IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUGE, IBRAHIMPATAN, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Present: S. Nageswara Rao, B.A., LL.B., Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatan

Monday, the 2nd day of December, 2013

Original Suit No. 122/2002

Mummadi Laxmana Chary, S/o. Late Sathaiah,Aged 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Maheshwaram (V) & (M),Ranga Reddy District …Plaintiff

Versus

1. Mummadi Surya Prakash, S/o. Late Krishnaiah Chary, Aged : 37 years, Occ : Business.

2. Mummadi Sudhakar, S/o. Late Krishnaiah Chary, Aged : 35 years, Occ : Business.

3. Mummadi Satyanaraya, S/o. Late Krishnaiah Chary, Aged : 32 years, Occ : Business.

All R/o. Maheshwaram Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

4. Devanuru Srinivasa Chary, S/o. Premananda Chary, Aged : 28 years, Occ : Private service as Teacher, R/o. H.No. C/137, Vanasthalipuram, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. …Defendants

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me, in the presence of

Sri. Mokilla Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff Sri G Satyaveer Reddy,

Advocate for the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri G. Chandra Shekar Reddy,

Advocate for the defendant No. 4 and having stood over for consideration

till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

This is a suit for partition of the suit schedule property into two equal

shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff; to declare the gift deed

bearing document No. 442/2002, Dt. 18-2-2002 alleged to have executed by

the plaintiff in favour of defendants 1 to 3 and sale deed bearing document

No. 6052/02, Dt. 5-8-2002 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of

the 4th defendant as null and void and to grant perpetual injunction

2

restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any person or persons

claiming through them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit

schedule land and for costs.

2. The pleadings of the plaintiff, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The Plaintiff is an agriculturist and permanent resident of

Maheshwaram (V). Plaintiff and one late Krishnaiah Chary (father of D1 to

D3) are brothers and constituted a joint Hindu undivided family. Krishnaiah

Chary died in the year 1974. Thereafter in the year 1986 the plaintiff and

defendants 1 to 3 jointly purchased the suit land of Ac. 9-05 Guntas in

survey No. 88 of Maheshwaram (V) from one M. Krishnaiah and others for

valuable consideration under registered sale deed bearing document

No.560/1986, Dt. 16-4-1986. Defendants 2 and 3 were minors at the time

of said purchase but they were projected as majors in the sale deed and the

total consideration was paid by the plaintiff alone to protect the interest of

the sons of Krishnaiah Chary and they were made purchasers along with the

plaintiff. As a matter of fact, defendants 1 to 3 did not pay a single pie for

purchasing of the suit land. The understanding between the plaintiff and

defendants 1 to 3 was that in future the said land must be divided into two

equal shares and defendants 1 to 3 shall have half share and the plaintiff

shall have the remaining half share. With that understanding the sale was

completed in 1986. The said understanding was arrived before the mother

of the plaintiff who is the grand-mother of defendants 1 to 3 namely

Laxmamma. The defendants undertook to allot half share in the suit

schedule land in favour of plaintiff as and when partition is effected. The

Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 do not have any other immovable property

except the suit land as on the date of purchase. Thereafter the land was

mutated in the name of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 without effecting any

3

partition by metes and bounds into two equal shares. The revenue officials

recorded the names of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 allotting ¼ share each

without verifying the facts for their convenience of not continuing the joint

pattas in the revenue records. Even today no partition was effected by metes

and bounds dividing the suit land into two equal shares. When the plaintiff

questioned about the mutation proceedings, defendants 1 to 3 informed that

in future they are going to give half share in the suit land. Believing their

promise, the plaintiff was silent for a fairly long time. Even though the name

of the plaintiff was recorded in respect of ¼th share in the land, the plaintiff

is in possession of suit land along with defendants 1 to 3 jointly.

(b) The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with one Korolla

Yadaiah S/o Sathaiah, R/o. Maheshwaram (V) in respect a house bearing no.

8-17 (old) and 9-94 (new) which is self-acquired property. The said

agreement was entered into on 17-1-2002 which was written in Telugu

attested by two witnesses. Thereafter the plaintiff executed another

agreement of sale in respect of the said house on 18-2-2002 in favour of the

said Yadaiah and it was prepared by one R. Shambhulingam S/o Raghavulu

document writer of Maheshwaram. For executing the said agreement of sale

on 18-2-2002, the plaintiff was summoned to the Sub-Registrar’s office at

Maheshwaram. On that day on the request of Shambhulingam, the plaintiff

and the said Yadaiah were present along with D1 to D3 before the Sub-

Registrar. The said Shambhulingam and D1 to D3 requested the plaintiff to

sign on certain papers and believing their version plaintiff signed on various

papers which were typed on non-judicial stamp papers and on the same day

under the pretext of executing an agreement of sale in favour of K. Yadaiah,

defendants 1 to 3 along with Shambhulingam mis-represented the facts and

played fraud on the plaintiff and got executed a gift settlement deed in

4

respect of Ac. 2.11 Guntas in survey No. 88 in favour of D1 to D3 and it was

registered as document No.442/02, Dt. 18-2-2002 without the knowledge

and consent of the plaintiff. As a matter of fact there was no intention on

the part of the plaintiff to execute the said gift deed. In collusion with

Shambhulingam, document writer, the said document was got executed

under the pretext that the plaintiff executed agreement of sale in favour of

K. Yadaiah in respect of the house. A perusal of agreement of sale shows

that it was endorsed by one Hafiz Md. Raoof of Narayanaguda, Hyderabad on

20-2-2002 even though it was prepared on 18-2-2002 at the Sub-Registrar’s

Office, Maheshwaram. The plaintiff never went to the house of said notary

at Narayanaguda and the said document was got attested with him by

defendants 1 to 3 and the same was handed over to K. Yadaiah. Thus it is

clear that the defendants and Shambhulingam played fraud on the plaintiff

and got executed the gift deed 18-2-2002. The said fact was noticed by the

plaintiff in the month of July, 2002 when he came to know through the

villagers that the defendants 1 to 3 were canvassing in the village that they

have acquired right to the extent of Ac. 2.11 Guntas from the plaintiff. Then

the plaintiff understood that the defendants 1 to 3 played fraud on him and

got executed the gift deed on the pretext that he would execute the

agreement of sale in favour of K. Yadaiah in respect of house. Immediately

the plaintiff made elaborate complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Maheshwaram on 30-7-2002 and when no action was initiated by them, the

plaintiff approached the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Rajendranagar Division

who directed the Circle Inspector of Police, Pahadi Shareef to verify the

documents and take action and the said endorsement was made on 21-8-

2002. The plaintiff made a complaint to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy

District on 31-7-2002 stating that revenue officials without verifying the fact

recorded the names of defendants 1 to 3 by deleting name of plaintiff basing

5

on the forged and fabricated gift deed. The learned District Collector

instructed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram to verify the said fact.

Plaintiff came to know about the mischievous activities of defendants 1 to 3,

immediately on 30-7-20002 he made the attempt for partition of the suit

land into two equal shares with metes and bounds and for allotment of such

share to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 refused for the same stating that

they became absolute owners and possessors of land of Ac. 2.11 Guntas.

(c) The plaintiff executed the deed of cancellation cancelling the gift

deed, Dt. 18-2-2002 and also informed the said fact to the Mandal Revenue

Officer, Maheshwaram. Having come to know about the complaints by the

plaintiff to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Maheshwaram and Dy.

