmi Prasanna,

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nandigama

Monday this the 2nd day of March, 2026.

Original Suit No.35/2022.

Between:

1.Chirumamilla Subba Rao S/o Koteswara Rao, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Lotha Bellamkondavari Palem, Nandigama (erstwhile Krishna District)

2. Chirumamilla Bhujanga Rao S/o Ramaiah, Aged about 20 years , Occ: Agriculture, R/o Chandapuram (V), Nandigama (M), N.T.R District (erstwhile Krishna District)

..Plaintiffs.

And:

1. Kuntamukkala Venkata Siva Krishna S/o K. Rama Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Thotacherla (V), Penuganchiprolu (M),

N.T.R. District.(erstwhile Krishna District)

2. Kolla Priya Kumar S/o Venkaiah, Alias Venkateswarlu, D.No. 6- 287, Aged about 36 years,Sitarampuram, Jaggaiahpet town and

Mandal, N.T.R.District.

Defendants.

2

This suit came up on 5-1-2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. V.Madhu, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for defendant No.1 and of Sri E.V.Jagannadha Rao, Advocate for defendant No.2, remained ex-parte upon hearing the arguments and upon considering the material available on record and the same is having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by plaintiffs for rescission of agreement of sale

dated 16.09.2021 and consequential relief for refund of advance

amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest @ 2% p.a and for the costs of the suit .

1. In brief, the averments of the plaint are that :

(I). The plaintiffs are cousins, and the defendant No. 1 is acquainted with them. Out of such acquaintance, he offered to sell the plaint schedule land to an extent of Ac.1.67 cents out of Sy.No.30/2 of

Gopinenipalem Village to the plaintiffs, and they agreed to purchase the same. The sale consideration and other terms were negotiated on the same day, and the consideration was fixed at Rs.18,50,000/- per acre, and the total consideration comes around to Rs.30,89,500/-.

Out of which the plaintiffs paid Rs.8,00,000/- towards advance and the remaining amount is payable on or before 16.01.2022. On 3 payment of the balance sale consideration amount, the schedule property will be registered in the name of the plaintiffs and the possession thereof will be delivered to them. The above terms were incorporated in the agreement of sale executed by defendant No. 1 on 16.09.2021.

(ii). At the time of the above agreement, defendant No.1 misrepresented to the plaintiffs that he would become the owner of the plaint schedule property having paid the substantial amount and only a meager amount is payable to defendant No.2. He further promised the plaintiffs that the schedule property would be registered in his name very shortly, and by the time of payment of balance consideration by them, he would be the owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property. In the capacity as owner, he would convey the title in respect to the schedule property to the plaintiffs. Due to their prior acquaintance withe him,the plaintiffs bonafiedly believed his words and paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as an advance.

Subsequently, they expressed their readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount and requested him many a time much before the stipulated date to receive the balance amount and execute the regular registered sale deed in their favour. But despite their repeated requests he dodged the matter without receiving the balance sale 4 consideration for the reasons best known to him. It is therefore clear that, defendant No.1 failed to perform his part of contractual obligation and his conduct is at variance with the terms of the agreement.

(iii).Subsequently, on inquiry the plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.2 is the owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property, and defendant No.1 still acts as an agreement holder and does not acquire the legal character as owner, and the ownership rights do not convey to him through a valid sale deed until the date of this suit. Therefore, defendant No.1 did not willfully comply with the terms of agreement of sale, and because of the blemished acts on his part, the agreement of sale became incapable of being performed.

Therefore,the plaintiffs got issued a registered legal notice dated 02.06.2022 to defendant No.1 and a copy of it was marked to

Defendant No.2. Defendant No. 1 received the notice and remained passive without any reply. Defendant No.2 while issuing the notice to defendant 1 marked a copy to the plaintiffs' counsel. In the above circumstances, the plaintiffs having been left with no option, intend to rescind the agreement of sale dated 16.09.2021 since the terms of the contract become incapable of being performed only on account of 5 the incapacity of defendant 1 to perform his part of the contract under that agreement. Hence, the suit.

