O.S.No.

19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala

1
 
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, PAKALA

PRESENT: B.DEVENDRA REDDY

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PAKALA.

Monday, the 9th (ninth) day of September, 2019.

(9-9-2019)

ORIGINAL SUIT No.19 of 2014

Sallagundla Munaswamy Naidu ... Plaintiffs

-Versus-
1. Vadlamudi Siddaiah Naidu (died)
2. Vadlamudi Rajeswar Naidu
3. Vadlamudi Tholakari Babu
4. Vadlamudi Munemma
5. Vadlamudi Bhaskar Naidu
6. V.Sugunamma

Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 are added as L.Rs. late 1st ...Defendants

defendant as per orders in IA No.520/2017, dated
13-7-2018

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 27-8-2019 in the

presence of Sri G.Guruswamy Naidu, Advocate for plaintiffs, Sri B.C.
Reddeppa Naidu, Advocate for defendants 2 to 6 and the 1 st defendant
died during the pendency of suit, upon perusing the material papers on
record, upon hearing both sides counsel and having stood over for
consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by plaintiff against defendants to pass a

preliminary decree for partition to divide the plaint schedule properties

into two equal shares and to allot one such share to plaintiff by taking

into consideration the good and bad qualities of the same and for costs

of the suit.

2. The brief averments of plaint are as follows:

Plaintiff’s father by name S.Ramaiah Naidu and one M.

Munaswamy Naidu were joint pattadars of suit schedule land, each of

them having joint half share. After abolition of estates, while taking over
 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
2
 
the estates, Government issued rough pattas in their name and their

names were also incorporated in fair adangal maintained by revenue

authorities. Both of them were jointly harvesting the tamarind usufruct

from the tamarind trees in suit schedule property every year and sharing

the same equally. Special Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri also issued Ryot

pass book in respect of the properties of Ramaiah Naidu including his half

share in the suit schedule property.

2. (a) Few years back, family of defendants joined with plaintiff’s

father in sharing tamarind produce by representing that they have

purchased the share of Munaswamy Naidu and thus for the past few years

plaintiff’s family and defendants’ family are enjoying the plaint schedule

mentioned property. At present there are four tamarind trees in the suit

schedule property.

2. (b) Father of plaintiff died in the year 1995, after his death in the

oral family arrangement, plaint schedule mentioned property fell to the

share of plaintiff. In recognition of his right and title, Mandal Revenue

Officer, Pulicherla also issued pass-book and title deed in his name.

Thereafter, plaintiff has been taking his half share of tamarind produce

every year. Recently there arose mis-understandings between the family

members of plaintiff and defendants and the defendants started to

proclaim that they are the absolute owners of entire suit schedule property

and also made an attempt on 10-2-2014 to erect fencing around the

plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit is filed for partition.

3. Second defendant filed a written statement denying all the

averments in plaint and further contended that one Madupuri Munaswamy

Naidu was the absolute owner of written statement schedule property,

 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
3
 
having got it from his ancestors. On 25-3-1971 Madupuri Munaswamy

Naidu and his family members sold the same to one Javili Pedda Reddeppa

Chetty for valid consideration and some time later, the said J.Pedda

Reddeppa Chetty in-turn sold the said property to 1 st defendant on

21-10-1973. Revenue authorities also issued pattadar pass book and title

in the name of 1st defendant, duly mutating his name in revenue records.

On 9-10-2009 1st defendant executed a gift settlement deed in favour of 3 rd

defendant in respect of written statement schedule property. Plaintiff or

his father were never in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule or

written schedule property. The defendants are in possession of written

statement schedule property, even by adverse possession. Claim of

plaintiff for share in the property is illegal and the documents filed by him

are not valid in the eye of law. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with

costs.

4. Defendants 1 and 3 filed a memo adopting the written

statement filed by 2nd defendant and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. Subsequent to filing of written statement in the suit, 1 st

defendant died and his L.Rs. are brought on record as defendants 4 to 6,

as per orders in IA No.520/2017, dated 13-7-2018.

6. The 2nd defendant filed an additional written statement and it is

adopted by defendants 3 to 6. In the additional written statement 2 nd

defendant contended that the Survey number and extent mentioned in the

plaint schedule and written statement schedule are one and the same.

The four tamarind trees situated in the written statement schedule belong

to family of defendants and they are alone enjoying the same. The plaintiff

and his family members never shared any tamarind produce. The suit is
 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
4
 
filed by plaintiff only for wrongful gain. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit

with costs.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were

settled for trial by my learned predecessor.

