1 of 19 OS.38-2011
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT BODHAN.
Present: Sri V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,
Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2017.
O.S.No. 38 of 2011
Between :-
Grandhi Radha Krishna Murthy S/o Late G. Subba Rao, Kamma, Aged: 62 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1-4-991, Gunj Road, Bodhan Town, District Nizamabad.
…Plaintiff. A n d
1. Maddirala Jaya Prasad S/o Varadiah, Kamma, Aged: 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Venkateshwara Colony, Bodhan Town and Mandal, District Nizamabad
2. D. Sambashiv Rao Chowdary S/o Late D. Bala Kotaiah, Kamma, Aged : 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1-4-991, Gunj Road, Bodhan Town, District Nizamabad. …Defendants.
This Suit is coming before me on 12.10.2017 for hearing and disposal in the presence of M/s. G.Shyam Rao and K. Gangadhar Rao, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri V. Sangam, Advocate for the defendants; and having stood for over consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This is a suit for cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed dt.02.11.2011, bearing No.816/2011 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering the plaintifffs possession and enjoyment.
2. Brief averments of the plaint are that the father of the plaintiff G.
Suba Rao during his lifetime along with Hanmireddy, Balreddy and mother of Hanmireddy by name Smt. Govindamma constituted a partnership frm to run a business. Accordingly, on
2 of 19 OS.38-2011
25.09.1997 orally they have constituted a partnership business under the name and style “M/s. Krishna Modern Rice Mill” and the same was reduced subsequently into writing on 05.09.1977 and the following shares are allotted I.e. C. Pulla Reddy - 20%, A.
Hanmireddy - 40%, G. Subba Reddy - 10% and Smt. A.
Govindamma -30% and they have availed loan from A.P. State
Financial Corporation and the plaintifffs father died in 1984 and thereafter, plaintiff was looking after his fatherfs share.
Subsequently, on 30.03.1984 the plaintiff purchased 40% share of Hanmi Reddy who died. The Defendant No.2 by misrepresentation, has got incorporated his name into the records of Gram Panchayat and obtained a license to run the rice mill and thereafter, the defendant No.2 fled OS.No.15/1995 which was dismissed against which the defendant No.2 herein preferred appeal vide AS.No.40/2005 on the fle of the Hon'ble
VIII Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad which was also dismissed, against which the defendant No.2 preferred Second
Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. While so, as the bank loan was not paid, the Syndicate Bank, Bodhan Branch fled
OS.No.13/1995 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad wherein
the plaintiff was shown as co obligant and subsequently the plaintiff herein has fled OS.No.1/2007 before the Senior Civil
Judge, Bodhan and during pendency of the suit OS.No.1/2007
and appeal against the Judgment in OS.No.1 of 2007 vide
AS.No.40/2005, the defendant No.2 vide document No.816/2011
executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 which is null and void and the defendant No.1 basing on the illegal document,
3 of 19 OS.38-2011
is trying to interfere in possession and enjoyment of the 50% share of the plaintiff i.e. in an extent of Ac.0 -15 guntas in
Sy.No.710 of Salura with House No.10-55 in the frst week of
April and when the plaintiff questioned the defendant No.1 he came to know about the execution of sale deed. Hence, the suit.
3. Defendant No.1 and 2 fled their written statement denying the averments of the plaint and claimed that the plaintiff is baniya by caste and not Kamma and that OS.No.1 of 2007 was disposed of on 31.01.2011 and there was no stay or any prohibitary order directing the defendant No.1 herein not to alienate the land and further contended that the plaintiff does not have any title or possession over the suit property and that he has no locus standi to fle the present suit and that the suit is not maintainable and that suit OS.No.1 of 2007 was already dismissed and that there is no partnership as alleged by the plaintiff and the suit is barred
U/sec.69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act as there is no registration of partnership frm and that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by res-judicata in view of the Judgment in OS.No.1 of 2007 and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties and denied the fact that he illegally got mutated his name in the record and prayed that the suit may be dismissed.