2. Defendant 2 received the summons and remained ex-parte.

Defendant No.1 filed his written statement with the following averments in brief:

(i). He denied most of the material assertions made in the plaint, except the execution of an agreement of sale dated 16.09.2021; inter alia, he further stated that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract on or before 16.01.2022 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. But they are not at all ready and willing to perform their part of contract on the due date because of lack of funds to pay the balance amount thereby to perform their part of contract. He personally met the plaintiffs and requested them to pay the balance consideration amount and will get the sale deed registered, but they did not co-operate with him, thereby failed to perform their part of contract by violating the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale date dated 16.09.2021. Further, at their request, both defendants surveyed the land and fixed the boundaries to hand over the possession to them at the time of registration, but they intentionally refused to get registration again and expressed their inability to pay the balance consideration amount. As such, the 6 plaintiffs were not ready to perform their part of contract as per the terms and conditions of the sale agreement. Subsequently, as the value of the schedule property was substantially decreased in the open market,they hatched a plan to get wrongful gain and filed the present suit with fraudulent intention. Therefore,time being the essence of the above contract, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief under law. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

3. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit agreement of sale dated 16.9.2021 was executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs even though the 1st defendant was not having valid title over the plaint schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiffs have been ever ready and willing to perform their part of contract under suit agreement of sale ?

3. Whether the plaintiffs paid Rs. 8,00,000/- as earnest money of the suit agreement of sale dt 16.9.2021 ?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of recession of contract under the suit agreement of sale dt 16.9.2021 ?

7 5.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of refund of

Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 2% per month to the plaintiffs ?

6. To what relief

4. During the course of trial, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW 1.

Ex. A1 to A 6 marked on his behalf. Defendant No.1 did not choose to cross examine PW1 despite availing a number of adjournments on one pretext or the other; hence, cross of Pw1 by defendant1 was treated as nil, and he was set ex parte.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff, and perused the material available on record.

Issues No.1 to 5:

6. Since all these issues are interrelated, they are taken up together for discussion and determination. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the plaint schedule property from defendant No.1 on 16.09.2021 for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,89,500/-. Out of which they paid

Rs.8,00,000/- as an advance on the same day and in turn he executed an agreement of sale by incorporating the terms and conditions agreed between them. Later, though the stipulated date of 8 payment of remaining amount ensued and they were willing to pay the balance amount and also requested him to receive the same and register a sale deed in their favour, he dodged the matter for the reasons best known to him. Subsequently, their inquiries revealed that defendant No.1 did not acquire the status of a lawful owner, and still he holds the character of an agreement holder. Hence, they are constrained to file the present suit for rescission of contract and a consequential relief of refund of advance amount with interest as prayed for.

On the other hand, defendant No.1 admitted the execution of an agreement of sale and also receipt of advance amount of Rs.

8,00,000/- thereunder. However, he contended that after execution of that agreement of sale, he was willing and ready to perform his part of contract on or before 16.01.2022 by executing a registered sale deed in their favour, but due to lack of funds the plaintiffs did not come forward; hence, they are not willing and ready to perform their part of contract. Subsequently, he and the second defendant collectively got the land measured at the requests of the plaintiff and also fixed the boundaries to hand over the possession to them at the time of registration. But they have not been intentionally not ready to get the registered sale deed by making of payment of balance amount; there 9 by,they violated the terms of the sale agreement. Hence, he concluded that they are not entitled for any relief as prayed for.

7. Since, the plaintiffs are contending that because of the fault of defendant No.1, the terms of agreement of sale deed became incapable of being performed, and defendant No.1 denied that allegation, the burden to prove the circumstances that incapacitated them from obtaining the registered sale deed from him will be upon the plaintiffs. Now it is to be seen how far they could succeed in discharging that burden.

8. To discharge their burden, plaintiff No.1 was examined as Pw1 and his chief affidavit is nothing but a replica of their plaint averments. In support of their case, he also got marked Ex. A1 to A6.

Ex.A1 is original agreement of sale dated 16.09.2021 executed by defendant 1 in favour of plaintiffs, Ex.A2 is office copy of the legal notice dated 02.06.2022 issued by the plaintiffs to defendant No.1,

Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment card of defendant 1, Ex.A4 is the postal acknowledgment of defendant No. 2. Ex. A5 is the reply notice dated 29.07.2022 issued by defendant No. 2 to plaintiffs, and

Ex. A6 is the notice dated 10.07.2022 issued by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1. Since the responsibilities of the parties and their obligations arose out of the terms and conditions stipulated in Ex.A1 10 agreement of sale, it is germane to refer to its terms. Upon perusal of