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to divided two equal

shares of the plaint schedule mentioned property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the portion of plaint

schedule mentioned property as prayed for?

(3) To what relief?

8. As the above issues are not properly framed by my learned

predecessor, the issues are re-casted as under for proper and effective
adjudication:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek for partition of

the plaint schedule mentioned properties into two equal
shares?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for allotment and

separate possession one such divided share by taking into
consideration the good and bad qualities of the same, as
prayed for?

(3) To what relief?

9. On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and

marked Exs.A1 to A6 on his behalf. On behalf defendants, 2 nd defendant

himself is examined as DW1 and examined three more witnesses as DWs.

2 to 4 and marked Exs.B1 to B6 on their behalf. The Revenue Inspector,

Tahsildar’s Office, Pulicherla is examined CW1 and through him Exs.C1 to

C6 are marked.

10. Heard arguments of the learned counsel on both sides. Perused

the material on record.

11. Recasted Issue No.1:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek for partition of

the plaint schedule mentioned properties into two equal
shares?
 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
5
 
12. The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the suit schedule

mentioned property was assigned by Government to plaintiff’s father

Ramaiah Naidu and one Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu under Ex.A1 rough

patta, they both enjoyed the suit schedule property, after the death of

father of plaintiff/Ramaiah Naidu, plaintiff and L.Rs. of Ramaiah Naidu

succeeded to the half share in the suit schedule property, in the oral

partition among the legal heirs of Ramaiah Naidu, half share in the suit

schedule property was allotted to plaintiff and he has been in possession

and enjoyment of the same along with defendants, but the defendants are

proclaiming in the village that the entire suit schedule property is their

own property and they are not going to give any share to plaintiff in the

suit schedule property, on 10-2-2014 defendants 1 and 2 came to the suit

schedule property and made an attempt to put fencing around the suit

schedule property without the consent of plaintiff on the ground that they

purchased the entire suit schedule property from one Javili Reddeppa

Chetty under a registered sale deed. Hence, plaintiff filed the suit for

partition and to allot half share to him in the suit schedule property and

prayed to decree the suit.

13. The learned counsel for defendants argued that the L.Rs. of

Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu sold the suit schedule property to one Javili

Pedda Reddeppa Chetty under Ex.B1 registered sale deed, the said Javili

Pedda Reddeppa Chetty sold the suit schedule property to 1 st defendant

under the original of Ex.B2/certified copy of registered sale deed dated

21-10-1973, defendants 1 and 2 executed the original of Ex.B3/certified

copy of registered gift settlement deed dated 9-10-2009 in favour of 3 rd

defendant and the 3rd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of

the same and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
6
 
14. Since the suit is filed by plaintiff for partition and separate

possession of half share in the suit schedule property, burden lies on him

to prove that he has half share in suit schedule property. To prove his

right over half share in the suit schedule property, plaintiff filed

Ex.A1/rough patta issued by Assistant Settlement Officer in favour of S.

Ramaiah Naidu and Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu. On perusal of the said

Ex.A1 rough patta, it is clear that Government assigned Ac.0-56 cents in

favour of father of plaintiff by name S.Ramaiah Naidu and Madupuri

Munasway Naidu. Plaintiff also filed Ex.A5 Notice dated 21-12-1969 issued

by Tahsildar, Chandragiri to the father of plaintiff and Madupuri

Munaswamy Naidu for enhancement of cist. Since the then Tahsildar was

issued notice to the father of plaintiff and Madupuri Munaswajy Naidu on

21-12-1969 for enhancement of cist to the suit schedule property, it can be

said that the suit schedule property was assigned by Government to the

father of plaintiff and Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu. The plaintiff also filed

Ex.A2 attested copy of fair adangal issued by the Tahsildar. On perusal of

the said Ex.A2, it is clear that the suit schedule property stands in the

name of father of plaintiff by name Ramaiah Naidu and Madupuri

Munaswamy Naidu.

15. From the above Exs. A1, A2 and A5 it is clear that the

Government assigned the suit schedule property an extent of Ac.0.56

cents to the father of plaintiff and one Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu.

16. The plaintiff also filed Ex.A3/Ryot pass book issued by Special

Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri in favour of S.Ramaiah Naidu. On perusal of

Ex.A3, it is clear that an extent of Ac. 0.28 cents out of Ac.0.56 cents in the

suit schedule property in S.No.70/6 stands in the name of father of plaintiff.

So, it is clear that the father of plaintiff is having Ac.0.28 cents out of
 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
7
 
Ac.0.56 cents in the suit schedule Survey Number. The plaintiff also filed

Ex.A4/ certified copy of title deed pass book stands in his name. On

perusal of Ex.A4, it is clear that an extent of Ac.0.28 cents in Suit Survey

number 70/6 stands in the name of plaintiff.