4. Defendant No.2 further stated in the written statement that as he was legal owner, he sold part of the suit property to defendant No.1 and that the plaintiff is a stranger to the transaction.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:
4 of 19 OS.38-2011
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the
Registered Sale Deed dt.18.02.2011 bearing Document
No.816/2011 of SRO, Bodhan is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property
3. To What relief
6. On behalf of plaintiff, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B49 were marked.
7. Heard the arguments of both the counsel.
8. At the outset, the admitted facts of the case are that the defendant No.2 herein has fled OS.No.15 of 1995 on the fle of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad for the relief of injunction in respect of Ac.0-30 guntas of land in Sy.No.710/A of Salura village, which was dismissed and Ex.A3 is the certifed copy of
Judgment and aggrieved by the Judgment, defendant No.2 has preferred appeal in AS.No.40/2005 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble VIII Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad on 29.01.2008 and the certifed copy of Judgment is marked as
Ex.A4 and the defendant No.2 herein has preferred Second
Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court which is pending. Similarly, the plaintiff herein has fled OS.No.1 of 2007 on the fle of this
Court for the relief of recovery of possession of Ac.0-15 guntas of land in Sy.No.710 of Saloora village and the same was also dismissed on 31.01.2011 and Ex.B1 is the certifed copy of
Judgement and aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the plaintiff
5 of 19 OS.38-2011
has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble District Judgefs
Court, which was also dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred a Second Appeal before the Hon'ble High
Court which is pending. It is also not in dispute that the claims of the plaintiff and defendants herein were also raised in the earlier cases fled by the plaintiff and defendants and both of them were dismissed by the Trial Court and frst Appellate Court.
ISSUE No.1:
9. In order to decide issue No.1, the relevant points that required to be considered are
i) Whether the partnership frm as stated by the plaintiff was constituted and acted upon ii) Whether the present suit by a partner of an unregistered partnership frm is maintainable in law iii) Whether the suit is barred by res-judicata iv) Whether there is suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties
v) Whether the defendant No.2 is the owner of the Ac.0-30 guntas in Sy.No.710 vi) Whether the cancellation of the sale deed dt.10.2.2011 bearing No.816/2011 is sufcient to meet the plaintifffs relief
POINT No.i):
10.At the outset, it is an undisputed fact that originally, Ac.0- 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.710 belong to Jampani Kotaiah (and the same is evidence under Ex.A2, which is equivalent to Ex.B3) and the said Jampani Kotaiah sold Ac.0-30 guntas of land in
Sy.No.710 to Sri Balreddy. This fact is also an admitted fact and according to the plaintiff, who was examined as PW.1, property
6 of 19 OS.38-2011
was purchased in the name of Balreddy as he was an Ex-Member of Parliament and that the plaintiff and the other partners were doing the required work on the ground and according to the plaintiff as per his plaint, orally there was a partnership wherein
Subba Reddy has 10% share, Pulla Reddy has 10% share and
Hanmireddy has 40% share and Hanmireddyfs mother by name
Govindamma has 30% share and that the plaintiff purchased 40% share of Hanmireddy under Ex.A1 and after his fatherfs death, he was managing 10% share of his father and thus he became entitled to 50% share.
11.PW.2, who is one of the witnesses spoke about the shares as mentioned by the plaintiff but he admitted that he and the defendant No.2 are having disputes from 1996 and he has also fled impleading petition in OS.No.1 of 2007 wherein the present defendant No.2 is also a party.
12.PW.3, in his evidence, who claims to be classmate of the defendant No.2 also stated about the shares as mentioned by the plaintiff and he also admitted that he and the defendant No.2 are having cases and disputes since 1990 and that they are not on talking terms.
13.Since PW.2 and 3 have enmity and disputes with the plaintiff, it is not proper to rely on their oral evidence.