Ex.A1 it shows that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 entered into that agreement on 16.09.2021 for the sale of the suit schedule property an extent of Ac. 1.67 cents @ Rs18.50,000/-per acre, and on the same day the plaintiffs paid Rs.8,00,000/- towards advance, and on receipt thereof defendant No.1 executed that agreement. As per the terms stipulated therein, the balance consideration of Rs 22,89,500/- is to be paid on or before 16.09.2022, and on such payment the defendant will execute a registered sale deed in their favour. Further, he also undertook to get the land measured with his money, and the balance amount is to be paid as per the net extent arrived at after measurements. However, there is an important recital in Ex.A1 agreement that defendant No.1 never whispered in his pleadings. As per Ex.A1 agreement, he is just an agreement holder of the plaint schedule property having entered into an agreement with defendant

No.2 who is the original owner of the property to purchase the same for consideration. An agreement holder cannot get a title over the subject matter of the property until he obtains a registered sale deed from his vendor. In this context, it is apposite to refer to Ex. A6 notice issued by defendant No. 2 to defendant No.1. A perusal of that notice shows that one day before execution of Ex.A1 Agreement, defendant

No.1 entered into an agreement of sale on 15.09.2021 with the second 11 defendant for the purchase of the plaint schedule property from him for a total consideration of Rs. 24,21,500/- and an advance of

Rs.6,00,000/- was paid on the same day. Later,he failed to pay the balance amount even though the vendor measured the land and requested him to pay the balance. Therefore, by virtue of that notice, defendant No. 2 demanded defendant No. 1 to come forward for execution of a registered sale deed by making payment of balance amount on 20.01.2022, failing which the agreement stands canceled.

From the recitals of that notice and Ex.A1 Agreement, it is evident that defendant No.1 has no title over the plaint schedule property to enter into an agreement for its further alienation in the name of anybody else. In their pleadings and evidence, the plaintiffs categorically contended that despite assuring them that he would get the title over the agreement schedule property by the stipulated date, defendant

No.1 failed to get the same, and his status still remains as an agreement holder. Therefore, Ex.A1 to A6 corroborates the plaint pleadings that defendant No.1 was not willing and ready to perform his part of contract because he had no funds to be paid to second defendant to get the valid registered sale deed from him by conveying the title to him. Therefore, as it is patently proved from the oral and documentary evidence let in by the plaintiffs that due to defendant 1's default, the terms of Ex.A1 agreement of sale became incapable of 12 performing. Based on the above discussion, this court concludes and holds that under such circumstances the plaintiffs are entitled to rescind the contract for sale under sec.27 of Specific Relief Act, and consequently for a refund of advance amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that awarding pendente lite interest at the rate of 12% p.a would be just and equitable, effectively sub serving the ends of justice. Issues No. 1 to 5 are answered accordingly.

9. Issue No.6:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by rescinding the contract under agreement of sale dt 16.9.2021 and the defendant No.1 is directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the plaintiffs with in 3 months from the date of this judgment, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of agreement till the date of filing the suit and thereafter @ 6% p.a.,till realization.

Typed by me on my official laptop, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 2nd day of

March, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama.

13

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined for)

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

P.W.1: Ch.Subba Rao. - None -

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original agreement of sale dated 16.09.2021 executed by defendant 1 in favour of plaintiffs.

Ex.A2 : Office copy of the legal notice dated 02.06.2022 issued by the plaintiffs to defendant No.1.

Ex.A3 : Postal acknowledgment card of defendant No.1

Ex.A4 : Postal acknowledgment of defendant No. 2.

Ex. A5 : Reply notice dated 29.07.2022 issued by defendant No. 2 to plaintiffs.

Ex. A6: Notice dated 10.07.2022 issued by defendant No.2 to defendant No.1.

For Defendants: - -- NIL --

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama.

14

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION): NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt.V.Satya Lakshmi Prasanna

Civil Judge(Senior Division), Nandigama

Tuesday,this the 21st day of April,2026

Original Suit No.58 of 2025

Between:

Valisetty Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Late Nageswara Rao, aged about 58 years, Business, R/o.Ramanaidupeta, Machilipatnam.

......Plaintiff

And

Jupudi Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Kutumba Rao, aged about 65 years, Business, R/o. D.No.9/5-1, C/o. Konduboyena Balakrishna, Godugupeta, Machilipatnam. …….Defendant

This original suit came up on 01.04.2026, for arguments before me in the presence of Sri. Perni Suresh Babu, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex parte and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 07.08.2021 by way of execution of a registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff, and for the costs of the suit.

