/1/
O.S.No.71/2013
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::
NARSAPURAM
Present: Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsapuram
Friday, this the 12th day of April 2024
O.S.No.71 / 2013
Between:
Budda lakshmi narasimha Rao, S/o.Late Venkata Krishnayya, Hindu, Male, 78 years, Business, R/o.Palakol, PJCJC., W.G.Dt. … Plaintiff.
And
1. Veerla Satyanarayana, S/o.Anjaneyulu, Hindu, Male, 58 years, Employee, R/o.Palakol, Palakol Mandal, W.G.Dt.
2. Veerla Venkatalakshmi (Died)
3. Brundavanam Visweswara Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Male, 58 years, Business, R/o.D.No.1-3, Nandamurivarigaruvu, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G.Dt. (Name of the 2nd defendant amended as per Orders in I.A.No.953/2015 dt.26.12.2015).
(3rd defendant added as party as per orders in I.A.No.462/2018 dt.21.8.2018).
… Defendants.
This suit is came for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
P.V.Krishna Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri B.Nagabhushana Rao,
Advocate for the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 is died and of
Sri.Ch.Danayya Naidu, Advocate for the the defendant No.3 and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
The suit is filed for declaration, possession and permanent injunction by the plaintiff declaring the title of the plaintiff over the plaint ‘B’ /2/
O.S.No.71/2013
schedule property and deliver possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property after evicting the defendants there from and grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and costs of the suit.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows; that the property more particularly described in the ‘A’ schedule property and some other properties are the absolute properties of the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased an extent of 19-3-0 sq.yards of site and some other property from
Saladi Bapiraju and his sons under the registered dated24.8.1979. The plaintiff also purchased another extent of 33 ½ of square yards and some other site from Saladi Mamillayya and others under the registered dated9.9.1977. The plaintiff also purchased another extent of 8-5-72 of square yards and some other site from Saladi Peda Sitharamayya and his sons under the registered dated12.6.1979. The plaintiff also purchased another extent of 8-5-120 square yards of site and some other site from
Saladi Anjaneyulu and his sons under the registered dated14.5.1979. The plaintiff also purchased another extent of 51 ¼ of square yards of site and some other site from Saladi Venkata Narasimha Rao and his sons under the registered dated9.9.1977. The plaintiff also purchased another extent of 17- 1-104 square yards of site and some other site from Saladi Venkata Rama
Murthy under the registered dated18.10.1979. All the above said properties are situated in a single plot.
/3/
O.S.No.71/2013
3.The plaintiff humbly submitted that one Repaka Veerraju,
Suryanarayana, Sriramulu, Saldi Srirama Murthy and others partitioned their properties under the registered partition deed dated 25.7.1971 and in the said partition the ‘B’ marked share shown in the plaint plan attached to the partition deed fell to the share of Repaka Sriramulu and other’s. The actual extent of that share fell to the share of Sriramulu and others is 309.6 square yards of site as per the linear measurements given in the plaint plan attached to the partition deed. The plaintiff purchased above said property which fell to the share of Sriramulu and others and some other property under the registered sale deed dated 3.3.1976 for a valuable consideration.
Unfortunately in the said sale deed the extent was wrongly mentioned as
Acquired.0.06 2/3 cents. But actually the property that fell to the share of
Repaka Sriramulu and others and situated within the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed is 309.6 square yards of site, but not Ac.0.06 2/3 cents. The plaintiff and is vendors were clear and unanimous in their understanding of the identity of the property and its extent. The boundaries of the property on physical verification tally with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 3-3-1976. It is settled principles of law that whenever the boundaries of property tally, the discrepancy as to survey number or even extent become immaterial. So the plaintiff is the absolute owner of an extent of 309.6 square yards of site and the plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since the date of purchase.
The said 309.6 square yards of site is situated on the south of the property /4/
O.S.No.71/2013
purchased by the plaintiff under the above referred six sale deeds. Thus the plaintiff purchased a total extent of 528.75 square yards of site under above referred seven registered sale deeds. The plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment of 528.75 square yards of site by paying taxes to the Government.
4.The plaintiff Further submitted that the 528.75 square yards of site is situated in a single plot and the plaintiff kept the same as vacant.
The plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment of 528.75 square yards of site and it is his absolute property. Out of the 528.75 square yards of site the plaintiff sold away an extent of 321-1-00 square yards on site to one Talluri Venkateswara Rao of Palakol under the agreement of sale cum
General Power of Attorney dated 6.11.2006. After selling away 321-1-00 square yards of site the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the remaining site of an extent of 207.65 square yards of site, which is the plaint A schedule property. The plaintiff further submitted that on the north of the ‘A’ schedule property Saladi people used to have some vacant site. But few years ago the 1st defendant constructed a house in the name of his wife, the 2nd defendant herein on the northern side of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and has been residing with his family. The plaintiff leased out the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to one Desarla Satyanarayana.
The said Desarla Satyanarayana has been doing old timber business in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
5.While the matter stood thus recently the lessee Dasarla /5/
O.S.No.71/2013
Satyanarayana informed the plaintiff that the defendants raised the level of the land the plaintiff on the southern side of his house and the defendants are not allowing him to move into that place. Immediately the plaintiff raised dispute with the defendants before the elders. Before the elders, the defendants stated that their site extended up to the point where they raised the level of the land. Immediately the plaintiff got measured his site through surveyor and found that the extent is only 190 square yards and thus the plaintiff is having 17 square yards of site less than what the plaintiff should have. The defendants high highhandedly encroached in to an extent of on the south 17 square yards of site of the plaintiff taking advantage of the fact that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property is vacant site. The said 17 square yards of site is more particularly described in the B schedule attached to the plaint. After taking measurements the plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate the plaint B schedule property and handover the same to him. But the defendants refuse to vacate the same. The plaintiff further submitted that the plaint ‘B’ schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and the defendants have absolutely no manner of right title to or interest in the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. Their possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is illegal, unlawful and their refusal to vacate and deliver possession to the plaintiff in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff amounts to trespass under laws. Hence, the present suit.
