1 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT YELLAMANCHILI.
Present: Sri Veerapu Nageswara Rao., M.A.,L.L.M.,
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle.
FAC Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili
Monday, this the 19th day of August, 2013
O.S.98/2008
Between:
Pappala Venkata Lakshmi, w/o Suryanarayana alias Suribabu, Hindu, aged about 60 years, house wife, resident of Dimili village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Plaintiff. And:
1. Setti Surya Rao, s/o late Sanyasi, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Cultivation, resident of Dimili village, Rambilli mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Setti Krishna Murthy, s/o Late Sanyasi, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Employee in Steel Plant as a Chargemen, resident of Door No.31-17-14, Sathavahana Nagar, Visakhapatnam-46.
3. Panduru Tayaru, w/o Rambabu, Hindu, aged about 24 years, Household duties, resident of Kattupalem village, Yellamanchili mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
...Defendants
This suit has come up on 26.7.2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Annapurnayya, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri Ch. Rama Krishna, Advocate for D.1 and D.3 and D.2 having set exparte; upon hearing their arguments, and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
Suit is filed for partition of suit schedule properties into three equal shares and to allot one such share as per good and bad qualities with metes and bounds
2. The allegations in the amended plaint, in brief, are as below:
Smt. Pappala Venkata Lakshmi is the plaintiff. Initially, she filed suit against her two brothers who none other than D.1 and D.2. It may be stated here that after the suit riped for trial, the plaintiff came up with a petition vide I.A.139/2012 praying the Court to implead her niece, who none other than the daughter of D.1 as co-defendant and the same was allowed through an order dated 20.6.2012.
It is stated by the plaintiff that their mother late Setti Narayanamma acquired the schedule properties from her parents. She claimed to have been in joint possession of the entire properties as on the date of suit and before. The first defendant being elder maintains 2 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM the schedule properties, as second defendant settled in Kurmannapalem by way of employment. She stated to have received her share in usufructs till last year. It is alleged that D.1 committed default in sending her share in usufrcuts and therefore got filed suit for partition. According to her, first defendant mortgaged some of the suit schedule properties to one T. Nookanna and N. Apparao of Murakada village in order to defraud her rights on the suit schedule property and as such mortgage deeds, if any, executed are not valid. She reliably learnt that defendants 1 and 2 are trying to alienate the remaining schedule properties to third party without her consent. The first defendant executed a registered Gift
Settlement Deed dated 10.3.2008 in the name of his daughter (third defendant) in respect of item no.1(b) of suit schedule property with incorrect boundaries. In fact, the third defendant never had acted upon and as such said Gift Deed is not valid. It is difficult for the plaintiff to enjoy the schedule properties jointly and therefore she was compelled to file suit for partition.
Inspite of her oral demands, defendants did not come forward for division of schedule properties. Hence, this suit.
3. D.2, inspite of receipt of summons through Court, has been remained exparte.
4. The first defendant, on the other hand, filed written statement denying the entire plaint averments. A memo filed by third defendant adopting the written statement of first defendant and the same has been accepted.
5. The contention of the first defendant, may be briefed, in nut shell, as below:
He pray the Court to put the plaintiff into strict proof regarding her joint possession in suit schedule property. He specifically denies his payment of usufructs from time to time. He further denies the execution of mortgage deeds in favour of Nookanna and Apparao of
Murakada village. In fact, plaintiff colluded with second defendant and got filed this suit at the instance of her husband namely Suryanarayana alias Suribabu to get unlawful gains. He stated to have partitioned the joint properties orally along with second defendant in the presence of their well wishers to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiff and her husband. It is stated that the plaintiff was given in marriage to their maternal uncle namely
Suryanarayana about 40 years ago. His parents stated to have paid hand some dowry like 3 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM money, gold, silver and valuable house hold articles to the plaintiff. Prior to the suit, disputes arose in their family, when the first defendant refused to give his daughter (D.3) to the son of plaintiff for which their maternal uncle Suryanarayana developed grudge and filed this suit in collusion with D.2 with a view to harass the first defendant and his family members. The first defendant stated to have performed marriage of D.3 and gifted some wet land to third defendant on execution of a registered Gift Settlement Deed and the same has been acted upon. D.3 came in possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since the date of execution of Gift deed. In fact, their maternal uncle Suryanarayana is a chronic litigant and local politician. Due to escalation of prices in market value and establishment of several companies around the schedule property, the plaintiff was compelled to file this suit on the instigation of her husband Suryanarayana. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit.