1.In brief, the averments of the plaint are that :

2

(i). The defendant had purchased the plaint schedule property consisting of

Items Nos. 1 to 3 house sites from his vendors under three registered sale deeds dated 12.04.2007, 20.04.2007,and 30.09.2016. Subsequently, for discharging his private debts, he offered to sell the above-referred properties for Rs.21,60,000/-.The plaintiff accepted his proposal and agreed to purchase the above mentioned property. Accordingly, he paid the entire sale consideration on 07.08.2021 in cash as requested by the defendant, and in turn the vendor executed an agreement of sale on the even date by promising that he would register the sale deed within 2 months, as by then he was intending to go on a North India tour and the plaintiff accepted it.

On the same day, the vendor handed over all his link documents to the plaintiff. Subsequently, on his return from tour, the plaintiff demanded him to execute the register sale deed thereby performing his part of contract but the defendant dragged on the matter for one or the other reason saying that he was not feeling well. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as he paid the entire sale consideration on the date of agreement of sale itself, but the defendant has not come forward for execution of a registered sale deed as agreed upon. Therefore, he issued a legal notice dated 09.07.2025,demanding the defendant to execute a registered sale deed as agreed upon. He refused to receive the notice.

Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for the relief as indicated above. Hence the suit.

3

2.Despite the paper publication issued by way of substituted service, the defendant failed to contest the suit on merits and remained ex parte.

3.During the course of the trial, the plaintiff himself was examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. He also examined the attestors of the suit agreement as P.W.s 2 and 3.

4. Heard the counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on record.

5. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of

agreement of sale dated 07.08.2021, as sought for ?

6. Point :

The plaintiff filed the present suit claiming that he entered into an agreement of sale for the purchase of all three items of the plaint schedule properties from the defendant and paid the entire sale consideration of

Rs.21,60,000/- on 07.08.2021, and on the same day, his vendor executed an agreement of sale to that effect and also handed over all the link documents to him. Subsequently, the vendor has not shown any interest in performing his part of contract by executing a valid registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the suit.

7.In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 by reiterating the above facts in brief. He further got marked Ex.A1 to A6. Out of them, Ex.A1 is the suit agreement dated 07.08.2021. Upon a perusal of such an agreement, it shows the line of devolution of title of the suit 4 schedule properties from one Lal Ahmed and M. Hanumantha Rao under 3 different sale deeds. These sale deeds are marked as Ex. A4 to A6 which show that the defendant has acquired valid title and right over all the items of plaint schedule properties. As per the terms of Ex.A1 agreement, he offered to sell above referred properties for a consideration of Rs.21,60,000/- and executed such an agreement in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, who acted as attestors. These two witnesses supported the case and contentions of the plaintiff on all the material aspects particularly about the privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant for alienation of the plaint schedule property. As per the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the recitals of

Ex.A1 agreement, the plaintiff paid the entire consideration on the date of the execution of agreement of sale,which itself shows that he has and is ready to perform his part of contract. Since, the defendant remained ex parte, the testimonies of P.W.s 1 to 3 remained unchallenged. Further, as per the plaint pleadings and oral testimony of Pw1 it is evident that despite receipt of the entire consideration amount, the vendor has not shown any inclination in the execution of a valid registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Even the legal notice under Ex.A2 returned as refused. Since the vendor has no interest in the execution of a registered sale deed as agreed under Ex.A1/agreement, the plaintiff is entitled to get such a sale deed as per law. Hence, based on the above discussion, this court holds and concludes that the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of 5

Ex.A1/agreement of sale as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant by granting specific performance of agreement of sale, directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff within 2 months from the date of this judgment and on his failure to execute the register sale deed, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it done through process of law.

Dictated to the Typist on the system, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this 21st day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined for)

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1 : Valisetty Mallikharjuna Rao - None -

P.W. 2 : Muddineni Prabhakara Rao

P.W.3 : Nali Madhava Rao

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Agreement of Sale dated 07.08.2021 6

Ex.A.2: Office copy of Legal notice dated 09.07.2025 issued by plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipt.

Ex.A.3: Returned un served Postal cover.

Ex.A.4: Registered Sale deed dated 30.09.2016 executed in favour of defendant by Sai Pragathi Town Ship represented by Managing partner M. Hanumantha Rao.

Ex.A.5: Registered Sale deed dated 20.04.2007 executed in favour defendant by Shaik Lal Ahmed represented by his GPA B. Venkateswara Rao.