Superintendent of Police, Rajendranagar and to the District Collector, the

defendants got alerted and tried to execute a sale deed alienating the Ac.

2.11 Guntas land covered by the gift deed in favour of third party. Since the

Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram had knowledge about alleged gift deed refused

to register the sale deed. Defendants 1 to 3 approached the District

Registrar, Ranga Reddy District and got executed the sale deed under which

they have alienated Ac. 2.11Guntas in favour of defendant No. 4 under

registered Sale Deed Document No. 6052/02, Dt. 5-8-2002. The said fact

came to the notice of the plaintiff when defendant No. 4 is filed Caveat

against the plaintiff on 19-8-2002 for which caveat No. 58/2002 on the file

of this Court. Defendant No. 4 is none other than the close relative of

defendants 1 to 3. Even though the market value of the land of Ac. 2.11

Guntas alienated in favour of defendant No. 4 was Rs. 22,000/- per acre the

defendants executed the sale deed for a total sale consideration of

Rs. 1,00,000/- with a sole intention to drive the plaintiff to pay more Court

fee in the event of his filing the suit against them for cancellation of said

6

sale deed. It clearly shows that the sale deed dated 5-8-2002 is a sham

document without consideration in collusion between defendants 1 to 3 on

one side and defendant No. 4 on the other. Hence the said sale deed is null

and void, not binding on the plaintiff.

(d) Though the plaintiff cancelled the gift deed under a registered

document Dt. 7-8-2002, it has no effect as defendants 1 to 3 executed the

sale deed on 5-8-2002 in favour of defendant No. 4 by that time. Hence

plaintiff filed this suit for partition and for declaration that the gift deed and

sale deed for null and void and for injunction as the defendants are trying to

dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land under the cause of the gift deed

and sale deed. Though defendants 1 to 3 along with Shambhulingam got

executed the gift deed no physical possession was handed over to

defendants 1 to 3 basing on the said gift, as such defendants 1 to 3 and

defendant No. 4 have no manner of right and title to interfere with the

possessions of the plaintiff in and over the suit land. Defendants 1 to 4 in

collusion with each other’s came to the suit land on 5-11-2002 and tried to

dispossess the plaintiff from suit land and occupy the same. The plaintiff

resisted the illegal activities of defendants 1 to 4 and retained physical

possession. The defendants 1 to 4 threatened the plaintiff that they would

dispossess him from the suit land by hook or crook. If the defendants

succeed in their attempt the plaintiff would be put to a loss. Hence the suit

is filed.

3. The first defendant filed written statement denying the plaint

averments. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a memo adopting the written

statement filed by the 1stdefendant. The written statement pleadings of

defendants 1 to 3, in brief, are as follows:-

7

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be

dismissed. Plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and he

suppressed real facts and filed the suit with false and fictitious averments

and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted that the plaintiff

is the brother of father of defendants 1 to 3. Father of the plaintiff died

during his childhood. After the death of his father, the plaintiff left

Maheshwaram (V) and used to reside at Hyderabad in the house of one

Narasimha Chary, who is the brother-in-law of plaintiff. Thereafter father of

the defendants 1 to 3 namely Mummadi Krishnaiah purchased Ac. 9.05

Guntas of land in Survey No. 88 on 16-8-1967 from one Manchukonda

Krishnaiah and others for lawful sale consideration under a registered sale

document and since the date of purchase father of defendants 1 to 3 was in

exclusive possession continuously without any sort of interruption as lawful

owner. After death of their father defendants 1 to 3 used to cultivate the said

land. The plaintiff returned to Maheshwaram (V) after the death of father of

defendants 1 to 3 and used to reside in the house of defendants 1 to 3 and

mother defendants 1 to 3. Mother of defendants 1 to 3 and used to look

after the welfare of the family as ‘kartha’ of the family. The mother of the

defendants 1 to 3 performed the marriage of plaintiff. After marriage, the

plaintiff put up separate house at Maheshwaram (V) and used to reside

along with his wife. To avoid future complications, the mother of the

defendants 1 to 3 got executed the registered sale deed in respect of the

said land on 16-4-1986 even though they purchased the said land in the

year 1967. At that time mother of the defendants 1 to 3, out of love and

affection towards plaintiff to give a share along with defendants 1 to 3

mentioned the name of plaintiff also in the said sale deed as vendee No. 4.

But as a matter of fact plaintiff never purchased the said land and it was

exclusively purchased with the hard earned money of the father of

8

defendants 1 to 3 long back in the year 1967, at which time the plaintiff was

a minor and used to reside at Hyderabad. The entire revenue record

substantiate the said facts and so the question of plaintiff purchasing the suit

land and having half share therein does not arise. The plaintiff, voluntarily

executed the gift deed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 vide registered gift

deed 442/2002, Dt. 18-2-2002 in respect of Ac. 2.11Guntas of land in

survey No. 88/A at Maheshwaram (V) and there is no fraud. Basing on the

said gift deed, the names of the defendants 1 to 3 were mutated in the

revenue record by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram in file No.

D/386/2002. So the defendants 1 to 3 became absolute owners and

possessors of the said land. At the time of mutation of the names of the

defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiff did not raise any objection. It shows that the

plaintiff for the purpose of filing suit invented the said allegations.

Defendants 1 to 3 to meet their family necessities alienated the said land for

lawful consideration in favour of defendant No. 4 under registered sale deed

document No. 6052/2002, Dt. 5-8-2002 and since the date of purchase the

4th defendant is in possession over the said land purchased by him as a bona

fide and lawful purchaser. With a mala fide intention and in order to harass

the defendants 1 to 3, plaintiff created all the documents and filed the

present suit with false and flimsy allegations though he has nothing to do

with the suit land. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. There is no

cause of action for the suit and the cause of action shown in the suit is

fictitious and imagination of plaintiff. The suit is under-valued and the court

fee paid is insufficient. The plaintiff is not in possession of suit land on the

date of filing of suit and so he is not entitled to pay the court fees under

Section 34 (2) of the A.P Court fees and Suit Valuation Act. The defendants

1 to 3 executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 4 for Rs. 1,00,000/-

but the plaintiff valued it at Rs. 50,050/- and as such the court fee paid is

9

insufficient. In the above facts and circumstances the suit is liable to be

dismissed with compensatory costs.

4. The 4th defendant filed written statement separately denying the

plaint averments seeking dismissal of the suit. He contends that defendants

1 to 3 are the owners and possessors of the land of Ac. 2.11 Guntas in

survey No. 88/A of Maheshwaram (V), offered the same to defendant No. 4

and defendant No. 4 accepted the same and on 29-5-2002 defendants 1 to 3

executed the agreement of sale receiving part of sale consideration and

thereafter defendant No. 4 paid the remaining sale consideration as per the

terms of agreement and then the defendants 1 to 3 jointly executed

registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 4 vide sale deed

document No. 6502/02, Dt. 5-8-2002 and since the date of purchase the

defendant No. 4 is in possession and enjoyment over the land purchased by

him and his name was mutated in the revenue record also vide proceeding

No. D/270/2003, Dt. 14-2-2003. The 4thdefendant is a bona fide purchaser

for lawful consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendant No. 4 is permanent

resident of Hyderabad and for his convenience he got the registered sale

deed executed at the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. There is no

cause of action for the suit and the cause of action shown is created for the

suit. The Court fees paid is insufficient. The suit is barred by limitation.