14.PW.4, who is one of the attestors of Ex.A2 spoke about the execution of sale deed with respect to share of Hanmireddy to the plaintifffs father and in his cross examination, he admitted that he is a freelance accountant and he used to look after the
7 of 19 OS.38-2011
accounts of four rice mills including the plaintiff, he used to lookafter the accounts in the rice mill of Hanmireddy and his oral evidence has to be weighed with the material on record.
15.Whereas according to the defendant No.2, who was examined as DW.1, there was no partnership at all as stated by the plaintiff and that he purchased the Ac.0-30 guntas of land in
Sy.No.710/A from Balreddy under an unregistered agreement of sale i.e. Ex.B4 and that he has also discharged the loan taken by
Balreddy from APFSC, and then his name is mutated in the revenue records and that with the permission of the District
Collector, he has run the Rice Mill and he has also paid the necessary taxes to the concerned authorities and as he is the owner, he has sold the same to the defendant No.1. at this stage, it is pertinent to observe that with respect to evidence on the partnership, in the chief examination, it was stated that
Balreddy had 20%, Hanmireddy had 40%, Subba Rao had 10% and Smt. Govindamma had 30%. If really, the version of the plaintiff is correct about the partnership, then the plaintiff would be getting 10% from his father and 40% from Hanmireddy. Now the aspect that has to be looked into is what has happened to the 20% of share of C. Balreddy and 20% of Govindamma. The entire evidence adduced by the plaintiff does not speak as to how defendant No.2 was inducted, nor it is mentioned as to how the partnership changed from Balreddy and Govindamma to the defendant No.2. The only document which shows light is Ex.A4 which is the Judgment of the Hon'ble VIII Additional District
Judge, at Nizamabad wherein at page 23 in para 22 wherein it is
8 of 19 OS.38-2011
mentioned that the wife of Balreddy i.e. Smt. Leela Devi sold her share on 30.03.1984 for an extent of 20% in favour of father of defendant No.2 and that on 30.03.1984 A Govindamma sold her share of 30% in the Rice Mill in favour of defendant No.2fs father the said document which have been executed by Leela Devi and
Govindamma are not placed on record and unless they are fled, it is not possible to say how the defendant is in possession of the
Rice Mill.
16.It is also pertinent to observe that in both the suits, contradictory fndings have been given by the different courts with regard to existence of the partnership in OS.No.15 of 2015, the plea of the defendant No.2 herein who was plaintiff therein that he has purchased the property from Balreddy and under agreement of sale and is in possession was disbelieved and the
Honfble Court held that the version of the plaintiff herein i.e. the
defendant therein with regard to existence of partnership business as probable and that the plaintiff and defendants are the partners as per the observations at para 23 in page 25 in
Ex.A4. On the other hand, in Ex.B1, which was suit fled by the plaintiff herein against defendant No.2 with respect to the same facts and that the plaintiff herein has not produced any evidence to prove that there was a partnership frm among the plaintiff and its partners as stated.
17.Therefore, as seen from the above two different fndings have been given by two different courts and with respect to the fnding in Ex.A3 and A4, the question of title, the fnding given with regard to the title under Ex.A3 and A4 can be only
9 of 19 OS.38-2011
considered as an incidental question as the suit is for bare perpetual injunction and not for declaration and hence, the fnding that there appears to be with partnership can be accepted only as an incidental question of title and not as if it is a declaratory relief
18.And with respect to the fnding given in OS.No.1 of 2007, it has to be seen in that context that it is also a simple suit for recovery of possession without any other reliefs and therefore, the fnding given about the non-existence of partnership can be treated only as incidental question as observed by the Court and moreover it is also pertinent to observe that in OS.No.1 of 2007, the Honfble Court i.e. under Ex.B1 has already categorically stated that a suit for dissolution of the frm has to be fled therefore, itself this shows that the question was answered incidentally and not as if it is relief for declaration. Therefore, in view of the different fndings, since the present suit is for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 is null and void. The question that requires consideration is whether the partnership frm as contended by the plaintiff is correct. In this regard, it is to be observed that there is a variance between pleading and proof, in the plaint it was pleaded that one C. Pulla Reddy had 20% share and G. Subba
Reddy had 10% share. Whereas, in evidence, it was pleaded that C. Balreddy has 20% share and Subba Rao has 10% share.