17. In support of the above Exs.A1 to A6, plaintiff examined

himself as PW1 and he filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating

the contents of plaint. In cross examination, PW1 stated that his father

died in the year 1994-1995.

18. From the above evidence of PW1, it can be said that after the

death of his father, his father’s share was succeeded by him and his name

is also mutated in revenue records. PW1 admitted that after laying fencing

around the suit schedule property by defendants 2 and 3, they are in

possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The witness

voluntarily stated that as they are not allowing him to enjoy his share of

property, he filed this suit for partition of suit schedule property. From the

above evidence of PW1, it can be said that the defendants are not allowing

him to enjoy the share of his father in the suit schedule property. So, filing

the suit by plaintiff for partition and separate possession is maintainable

and in the said circumstances, it can not be said that the defendants are

alone in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

19. PW1 denied the suggestion that his father and Madupuri

Munaswamy Naidu never enjoyed the suit schedule property jointly. It is

further contention of plaintiff that after the death of his father, his share

has been enjoying by him along with defendants who purchased the share

of Madupuri Munasway Naidu under the original of Ex.B2/certified copy of

registered sale deed dated 21-10-1973. It is further contention of plaintiff

 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
8
 
that in the suit schedule property there are tamarind trees, defendants and

himself were sharing the usufruct of tamarind trees, later the defendants

denied to give his share in the usufruct of tamarind trees and not allowed

him to enjoy the suit schedule property situated in the suit schedule

property. So, it can be said that the defendants are denying to enjoy the

half share of plaintiff also in the suit schedule property. Hence filing of suit

by plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit

schedule property is just and correct.

20. In support of the contents of written statement, 2nd defendant

examined himself as DW1 and examined three more witnesses as DWs 2

to 4 and also marked Exs.B1 to B6. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of

registered sale deed dated 25-3-1971 executed by the legal heirs of

Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu in favour of J.Pedda Reddppa Chetty. On a

perusal of the said Ex.B1, it is clear that the legal heirs of Madupuri

Munaswamy sold the suit schedule property and other properties to one

J.Pedda Reddeppa Chetty. The said Pedda Reddeppa Chetty sold the suit

schedule property and other properties to 1 st defendant under the original

of Ex.B2 certified copy of registered sale deed dated 21-10-1973. The first

and 2nd defendant/ DW1 who is the son of 1 st defendant, executed the

original of Ex.B3/certified copy of registered gift settlement deed dated 9-

10-2009 in favour of 3rd defendant, who is the son of 2 nd defendant by

gifting the suit schedule property. After gifting the suit schedule property

by 1st and 2nd defendants to 3rd defendant, 3rd defendant’s name is

mutated in the revenue records. To show that 3 rd defendant’s name is

mutated in the revenue records, defendants filed Exs.B4 and B5 which are

1-B extract dated 28-3-2019 and Adangal for faslie 1428. The above

Exs.B4 and B5 establish that the suit schedule property stands in the name
 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
9
 
of 3rd defendant. Ex.B6 photographs establishes that there is a gate and

fencing around the suit schedule property and it is vacant land.

21. In support of the above Exs.B1 to B6, 2 nd defendant examined

himself as DW1. He filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating the

contents of written statement. In cross examination, he stated that he did

not know how Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu got the suit schedule property

sold by his L.Rs. under Ex.B1 to Reddeppa Chetty. He further stated that

he has not filed any revenue record of Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu and

Pedda Reddeppa Chetty in respect of the suit schedule property.

22. From the above evidence of DW1/2 nd defendant, it can be said

that he does not know how Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu got the suit

schedule property i.e., Ac.0-56 cents. If really, suit schedule property i.e.,

Ac.0-56 cents stands in the name Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu, his name

was mutated in revenue record. Revenue record of Munaswamy Naidu is

not filed by defendants. Without verifying the revenue record and also

title of Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu of the suit schedule property, Pedda