It is further stated that Pappala Murali Krishna, son of plaintiff, filed A.T.C.2/2008 on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Yellamanchili in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.62 cens in S.No.81/1 of Murakada village. D.2 executed a registered Gift
Settlement Deed bearing No.603/2004 dated 1.3.2004 in favour of D.1 in respect of Ac.0.81 cents having two plots of an extent of Ac.0.47 cents and 0.33 cents respectively. He lastly submit that out of Ac.0.81 cents, first defendant gave property to third defendant through a registered gift settlement deed. The plaintiff never enjoyed any one of the schedule properties jointly. He stated to have given suitable reply notice through his counsel denying the claim set up by the plaintiff through her legal notice. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also barred by limitation. Accordingly, he pray the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff, as prayed for?
2. Whether the schedule properties are not joint family properties in existence and the court fee paid is incorrect?
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
4. To what relief?
7. At the trial, the plaintiff examined her as P.W.1, examining P.W.2 to P.W.5. She relies on Ex.A.1 i.e., Cultivation Account (Certified copy of No.3 adangal). It may be stated here 4 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM that P.W.2 Suryanarayana is none other than her husband. The second defendant has been summoned as P.W.5 to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 by filing a petition vide
I.A.473/2011.
8. Against this, the first defendant examined him as D.W.1, examining three more witnesses as D.W.2 to D.W.4. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.13 are marked on behalf of first defendant.
Thus, the evidence of both sides was closed at the instance of learned counsels.
9. I have heard the arguments from the learned counsel appearing for both sides. They were fully heard. I have perused the evidence on record with caution. I gave careful consideration to the submissions placed by the learned counsels.
10. ISSUE NO.3:
Neither the plaintiff nor contesting defendants have adduced evidence in respect of this issue, though the first defendant emphatically took plea on this issue. It is incumbent on the part of the contesting defendants to adduce substantial evidence but strangely they did not agitate to explain how this suit is barred by limitation. Even, the learned counsels have not concentrated on this issue while advancement of their arguments. Interestingly, no evidence, whatsoever, has been let in by either of the parties to the suit and therefore, this issue lost its significance.
11. ISSUE NO.2:
The learned counsel for the plaintiff argue with reference to oral evidence that the entire suit schedule properties are in joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendants and as such plaintiff deserves for a preliminary decree. He submit that the defendants did not extend their cooperation for amicable partition, inspite of repeated oral demands of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file this suit praying the Court to divide the schedule properties into three equal shares as per good and bad quality with metes and bounds and allot one such share to the plaintiff. He again argue that the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.5 is strong enough to conclude the joint possession of the parties in respect of the schedule property and accordingly pray the Court to discard the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.4 whose testimony does not deserve for acceptance. He lastly submit that the plaintiff being a co-sharer entitled to the partition as prayed for.
5 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM
12. In reply, the learned counsel for first and third defendants attacks the evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.5 that this suit is brought in the name of plaintiff to cause wrongful gains to the family members of first defendant only for the reason his refusal to give third defendant in marriage to the son of plaintiff. It is further argue that first defendant paid a sum of
Rs.30,000/- to second defendant for purchase of Ac.0.05 cents of vacant house site in
Kurmannapalem of Visakhapatnam District. Thereafter, second defendant raised constructions with two floors with the funds arranged by first defendant. Though first and second defendants got partitioned their property orally, but kept the house at
Kurmannapalem in joint possession. When the first defendant demanded the second defendant to cooperate for the division of the house at Kurmannapalem into two equal shares for which dispute arose between them. Second defendant being an employee in the Steel
Plant, colluded with P.W.2 Suryanarayana, the husband of plaintiff and thereby got filed this suit for unlawful gains. He again argue that the second defendant entered in witness box as
P.W.5 to support the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and thereby exaggerated the case as if the suit schedule properties are in joint possession, without showing any proof. He invites my attention to the cross examination of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 where a prudent man can easily find the continuous possession of first defendant on the schedule properties on the date of suit and before without any interruption. It is also argued that the first defendant filed a claim petition before the revenue authorities requesting to mutate his name as absolute owner in respect of the schedule properties. It is lastly urged that the first defendant out of love and affection, at the time of marriage, executed a registered Gift settlement deed in favour of third defendant and as such third defendant came in possession of item no.1 of plaint schedule property. Accordingly, he sought the Court to discard the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 whose testimony has been impeached on all material facts.