It is not known whether it is a typographical mistake or a fatal omission as to the identity of those persons as in all the cases and when a reference is made in Judgment under Ex.A3, A4 and
10 of 19 OS.38-2011
Ex.B1, the names of Balreddy and Subba Rao are present and for the frst time names of Pullareddy and Subbareddy are found place in the plaint and in order to prove the aspect of partnership, it is an admitted fact by PW.1 that even though it was orally constituted on 25.01.1997 on 05.09.1977 it was reduced into writing, this document has not been produced by the plaintiff and no explanation has absolutely given as what has happened to the document and why he could not produce the same and when the document is not produced and an adverse inference has to be drawn that if said document is produced, it would be favourable to the plaintiff. Moreover, the contention of the plaintiff is that his father Subba Rao has purchased the share of Hanmireddy under Ex.A1. No doubt Ex.A1 discloses that
Hanmireddy sold 40% share of the Ac.0-30 guntas in
Sy.No.710/A. When it is admitted fact that the Balreddy is the original owner of Ac.0-30 guntas in Sy.No.710/A, unless there is a link or the other connection to establish the partnership proceeding, Hanmi Reddy would not get any right to sell 40% share to the plaintifffs father and therefore, the oral evidence of
PW.4 has no value. Moreover, I have already stated above that the plaintiff has not come out with respect to the documents executed by Leela Devi and Gonvindamma and said documents which are referred in the Judgments have not been fled the existence of partnership between the plaintiff and defendants each having 50% share is not proved by the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the fact of alleged partnership.
11 of 19 OS.38-2011
POINT No.ii):
19.On this observation, it is pertinent to observe that I have already heard that the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of partnership frm and even assuming for a moment that the partnership was there and it is also admitted that the partnership frm is unregistered. The learned counsel for the defendants vehemently argued that U/sec.69(2) of the Indian
Partnership Act, the suit by unregistered frm or its owners is not maintainable in this regard. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the suit is maintainable.
In view of the contentions, in the case AS No. 690 of 2000, between Abdul Rauf Vs Mohammed Hassan, the Honfble High
Court of Kerala held as follows:
“An unregistered frm is not illegal under the Partnership Act. There is no provision in the Act that a partnership frm must be compulsorily registered. However, there are certain disabilities if the partnership frm is not registered. No partner of an unregistered frm would be entitled to enforce his rights as partner against the frm or present or past partner. Sub-section (2) contains a bar against the unregistered partnership frm suing a third party on the basis of a right arising from a contract. A third party is entitled to fle a suit against even an unregistered frm. Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) are exceptions to sub-sections (1) and (2) and the main part of sub-section (3). A partner of an unregistered frm is entitled to sue for the dissolution of a frm or for accounts of a dissolved frm or for enforcement of any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved frm as provided under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 69. The intention of the
12 of 19 OS.38-2011
legislature was to infict disability for non-registration only during the subsistence of the partnership. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 69 excludes the embargo put on the fling of the suits by an unregistered frm or by any partner of an unregistered frm. The right of a partner of an unregistered frm to demand dissolution of the frm is saved by the exception contained in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of
Section 69. In the case of a dissolved frm, the disability under sub- sections (1), (2) and (3) by the non-registration of a frm would not apply. So also the right to fle a suit for dissolution of partnership is available even though the partnership is an unregistered one.
In Bhartesh Chandra Jain v. Shoiab Ullah and others, (2004) 13 SCC 358, the Supreme Court held thus :
The language of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the
Act shows that suits for dissolution of an unregistered frm or for accounts of a dissolved frm or for any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved frm have been expressly excluded from the embargo put on the fling of suits by an unregistered frm or by any partner of an unregistered frm.”