Reddeppa Chetty purchased the suit schedule property i.e., Ac.0-56 cents

from the L.Rs. of Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu. Pedda Reddeppa Chetty

was also not verified the title of Madupiri Munaswamy Naidu before

purchasing the suit schedule property i.e., an extent of Ac.0-56 cents from

the L.Rs. of Madupuri Munaswamy Chetty. Likewise, 1 st defendant who is

the father of 2nd defendant, who is no more, also not verified the title of

Madupiri Munaswamy Naidu over the suit schedule property i.e., Ac.0-56

cents and purchased the property from Pedda Reddeppa Chetty under the

original of Ex.B2/certified copy of registered sale deed. After purchasing

the suit schedule property by 1st defendant under the original of Ex.B2, his

name is also not mutated in the revenue records. In cross examination,

 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
10
 
DW1 stated that he filed pattadar passbook of his father. But no pattadar

pass book is filed by 2nd defendant/DW1 which is allegedly in the name of

1st defendant. Even though defendants 1 and 2 executed the original of

Ex.B3/ certified copy of registered gift settlement deed dated 9-10-2009 in

favour of 3rd defendant gifting the suit schedule property i.e., Ac.0-56

cents, since the vendor’s vendors of 1st defendant has no right to alienate

the entire suit schedule property i.e., Ac.0-56 cents, 3 rd defendant would

not get any right over the entire suit schedule property i.e.,Ac.0-56 cents.

So, there is no validity to the original of Ex.B2/certified copy of sale deed,

Ex.B3/certified copy of registered gift settlement deed dated 9-10-2009

and also Exs.B4 and B5 which are 1B extract and adangal for faslie 1428,

in which the name of 3rd defendant is entered for entire suit schedule

property.

23. DWs. 2 and 3 filed their chief examination affidavits in support

of the written statement of defendants and evidence of DW1. They

deposed about purchasing the property by 1 st defendant from one J.Pedda

Reddeppa Chetty and gifting the property by defendants 1 and 2 in favour

of 3rd defendant under the original of Ex.A3 /certified copy of registered gift

settlement deed dated 9-10-2009 and mutating the name of 3 rd defendant

in revenue records for entire suit schedule property.

24. No doubt, 1st defendant purchased the entire suit schedule

property under the original of Ex.B2 from one J.Reddeppa Chetty, who also

purchased entire suit schedule property under the original of Ex.B1 from

the legal heirs of Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu and the defendants 1 and 2

also executed the original of Ex.B3/certified copy of registered gift

settlement deed in favour of 3rd defendant and the name of 3rd defendant is

also mutated in revenue records. As already stated above, legal heirs of

 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
11
 
Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu have no right to sell the entire suit schedule

property i.e., Ac.0-56 cents to J.Pedda Reddeppa Chetty under the original

of Ex.B1 and even though defendants 1 to 3 deposed about purchasing of

the property by 1st defendant and gifting the said property to third

defendant is of no value.

25. The defendants examined the attestor of original of Ex.B3/

certified copy of registered gift settlement deed dated 9-10-2009 as DW4.

He deposed that the 1 st and 2nd defendants are executed the original of

Ex.B3 in favour of 3rd defendant gifting the suit schedule property in his

presence and he attested the said document. No doubt, defendants 1 and

2 executed Ex.B3 in favour of third defendant and attested by DW4.

Validity of original of Ex.AB3/certified copy of registered gift settlement

deed is decided supra stating that there is no value to Ex.B3.

26. The Revenue Inspector, Pulicherla is summoned and examined

as CW1. Through him, Exs.C1 to C6 are marked. Ex.C1 is the certified

copy of 10(1) register extract. It shows that the suit schedule property i.e.,

Ac.0-56 cents stands in the name of Challa Gundla Ramaiah who is the

father of plaintiff and also Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu jointly.

27. It is the contention of plaintiff that after the death of his father,

his name is mutated in the revenue record for his half share. He also filed

Exs.A4 and A6. The above said documents establish that the share of his

father i.e., Ac.0-28 cents in suit schedule survey number stands in the

name of plaintiff. Ex.C2/attested copy of 1B extract also discloses the

same. Ex.C4 is the attested copy of ROR extract pertaining to suit

schedule Survey number i.e. S.No.70/6. Ex.C4 establishes that an extent

of 0-56 cents stands in the name of 1st defendant. Since the 1st defendant
 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
12
 
purchased the suit schedule property under the original of Ex.B2/certified

copy of registered sale deed dated 21-10-1973 the name of 1 st defendant

might have entered in Ex.C4/certified copy of ROR extract.

28. As discussed above, vendor of 1 st defendant purchased the

entire suit schedule property from the L.Rs. of Madupuri Munaswamy Naidu

who is joint pattadar along with father of plaintiff. So, the entry made in

Ex.C4 in the name of 1st defendant for entire suit schedule property i.e.,

Ac.0-56 cents is of no value.