6.The defendants filed the written statement. The brief averments of the written statement that the material allegations made in the plaint are /6/
O.S.No.71/2013
neither true nor valid under law. Further submitted that the defendants are not the owners of the site on the northern side of the plaint schedule land as they already sold away their site and hence the defendants are not necessary parties to the suit. The allegations made at para 4 of the plaint that the plaintiff purchasing of the site from various persons under various sale deeds is not known to these defendants and there by callas upon the plaintiff to prove strictly regarding his purchasing of the site and his vendors title. These defendants under stand that the plaintiff obtained sale deeds under fiction names for higher extent even though his vendors has no such title to those respective extents. The plaintiff has to title over the plaint A and B schedule properties to claim any relief.
7.Further allegation at para 5 of the plaint that the site purchased by the plaintiff from Repaka Sree Ramulu under sale deed dated 3.3.1976 the extent was wrongly mentioned as Ac.0.6 2/3 cents even though vendor has got 390.6 square yards towards his share with in those boundaries is utterly false and not tenable. The said allegation made by the plaintiff is clear proof of plaintiff’s intention to grab more extent of the site than he purchased from his vendor itself is sufficient for dismissal the suit as plaintiff vendor transferred only Ac.0.6 2/3 cents of site under the sale deed
dated 3.3.1976 as per the provision of Transfer of property Act. The
allegation that it is settled principles of law that whenever the boundaries of property tally the discrepancy as to survey number or even extent become immaterial is utterly false as there is no such principle under law.
/7/
O.S.No.71/2013
8.Further allegations made at para 6 of the plaint that 528.75 square yards of site is situated in a single plot and the plaintiff kept the same as vacant and the plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment and the plaintiff sold away 321.1.00 sq.yards of site to one
Thalluri Venkateswara Rao under agreement of sale cum General Power of
Attorney dated 6.11.2006 is utterly false and not valid under law as the plaintiff does own such extent of site. Further allegation that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the remaining site to an extent of 207.65 sq.yards shown in the plaint ‘A’ schedule is utterly false and untenable as the plaintiff’s title deeds does not confer his purchase of such extent of the site from his vendors.
9.Further allegation at paras 7 and 8 of the plaint that on the north of A schedule property Saladi people used to have some vacant site, but few years ago the 1st defendant construct a house in the name of his wife and has been residing with his family is not fully correct. The allegation that plaintiff leased out A schedule property to one Desarla
Satyanarayana who informed to the plaintiff that the defendants raised level of the land on the southern side of their house and not allowing him to more into that place is utterly false and untenable. The plaintiff has to inch of site towards north of plaint schedule sites. Such false allegation was made to grab the northern side site. Further allegation that the plaintiff disputed the defendants before elders without naming them itself proves that the allegation was false, which is intended to fill lacunas during the trial.
/8/
O.S.No.71/2013
Further allegations that after taking measurements the plaintiff demanded the defendants to vacate that plaint B schedule property and handover the same to him and the defendants, refused to vacate are all utterly false.
10.In fact the 1st defendants ancestors are owning 130 square yards of site consisting Zinc sheet shed situated at Sri Rampeta of Palakol was devolved to the 1st defendant and his sister Gubbala Subba Lakshmi equally as per the unregistered Will dated 5.3.1987 executed by the 1st defendant’s father Veerla Anjaneyulu. Later the 1st defendant’s father Veerla
Anjaneyulu died testate on 27.1.1988. The 1st defendant took western side half of the site and his sister Gubbala Subba Lakshmi took eastern side half of the site out of that 130 sq.yds. The 1st defendant settled his share of site in favour of his wife i.e. 2nd defendant under Regd.Settlement deed dated 29.10.2004. Later the 2nd defendant sold away that site to Brundavanam
Visweswara Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao under Regd.Sale Deed dated 21.1.2006. therefore at present since 2006 the defendants does not own any site or house on the northern side of the plaintiffs alleged site to encroach B schedule site or to make any alteration to the site. In fact the plaintiff does not own plaint B schedule site. Therefore these defendants are not necessary parties to the suit.
11.Due to the above facts and circumstances suit filed the plaintiff against these defendants is not maintainable under law and so much so as the plaintiff has no right over the plaint B schedule property is not entitled to seek either declaration of title over the plaint B schedule property or to /9/
O.S.No.71/2013
seek delivery of its possession from these defendants or even to seek permanent injunction against these defendants. Therefore these defendants pray the Honourable Court to dismiss the suit in limini with compensatory costs as these defendants were dragged to the Court unnecessarily.
12.The 3rd defendant filed written statement. The brief averments of the written statement that the material allegations made in the plaint are neither true nor valid under law. Further submitted that the plaintiff purchased sites from various persons under various sale deeds is not known to this defendant and the plaintiff has to prove the same strictly regarding his purchasing of sites and his vendors title. This defendant understand that the plaintiff obtained sale deeds under fiction names for higher extent even though his vendors has no such title to those respective extents. The plaintiff has no title over the pliant ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property to claim any relief. The allegations that the site purchased by the plaintiff form Repaka Sriramulu under regd.sale deed dated 3.3.1976 the extent was wrongly mentioned Ac.0.06 2/3 cents even though the vendor has to 390.6 sq.yards towards his share within those boundaries is utterly false and not tenable. The said allegation made by the plaintiff is clearly shows his intention to grab more extent of the site than he purchased from his vendor itself is sufficient for dismissal the suit as plaintiff vendor transferred only Ac.0.06 2/3 cents of the site under the sale deed dated 3.3.1976 as per the Provision of Transfer of Property Act. The allegation that 528.75 sq.yards of site is situated in a single plot and the plaintiff kept /10/
O.S.No.71/2013
the same as vacant and the plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment and the plaintiff sold away 321.1.00 sq.yards of site to one
Talluri Venkateswara Rao under Agreement of Sale Cum General Power of
Attorney dated 6.11.2006 is utterly false are not valid under law as the plaintiff does own such extent of site. The allegation that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of remaining site an extent of 207.65 sq.yards shown in the plaint ‘A’ schedule is not true and not tenable as the plaintiff’s title deeds doe not confirm his purchase of such extent of the site from his vendors.
13.The allegations mentioned in para Nos.7 and 8 of plaint are not true and correct. The allegation that on the north of ‘A’ schedule property
Saladi people used to have some vacant site, but few years ago the 1st defendant construct a house in the name of his wife and has been residing with his family is not correct. The allegation that the plaintiff leased out ‘A’ schedule property to one Desarla Satyanarayana who informed to the plaintiff that the defendant raised level of the land on the southern side of their house and not allowing him to more into that place is not correct. The plaintiff has no inch of site towards north of the plaint schedule sites. Such false allegation was made to grab the northern side site. Further allegation that the plaintiff that disputed the defendants before elders without naming them itself proves that the allegation was false, which is intended to fill lacunas during the trial. The allegation that after taking measurements the plaintiff demanded defendants to vacate that plaint ‘B’ schedule property /11/
O.S.No.71/2013
and handed over the same to him and the defendants refused to vacate are all utterly false.