Ex.A.6: Registered Sale deed dated 12.04.2007 executed in favour defendant by Shaik Lal Ahmed represented by his GPA B. Venkateswara Rao.

For Defendants : - Nil -

CJ(SD), NDG.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION): NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt.V.Satya Lakshmi Prasanna,

Civil Judge(Senior Division), Nandigama

Tuesday, this the 21st day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.58 of 2025

Between:

Valisetty Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Late Nageswara Rao, aged about 58 years, Business, R/o.Ramanaidupeta, Machilipatnam.

......Plaintiff

And

Jupudi Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Kutumba Rao, aged about 65 years, Business, R/o. D.No.9/5-1, C/o. Konduboyena Balakrishna, Godugupeta, Machilipatnam. ……. Defendant

Claim : Suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale

dated 07.08.2021 which was executed by the defendant in favour of

plaintiff by directing the defendant to execute and register a sale deed at the expenses of the plaintiff. If the defendant failed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the court may be pleased to execute register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant and his expenses. b) for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 16.12.2025.

Plaint numbered on : 16.12.2025.

Particulars of suit claim :

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is (Specific performance of an agreement of sale) is Rs. 21,60,000/-U/s .39 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act 1956. On which C.F of Rs. 24,026/- is paid U/s 50 (1) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act 8

Cause of Action for the suit arose on 7.8.2021 when the defendant offered to sell the schedule properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 21,60,00/- and when the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration and on the same day when the defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff demanded the defendant for execution of sale deed basing on the above agreement and when the defendant dragon and not performing his part of contract and on 9-7.2025, when the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant, demanding him to execute the sale deed in his favour and when the defendant refused to receive the same and at Mukteswarapuram Gram Panchayat, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, NTR District where the items Nos 1 and 2 of the schedule properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the court.

This original suit came up on 01.04.2026, before me for arguments in the presence of Sri. Perni Suresh Babu, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record and upon consideration, this court doth order and

Decree :

1. that the suit be and the same is here by decreed.

2. that the specific performance of agreement of sale is here by granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and that the defendant be and the same is here by directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff within 2 months from the date of this judgment and on his failure to execute the register sale deed, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it done through process of law.

3.that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.

71,545/- towards costs of the suit.

9 ( Copy of schedule is here with attached along with the decree.)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 21st day of April, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nandigama. Memorandum of costs.

For the plaintiff : For the defendant : No costs memo filed on defendant’s side.

S.No.ParticularsPlaintiff Rs.

1.Vakalat2.00

2.Plaint fees24,026.00

3.Stamp on petitions-

4.Process Fee50-00

5.Court fee affixing on document-

6.Publication Charges0.00

7.Commissioner Fee0.00

8.Advocate’s Fee35,000-00

9.Junior Adv.fee11,667-00

10.Writing Charges400-00

11.Typing Charges400-00 Total costs Allowed Rs71,545-00

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Nandigama

1

In the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandigama

Present:- Smt. V. Satya Lakshmi Prasanna,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Nandigama.

Wednesday, this the 18th day of March, 2026.

A.S.30/2019 in O.S.No. 56 /2017

(Appeal against Decree and Judgment dated 29-3-2019 in O.S.No

56 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Jaggaiahpet)

Between:

Amera Brahmaiah, S/o. Nageswa Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Cultivation,R/o. Anumanchipalli Village Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District …….Appellant/ Defendant No.1

And:

1. Amera Ramya,D/o. Brahmaiah Hindu, aged about 16 years, student, R/o. Balusupadu Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. (1st Plaintiff)

2. Amera Naveena, D/o. Brahmaiah Hindu, aged about 16 years, student R/o. Balusupadu Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. (2nd Plaintiff) (Respondents 1 and 2 being minors rep, by their

Mother and Natural Guardian, Amera Lakshmi)

3. Amera Nageswara Rao, S/o. Tirupathaiah, Hindu, aged about 67 years, R/o. Anumanchipalli Village Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. (1st Defendant) 2

4. Amera Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 47 years, Cultivation, R/o. Anumanchipalli Village Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. (2nd Defendant)

5. Amera Koteswara Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 34 years, Cultivation, R/o. Anumanchipalli Village Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. (4th Defendant)

6. Pattipaka Lakshmi, W/o. Govindu, Hindu, aged about 37 years, Housewife, R/o. Dorakunta Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. (5th Defendant)

…...Respondents.