Plaintiff has nothing to do with the land purchased by the defendant No. 4

and he filed the suit to extract some land from defendant No. 4 illegally.

Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs of

Rs.10,000/-.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for

trial:

(1) Whether the suit schedule property is joint property of plaintiff

and defendants 1 to 3?

10

(2) Whether Defendants 1 and 2 played fraud on the plaintiff and

got executed gift deed in respect of Ac. 2.11 Guntas in survey

No. 88 (part of the suit schedule property) vide document No.

442/2002, Dt. 18-2-2002?

(3) Whether the sale of land admeasuring Ac. 2.11 Guntas in survey

No. 88 covered by the gift deed vide document No. 442/02 in

favour of the defendant No. 4 vide registered sale deed document

No. 6502/2002,Dt. 5-8-2002 is valid?

(4) Whether the plaintiff entitled to half share in the suit schedule

property?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injection as prayed

for?

(6) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, oral evidence of PWs 1 to 6 and

documentary evidence of exhibits A1 to A23 is produced. On behalf of the

defendants, oral evidence of DWs.1 to 4 and documentary evidence of

exhibits B1 to B26 is produced.

7. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for plaintiff and the

defendants.

8. Before deciding issue No.1 and 4 which deals with the right of the

plaintiff to claim partition in the suit lands, it is necessary to decide about

the validity of the gift deed and sale deed covered by issues 2 and 3 as the

finding on those issues will have a bearing in deciding issues 1 and 4. Hence

I proceed to decide Issue Nos.2 and 3 and then Issue Nos.1 and 4.

9. Issue No. 2 : The burden to show that the gift deed was executed

by him due to fraud is on the plaintiff.

The learned counsel for the 4th defendant relied upon a decision in

Kuncheu Chinna Mangamma and others Vs. Kunche Mangamma (died) and

others [2005(4) ALT 547]. Basing on the said decision he argued that the

11

plea of fraud should be distinctly pleaded and made subject of distinct issue

and must be established beyond reasonable doubt like any other part of a

criminal proceeding and that it cannot be based on suspicion and conjucture.

There is no dispute about this decision. In this suit, the plaintiffs specifically

contended that he was mis-represented by defendants 1 to 3 and

Shambulinam document writer that he was executing the agreement of sale

in respect of his house in favour of Yadaiah and so saying the gift deed was

got executed by him on 18-2-2002 at the Sub-Registrar's office,

Ibrahimpatan. Thus it is clear that the plaintiff has given specific pleading

about the gift deed which he seeks to be cancelled and there is a specific

issue as issue No. 2 about the genuineness of the gift deed.

Further he relied upon a decision in Sajana Granites, Madras and

another Vs. Manduva Srinivasa Rao and others [2002 (1) ALT 466 (D.B)] for

the proposition of law that the plaintiffs have to succeed only on the strength

of their own case and not on the weakness of the case of defendants and it

is not for the defendants to plead and prove the defects in the plaintiffs' case

and the plaintiffs must be non suited if he fails to establish his case. There

is no dispute about this proposition of law also.

10. The plaintiff contended that he entered into an agreement of sale

with Karolla Yadaiah in respect of his self acquired house bearing No. 8-17

(old) and 9-94 (new) on 17-1-2002 and on 18-2-2002 he was summoned to

the Sub-Registrar's office, Maheshwaram for executing the said agreement

of sale on 18-2-2002 and the plaintiff and Yadaiah were present at the Sub-

Registrar's office along with defendants 1 to 3 on the request of the said

Shambhulingam. Further he contended that the said Shambhulingam and

defendants 1 to 3 requested the plaintiff to sign certain papers and believing

them the plaintiff signed on various papers which were typed non-judicial

12

stamp papers as if he was executing agreement of sale in favour of Yadaiah.

He contends further that the defendants 1 to 3 along with Shambhulingam

mis-represented the facts and played fraud on him and got executed gift

settlement deed document No. 442/2002 in favour of defendants 1 to 3 and

the same was registered without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff.

He further contends that he had no intention to execute the gift deed in

favour of defendants 1 to 3 and that defendants 1 to 3 in collusion with

Shambhulingam got the gift deed executed by the plaintiff on the pretext

that he was executing the agreement of sale in favour of Yadaiah in respect

of the house. Further he contends that a perusal of the agreement of sale

shows that it was endorsed by one Hafiz Md. Raoof, Narayanaguda on 21-2-

2002 though it was prepared on 18-2-2002 at the Sub-Registrar’s Office,

Maheshwaram and that he never went to the said house of notary and the

said document was attested with the notary by the defendants and was

handed over to Yadaiah. Further he contends that he came to know about

the gift deed in July, 2002 and gave report to the police and the District

Collector also. In evidence also plaintiff as PW1 re-iterated the above facts

in his chief-examination affidavit.

11. The disputed document certified copy is marked as Ex-A2. Ex-A3

deed of cancellation dated 7-8-2002 canceling Ex-A2 is also marked. The

complaints made to the police and District Collector are marked as Exs. A4

and A5. Ex-A22 agreement of sale dated 17-1-2002 and Ex-A23 agreement

of sale dated 22-2-2002 are also filed through PW1 regarding this issue.

PWs 2 to 6 are also examined in support of the plaintiffs case on this aspect.

12. The defendants disputed the plaintiffs version stating that the gift

settlement deed was executed by the plaintiff on his free will and it is a

13

genuine document. The 1st defendant is examined as DW1, K. Ranga

Reddy witness for the gift deed is examined as DW2.

13. Ex-A2 shows that it was a registered document of gift by the

plaintiff in favour of defendants 1 to 3 gifting Ac.2-11guntas of land in

survey No. 88/A of Maheshwaram Village. One Janga Reddy and DW2 are

the witnesses for the said document and they also identified plaintiff before

the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration also.

14. Though the plaintiff executed Ex-A3 on 7-8-2002 canceling

Ex-A2, it has no effect on Ex-A2. Similarly Exs-A4 and A5 complaints made

by the plaintiff to the police and the District Collector also cannot prove the

case of the plaintiff that Ex-A2 was executed by fraud because they are the

self made documents of the plaintiff.

15. Ex-A22 is the agreement of sale dated 17-1-2002 on Non-Judicial

Stamp paper which was impounded collecting stamp duty and penalty

thereon executed by the plaintiff in favour of one Karolla Yadaiah in respect

of house at Pochammagadda Basthi. It shows that there was an agreement

for sale of the said house for Rs. 41000/- and Rs.25000/- was paid as

advance agreeing to pay the balance amount of Rs.16000/- within one

month from 17-1-2002 to 18-2-2002 and after receipt of the balance

consideration, delivery of possession of the house would be made. Ex-A23 is

agreement of sale dated 22-2-2002 which the plaintiff contends to have

been executed by him on 18-2-2002 itself at the Sub-Registrar's office in

favour of Karrola Yadaiah and that the same was not actually signed before

the notary as reflected by Ex-A23.