14.The allegations mentioned in para No.9 and 10 of plaint are not true and correct. The allegation that the plaintiff B schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and the defendants have absolutely no manner of right, title or interest in the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and their possession of the plaint B schedule property is illegal, unlawful and their refusal to vacate and deliver possession to the plaintiff in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff amounts to trespass under is not true and correct.
15.The defendant humbly submits that he purchased an extent of 65 sq.yards of site including a house under regd.sale deed dated 21.1.2006 with valuable consideration from the defendants 1 and 2 ever since this defendant has been paying the taxes to the Municipal Authorities. This defendant having title over the said property this defendant submit that the plaintiff is well aware about the purchase of the said property from the defendants 1 and 2. This defendant submits that the plaintiff has no right or title over the said property and the plaintiff has no local standy to question the title of this defendant and he purchased more than 12 years back. So impleaded this defendant in the suit is barred by limitation and the suit is barred by limitation and the suit is not maintainable against this defendant under the above circumstances.
/12/
O.S.No.71/2013
16.This defendant submitted that he has nothing to do with litigation in between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff has no right to question the validity of sale deed dated 21.1.2006 of this defendant. The sale transaction is took place between defendants 1 and 2 and this defendant more than 12 years. This defendant humbly submitted that he is not a necessary and proper party in the above proceedings. The plaintiff filed the above suit with regarding to encroachment of his site against the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff has to file a suit within three years from the date of sale transaction, but the plaintiff failed to question the validity of the sale deed dated 21.1.2006, with three years.
17.This defendant humbly submit that he has purchased the said property under sale deed dated 21.1.2006 from the defendants 1 and 2 with a valid sale consideration and the 1st defendant got the said property under a Will in the year 1987 from his father. After the death of his father the 1st defendant took possession and enjoyment of the said property as per the
Will. So, the 1st defendant become the absolute owner of the said property.
Subsequently, the 1st defendant had executed Regd/settlement deed dated 29.10.2004 in favour of the 2nd defendant with absolute rights. Later on the defendants 1 and 2 sold away the said property under regd.sale deed dated.21.1.2006 to this defendant. So this defendant become absolute owner of the said property and he has been possession and enjoyment of the said property without any interruption. So, the plaintiff is nothing to do with the said property.
/13/
O.S.No.71/2013
18.This defendant humbly submitted that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the defendants. There are neither merits nor bonafides of the plaintiff in filing this suit. The plaintiff did not ask any relief in the plaint against this defendant and hence the suit is not maintainable against this defendant under law. The plaintiff has to file a separate suit against this defendant and impleaded this defendant as party in this suit is not maintainable under law prays that the Honourable court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs awarding compensatory costs to this defendant under U/Sec.35-A of CPC.
19.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his title over plaint B schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction in respect of A schedule property ?
3. To what relief ?
20.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff and two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the defendant, the 1st defendant examined as DW.1, the 3rd defendant examined as DW.2 and also one third party examined as DW.3,
Exs.B1 to B5 and Ex.C1 is marked.
ISSUE NO.1 AND 2: Both issues are clubbed together the for the sake and convenience and in order to avoid reputation.
/14/
O.S.No.71/2013
21.Before discussing issues, this court would like to mention the brief arguments of both the counsels.
22.During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff humbly submitted that one Repaka
Veerraju, Suryanarayana, Sriramulu, Saldi Srirama Murthy and others partitioned their properties under the registered partition deed dated25.7.1971 and in the said partition the ‘B’ marked share shown in the plaint plan attached to the partition deed fell to the share of Repaka
Sriramulu and other’s. The actual extent of that share fell to the share of
Sriramulu and others is 309.6 square yards of site as per the linear measurements given in the plaint plan attached to the partition deed. The plaintiff purchased above said property which fell to the share of Sriramulu and others and some other property under the registered sale deed dated 3.3.1976 for a valuable consideration. Unfortunately in the said sale deed the extent was wrongly mentioned as Ac.0.06 2/3 cents. But actually the property that fell to the share of Repaka Sriramulu and others and situated within the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed is 309.6 square yards of site, but not Ac.0.06 2/3 cents. The plaintiff and is vendors were clear and unanimous in their understanding of the identity of the property and its extent. The boundaries of the property on physical verification tally with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 3-3-1976. It is settled principles of law that whenever the boundaries of property tally, the discrepancy as to survey number or even extent become immaterial. So the /15/
O.S.No.71/2013
plaintiff is the absolute owner of an extent of 309.6 square yards of site and the plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since the date of purchase. The said 309.6 square yards of site is situated on the south of the property purchased by the plaintiff under the above referred six sale deeds. Thus the plaintiff purchased a total extent of 528.75 square yards of site under above referred seven registered sale deeds. The plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment of 528.75 square yards of site by paying taxes to the Government and pray the Honourable declaring the title of plaintiff over the B schedule property and deliver the possession of the B schedule property after evicting the defendant.
23.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not add property and necessary parties. Plaintiff did not add sisters of defendants. Hence, pray the Honourable Court suit may be dismissed.
24.It is settled law in suit for declaration of title the plaintiff has to prove his case without basing on the weakness of the defendant. The plaintiff must establish his own case on strength of her own title deed. The burden is heavily cast upon the plaintiff to prove his case is the plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.
25.To prove the plaintiff the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1-
B.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, he reinstated the contents of his pleadings and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. The learned counsel for the defendant cross examined PW.1, during the course of cross examination, he admitted that /16/
O.S.No.71/2013
in Ex.A1 the extent of item No.1 is 6 2/3 cents, the extent is wrongly mentioned. He has not obtained ratification deed. The counsel put a suggestion to witness that he has no right to recover plaint B schedule property, the same is got denied it and further admitted that by the date of filing of suit the plaint B schedule property was in possession of D1. The witness adds that he encroached. He has not mentioned the date of encroachment.