In the case of M/s. Raptokas Brett Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh P roperty, (1988) 7 SCC 184 : (1998 A I R SCW 2994 : A I R 1998 SC 3085). In that case, Majmudar J speaking for the Bench clearly expressed the view that Section 69(2) cannot bar the enforcement by way of suit by an unregistered frm in respect of a statutory right or a common law right.
For the reasons stated above, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
13 of 19 OS.38-2011
POINT No.iii):
20.On this aspect, the learned counsel for the defendants vehemently argued that as OS.No.1 of 2007 is dismissed in view of the Judgment under Ex.B1 present suit for declaration is barred. In this regard it is pertinent to observation that OS.No.1 of 2007 was fled for recovery of possession of Ac.0-15 guntas of land in Sy.No.710/A where the present suit is fled for cancellation of document No.816, dt.10.2.2011 which was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and it is pertinent to observe that the plaintiff it is mentioned that the property was sold during pendency of the case. It is pertinent to observe that OS.No.1 of 2007 was disposed of on 31.01.2011 and the property was sold on 10.02.2011 even before the expiry of the appeal time and in this regard, as appeal is a continuation of the suit and the question that arises is whether the property can be sold, no doubt there was no bar of prohibition or stay granted by any Court prohibiting defendant No.2 from alienating the property and as it was done during the period for preferring the appeal even assuming for a moment, the doctrine of lis- pendence is applicable U/sec.52 of the Transfer of Property Act,
Section 52, nowhere prohibits alienation and
In the case of “Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh”, reported in
Civil Appeal No. 6222 of 2000, wherein the Supreme Court observed that Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision of the pending litigation. Thus, if during the pendency of any suit in a
14 of 19 OS.38-2011
court of competent jurisdiction which is not collusive, in which any right of an immovable property is directly and specifcally in question, such immovable property cannot be transferred by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree that may be made in such suit.
21.Therefore, mere alienation during the pendency cannot be a ground for cancellation and as both the cases have two different purposes but in respect of the same property and as the relief claims are different aspect of res-judicata does not apply.
POINT No.iv):
22.With regard to mis-joinder of party, it is admitted fact that
C. Balreddy and Govindamma were also having share in the property and in the present case, there is no evidence as what was happened to them and only a perusal of Ex.A4 reveals that they have sold their shares and the father of the defendant No.2 and fnding given in suit is only an incidental observation does not amount to proof when there is no explanation, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
POINT No.v):
23.On this aspect, according to the defendant NO.2, who was examined as DW.1, that he purchased the property under an un- registered document from Balreddy and the said document has been marked as Ex.B4 and it is also apparently clear from the documents fled by defendant No.2 that he had been paying the house tax and also his name is mutated in the revenue records
15 of 19 OS.38-2011
and also proceedings issued for running rice mill is proved by
Ex.B2, B5, B7 to B44. As rightly contended by the plaintifffs counsel all the above documents do not confrm any title as it is settled aspect of law that revenue records can only be used for recovery of revenue and not title and with respect to loan, it is also not in dispute that the same has been repaid by M/s.
Krishna Rice Mill. No doubt an un-registered sale deed cannot be looked into for the purpose of sale but, when it is impounded, it can be certainly looked into for collateral purpose like possession etc, and in the instant case, Ex.B4 was impounded by the
DIStrict Registrar and in case ofWuntakal Yalpi
Chenabasavana vs. Rao Bahadur Y. Mahabaleshwarappa, reported in 1954 AIR 337, 1955 SCR 131, the Honfble Supreme
Court held as follows:
“A common illustration of this rule is furnished 'by the class of cases where the legal owner of a property transfers the same to another without the requisite legal formalities and though the transferee does not acquire a legal title to it by the transfer, yet if he gets possession of the property though with the consent of the transferor that possession becomes adverse to the owner and if continued for the statutory period creates a title in him.”