13. I find legal force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for first and third defendants, hence I proceed to scrutinize the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5 with utmost caution to ascertain as to whether P.W.1 Smt. Venkata Lakshmi is entitled to her share in the schedule properties. If any omissions and commissions are found in the cross examination of
P.W.1 to P.W.5, cannot be ignored in mechanical way since the testimony of P.W.2 and 6 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM
P.W.5 assume legal significance, as they speak about the flow of title on the schedule property from time to time meticulously.
14. Admittedly, P.W.2 Suryanarayana alias Suribabu is the maternal uncle of first and second defendants as well the plaintiff. In other words, it may be stated that P.W.1 Smt.
Venkata Lakshmi was given in marriage to their maternal uncle (P.W.2) while P.W.5 was five years old. It is clear that P.W.1 got married P.W.2 about fourty years ago to the date of filing of the suit. It is not in dispute that P.W.2 served as President to Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Society at Dimili for a term. Admittedly, P.W.2 command honours in and around their village by virtue of his political status. He is known as an 'elder' in their village. It is also an admitted fact that P.W.2 was commanding honours from first and second defendants till the date of filing of this suit. P.W.2 has two brothers and four daughters namely
Appalanaidu, Ayyalanaidu, Setty Narayanamma, Neerukonda Adilaxmi, Karanam
Pushpavathi and Karanam Savithri. It is not in dispute that the father of P.W.2 had executed a Gift Settlement Deed dated 17.12.1957 in favour of late Narayanamma, the mother of
P.W.1, P.W.5 and D.W.1. It is not in dispute that their father late China Appalaswamy settled
Ac.8.00 of land in Dimili village and Ac.2.00 of land in Murakada village in favour of his four daughters. P.W.2 was suggested to speak that the land in Dimili village was given to late
Setti Narayanamma orally, for which he denies the suggestion. The third defendant Smt.
Tayaru, admittedly filed O.S.252/2008 seeking permanent injunction restraining P.W.2 and his children from interfering on her land admeasuring Ac.0.67 cents located in S.No.81/1, on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court at Yellamanchili. Undisputedly, P.W.2 and his sons are restrained by way of ad-interim injunction from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of third defendant vide I.A.1297/2008 on the suit property during pendentelite of main suit.
The sons of P.W.2 namely Muralakrishna and China Appalaswamy Naidu filed cases vide
A.T.C.2/2008 and ATC 7/2008 against D.W.1 on the file of Spl. Officer-cum-Prl. Junior Civil
Judge, Yellamanchil in respect of the property shown in the suit schedule and they are
pending. P.W.2 gave instructions to the counsel for drafting the plaint as per the evidence on record.
15. P.W.3 Ayyalanaidu is the younger brother of P.W.2. He worked as a teacher for a 7 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM considerable time in Mamidivada located at 5 kms., from Dimili village. Admittedly, P.W.1 was examined on commission at Dimili village. P.W.2 and P.W.3 specifically denied their presence at the time of recording cross examination of P.w.1 at Dimili villge. P.W.3 admits the fact that their father gave Ac.8.00 of land to their four daughters. P.W.5 (D.2) works as
Technician in Steel Plant and staying at Kurmannapalem. According to P.W.5 that D.W.1 refused to give their daughter namely Tayaru to the son of P.W.2. P.W.1 being the plaintiff, admittedly, says that with the pressures of P.W.2, got filed this suit for partition.
16. With the above background of the case, now let us appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of both parties so as to ascertain as to whether the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 could be believed to decree the suit.