26.He further admitted that he sold 321 sq.yds., out of 333 sq.yds., through registered sale deed dated 6.11.2006 to one Talluri
Venkateswararao, the same is marked as Ex.B1. He further admitted that in Ex.B1 schedule is mentioned as 6 2/3 cents out of full extent of Ac.2.08 cents in R.S.No.88/2 equivalent to 384/2. The counsel put a suggestion to the witness he has no title over plaint B schedule property, the same is got denied it.
27.The learned counsel for defendant cross examined PW.1 at lengthy nothing was elicited that plaintiff has no right over the plaint B schedule.
28.The learned counsel for Defendant No.3 cross examined PW.1, during the course of cross examination the counsel for D3 put a suggestion to the PW.1 that he purchased only 6 2/3 cents out of Ac.0.08 cents item A of plaint schedule property, nothing was elicited in favour of defendant No.3.
As per the version of the plaintiff, one Repaka Veerraju and Suryanarayana,
Sri Ramulu, Saladi Sriram Murthy and others partitioned their properties /17/
O.S.No.71/2013
under regd.prtition deed dated25.07.1971 and in said partition the B marked share shown in the plaint attached to the partition deed fell to the share of Repaka Sriramulu and others and the actual extent that fell to share of Sriramulu and others , there is 390.6 sq.yds., of the site as per the lenier measurements given in the plaint attached to the partition deed. The plaintiff purchased the said property which fell to the share of Sriramulu and others and some other properties under regd.sale deed dated3.3.1976 for valuation consideration. In the said sale deed the extent was wrongly mentioned as 0.0.6 2/3 cents. But actually the property that fell to share of
Repaka Sriramulu and others situated within the boundaries as mentioned in sale deed is 390.6 sq.yds. in site. The plaintiff is absolute owner of an extent of 390.6 sq.yds., of site., and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since the date of purchase. The said 390.6 sq.yds., of site is situated on the south of the property purchased by the plaintiff under sale deeds. That the plaintiff purchased the total extent 528.75 sq.yds., under various regd.sale deeds. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of 528.75 sq.yds., of site by paying taxes to the Government.
29.The plaintiff examined Repaka Veeraiah as PW.2, he testified that one Repaka Narasimha Murthy is his father. His father died in or about the year 1966 and after his death on 25.7.1971 his father’s brother
Sriramulu, Repaka Veerraju, Suryanarayana, Saladi Srirama Murthy, himself and his brothers partitioned their properties under the registered partition deed dated25.7.1971 and in the said partition the B marked share /18/
O.S.No.71/2013
shown in the plan attached to the partition deed fell to the share of Repaka
Sriramulu, himself and his brothers who are sons Narasimha Murthy. The actual extent that fell to the share of Sriramulu, himself and his brothers is 390.6 sq.yds., of site as per the linear measurements given and his brothers is 390.6 sq.yds., of site as per the linear measurements given in the plan attached to the partition deed. Subsequently his paternal uncle Sriramulu, himself and his brothers sold away the above said property which fell to the share of Sriramulu and themselves and some other property to the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 3.3.1976 for a valuable consideration.
Unfortunately in the said sale deed the extent was wrongly mentioned as
Acquired.0.06 2/3 cents. But actually the property that fell to the share of
Repaka Sriramulu and themselves and situated within the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed is 390.6 sq.yds., of site, but not Acquired.0.06 2/3 cents. The plaintiff and his vendors i.e himself and others were clear and unanimous in their understanding of the identity of the property and its extent. The boundaries of the property on physical verification tally with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 3.3.1976. So the plaintiff is the absolute owner of an extent of 390.6 sq.yds, of site and he alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since the date of purchase.
On the north of the above said 390.6 sq.yds., of site the property of Saladi people is situated and Veerla Satyanarayana never owned any property.
Ex.A1 is the copy of the sale deed executed by him and his brothers, Ex.A11 is the Registered partition deed executed between himself and his brothers.
/19/
O.S.No.71/2013
30.The learned counsel for the D1 cross examined PW.2, during the course of cross examination of PW.2 he admitted that the schedule property in Ex.A1 sale deed is not shown in sq.yards., as it was shown in acres and cents. He does not know whether D1 was raised asbestos shed in plaint B schedule property.
31.On perusal of the plaint A and B schedule properties eastern side boundary is belongs to the Repaka Veerayya and others. PW.2 is one of the owners of eastern boundary of plain A and B schedule properties. The plaintiff proved that he has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties.
32.On perusal of Ex.A1 Registration extract of Regd.sale deed dated3.3.1976 executed by Repaka Sriramulu and others in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2 Registration extract of Regd.Sale deed dated 24.8.1979 executed by Saladi Bapiraju and others in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A3
Registration extract of Regd.Sale deed dated 9.9.1977 executed by Saladi
Mamillaya and others in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A4 Registration extract of
Regd.Sale Deed dated 12.6.1979 executed by Saladi Pedda Sitaramayya and others in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A5 is Registration extract of Regd.Sale Deed
dated 14.5.1979 executed by Saladi Anjaneyulu and others in favour of
plaintiff. Ex.A6 Registration extract of Regd.Sale Deed dated 9.9.1977 executed by Saladi Venkata Narasimha Rao and others in favour of plaintiff.
It is just and necessary to refer Ex.A11 is Regd.Partition deed among one
Repaka Veerraju, Suryanarayana, Sriramulu, Salladi Srirammurthy and /20/
O.S.No.71/2013
others. On perusal of Ex.A11 page No.8, there is a clear recital about partition fell to the share of one Repaka Veerraju and others and extent of 390.6 sq.yds., refer to Ac.0.08 cents. On the basis of Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 this court find that the plaintiff purchased the property an extent of 390.6 sq.yds., under Ex.A1 from Repaka Sriramulu and others. Ex.A7 Registration extract of regd.sale deed dated 18.10.1979 executed by Saladi Venkata
Ramana Murthy and others in favour of plaintiff for an extent of 138.15 sq.yds. The plaintiff purchased total extent of 528.75 sq.yds., under Ex.A1 to Ex.A7.