16. On this aspect in the cross-examination of PW1, the defendants

suggested that the plaintiff executed a gift deed in favour of the defendants

14

when he could not pay the amount arranged by defendants 1 to 3 and their

mother at the time of marriage of daughter of the plaintiff and the same was

denied by PW1. In his deposition as DW1 also, the 1st defendant raised the

said plea stating that the plaintiff in order to meet his family necessities took

amounts from them and instead of discharging the said amounts, he parted

with his 1/4th share by executing gift deed. But a perusal of the pleadings

of the defendants show that they have not taken such plea in their written

statement. They simply contended that the gift deed was executed by the

plaintiff freely. On this aspect, PW1 stated that he performed the marriage

of his daughter in the year 2001 with his own funds and that he was in

cordial terms with the defendants at that time. He also admitted that the

marriage of his daughter involved expenditure of Rs.3.00Lakhs and he raised

the said amount out of chits and obtaining loans. He also admitted that he

obtained loan of Rs.150000/- but says that the defendants and their mother

did not contribute any amount but they have given gold of four tulas. He

admits that his marriage was performed by the mother of the defendants

and he set up separate family soon after his marriage. He is not able to give

the details of the chits as they were run by the private parties though he

stated that he obtained hand loan from one Balaram. He is unable to give

the names of other persons from whom he obtained loan for marriage of his

daughter. Even the loan borrowed from Balram is stated to be oral and it is

not in writing. With this evidence the defendants want to prove that the gift

deed was executed for the money lent by the defendants and their mother.

But in view of the fact that they have not taken such a pleading in their

written statement, this part of evidence of PW1 cannot be looked into.

17. There is no dispute about execution of gift deed at the Sub-

Registrar's office by the plaintiff. The contention that the same was signed

15

by him on the ground that it was an agreement in favour of Karolla Yadagiri

is to be established by the plaintiff. Ex-A22 agreement of sale is produced

through PW1. PW6 is the father of the said Karolla Yadagiri. It is the

evidence of PW6 that he purchased the house from the plaintiff about four

years prior to his evidence in the name of his son Yadagiri and at that time

he along with the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 and others went to the

Sub-registrar's office for the purchase of residential house. He stated that

one Shambhulingam document writer handed over the document pertaining

to his purchased residential house and after four months thereafter he came

to know that instead of registering his document, defendants 1 to 3 by

playing fraud obtained gift settlement deed from the plaintiff and as far his

knowledge goes defendants 1 to 3 played fraud and obtained gift deed from

the plaintiff.

18. PW6 has been subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for

the defendants 1 to 3. He stated in the cross-examination that defendants 1

to 3 went to stand as witnesses at the time of registration but till now the

house was not registered in the name of PW6 or his son. He states that one

stamp paper document was executed by the plaintiff prior to their going to

the Registrar's office over which defendants 1 to 3 signed as attestors and

the said document is in his custody. The plaintiff contends the said

document as Ex-A22 but strangely the same is produced by the plaintiff as

Ex-A22. It is not known as to how the plaintiff produced the document in

the custody of PW6. The 1st defendant in his cross-examination was

questioned about the signatures on Ex-A22 but he denied the signature on

Ex-A22 but admitted the signatures of his brothers and others. Ex-A22

might have been entered into by the plaintiff and PW6 and the same might

have been signed by the defendants but that cannot prove that the gift deed

16

in question was not executed by the plaintiff with his free will and that it was

executed by him as if he was executing registered sale deed in respect of the

house in favour of Yadaiah. On this aspect, the evidence of PWs 1 and 6 is

different. PW1 says that he executed registered sale deed in favour of

purchasers whereas PW6 says that till the date of his evidence no such

document was executed in their favour.

19. As far as Ex-A23 is concerned it is also an agreement of sale by

the plaintiff in favour of son of PW6 and it shows that the stamps were

purchased by Karrolla Yadagiri himself and not by the defendants as

contended by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff that Ex-A23 was got

prepared by the defendants and notarised by the defendants cannot stand

without any proof thereof. The plaintiff neither examined Shambhulingam

nor the notary who signed Ex-A23 to prove the said fact. He did not even

choose to examine any other witnesses who signed Ex-A23.

20. The plaintiff as PW1 says that the sale deed in favour of Yadaiah

was executed on 18-2-2002 itself but he did not even file any certified copy

thereof to show any such registered sale deed was executed by him. Apart

from that PW6 stated that no such registered sale deed was executed till

now. PW1 admitted that except on 18-2-2002 subsequently he did not go to

the registration office for any purpose. Though the plaintiff says that the 1st

defendant took him to the document writer and also to the Sub-Registrar's

office, he admits that defendant No. 1 has no concern with the transaction of

sale of house in favour of Yadagiri. PW1 gives a statement in the cross-

examination that defendant No. 1 acted as a mediator for the sale

transaction of the house but he did not mention about that fact anywhere in

his pleadings or in his evidence in the chief examination. So the same

cannot be accepted.

17

21. The other evidence produced by the plaintiff to prove the

document as obtained by fraud or mis-representation is that of PWs 2 to 5.

PWs 2 to 4 in their evidence in the chief-examination affidavits stated that as

far as their knowledge goes, the defendants 1 to 3 obtained registered gift

deed from the plaintiff in February, 2002 in respect of Ac. 2-11guntas of land

of Maheshwaram by playing fraud and mis-representation. PW3 in his cross-

examination says that he does not know the family affairs of plaintiffs and

defendants and he does not know whether they have any residential house

in the village. PW4 states that he owns land in survey No. 139 and on the

southern side of the suit land and there is land of one Narsimha Gupta. He

is also not able to say the survey numbers of land surrounding the suit land.

PWs 2 to 4 in one voice say that only as per their knowledge the gift deed

was obtained by playing fraud and mis-representation. None of them are

saying as to what was the fraud and what was the mis-representation for

obtaining the gift deed and how they got knowledge about the fraud and

misrepresentation in obtaining the gift deed. In view of the aforesaid

discussion about the evidence of PWs 2 to 4, their evidence cannot be

accepted.

22. The other witness examined by the plaintiff to speak on this

aspect is that of PW5 who is his own mother. In her chief-examination she

stated about the relationship with the defendants and about the purchase of

the suit land from Manchukonda Krishnaiah and others by the plaintiff and

defendants 1 to 3 about 20 years back. According to her, the plaintiff is in

continuous possession of the suit land along with defendants 1 to 3 and that

there was no partition among them wherein the plaintiff has 1/2 share. She

also stated that the gift deed was obtained by the defendants from the

plaintiff by playing fraud and mis-representation. PW5 is closely related to

18

the plaintiff and is residing with the plaintiff. She has no knowledge about

the survey number of the suit land, time of its purchase, and as to who was

in possession of the suit land prior to purchase also. Though she stated in

the chief-examination that the land was purchased from Manchukonda

Krishnaiah and others, in the cross-examination, she states that she does

not know who was the original owner of the suit land and she does not know

about the plaintiff executing the gift deed in favour of defendants 1 to 3.

This shows that her evidence in the chief-examination that fraud and mis-

representation were played by the defendants to get gift deed is not upon

her own knowledge and in fact she does not know anything about execution

of gift deed.