17. Normally cause of action arises for filing suit for partition, if other co-sharers acts in detrimental against the interests of other sharer. P.W.1 did not furnish the extents, survey numbers and the boundaries of properties shown in the suit schedule in her evidence. She is unable to disclose the quantum of usufruct received from D.W.1. She is unaware of the investment made by D.W.1 for cultivation of the schedule properties. Neither P.W.1 nor
P.W.2 have furnished the details regarding their share in the investments made by D.W.1 for cultivation of the schedule properties, except making a bold statement as if they received usufruct from D.W.1 from time to time. P.W.1 tries to convince the Court as if received 10 bags of paddy each weighing about 80 kgs., towards her share from defendants but withheld substantial evidence for the reasons best known to her. When she was asked to produce substantial evidence in proof of payment of usufruct, she hesitated to produce such important evidence. At one stage of cross examination, she categorically admits that except Ex.A.1 cultivation account nothing has been left with her to prove payment of usufruct from time to time. P.W.1 has been subjected to cross examination at length with reference to crucial facts like her possession on the land given by her maternal grand father to their mother Smt. Late
Narayanamma. She conceded the case of D.W.1 by saying her continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. In fact, the said land is excluded from the suit schedule. From the beginning, it has been contended by D.W.1 that the day on which he demanded P.W.1 and P.W.2 to deliver the possession of Ac.2.00 of land given by their maternal grant father to 8 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM late Narayanamma towards her 'pasupu kumkuma', P.W.2 developed grudge and thereby filed this suit with a view to put the family members of D.W.1 under threat. I find constant approach of D.W.1 by way of direct and specific suggestions in the cross examination of
P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 that their relationship became strained right from the day on which he demanded P.W.1 and P.W.2 to deliver the possession of Ac.2.00 of land allotted to their mother late Narayanamma towards 'pasupu kumkuma'. In fact, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 did not deny the said suggestion. In this context, the admitted evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 assumes significance for the reason of their supporting the case of D.W.1. The cross examination of P.W.5 (D.2) that D.W.1 refused to give third defendant in marriage to the son of P.W.1 and P.W.2, has been probabilized because of the evidence of D.W.1 that a false suit is filed without any justification. Admittedly, D.W.1 gave his daughter Tayaru (D.3) to Army personnel ignoring the son of P.W.1 and P.W.2.
18. In the cross examination, P.W.5 has supported the case of D.W.1 directly to mean that their maternal grand father gave Ac.8.00 of land to his four daughters and their mother
Narayanamma died one year prior to the filing of this suit. In fact, D.W.1 demanded P.W.2 to deliver Ac.2.00 of land allotted to his mother for which disputes arose. P.w.1 has directly conceded the case of D.W.1 that their relationships are strained due to the constant demand of D.W.1 for return of Ac.2.00 of land.
19. P.W.5 stated to have joined in Steel Plant in the year 1984 for a monthly salary of
Rs.1200/-. He was subjected to cross examination on 15.2.2012 by which date his monthly salary has been enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Admittedly, P.W.5 has purchased a house site admeasuring Ac.0.05 cents for a sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- during the year 1992.
From the beginning, it has been contended by D.W.1 that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid to
P.W.5 for purchase of Ac.0.05 cents of vacant house site in Kurmannapalem. P.W.5 tries to impress the Court as if he purchased the house site with his investment itself. Interestingly, he did not furnish the particulars of net salary during 1984-1992. Had P.W.5 furnished his net salary during the said period, explaining the Court that he had sufficient income after attending his family expenses, then the appreciation of his evidence would have been otherwise. Inspite of serious resistance from D.W.1, denying his financial status by then, still 9 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM
P.W.5 continued relying upon his oral testimony without disclosure of his substantial evidence urging the Court to believe his evidence to be true. Undoubtedly, P.W.5 raised ground floor in the year 1998 on Ac.0.05 cents of vacant site and subsequently constructed first floor in the year 2008. P.W.5 did not deny the oral demands of D.W.1 for partition of the house constructed in Kurmannapalem village with metes and bounds. In fact P.W.5 denies their issuance of legal notice demanding D.W.1 for division of the schedule property till confrontation of the copy of legal notice. It appear from the record that on 21.5.08, P.W.1 and