A.S in O.S.No. 56/2017

Between:

1. Amera Ramya

2. Amera Naveena (Plaintiffs 1 and 2 being minors rep. By their Mother and Natural Guardian, Amera Lakshmi) …….Plaintiffs

And:

1.Amera Nageswara Rao.

2. Amera Srinivasa Rao.

3. Amera Brahmaiah

4. Amera Koteswara Rao.

5. Pattipaka Lakshmi

…...Defendants.

3

This appeal came up on 18.3.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. D.Arjuna, Advocate for Appellant/Defendant No.3 and of Sri K.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and appeal against Respondents Nos.1,3 & 5 remained exparte and appeal against

Respondent No.6 is dismissed the same is having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred by the Appellant/ Defendant No.3 who is the defendant in O.S.56/2017 against the impugned decree and Judgment dated 29-3-2019 passed by the Prl. Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Jaggaiahpet.

2.Death certificate of appellant not filed since 28.11.2025. Even though several adjournments were given to file death Certificate, no representation on behalf of appellant’s counsel. Hence this appeal suit dismissed as abated.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of

March, 2026.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Nandigama.

Appendix of Evidence

NIL

C.J. (S.D.) NDG.

4

In the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandigama

Present:- Smt. V. Lakshmi Rajyam,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Nandigama.

Friday, this the 28 th day of June, 2024

A.S. 15/2018 in O.S.No. 22/2016

5

(Appeal against Decree and Judgment dated 31-01-2018 in O.S.No.22 of

2016 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama)

Between:

Ontipuli Pullamma W/o. Late China Babu, Hindu, Female, aged about 52 years, Household, R/o. Kanchala Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

…….Appellant/Plaintiff

And:

1).Ramireddy Veera Raghavaiah S/o. Rosaiah, Hindu, Male, aged about 56 years, Cultivation, R/o. Kanchala village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

2). Chalamala Koteswari, W/o. Vasaiah, Hindu, Female, Aged about 56 years, Housewife, R/o. Kanchala Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

3). Ontipuli Narasimha Rao S/o. Mutyalu, Hindu, aged about 71 years, Cultivation, R/o. Kanchala Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

…...Respondents/Defendants.

As in O.S.No. 22 /2016

Between:

Ontipuli Pullamma W/o. Late China Babu, Hindu, Female, aged about 52 years, House Hold, R/o. Kanchala Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District …….plaintiff

And:

6 1).Ramireddy Veera Raghavaiah S/o. Rosaiah, Hindu, Male, aged about 56 years, Cultivation, R/o. Kanchala village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

2). Chalamala Koteswari, W/o. Vasaiah, Hindu, Female, Aged about 56 years, House wife, R/o. Kanchala Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

3). Ontipuli Narasimha Rao S/o. Mutyalu, Hindu, aged about 71 years, Cultivation, r/o. Kanchala Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

…...Defendants.

Claim: Appellant/plaintiff preferred this appeal for setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 31.01.2018 passed in O.S.

22/2016 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Nandigama where under the trial dismissed the suit.

Plaint presented on: 27.03.2018

Plaint numbered on: 12.04.2018

Particulars of the suit claim:

The value of the suit in the lower court for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.10,000/- U/sec. 50 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, VII of 1956. Hence, the value of the appeal is also valued at Rs.10,000/-.

On which a court fee of Rs. 786/- is paid under section 49 of

A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act. VII of 1956.

This appeal came up on 25.06.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. B. Subhakara Rao, Advocate for appellant/plaintiff and Sri. B. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for respondents/defendants and the same is having stood over to this day for consideration; this Court doth order and decree:

7

(i). that the appeal suit be and the same is hereby dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree dt. 13.01.2018 passed in

O.S. 22/2016 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Nandigama;

(ii). that the Appellant/Plaintiff do bear her own costs of Rs.

14,326/- towards costs of the appeal and the respondents/defendants do bear their own costs of Rs. NIL (Since no bill of memo of costs filed by the respondents/defendants).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 28th day of June, 2024.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Nandigama.

Memo of Costs

SlNo.DescriptionAppellantRespondent. 1Stamp on Vakalat2.00-- 2Stamp on petition5.00-- 3Stamp on plaint786.00--

4.Stamp on process100.00--

5.Advocate Fee (Sr.)10000.00--

6.Advocate Fee (Jr.)3333.00--

7.Writing Charges50.00--

8.Typing Charges50.00--

9.Total14,326.00--

C.J. (S.D.)

NDG.