24.In the instant case, defendant No.2 has purchased Ac.0-30 guntas of land in Sy.No.710 on 11.05.1982 from Balreddy, who is the original owner, the possession of the defendant No.2 started becoming adverse to the ownership of Balreddy and by 1994, the defendant No.2 completed the statutory period and he has become the title holder by virtue of adverse possession and
16 of 19 OS.38-2011
therefore, this sale to the defendant No.1 is valid and the evidence of DW.1 being a purchaser is not in dispute and certainly the DW.1 has rightly sold the property to DW.2 and this point is answered in favour of the defendants against the plaintiff.
POINT No.vi):
25.On this aspect, it is pertinent to observe that in the present case, the plaintiff sought relief of cancellation of Registered Sale
Deed doc.No.816/2011, dt.10.02.2011, it is also pertinent to look into the property covered by the said document which is Ex.B45.
The schedule property of Ex.B45 is as follows:
The Tin shed with ACC Roof, bearing House No.10-55, Total
Area 35f x 63f = 2205.00 sq.fts. Or 245.00 square yards Built up
Area 20fx20f = 400.00 square yards, situated at Saloora Camp village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District, Gram Panchayat
Limits of Saloora Camp Village, M.P.P. Bodhan, Z.P.P. Nizamabad
District Under the Jurisdiction of Reg Dist. Nizamabad and
Registrar-Sub Dist.Bodhan, as bounded by:
East:Road West : Place of D.S.R. Choudary North : Place of D.S.R. Choudary South: Place of D.S.R. Choudary
26.It is also important to mention that the defendant No.2 has sold the property to defendant No.1 through two different sale deeds not only Ex.B45 but Ex.B46. Ex.B45 is in respect of Tin
Shed and structure to a limited area of 400.00 Sq.yards, whereas under Ex.B46, the defendant No.2 has sold the entire Ac.0-30 guntas to the defendant No.1 under document No.815/2011.
17 of 19 OS.38-2011
27.The plaintiff claims only a Tin shed amounting to 400.00 square yards even though he claims 50% of the share and which is more than the extent mentioned in Ex.B45. Very peculiarly, the plaintiff has not asked for cancellation of that document under Ex.B46 which is bearing No.815/2011, Dtd.10.2.2011. And as it is settled principle of law that a Court cannot grant larger relief than the relief claimed, the claim of the plaintiff is bad in law and this point is also answered in favour of the defendants and viewed from any angle.
28.For the reasons stated above viewed from any angle, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration that the sale deed bearing No.816 is null and void and liable to be cancelled.
ISSUE No.2:
29.On this aspect, there is no document to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and moreover it is pertinent to observe that under Ex.B1 vide
OS.No.1 of 2007, the plaintiff herein sought for recovery of
possession and his claim was dismissed which was also confrmed by the frst Appellate Court and that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court through a Second appeal and therefore, in view of the concurrent fnding of both the
Court, the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of possession, goes to show that the plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule property and therfore, this issue is answered in favour of the defendants.
18 of 19 OS.38-2011
ISSUE No.3:
30.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 31st day of October, 2017.
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Bodhan.