P.W.5 gave legal notice as under Ex.B.1 calling upon D.W.1 to cooperate with the division of schedule properties shown in suit schedule with metes and bounds through their counsel Sri
L.V. Ramana Murthy, Advocate at Yellamanchili. As a matter of fact, D.W.1 gave reply notice as under Ex.B.2 through his counsel Sri Ch. Rama Krishna, denying joint possession and enjoyment of P.W.1 and P.W.5 in respect of the schedule properties. In the earliest point of time, D.W.1 informed P.Ws.1 to 5 about the execution of Ex.B.5 Registered Gift Settlement
Deed dated 10.3.2008 in favour of D.3 to an extent of Ac.0.67 cents of Murakada village referred under item no.1 (b) of the suit schedule. D.W.1 further informed through Ex.B.2 legal notice that P.W.5 on one pretext or other postponed the demand for division of the house at
Kurmannapalem without cooperation. He also recalled the litigation with reference to ATC 2/2008 filed by sons of P.W.2 on the file of learned Special Officer-cum- Prl. Junior Civil
Judge, Yellamanchili in respect of some property included in the suit schedule. If we read the
evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.B.2 legal notice, in the light of the evidence of D.W.1 together, the only conclusion that can be drawn is about the personal knowledge of P.W.1 regarding the continuous possession and enjoyment of the third defendant Tayaru in respect of item no.1 (b) of the suit schedule by virtue of Ex.B.5 Registered Gift Settlement Deed . It has come on record that the suit filed for permanent injunction vide O.S.252/2008 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, restraining P.W.2 and his children from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of item no.1(b) of suit schedule property. In fact, she obtained ad interim injunction as per the order in I.A.1297/2008 in O.S.252/2008 and thereby P.W.2 and his children are restrained from interfering with her peaceful possession. It is also clear that Pappala Murali Krishna filed ATC 2/2008 in respect of 10 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM
Ac.1.62 cents of land in S.No.81/1 of Murakada village as if D.W.1 let out the property on lease. Likewise, Pappala China Appalaswamy Naidu filed ATC 7/08 on the file of learned
Special Officer-cum-Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, in S.No.120 of Murakada village, to convince the Court that D.W.1 let out the said property for lease. In fact, legal notices are exchanged between D.W.1 and the above two persons as under Ex.B.11 to Ex.B.13 in respect of the said lease. In fact, D.W.1 specifically denies his letting the above lands on lease. Inspite of specific denial of the lease, still no evidence is produced before the Court.
Even no substantial evidence is produced in support of the case of the cultivating tenants namely Pappala Murali Krishna and Pappala China Appalaswamy Naidu. The way and the circumstance under which P.W.2 and his sons suffered with injunction order in a suit filed by third defendant Smt.Tayaru is an indication of enmity between the said two families regarding the landed property. Hence, one cannot expect impartial evidence from the mouths of P.W.1,
P.W.2 and P.W.5 with whom D.W.1 discontinued cordial relationship.
20. P.W.1 has set up specific pea of joint possession over the schedule property since a long time. Admittedly, she got married P.W.2 in the year 1962 while P.W.5 was just five years old. It was impossible for P.W.5 to remember the things that happened at the time of marriage of P.W.1 and P.W.2 due to his child age. The undisputed evidence on record clearly indicate the settlement of Ac.8.00 of land of late China Appalaswamy in favour of their four daughters including P.W.1. It has come in the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.5 that an extent of Ac.2.00 is given to each daughter. D.W.1 being elder son speaks with reference to the presentation of hand some dowry by his parents at the time of marriage of P.w.1 and
P.W.2. In fact, P.W.1 performed the marriages of her two sons. In the absence of direct evidence, it would be unsafe to accept the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 regarding joint possession of the schedule property for the main reason that P.W.2 and P.W.5 themselves dilute the said plea of joint possession by conceding the case of the D.W.1 to the effect that certain properties are purchased by D.W.1 and P.W.5 jointly. The contention of
P.W.1 has been falsified through Ex.B.8 copy of registered sale deed dated 6.7.1988. It is evident from Ex.B.8 sale deed dated 6.7.88 that a sum of Rs.48,000/- has been paid by
D.W.1 and P.W.5 towards sale consideration of a tiled house constructed on 348 sq.yds., 11 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM within specific boundaries in Dimili village. The said property is shown as item no.7. It is not in dispute that D.W.1 continued in possession and enjoyment of the item no.7 of the suit schedule right from the date of execution of Ex.B.8 and till the date of their deposition in the
Court. Therefore, the question of joint possession of P.W.1 over item no.7 does not arise.