33.Now coming the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to
A11 ie., Ex.A1 is the registration extract of the registered sale deed dated 3.3.1976 executed by Repaka Sriramulu and others in his favour, Ex.A2 is registration extract of the registered sale deed dated 24.8.1979 executed by
Saladi Bapiraju and others in his favour, Ex.A3 is the registration extract of the registered sale deed dated 9.9.1977 executed by Saladi Mamillayya and others in his favour, Ex.A4 is the registration extract of the registered sale deed dated 12.6.1979 executed by Saladi Peda Sitaramayya and others in his favour, Ex.A5 is the registration extract of the registered sale deed dated 14.5.1979 executed by Saladi Anjaneyulu and others in his favour, Ex.A6 is registration extract of the registered sale deed dated 9.9.1977 executed by
Saladi Venkata Narasimha Rao and others in his favour, Ex.A7 is the registration extract of the registered sale deed dated 18.10.1979 executed by
Saladi Venkata Ramana Murthy and others in his favour, Ex.A8 is the /21/
O.S.No.71/2013
original tax receipt dated 5.3.2011 showing payment of property tax in respect of the plaint schedule property, Ex.A9 is the original tax receipt
dated 26.3.2012 showing payment of property tax in respect of the plaint
schedule property, Ex.A10 is the original tax receipt dated 2.8.2012 showing payment of property tax in respect of the plaint schedule property and
Ex.A11 is partition deed. Hence the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with
Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 corroborated and consisting, the plaintiff proved his title and plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title of the plaintiff over plaint B schedule property and deliver the possession of B schedule property from the defendants.
34.The plaintiff asked relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from the interfering with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over A schedule property.
35.To claim permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint
A schedule property.
36.The plaintiff proved that as on the date of filing of the suit, he has been in possession and enjoyment over plaint A schedule property.
37.To substantiate the contents of plaintiff to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of property as on the date of filing of the suit he himself examined as PW.1 and testified he is in possession and enjoyment of schedule property by virtue of regd.sale deeds executed by Repaka Veerraju,
Suryanarayana, Sriramulu, Saladi Sriram Murthy and others under Ex.A1 /22/
O.S.No.71/2013
to A7 i.e., Ex.A1/dt.3.3.1976/The registration extract of the Regd.Sale deed executed by Repaka Sriramulu and others in his favour,
Ex.A2/dt.24.08.1979/The registration extract of Regd.Sale Deed executed by Saladi Bapiraju and others in his favour, Ex.A3/dt.9.9.1977 /The registration extract of Regd.Sale Deed executed by Saladi Mamillayya and others in his favour, Ex.A4/dt.12.6.1979/The registration extract of the registered sale deed executed by Saladi Peda Sitaramayya and others in his favour, Ex.A5/dt.14.05.1979/The registration extract of the registered sale deed executed by Saladi Anjaneyulu and others in his favour,
Ex.A6/dt.9.9.1977/The registration extract of the registered sale deed executed by Saladi Venkata Narasimha Rao and others in his favour and Ex.A7/dt.18.10.1979/The registration extract of the registered sale deed executed by Saladi Venkata Ramama Murthy and others in his favour, the regd.sale deed executed by Repaka Veerraju,
Surayanarayana, Sriramulu, Saladi Srirammurthulu and others executed in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff filed Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 house tax receipts i.e., Ex.A8/dt.05.03.2011/the original tax receipt showing payment of property tax in respect of the plaint schedule property,
Ex.A9/dt.26.3.2012/The original tax receipt showing payment of property tax in respect of the plaint schedule property, Ex.A10/dt.2.8.2012/The original tax receipt showing payment of property tax in respect of the plaint schedule property and there is no dispute with regarding to the plaintiff is owner of the plaint A schedule property and he has been in possession and /23/
O.S.No.71/2013
enjoyment as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule property.
38.The Advocate commissioner examined as PW.3, he testified that he received warrant from the Honourable Court and issue notice to both the parties and both the counsels before executing the warrant. On 11.2.2023 at about 3.00 pm., he visited plaint A schedule property and identified plaint A schedule property with the help of petitioner and petitioner counsel.
At the time of execution of commissioner warrant petitioner and 1st respondent and his wife and counsel for petitioner and counsel for 1st respondent were present. The 1st respondent counsel supplied plaint copy and also documents of the petitioner. The 1st respondent also gave his title deed. He received document from the petitioner counsel as well as 1st respondent counsel, note down the physical features of plaint A schedule property in the commissioner report. He measured the plaint A schedule property with the assistance of Mandal surveyor of Palakol, he measured the plaint schedule property as per their measurement of the plaint A schedule property an extent of 198.17 sq.yds., with drain, without drain an extent of plaint A schedule property is 191.97 sq.yds., the drain extent if 6.2 sq.yds., the drain situated western side of plaint A schedule property. There was compound after drain. He measure the property of respondent No.1., as per the documents of respondent, the item No.1 of schedule shown in /24/
O.S.No.71/2013
settlement deed dated 29.3.2004 the extent is 52.3 sq.yds., there is house is situated in 52.3 sq.yds., the 1st respondent has been residing in the said house by the time of his visiting. Ex.C1 is commissioner report along with warrant and surveyor plan.
39.The learned counsel for the defendant did not cross examine the
PW.3 reported that cross examination is nil. On perusal of Ex.C1
Commissioner report along with plan. It will be decided what exactly land exist on the ground what is the land of parties on ground.
40.In the present suit, the land of the 1st respondent is intact as per his document. As per testimony of PW.3, as per the surveyor plan the extent of plaint A schedule property is 198.17 sq.yds., including the area in which drainage situated. The extent of plan A schedule property excluded the drain is 191.97 sq.yds. which is in occupation of plaintiff and if that land is included in the plaintiffs land the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of square yards 198.17 sq.yds.
41.On perusal of Ex.C1 reference sketch of Sri Budda Lakshmi
Narasimha Rao the land in occupation of plaintiff is only 191.97 sq.yds., without drain shortage of land an extent of drainage 6.2 sq.ydsl., It is settled law that boundaries will prevail then the extent mentioned in the document.
42.Now coming to the testimony of 1st defendant examined as DW.1, he reinstated his contents of his pleadings and marked Ex.B2 to Ex.B5 are marked. The learned counsel fo the plaintiff cross examined DW.1, during /25/
O.S.No.71/2013
the course of cross examination he admitted that he does not know the plaintiff purchased the land an extent of 19.3.0 sq.yds., of site from Saladi
Bapi Raju under regd.sale deed. Further admitted that he does not know whether the plaintiff purchased land an extent of 33 sq.yds., of the site from
Salladi Mavullayya and others under Ex.A3 regd.sale deed. He does not know whether the plaintiff purchased an extent of 8-5-72 sq.yds., of the site from Salladi Pedda Seetaramaiah and his sons under Ex.A4 regd.sale deed.