:: Appendix of Evidence ::
: Witnesses Examined :
Plaintif:Defendants:
PW.1: Grandhi Radha Krishna MurthyDW.1: D. Samba Shiva PW.2: B. Palla Reddy Rao Chowdary PW.3: D. ChanderDW.2: Maddirala Jaya Prasad PW.4: Rama Krishna : Exhibits Marked :
On behalf of
Plaintif:
Ex.A1: Certifed copy of Sale Deed bearing No.935/1984, dt.30.03.1984 Ex.A2: Certifed copy of Sale Deed bearing No.459/1977, dt.27.01.1977 Ex.A3: Certifed copy of Judgment and Decree in OS.No.15/1995, dt.17.01.2005 Ex.A4: Certifed copy of Judgment and Decree in AS.No.40/2005, dt.29.01.2008 Defendants:
Ex.B1: Certifed copy of Judgment and Decree in OS.No.1/2007, on the fle of this Court Ex.B2: Reply of Gram Panchayat Salura camp dt.4.5.2011 furnishing information under Right to Information Act Ex.B3: Certifed copy of Sale Deed bearing No.459/1977, dt.25.01.1977 Ex.B4: Certifed copy of Unregistered Sale Deed, dt.11.5.1982
Ex.B5: Certifed copy of Registered certifcate of Krishna Modern Rice Mill Ex.B6: Certifed copy of death certifcate of D. Balakotaiah, dt.22.1.1994 Ex.B7: Certifed copy of Mutation proceedings, dt.27.11.1992 Ex.B8: Certifed copy of Pattadar pass book Ex.B9: Certifed copy of Title Deed Ex.B10: Certifed copy of proceedings of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad dt.17.5.2011 Ex.B11: Certifed copy of Deed of Closure of Loan amount of APSFC to M/s. Krishna Modern Rice Mill, dt.12.1.1993
19 of 19 OS.38-2011
Ex.B12: Certifed copy of Deed of Undertaking to execute legal mortgage dt.20.10.1997 Ex.B13: Certifed copy of Deed of Hypothecation dt.20.10.1977 Ex.B14: Certifed copy of Power of Attorney of C.Balreddy dt.26.8.1977 Ex.B15: Certifed copy of Proceedings of the Joint Collector, dt.2.11.1993 on the application of the plaintiff for transfer of Rice Mill License. Ex.B16: Certifed copy of Payment receipt issued by APSFC dt.7.1.1993 for ₹42,270/- Ex.B17: Certifed copy of Payment receipt issued by APSFC dt.17.3.1992 for ₹10,000/- Ex.B18: Certifed copy of Payment receipt issued by APSFC dt.6.12.1991 for ₹10,000/- Ex.B19: Certifed copy of Land Revenue receipt dt.26.11.1998 Ex.B20: Certifed copy of Trade License dt.29.1.1999 Ex.B21: Certifed copy of telephone receipt issued by BSNL dt.1.1.1999 Ex.B22: Certifed copy of Demand notice of APSEB Ex.B23: Certifed copy of House tax demand notice dt.23.12.97 Ex.B24: Certifed copy of House tax demand notice dt.18.11.98 Ex.B25: Certifed copy of House tax demand notice dt.21.12.94 Ex.B26: Certifed copy of House tax demand notice dt.Nil Ex.B27: Certifed copy of House tax payment notice dt.09.11.93 Ex.B28: Certifed copy of House tax payment notice dt.30.08.93 Ex.B29: Certifed copy of House tax payment notice dt.3.11.93 Ex.B30: Certifed copy of House tax payment notice dt.18.1.97 Ex.B31: Certifed copy of House tax payment notice dt.18.1.97 Ex.B32: Certifed copy of House tax payment notice dt.27.11.99 Ex.B33: Certifed copy of trade license dt.27.3.1998 Ex.B34: Certifed copy of house tax payment receipt dt.27.3.98 Ex.B35: Certifed copy of house tax payment receipt dt.27.3.98 Ex.B36: Certifed copy of land revenue receipt Ex.B37: Certifed copy of land revenue receipt Ex.B38: Certifed copy of Pahanies for the year 1994-95 Ex.B39: Certifed copy of Pahanies for the year 1995-96 Ex.B40: Certifed copy of Pahanies for the year 1996-97 Ex.B41: Certifed copy of Pahanies for the year 1997-98 Ex.B42: Certifed copy of Pahanies for the year 1998-99 Ex.B43: Certifed copy of Pahanies for 1425 fasli Ex.B44: Certifed copy of pahani Ex.B45: Original sale deed bearing No.816 dt.10.2.2011 executed by D2 in respect of tin shed Ex.B46: Original sale deed bearing NO.815 dt.10.2.2011 executed by D2 in respect of Ac.0-30 guntas in Sy.No.710/A tin shed Ex.B47: Certifcate dt.14.9.2016 issued by Secretary, Gram Panchayat Saloora camp Ex.B48: Certifed copy of Pahani for Fasli 1425 Ex.B49: Certifed copy of Form 1 B, under ROR Act
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Bodhan.