23. On the other hand the defendants examined Dws 1 and 2 to

prove that Ex-A2 is a genuine document. As DW1, the 1st defendant stated

all the facts mentioned in the written statement in his chief-examination

affidavit. He produced Exs. B1 to B22 in support of their case. In his cross-

examination DW1 says that as on 18-2-2002, the plaintiff was residing at

Hyderabad and the plaintiff came from Hyderabad to the defendant in

Santhoshnagar and from there they came to Maheshwaram at about 11am

or 12 noon. He states that himself and defendant No. 3 were present at the

time of execution of gift deed while the plaintiff and his son Satyanarayana

were also present. He stated that himself and the plaintiff got drafted the

gift deed with the document writer Shambhulingam and he purchased the

stamp papers for the gift deed. He says that himself and the plaintiff alone

were present before the Sub-Registrar and Shambhulingam did not come to

the Sub-Registrar office. Further he says that Raja Reddy son of Yealla

Reddy of Kandukur and another person by name Reddy were the witnesses

and before the Sub-Registrar, the signatures of the witnesses and the

19

plaintiff were taken. He denied the suggestion of the plaintiff that the

signatures of the plaintiff were obtained at the Sub-Registrar's office by

fabricating the gift deed stating that plaintiff was executing the sale deed in

favour of Karrolla Yadagiri regarding the house. He denied the case of the

plaintiffs suggested to him. The plaintiff went to the extent of suggesting to

DW1 that he colluded with the Sub-Registrar and obtained the gift deed

without even affixing the photograph of the plaintiff. DW1 stated that at the

time of the gift deed there was no necessity to affix the photograph and he

did not sign on the gift deed. The plaintiff could not show that affixing the

photograph on the document was a rule at the time of execution of gift

deed. Though DW1 was questioned about the giving of money for the

daughter's marriage of the plaintiff, as already discussed above, the

defendants cannot take such plea in evidence having failed to take the said

plea in the written statement pleadings and so the evidence in that respect

cannot be looked into. So through the evidence DW1 in the cross-

examination, the plaintiff could not elicit any information which supports his

case that the gift deed was executed due to the fraud and mis-

representation played by the defendants.

24. Coming to the evidence of DW2 who is a crucial witness in this

case being witness for the disputed gift deed, DW2 supports the case of the

defendants. DW2 stated that on 19-2-2002 the gift deed was executed by

the plaintiff in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 at the office of the Sub-

Registrar, Maheshwaram in the presence of DW2. He stated that at the

request of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and after the gift deed being

read over to the plaintiff by the Sub-Registrar, the plaintiff executed

document. DW2 states that he signed as an attestor to the document and

he also signed as a witness identifying the plaintiff. In clear terms he says

20

that no fraud or compulsion was there to the plaintiff to execute the said gift

deed. In spite of cross-examination by the counsel for the plaintiff at length

in minute details nothing material could be elicited from DW2 to dis-believe

his version.

25. DW2 stated in the cross-examination that he studied upto 10th

class and can read and write Telugu also. He stated that from

10.30am/11am himself and another witness Jangareddy were present at the

Sub-Registrar's office on their work and stayed there even upto 5pm as the

EC work was not over. The signature of DW2 on Ex-A2 is not disputed by

the plaintiff. DW2 clearly stated that the Sub-Registrar questioned him as to

whether he knows the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and stating that

defendant No. 1 is his friend and plaintiff is his junior paternal uncle, DW2

has made his signature on the gift deed. He stated that in the gift deed it is

mentioned that plaintiff is giving gift of land of Ac.2-11guntas in survey No.

88 of Maheshwaram. Simply because DW2 is not able to state the time at

which document was executed, his evidence cannot be discarded. Nothing

could be elicited in the cross-examination of DW2 to show that he is

interested in the defendants to give false evidence in their favour and that

he is giving false evidence in respect of Ex-A2. So the evidence of DW2

clearly establishes that the plaintiff executed the gift deed Ex-A2 with

knowledge about the contents and that document gift deed was not

executed as contended by the plaintiff.

26. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed Ex-A2 was got

signed by him on 18-2-2002 on the ground that it is a sale deed in favour of

Karolla Yadagiri in respect of the house. As PW1 the plaintiff stated that

subsequent to 18-2-2002 he did not go to the Sub-Registrar office for any

purpose. The evidence of DW2 is that the gift deed Ex-A2 was registered on

21

19-2-2002 that is on the next day of 18-2-2002. The document Ex-A2

shows that it was executed by the plaintiff on 18-2-2002 but it was got

registered before the Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram on the next day that is

on 19-2-2002. It clearly shows that DW2 was the 2nd witness for the gift

deed at the last page and also he is identifying witness for the registration

on 19-2-2002 also. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the document was

registered before the Sub-Registrar on 19-2-2002. The recitals of the

document clearly goes against the case of the plaintiff. The document was

not registered by him on 18-2-2002 because the document shows the

registration being done on 19-2-2002. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it

is clear that the plaintiff is unable to show that the gift deed was executed

by him due to the fraud or mis-representation played on him by defendants

1 to 3 and on the other hand the defendants are able to show that Ex-A2 is a

genuine document. This issue is accordingly held against the plaintiff and in

favour of defendants.

27. Issue No. 3 : The plaintiff seeks to declare the sale deed

executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4 in respect of

property covered by the gift deed Ex-A2 as null and void and not binding on

the plaintiff. It is his pleading that the gift deed was obtained by fraud and

mis-representation and therefore the gift deed is liable to be declared as null

and void and not binding on the plaintiff but in view of the finding on issue

No. 2 above, it is held that the gift deed is valid and so it binds the plaintiff

being the executant of the document.

28. The case of the plaintiff is further that in July, 2002, he found

that the gift deed was executed by fraud on him and subsequently he made

complaint to the police and to the District Collector and also demanded the

defendants for partition of the property and got executed a cancellation

22

deed. Further he stated that the defendants 1 to 3 tried to execute the sale

deed alienating the said Ac.2-11guntas obtained under the gift deed in

favour of third parties and as the Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram refused to

register the sale deed having knowledge about the gift deed being obtained

by fraud, they approached the District Registrar and got executed the sale

deed in favour of defendant No. 4 vide document No. 6502/2002, dated 5-8-

2002 marked as Ex-A7. However he contended that the valuation of the

land was shown more in Ex-A7 to avoid the plaintiff to file the suit by paying

more Court fees. As PW1 he re-iterated the said averments in his evidence

and filed Ex-A6 market value certificate issued by Registration and Stamps

Department on 2-11-2002 as Rs.46420/-.

29. The 1st defendant as DW1 stated that the 4th defendant is his

brother in law. Ex-A7 is executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of

defendant No. 4 alienating land gifted by the plaintiff to defendants 1 to 3.

He stated that to meet their family necessities, he alienated the land to

defendant No. 4 under Ex-A7 and defendant No. 4 is at present in possession

and enjoyment of the said land and defendant No. 4 is bona fide and lawful

purchaser. Nothing material could be elicited from cross examination of

DW1 to show that Ex-A7 is a nominal document. Merely because of the

market value certificate Ex-A6, it cannot be said that Ex-A7 is invalid.

30. The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision

Badugu Venkata Durga Rao and another Vs. Surneni Lakshmi [2001(1) ALT

115]. It was held in the said decision that as the sale deed can be

registered at the office of the District Registrar or at the office of the Sub-

Registrar within whose jurisdiction the land is situated, the document

cannot be dis-believed merely because it was not registered at the office of

the Sub-Registrar. Further there is no dispute about this decision. In view

23

of this decision Ex-A7 cannot be dis-believed. Further the plaintiff except

pleading that the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed having

come to know about the gift deed obtained by fraud, has not placed any

evidence to prove that there was such a refusal by the Sub-Registrar,

Maheshwaram to register the sale deed of defendants 1 to 3 in favour of

defendant No. 4.