He does not know that the plaintiff purchased an extent of 8-5-120 sq.yds.
site from Saladi Anjaneyulua and sons under Ex.A5 regd.sale deed. He does not know whether the plaintiff purchased land an extent of 51.1/4 sq.yds., of site from Salladi Venkata Narasimha rao and his sons under Ex.A6 regd.sale deed. He does not know whether the plaintiff purchased an extent of 17.1.104 sq.yds., of site from Salladi Venkata Ramana Murthy under
Ex.A7 regd.sale deed. He does not know whether the site purchased by plaintiff under Ex.A2 to Ex.A7 regd.sale deeds are contiguous i.e., single plot. He does not know whether Repaka Veerraju, Suryanarayana,
Sriramulu, Salladi Sriram Murthy and others portioned their properties under Ex.A11. Partition deed and how much extent of property each of them got under partition deed. He knows the fact that plaintiff purchased some properties from Repaka Srramulu and others under Ex.A1. He further admitted that he does not know whether Repaka Sriramulu got 390.6 sq.yds., of the site for his share in partition. He further admitted he has not filed documentary proof to show that northern side of A schedule /26/
O.S.No.71/2013
property as his ancestral property. The witness adds that he has an un regd.will the said will was executed by his father in his favour. He does not remember the year of execution of unregd.will. His father executed unregd.
To him an extent of 110 sq.yds., only. His father has no land except 110 sq.yds. the counsel put a suggestion to the witness about he encroach 17 sq.yds of B schedule property of plaintiff.
43.During the course of cross examination of DW.1, by plaintiff counsel the DW.1 categorically deposed the does not know the properties purchased by plaintiff under Ex.A2 to Ex.A7. Coming to the documents marked on behalf of defendant Ex.B2 to Ex.B5 are marked ie., Ex.B2 is original death certificate dated 27.1.1988, Ex.B3is original unregistered Will
dated 5.3.1987 executed by Veerla Anjaneyulu i.e., his father in favour of
him and his sister, Ex.B4 is registration extract of the regtd.settlement deed
dated 29.10.2004 executed by him in favour of his wife i.e., 2nd defendant
and Ex.B5 is registration extract of the registered sale deed dated 21.1.2006 executed by him and his wife in favour of Brundavana Visweswara Rao i.e., 3rd defendant.
44.In this case, the Ex.B4 is regd.extract of regd.settlement deed dated29.10.2004 executed by in favour of his wife (2nd defendant). Ex.B5 is registration extract or regd.sale deed 21.1.2006 executed by him and his wife in favour of 3rd defendant. During the course of cross examination of
DW.1 by D3 counsel, he admitted that he sold an extent of 65 sq.yds. of site and asbestos sheet shed therein to the defendant No.3 under Ex.B5, they /27/
O.S.No.71/2013
have shown the said properties as two items in the schedule of Ex.B5, the 1st item an extent 52.3 sq.yds., and 2nd item is extent of 13.3 sq.yds. In this case, the 1st defendant did not examine the attestors and scribe of Ex.B3 i.e, un regd.Will dated 5.3.1987 executed by Veerla Anjaneyulu in his favour and his sister. The 1st defendant failed to prove the Ex.B3 under Sec.68 of
Indian Evidence Act.
45.The 3rd defendant examined as DW.2, he filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination he reinstated in his pleadings. The learned counsel for the plaintiff cross examined DW.2, during the course of cross examination by 1st defendant counsel, he admitted that he knows the boundaries of suit schedule property. He is residing on the southern side of plaint schedule property. He purchased property from 1st defendant and 2nd defendant on 21.1.2006. There was no disputes was existing among him and D1, D2 after purchased property. The learned counsel for the plaintiff cross examined DW.2, during the course of cross examination he admitted that he does not know the fact that the plaintiff purchased land an extent of 528.75 sq.yds., from Saladi people and Repaka people under regd.sale deeds. He does not know the fact that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the land an extent of 207.65 sq.yds., the counsel put a suggestion to the witness about the 1st defendant encroached an extent 17 sq.yds., of the plaintiff, the same is got denied it.
46.The 1st attester of the Ex.B5/dt.21.0.2006/Registration extract of the registered sale deed executed by him and his wife in favour of /28/
O.S.No.71/2013
Brundavana Visweswara Rao i.e., 3rd defendant by name - Sikile Gopi examined as DW.3, he testified that he knows the defendants and the 3rd defendant by name Brundavanam Visweswara Rao purchased an extent of 65.6 sq.yards of the site including house from defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e.,
Veerla Satyanarayana and his wife Veerla Vankata Lakshmi for
Rs.3,96,000/- under Regd.Sale Deed dated 21.1.2006. The said regd.sale deed executed at Sub Registrar Office in Palakol. He attested the above said sale deed as 1st attester and one Budithi Yesuratnam attested as 2nd attestor.
The above said transaction took place in their presence at Palakol Sub
Registrar Office. He saw the execution of the above sale deed and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 received the sale consideration of Rs.3,96,000/- from the 3rd defendant.
47.The learned counsel for the plaintiff cross examined DW.3, during the course of cross examination, he admitted that he does not know the how much extent of land was purchased by 3rd defendant from 1st defendant and he does not know how 1st defendant acquired the property.
He does not know the boundaries of land purchased by 3rd defendant from 1st defendant. The testimony of DW.3 is only he attested the Ex.B5 documents, the remaining things does not know under Ex.B5. Hence, the testimony of DW.3 is no way helpful to the 3rd defendant except execution of
Ex.B5. In view of the above discussion this court find that the issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
48.The counsel for the plaintiff filed relied upon judgment as /29/
O.S.No.71/2013
follows:
(1) The counsel for the plaintiff relied upon a decision reported in 2008 (4) ALT 421 the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in between M.Chandraiah and another V. C.Narayana and another wherein it was held that: Purport of Judgment.
Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 74, 76 and 77 – Summoning of witness to prove certified copy of pahani, a public document – Suit for injunction – Document marked to prove possession – To prove a public document, examination of the person who issued it as a witness doe snot arise unless its genuineness is questiioned – Genuineness is questioned – Genuineness of C.C. of pahani produced not disputed – petitoner sought to issue summons to Superintendent who issued it to examine him to prove the same as survey number is disputed – Boundaries of the suit plot defined and are well known – For identification of such a plot, survey number or its extent not of much relevance – Order of Court below dismissing the application to summon the witness sustainable – Revision dismissed.