Interestingly, no positive evidence is produced before the Court to support the said plea. It is important to note here that P.W.1 and P.W.5 filed claim petitions under Ex.B.6 and Ex.B.7 urging the revenue authorities to mutate their names as owners in respect of the properties.
Of course, P.W.5 denied his signature on Ex.B.7. D.W.1 had no necessity to forge the signature of P.W.5 on Ex.B.7 since the said requisition was filed before the Revenue authorities, to mutate his (P.W.5) name in respect of the properties shown therein. D.W.1 continued reliance upon Ex.B.4, Ex.B.5, Ex.B.8 and Ex.B.9 urging the Court to believe his exclusive title and possession in respect of the schedule properties. Ex.B.10 Cist receipt bear the name of D.W.1 to be the owner of the property shown in suit schedule. D.W.2 to D.W.4, of course distant relatives, repeats the evidence of D.W.1 in so far as his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without interruption. There is no dispute with late
Smt. Narayanamma who delivered lands in S.No.81/1 and 120 in favour of D.W.1 and P.W.5.
In fact, P.W.1 is not aware of plaint averments. On the other hand, P.W.2 said to have given instructions to the learned counsel for drafting plaint. We should not forget that P.W.1 repeatedly says that she filed this suit due to the pressure of her husband (P.W.2) and their sos. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 may not be helpful to P.W.1 since they do not have knowledge about the nature of schedule properties. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 has been impeached on all material particulars and therefore, this Court is hesitating to accept their testimony which is full of quite inconsistencies. If we read the evidence of D.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, in the light of the admissions made by P.W.2 and
P.W.5, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this suit filed only for two reasons; one is for refusal of D.W.1 to give D.3 in marriage to the son of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the other is constant demand by D.W.1 for division of house constructed at Kurmannapalem. This conclusion is inevitable from the circumstances in which P.W.5 remained exparte in spite of receipt of summons and the way in which he appeared as witness on behalf of P.W.1.
12 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM
21. For the above reasons, this Court find without hesitation that P.W.1 failed miserably to establish her joint possession on the schedule property at any point of time either before the suit or after. I find this issue against the plaintiff in affirmative.
22. ISSUE NO.1:
In view of my finding on issue no.2, I hold that P.W.1 is not entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties. Ex.A.1 may not be helpful to P.W.1 since it does not disclose joint possession of P.W.1 on the schedule property.
23. ISSUE NO.4:
In the result, suit is dismissed. I shall make no order as to costs since the parties are blood related together.
Dictated to Shorthand writer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me
in the open Court on this the 19th day of August, 2013.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANAKAPALLE.
FAC SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, YELLAMANCHILI.
Appendix of Evidence
Number of witnesses examined
For plaintiff: For Defendants: P.W.1 : Pappala Venkata Lakshmi D.W.1 : Setti Surya Rao P.w.2 : Pappala Suryanarayana D.W.2 : G. Kameswara Rao P.W.3 : Pappala Ayyalanaidu D.W.3 : Badhi Appa Rao P.W.4 : Panduri Appa Rao D.W.4 : N. Suryanarayana P.w.5 : Setti Krishna Murthy Number of Documents marked For plaintiff: Ex.A.1 : Certified copy of No.3 adangal (Cultivation account)
For Defendants: Ex.B.1 : Legal notice issued to defendant dated 21.5.08
Ex.B.2 : office copy of Reply notice dated 12.6.08 Ex.B.3 : Rejoinder notice dated 21.7.2008 Ex.B.4 : Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 1.3.04 executed by D.2 in favour of D.1 Ex.B.5 : Certified copy of Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 10.3.08 executed by D.1 in favour of D.3 Ex.B.6 : Xerox copy of Form 1-A Ex.B.7 : Xerox copy of Form 1-A Ex.B.8 : Registered sale deed executed by D. Bala Saroja in favour of S. Surya Rao Ex.B.9 : Settlement deed executed by S.Narayanamma in favour of D.1 and D.2 dated 14.7.1980 13 O.S.98/2008/PSCJC/YLM
Ex.B.10 : Cist receipt for Rs.1494/- dated 28.5.08 Ex.B.11 : Legal notice issued to D.2 dated 17.3.11 Ex.B.12 : Legal notice issued to D.2 Ex.B.13 : Office copy of legal notice
PSCJ, AKP
FAC SCJ, YLM.