31. The 4th defendant as DW4 stated the written statement

averments in his chief examination affidavit that the sale deed was for

consideration and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land as

a bona fide purchaser. Further he stated that his name was also mutated in

the revenue record and produced the mutation proceedings Ex-A23 and

other documents showing his possession. Nothing material could be elicited

from cross examination of DW4 also by the plaintiffs to show that Ex-A7 is a

sham and nominal document. DW1 and DW4 were questioned about

boundaries of the land covered by Ex-A7. DW1 stated that there was

partition among defendants 1 to 3. The boundaries were shown for the

entire land. Simply because of this boundaries shown in Ex-A7, the claim of

the plaintiff that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 4 by defendants 1

to 3 to declare the same as null and void cannot be accepted. Therefore on

any account Ex-A7 sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of

defendant No. 4 cannot be held to be null and void and not binding on the

plaintiff and accordingly this issue is held against the plaintiff and in favour

of defendants.

32. Issue Nos. 1 and 4: The plaintiff claimed that himself and

father of defendants 1 to 3 late Krishnaiah Chary constituted joint Hindu

undivided family and that father of defendants 1 to 3 died in the year 1974

and that subsequently in the year 1986 plaintiff along with defendants jointly

24

purchased the suit land from M. Krishnaiah and others under a registered

deed dated 16-4-1986. Further it is contended that though the defendants 2

and 3 were minors as on the date of sale deed, they were projected as

majors in the sale deeds, that the total sale consideration was paid by the

plaintiff and the defendants were made purchasers along with the plaintiff to

protect the sons of Krishnaiah Chary. Further he contended that there was

an understanding at the time of purchase that the plaintiff could be given ½

of the share in the suit land and the remaining ½ share should go to

defendants 1 to 3 and the said understanding was arrived at in the presence

of mother of the plaintiff, who is the grandmother of the defendants 1 to 3

namely Laxmamma examined as PW5 in this case. Further he contends that

except the suit land there is no other land for the plaintiff and defendants

and the land was mutated in the name of plaintiff and defendants, but the

revenue officials recorded the name of plaintiff and defendants allotting 1/4th

share each for the convenience of revenue authorities only and that there

was no partition on ground and he seeks for partition of the suit land and ½

share therein. Coming to evidence of plaintiff as PW1, he re-iterated the

above contentions.

33. On the other hand, the defendants 1 to 3 contended that

plaintiff is the brother of their father and as the father of the plaintiff died in

the childhood of the plaintiff, the plaintiff left Maheshwaram village and

resided at the house of his brother in law Narsimha Chary at Hyderabad and

thereafter the suit land was purchased by the father of defendants only from

M. Krishnaiah on 16-8-1967 itself for consideration under document of sale

and thereafter father of the defendants continued to be in exclusive

possession and enjoyment of the same and after death of the father, their

mother cultivated the suit land. It is their further case that after the death

25

of their father, the plaintiff returned to Maheshwaram and resided in their

house and mother of defendants 1 to 3 used to lookafter the welfare of the

family as Kartha of the family and even she performed the marriage of the

plaintiff herein and that the plaintiff set up separate house at Maheshwaram

after his marriage along with his wife and that to avoid complications in

future, mother of the defendants got executed sale deed on 16-4-1986

though they have purchased the land in 1967 itself and at that time out of

love and affection towards plaintiff and to give a share to him she added the

name of the plaintiff along with defendants 1 to 3 in the registered sale deed

though he did not purchase the same and though it was exclusively

purchased with the hard earned money of father of defendants 1 to 3 in the

year 1967 itself when the plaintiff was a minor residing at Hyderabad.

Further they contended that the entire revenue record substantiate the said

fact and so plaintiff having ½ share in the suit land does not arise. The

same is the evidence of DW1 in his chief examination affidavit. Both the

parties have produced lot of documents in support of their contentions.

34. The plaintiff is the junior paternal uncle of the defendants 1 to 3.

Plaintiff’s father was having three wives. The plaintiff is the son of third wife

and father of the defendants 1 to 3, namely, Krishnaiah Chary was the son

of second wife of the father of the plaintiff. The mother of defendants 1 to 3

is Saroja. Though the plaintiff contended that himself and father of the

defendants constituted a joint Hindu family, the admission made by him in

the course of this cross examination shows that it is not true. PW1

admitted that his father died when the plaintiff was aged about 7 years and

the plaintiff resided at the house of his brother in law, Narsimha Chary at

Hyderabad after death of his father for a period 18 years. Though he stated

that his mother and brother were staying with Krishnaiah Chary, it is not his

26

case that himself, his brother Anantha Chary and mother were also

constituted a joint family along with Krishnaiah Chary. The admission that

the plaintiff came to Maheshwaram only after the death of Krishnaiah Chary

shows that he did not constitute any joint family with father of defendants 1

to 3. It further falsifies his evidence that himself and Krishnaiah Chary along

with other brothers were doing caste profession in Maheshwaram. He

admitted in the plaint pleadings itself that there was no property prior to

purchase of the suit land in the name of the plaintiff, Krishnaiah Chary or the

defendants 1 to 3. Admittedly Krishnaiah Chary died in the year 1974 and

only subsequent to that, the plaintiff came to Maheshwaram started staying

at house of defendants 1 to 3.

35. DW1 admitted in his cross examination that the plaintiff resided

in their house for a period of about 10 years during the period from 1974 to

1984. So admittedly the plaintiff resided along with defendants 1 to 3 and

their mother subsequent to the death of Krishnaiah Chary. Except the suit

land the plaintiff is not claiming any share in any other properties. The suit

property admittedly was purchased under Ex-A1 original of which is marked

as Ex-B1. As against his own pleadings that he paid the entire sale

consideration under Ex.A1/B1, the plaintiff made admissions in his cross

examination admitting the case of the defendants. He admitted that the

father of the defendants 1 to 3 purchased the suit land on 16-8-1967 itself

from the land holders and the name of father of the defendants 1 to 3 was

shown in the cultivation column of revenue record since 1967 till his death

and subsequently the name of mother of defendants 1 to 3 namely Saroja is

being shown in the cultivation column and that the names of pattedars were

coming in the pattedar column in respect of suit land till 1986. These

admissions show that the plaintiff’s case that the suit land was purchased by

27

him with his money and the document was executed in the name of plaintiff

and defendants 1 to 3 is false.

36. Further PW1 admitted that in the year 1986 to avoid the disputes

with the pattedar, the registered sale deed was got executed by the mother

of defendants 1 to 3 and the name of the plaintiff was also added in the sale

deed out of love and affection towards him and the plaintiff became owner of

Ac.2-11guntas in survey No. 88 and the remaining land was of defendants 1

to 3. PW1 further admitted that mutation was effected in his name and

names of defendants 1 to 3 when they were in cordial relationship and

agreed for the same. Now he contended in the plaint and evidence in the

chief examination that the mutation was effected by managing the revenue

authorities and this admission of plaintiff shows that he is making false claim

in respect of the property.

37. Further plaintiff's claim that there was an understanding between

himself and defendants 1 to 3 that the plaintiff should be given ½ share in

the suit land at the time of purchase as he paid the total consideration also

became falsified by his own evidence and being unsupported by any other

evidence. The said understanding was said to have been made in front of

Laxmamma mother of the plaintiff examined as PW5. But she has not stated

in the chief examination affidavit about said understanding though she

stated that plaintiff has ½ share therein. In the light of admissions made by

the plaintiff and the admitted document Ex.A1/B1, the plaintiff cannot claim

½ share in the suit schedule property and he gets only ¼ share therein in

respect of which he has executed the gift settlement deed in favour of

defendants 1 to 3 under Ex-A2. In spite of his own admissions in the cross

examination, the plaintiff continued his case and suggested the same to

DW1 in his cross examination and the same was denied by DW1. In the

28

light of the admissions made by the plaintiff, there is no need to assess the

other witnesses elicited in the cross examination regarding the jointness of

the property in dispute in the suit.