3. The plaint contains the boundaires of the plot in respect of whihc the revison petitoner is seeking injunction. It is well known that when boundaries are defined and are well known, the survey number of the plot in those boundaries or its extent is not of much relevance or consequence in identifying the said property. So, what is the survey number of the land in respect of which the revision petitioner is claiming injunction may not be of much relevance. The above judgment is applicable to the facts mentioned in the judgment, facts of the present suit are similarly one and the same. Because the present suit boundaries prevail over the extent.
(2) The counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon a decision reported in 2008 (4) ALT 36 the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in between Chandraiah and others Vs. Koppala Bhushanam wherein it was held that: Purport of Judgment.
Civil Procedure code, 1908, Order 41 Rule 31 – Points for determination – Appellate court judgment – Not vitiated for mere failure /30/
O.S.No.71/2013
to frame points for determination this Court Perused the above judgments with great respect and honour, the above citations are not applicable to the present facts of the case, the facts mentioned in the judgment and the facts mentioned in the present suit are totally different.n compliance with Rule 31 of Order 41, CPC – Procedural requirement – Not mandatory – If Court undertakes extensive discussion touching on all controversies between parties and deliver judgment, it is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Order 41 Rule 31, CPC.
14. There is no dispute that the boundaries of the suit schedule property, on physical verification, tallied with those mentioned in Ex.A3.
The Trial Court made a mountain out of a mole, in relation to the so- called discrepancy in the eastern boundary. In Ex.A3, the boundary was mentioned as a lane, whereas in Exs.C-4 and C-5, prepared by
PW.4, it was shown as a panchayat road. Hardly, there exists any discrepancy, since all the roads and lanes in a village, vest in the Gram
Panchayat. As regards the other three boundaries, there is no dispute.
It is settled principle of law that wherever the boundaries of a property tally, the discrepancy as to survey numbers or even extent becomes immaterial. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheodhyan Singh Vs. Sanichara Kuer. In that case also, the boundaries of the suit schedule, on the one hand, and those mentioned in the concerned title deed, tallied, but there was discrepancy as to survey numbers. The actual survey number was 1060 and the one mentioned in the sale deed was 160. On facts, it was found that the Sy. No.160 does not exist at all. The Khata of the vendor was verified and he was found to be the owner of the land in
Sy.No.1060. The Supreme Court held that such a discrepancy does not defeat the title.
15. In Sabhaji v.Nawalsingh, it was held that, if the parties to the documents were clear and unanimous in their understanding of the /31/
O.S.No.71/2013
identify of the property, small discrepancy does not invalidate the transaction. Authorities can be multiplied on this. Further, if there was concensus ad idem between the vendor and purchaser, the objection raised by third parties cannot result in annulment of the transaction.
The above judgment is applicable to the facts mentioned in the judgment, facts of the present suit, there is a small discrapancies does not defect the title.
(3) The counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon a decision reported in 2011 (4) ALT 219 the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in between Rukmini bai Alias Laxmi Bai and others Vs.
K.Mohanlal wherein it was held that: Purport of Judgment.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100 – Second Appeal –
Perverse findings – Interference – Deceased -first plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction – Lrs brought on record on the demise of the plaintiff – Suit decreed by trial court and appeal filed there agaisnt was allowed – Second appeal – held High Court exercising power under
Section 100 CPC can interfere with the findings fo fact, if they are not based on evidence on record or based on no evidence or based on perverse evidence – If the findings are totally misconceived and not in accordance with law, they can be said to be perverse – High Court can interfere – property forming part of earlier suit is different from the property in issue – Not amounts to res judicate – First appellate court failed to assign any reasons for reversing the judgment of trial court –
Second appeal allowed.
16. Thus, in the instant case, there is highly reliable and convincing evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in proof of their title in respect of the schedule mentioned site. The defendant had admitted specifically in his evidence that the property belonging to him under
Exs.B1 and Ex.B2 sale deeds is different to that of the property under
Exs.A1 and A2 sale deeds. The law is well settled that if there is any /32/
O.S.No.71/2013
inconsistency between the boundaries on one side and survey numbers or extent on the other, the boundaries will prevail. The learned first appellate Court reversed the well considered judgment of the learned trial Court in utter disregard of the above said principle and took an erroneous view that the plaintiffs could not be able to establish the identity of the subject matter of the suit. Perused the above judgments with great respect and honour, the above citations are not applicable to the present facts of the case, the facts mentioned in the judgment and the facts mentioned in the present suit are totally different.
The counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon a decision reported in 1993 Civil Court Cases 467 the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in between Dr.M.Ratna Vs. Kottiboyina Navaneetam wherein it was held that: Purport of Judgment.
Will – Execution – Proof – To be attested by at least two witnesses and at least one witness be examined to prove it – Attestors must see testator signing or they must receive from testator personal knowledge of his signature or mark – Attestors not saying that testator signed the Will in their presence or acknolwedged his signature –
Attestors stating that as requested by testator, they attested the document blindly and went away – it is not sufficient compliance –
Plaintiff fails to prove valid execution of Will – Bequests made under Will in the case are not unnatural – Bequest made in favour of plaintiff as a persona designata valid even if her second marriage with testator is not proved and not valid – Plainitff not entitled to property bequeathed as
Will isn ot proved. (Paras 10, 14, 18, 26 & 27).