38. The defendants examined DWs 1 and 3 to prove the purchase

made by the father of defendants 1 to 3 in the year 1967 under agreement

of sale. The evidence of DW3 is that he is vendor of the suit land under Ex-

B1/A1. He stated about the father of plaintiff purchasing the property from

them in the year 1967 though he stated Ex-B2 as document executed in the

year 1967 by himself, his brother and others, in the cross examination he

says that Ex-B2 was executed in the year 1984. There are variations in the

signatures of DW3 and Nagender when compared with Exs. B2 and B3. The

admission of DW2 that Ex-B2 was executed in the year 1984 makes it clear

that the said document was not executed in the year 1967. Further Ex-B2

shows that it was executed by father of Manchukonda Narsimha but it does

not contain his signature and it contains the signature of said Narismha and

his wife. Even the said Narsimha died even prior to Ex-B2 as admitted by

DW2. Ex-B2 is surrounded by suspicion. But in view of the admission of the

plaintiff about purchase made by Krishnaiah chary in the year 1967 itself, it

is proved that the purchase of the suit land was made by the father of

defendants 1 to 3 in 1967 itself though it was formally registered under

Ex.A1/B1 in 1986. In view of the above it is to be held that the suit land

was purchased in the name of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 under

Ex-A1/B1 though initially it was purchased by the father of defendants 1 to 3

in the year 1967. Ex-A1/B1 creates only ¼ share to the plaintiff in the suit

land.

39. In view of the findings on issue No. 2 that the plaintiff executed

the gift deed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 in respect of his 1/4th share of

29

Ac.2-11guntas in the suit survey number, the plaintiff has lost his share in

the suit land and he cannot be termed to be in joint possession of suit land

as on the date of the suit. Accordingly, the suit schedule property cannot be

held to be joint family property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as on the

date of the suit. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the

suit schedule property. In view of the above discussion, issues 1 and 4 are

held against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants 1 to 3.

40. Issue No. 5: Plaintiff claims to be in possession of the plaint

schedule property along with defendants 1 to 3 seeking declaration of the

gift deed executed by him in favour of defendants 1 to 3 and the sale deed

executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4 as null and void

is also seeking relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants in

respect of the entire suit schedule property. Having claimed ½ share in the

suit schedule property and admitting that the defendants 1 to 3 are having

share therein, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek perpetual injunction in

respect of the entire suit schedule property against defendants 1 to 3 even if

his case is admitted. In view of the findings on issues 1 to 4, it is clear that

the plaintiff has no right or interest in the suit schedule property as on the

date of suit. The documentary evidence produced by both parties shows

that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land as on the date of filing

of the suit. The plaintiff produced Exs. A8 to A21 pahanies in respect of suit

land.

41. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1989-1990 in

respect of survey No. 88 of extent of Ac.9-05 guntas i.e. the suit land

showing the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as pattedars and possessors.

Similarly Exs.A9, A10 are the pahanies for the years 1990-1991, 1991-1992

30

in respect of suit land showing the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as

pattedars and possessors of the said land.

42. Exhibits A12 to A18 are the pahanies for the years 1993-94,

2000-01 except for the year 1997-98, showing the plaintiff as pattedar and

possessor of Ac. 2-11guntas of land in survey No. 88/A. Ex.A11 is the

pahani for the year 1992-93 showing one Laxmi Narayana as pattedar of

Ac.1.20 guntas land in survey No. 88/AA of Maheshwaram (V) and further

showing the plaintiff as the possessor of the same. Ex.A19 is the memo

dated 8-3-2004 by the Dy. Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram (M) to the

plaintiff informing that file No. D/386/2002 and D/270/2003 were not

available in their office for the present and hence for that certified copies

can not be issued. Ex.A20 is the true copy of pahani for the year 2003-04 of

Maheshwaram (V) . It shows that defendant No. 1 was the pattedar and

possessor of Ac. 2-12guntas in survey No. 88/EE, 31 guntas in survey No.

88/AA, 2nd defendant is the pattedar and possessor of Ac.2-11guntas in

survey No. 88/E and 30G in survey No. 88/AA and the 3rd defendant is the

pattedar and possessor of Ac.2-11guntas in survey No. 88/AA and 30guntas

in survey No. 88/A. It should be noted here that Ex.A20 is subsequent to

A2.

43. Ex.A21 is the certified copy of pahani of the Maheshwaram (V)

for the year 1992-93 showing plaintiff as pattedar and possessor of Ac.

4.22guntas in survey No. 88/A and the defendants 1 to 3 as pattedars and

possessors of each Ac.1.20 guntas of land in survey No. 88/E, 88/AA and

88/EE respectively.

44. Exs-A8 to A18 and A21 are pahanies upto 2001 that is prior to

the gift deed in the year 2002 in which the name of the plaintiff also is

31

shown as pattedar as well as possessor along with defendants 1 to 3. But

Ex-A19 is not of any use to the plaintiff as the defendant produced Exs. B19

and B23 in proof of the said documents sought for by the plaintiff under Ex-

A19. Ex-A20 true copy of pahani for the year 2003-04 shows only

defendants 1 to 3 as pattedars and possessors of the entire suit land and so

it does not reflect the name of plaintiff in view of the gift deed executed by

him under Ex-A2.

45. Coming to the documents produced by the defendants Exs. B3 to

B14 relate to the period upto 2001. Ex-B3, B4 are the certified copies of

pahanies for the years 1970-71 and 1976-77 in respect of the suit land

showing Manchukonda Narsimhulu, S/o. Krishnaiah as pattedar along with

Avasala Krishnaiah and Kavali Lachaiah in possession for the year 1970-71

and Avasala Saroja for the year 1976-77. Exs-B5 and B6 are the pahanies

for the years 1980-81 and 1985-86 in respect of suit land showing

M. Nagender, M. Satyanarayana (D3), M. Venkatesh, Ramesh and Krishnaiah

as pattedars and defendants 1 to 3 are possessors of the suit land for the

year 1980-81 and M. Saroja (mother of defendants 1 to 3) in possession for

the year 1985-86. Exs-B7, B8 and B9 are the pahanies of the years 1989-

90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 in respect of total extent of the suit land showing

the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as pattedars and possessors as well.

46. Ex-B10 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1993-94 of

Maheshwaram village showing the plaintiff and defendants 3, 2 and 1 as

pattedars and possessors of Ac. 2.11guntas, Ac. 2.11guntas, Ac.2.11guntas

and Ac.2.12 guntas respectively in survey Nos. 88/A 88/AA, 88/E and

88/EE. Exhibits B11, B12, B13 and B14 are pahanies for the years 1994-95,

1995-96, 1996-97 and 2000-01 showing the same particulars shown in Ex-

B10. Ex-B15 is the pahani for the year 2003-04 certified copy of pahani of

32

Maheshwaram village showing defendant No. 3 as pattedar and possessor of

Ac. 2-11guntas in survey No. 88/A and Ac.0-30 guntas in survey No. 88/AA,

as 2nd defendant pattedar and possessor of Ac. 2.11guntas in survey No.

88/E and Ac.0.30guntas in survey No. 88/EE and the 1st defendant as

pattedar and possessor of Ac. 2.12guntas in survey No. 88/EE and Ac.0.31

guntas in survey No. 88/A.

47. Ex-B16 is the true copy of pahani for the year 2004-05 showing

defendant No. 4 as pattedar and possessor of Ac.0.30guntas in survey No.

88/A, Ac.0.30 guntas in survey No. 88/AA and Ac.0-31 guntas in survey No.

88/AA. Ex-B17 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02 showing

the same particulars as in Ex-B15. Ex-B18 also shows the same particulars

shown in Ex-B15. Ex-B19 is the proceedings of Mandal Revenue Officer,

Maheshwaram (M) in proceedings No. D/386/2002, dated -3-2002 in respect

of Ac.2-11guntas in survey No. 88/AA was mutated in favour of defendants 1

to 3 basing on the gift deed document No. 442/2002, dated 18-2-2002. Ex-

B20 is the temporary receipt for land cess in the name of Late Avasala

Krishnaiah for survey No. 88 for the years 1974-75 of Maheshwaram Village.

Ex-B21 is temporary land cess receipt to Manchu Narsimhulu paid by Avasala

Saroja (mother of defendants 1 to 3) in respect of the suit survey number

for the years 1976-77, Ex-B22 is another land cess temporary receipt in the

name of Avasala Saroja for the suit survey number for the fasli 1983-84.

Ex-B24 is the memo issued by the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram, dated 21-8-

2007 to the effect that the pahani of the year 2004-05 was not available in

office and hence certified copy of the same cannot be issued. Ex-B23 is

proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram (M) in

proceedings No. D/270/2003, dated 14-2-2003 under the record rights in

land act in respect of survey No. 88/A, Ac. 2-11 guntas mutated in the name

33

of defendant No. 4 in the place of defendants 1 to 3 basing on the sale deed

document No. 6502/2002, dated 5-8-2002. Ex-B25 is certified copy of

pahani for the fasli year 2005-06 showing the same particulars as in Ex-B16.

Ex-B26 is also certified copy of pahani showing the same particulars in the

year 2006-07 as shown in Exhibits B16 and B25.

48. Exs-B3 to B6 show the previous owners as pattedars and mother

of the defendants as well as defendants in possession of the suit land up to

1985-86. Exs. B7 to B9 shows the name of the plaintiff as possessor of the

suit land along with defendants 1 to 3 to the total extent in the year 1993-

94. Ex-B10 shows division of the property among plaintiffs and defendants

1 to 3 and Exs. B11 to B14 upto 2001 show that the revenue record was

reflecting the division among plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 with 1/4th share

each. Coming to Ex-B15 relating to the year 2003-04, the names of

defendants 1 to 3 are shown as pattedars and possessors of their respective

shares apart from the share they got by gift deed from the plaintiff. Exs.

B17, B18 pahanies for the years 2001-02, 2002-03 also show the same

particulars as in Ex-B16. Ex-B16 shows that the defendant No. 4 became

the pattedar and possessor of the land acquired by defendants 1 to 3 under

the gift deed as he purchased the same from defendants 1 to 3. Ex-B19 and

B23 establish the mutation proceedings in favour of defendants 1 to 3 basing

on the gift deed executed by the plaintiff and mutation of the name of the

defendant No.4 basing on the sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 3 in

favour of defendant No. 4. Exs. B20, 21 and 22 show the payment of cess

by Avasala Krishnaiah for the suit land in the year 1974-75 and mother of

defendants 1 to 3 for the years 1976-77 and 1983-84 in respect of the suit

land. Exs. B25 and 26 also substantiate the same for the years 2005-06 and

2006-07.

34

49. The evidence of DWs.1 and 3 also establishes the possession of

defendants 1 to 4 over the suit schedule property and in fact the plaintiff is

not disputing the documents produced by the defendants 1 to 4. He simply

says that the said proceedings were obtained by the defendants by

managing the revenue authorities. He could not disprove any of the

documents produced by the defendants in that regard. Thus it is clear that

the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule land and not the

plaintiff in any part of it. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled for

perpetual injunction as against the defendants. This issue is also held

against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants 1 to 4.

50. Issue No. 6: In view of the findings on issues 1 to 5 suit of the

plaintiff fails and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

51. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

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

2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, IBRAHIMPATAN

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1: M. Laxmana CharyPW2: P. PrakashPW3: Ch. LaxmaiahPW4: K. MuthyaluPW5: M. LaxmammaPW6: K. Sathaiah

For Defendants:

DW-1: M. Surya PrakashDW-2: K. Ranga Reddy DW-3: M. KrishnaiahDW-4: D. Srinivasa Chary

35

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1: is the certified copy of registered sale deed document No. 560/1986, dated 16-4-1986Ex.A-2: is the certified copy of gift settlement deed document No. 442/2002, dated 18-2-2002Ex.A-3: is the original deed of cancellation No. 2002/2002, dated 7-8-2002Ex.A-4: is the letter to the S.I of police, Maheshwaram, dated 30-7-2002Ex.A-5: is the letter to the Collector, R.R.District dated 31-7-2002Ex.A-6: is the Market value certificate dated 2-11-2002Ex.A-7: is the certified copy of registered sale deed document No. 6502/2002, dated 5-8-2002Ex.A-8: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90Ex.A-9: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1990-91Ex.A-10: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1991-92Ex.A-11: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1992-93Ex.A-12: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1993-94Ex.A-13: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1994-95Ex.A-14: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1995-96Ex.A-15: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1996-97Ex.A-16: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1998-99Ex.A-17: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1999-2000Ex.A-18: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2000-01Ex.A-19: is the original memo issued by MRO, Maheshwarama Mandal dated 8-3-2004Ex.A-20: is the true copy of Pahani for the year 2003-04Ex.A-21: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1992-93Ex.A-22: is the original agreement of sale dated 17-1-2002Ex.A-23: is the original agreement of sale dated 22-2-2002

For Defendants:

Ex.B-1: is the certified copy of registered sale deed document No. 560/1986, dated 16-4-1986Ex.B-2: is the sale document dated 16-8-1967Ex.B-3: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1970-71Ex.B-4: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1976-77Ex.B-5: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1980-81Ex.B-6: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86Ex.B-7: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90Ex.B-8: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1990-91Ex.B-9: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1991-92Ex.B-10: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1993-94Ex.B-11: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1994-95Ex.B-12: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1995-96Ex.B-13: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1996-97Ex.B-14: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2000-01Ex.B-15: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2003-04Ex.B-16: is the true copy of Pahani for the year 2004-05

36

Ex.B-17: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2001-02Ex.B-18: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2002-03Ex.B-19: is the original proceedings in File No. D/386/2002 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram MandalEx.B-20: is the original land revenue receipt dated 6-2-1975Ex.B-21: is the original temporary land cess receipt dated 25-12-1976Ex.B-22: is the original temporary land cess receipt dated 5-1-1984Ex.B-23: is the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram Mandal in File No. D/270/2003, dated 14-2-2003 Ex.B-24: is the memo issued by the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram, dated 21-8-2007 Ex.B-25: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2005-06Ex.B-26: is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2006-07

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, IBRAHIMPATAN