10. As laid down by the Supreme Court in H.Venkatachala Vs.
B.N.Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 a Will has to be proved like any other document but since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a
Will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence unless on attesting witness at least has been examined as required under Section 68 of the /33/
O.S.No.71/2013
Evidence Act. Since a Will takes effect after the death of the testator, the propounder of the Will has to satisfy the conscience of the Court htat it is the last Will and testament of the testator. Therefore, in addition to the provisons contained in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and
Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the evidence of DW.3, the first defendant who had stated the both these persons has lot of respect for Hanumantha Rao and were calling on him even after he hasd retired from service and settled at Machilipatnam and they has also respect for DW.3 and therefore, he contended that in those circumstances for his Will. In those circumstances it is quite probable that Hanumantha Rao might have called them as attestors, but the more important question is whether thier evidence satisfied the requirements of Section 63 of the Succession Act. Pws.2 and 3 stated that the signatures of Hanumantha Rao were already there when Ex.A3 was given to them for their signatures. Hanumantha Rao put the date 15.12.76 under all his signatures and the date 15.12.76 in the preamble is also in the handworiting of Hanumantha Rao. They signed in the presenc eof Hanumantha Rao and put the date 15.12.76 under thier signatures. Therefore, the alleged Will was not signed by
Hanumantha Rao in thier presence becasue they say that by the time the document was given to them, it already contained the signature of
Hanumantha Rao. Section 63 of the Indian Succession act provideds that the attestors must have been the testator signing the Will or they must receive from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark. In this case Ex.A3 was not signed by Hanumantha
Rao in the presence of Pws.2 and 3 the attestors, nor did the attestors
Pws.2 and 3 say that Hanumantha Rao had acknowledged his signature before them. Nodoubt they say that all the four pages in
Ex.A3 contain the signature of Hanumantha Rao and they also say that /34/
O.S.No.71/2013
Hanumantha Rao put the date 15.12.76 underneath his signatures in thier presence but that is not sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act because they did not say that
Hanumatha Rao signed the Will Ex.A3 in thier presence or acknowledged his signature.
18. In beni Chand vs. Kamla Kunwar, AIR 1977 SC 63, it is pointed out that ‘by attestation’ is meant the signing of a document to signify that the attestor is a witness to the execution of the docuement; and by Section 63 (c) of the Succession Act an attesting witness is one, who signs the document in the presence of the executant after seeing the execution of the document or after receiving the personal acknowledgment from the executant as regards the execution of the document. Therefore, in view of the requirement of Section 63 (c) of the
Succession Act and the decision of the Supremen Court referred to abvoe, it is absolutely necessary in order to prove the execution of the
Will that the testator must have signed the Will in the presence of the attestors or the testator must have personally acknowledged his signature in the presence of the attestors. I am therefore, unable to agree with the decison rendered in Dhanji Govind vs. Lakshman (supra) or the observations made by the learned author of Mantha Rama Murthy’s book “Law of Wills” based on the above said judgment that implied acknowledfgemnt is sufficient complance of Section 63 (c) of the
Succession Act.
26. The other contention of the first defendant is that as the plaintiff is described as the second wife of Hanumtha Rao in the Will and since the plaintiff failed to prove her marriage and in any event the marraige alleged to have takne place in 1961 in invalid because the first wife was alive, plaintiff is not the second wife of Hanumantha Rao and therefore, the bequest in favour of the plaintiff fails becasue it is given to her in her position as second ith. But i am unabel to agree with that /35/
O.S.No.71/2013
contention. Having gone through the Will, Ex.A3 it is quite clear that
Hanumantha Rao referred to both the ladies i.e., the first defendant
Navaneethamma as his first wife and plaintiff, Ratna as his second wife and made respective bequests in two separate schedules.
Schedule A is the bequest made in favour of the plaitniff, Smt.Ratna and scheudle B is the bequest made in favour of the first defendant,
Smt.nabaneethamma. From a reading of the Will, it is quite clear that the plaintiff was given the property as a persona designata and even if the marraige is not true and valid, she is entitled to get the bequest made in Schedule A of the Will.
27. But in view of his finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of the Will as required by Section 63 (c) of the Succession Act, it follows that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit property. The facts mentioned in the judgment are applicable to the present facts of the suit because in the present suit, the defendant did not examine any attestors of Will Ex.B3.
ISSUE NO.3:
49.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, in favour of the plaintiff by declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title over B schedule property and recover the possession of blue colour marked portion shown in the Commissioner Plan. The defendants are directed to deliver an extent of 6.2 sq.yds., of the land which is shown in Ex.C1 Commissioner plan within two months from the date of decree, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the same through process of law.
Typed to dictation by the Stenographer Grade – II, directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12th day of April 2024. Digitally signed by
YALAMARTHIYALAMARTHI
SRINIVASARAO
SRINIVASARAO
Date: 2024.04.12 16:08:13
+0000
Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Narsapur.
/36/
O.S.No.71/2013
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
P.W.1: B.Lakshmi Narasimha RaoDW.1:V.Satyanarayana
PW.2: R.VeeriahDW.2:B.Visweswara Rao
PW.3: K.Karun KumarDW.3: S.Gopi.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1/dt.3.3.1976/The registration extract of the Regd.Sale deed executed by Repaka Sriramulu and others in his favour.
Ex.A2/dt.24.08.1979/The registration extract of Regd.Sale Deed executed by Saladi Bapiraju and others in his favour.
Ex.A3/dt.9.9.1977 /The registration extract of Regd.Sale Deed executed by Saladi Mamillayya and others in his favour.
Ex.A4/dt.12.6.1979/The registration extract of the registered sale deed executed by Saladi Peda Sitaramayya and others in his favour.
Ex.A5/dt.14.05.1979/The registration extract of the registered sale deed executed by Saladi Anjaneyulu and others in his favour. Ex.A6/dt.9.9.1977/The registration extract of the registered sale deed executed by Saladi Venkata Narasimha Rao and others in his favour. Ex.A7/dt.18.10.1979/The registration extract of the registered sale deed executed by Saladi Venkata Ramama Murthy and others in his favour. Ex.A8/dt.05.03.2011/the original tax receipt showing payment of property tax in respect of the plaint schedule property.
Ex.A9/dt.26.3.2012/The original tax receipt showing payment of property tax in respect of the plaint schedule property.
Ex.A10/dt.2.8.2012/The original tax receipt showing payment of property tax in respect of the plaint schedule property.
Ex.A11/--/ Partition Deed.
FOR THE DEFENDANT :
Ex.B1/dt.6.11.2006/Regd.Sale Deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the Thalluri Venkateswara Rao.
/37/
O.S.No.71/2013
Ex.B2/dt.27.01.1988/Original death certificate of his father.
Ex.B3/dt.05.03.1987/Original Un-registered Will executed by Veerla Anjaneyulu i.e., his father in favour of him and his sister. Ex.B4/dt.29.10.2004/Registration extract of the regd.settlement deed executed by him in favour of his wife i.e., 2nd defendant.
Ex.B5/dt.21.0.2006/Registration extract of the registered sale deed executed by him and his wife in favour of Brundavana Visweswara Rao i.e., 3rd defendant. By Court:
Ex.C1/-- /Commissioner report.Digitally signed by
YALAMARTHI
YALAMARTHI
SRINIVASARAO
SRINIVASARAO
Date: 2024.04.12
16:08:28 +0000
CJ.,(S.D).,NSP.,