29. Ex.C3 is attested copy of 1-B extract pertaining to the land in

Survey number 70/6. The said 1B extract stands in the name of 1 st

defendant and the entry was cancelled by mentioning “Sale deed

2585/2009” Since the defendants 1 and 2 executed the original of Ex.B3/

certified copy of registered gift settlement deed, document No.2585/2009,

the said entry was cancelled. So, Ex.B3 is not helpful to the case of

defendants.

30. Ex.C5 is certified copy of 1B extract. The said extract stands in

the name of 3rd defendant for suit schedule property. Ex.C6 is attested

copy of adangal for faslie 1425 - 1426 for the suit schedule property stands

in the name of 3rd defendant. No doubt, the name of 3 rd defendant is

entered in revenue recored for the entire suit schedule property, since the

defendants 1 and 2 executed the original of Ex.B3/ certified copy of

registered gift settlement deed in favour of 3 rd defendant. The entries in

revenue record does not create any title over the suit schedule property

either in favour of 1st defendant or 3rd defendant.

31. The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that even though the

name of 3rd defendant is mutated for entire suit schedule property, the
 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
13
 
said mutation would not amount to ouster of share of co-sharer. In

support of his argument, learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon a

decision reported in 2005(2) APLJ 79 (HC), Gaddam Chinna Dodamma

Vs. Goka Pedda Dodamma, wherein it was held that:

“Mutation in the revenue records in the name of one co-

sharer would not amount to ouster of the share of co-sharer.”

32. In this suit also, even though name of 3 rd defendant is

mutated in revenue records, basing on Ex.B3/certified copy of registered

gift settlement deed dated 9-10-2009, as discussed above, the executants

of original of Ex.B3 has no right over the entire suit schedule property.

Hence mutation of name of 3rd defendant in revenue records would not

oust the share of plaintiff who is co-sharer, in the suit schedule property.

The above said decision is quite applicable to the facts of the present case.

33. The learned counsel for defendants argued that 3 rd defendant’s

grand-father purchased the suit schedule property under original of Ex.B2

certified copy of registered sale deed on 21-10-1973 and the said property

was gifted to 3rd defendant under Ex.B3 by 1st defendant on 9-10-2009,

filing of suit in the year 2014 is barred by limitation and prayed to dismiss

the suit.

34. The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the

defendants denied the right of plaintiff on 10-2-2014 as mentioned in

the plaint and continuing, the suit filed by plaintiff in the year 2014 is

within limitation and prayed to decree the suit.

35. In support of the above argument the learned counsel

for plaintiff relied upon the above said decision referred supra, wherein
 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
14
 
it was held that, “period prescribed for claiming to partition is 12 years.

Limitation starts to run from the date of denial of share.”

36. On perusal of plaint, the cause of action is mentioned

is on 10-2-2014, when the defendants denied the share of plaintiff in

suit schedule property and continuing one. The defendants did not

rebut the said plea. In the cross examination PW1 also denied that on

10-2-2014, the defendants did not deny the right of plaintiff and plaintiff

has no right over suit schedule property. Hence, it can be said that the

defendants denied the right of plaintiff on 10-2-2014 and continuing. So

filing of suit by plaintiff on 21-3-2014 is well within period of limitation of

12 years and suit is not barred by limitation. I do not find force in the

argument of learned counsel for defendants in this aspect.

37. In addition to Exs.C1 to C6, Revenue Inspector is examined as

CW1. He deposed as to what is mentioned in Exs.C1 to C6 documents.

Even though entire suit schedule property stands in the name of 3 rd

defendant, he would not get any right over the entire suit schedule

property i.e., Ac.0-56 cents, as because, the vendor’s vendors of 1 st

defendant have no right and title over the entire suit schedule property

i.e., AC.0-56 cents to sell the same under Ex.B1 to J.Pedda Reddeppa

Chetty. Even though Madupuri Munaswamy L.Rs. have no right over the

entire suit schedule property i.e., Ac.0-56 cents, they sold entire suit

schedule property i.e., Ac.0-56 cents to J.Pedda Reddeppa Chetty under

Ex.B1 and in-turn J.Peda Reddeppa Chetty sold the property to 1 st

defendant under the original of Ex.B2/certified copy of registered sale deed

dated 21-10–1973 and that 1st defendant will not get any right and title

over the said property. So, execution of the original of Ex.B3/ certified copy

of registered gift settlement deed in favour of 3 rd defendant by defendants

 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
15
 
1 and 2 also has no value. The entries made in revenue record in the

name of 3rd defendant for entire suit schedule property are also of no

value, as because, as the gift itself is for entire suit property is of no value.

38. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the

plaintiff is entitled to seek for partition of plaint schedule schedule

properties into two equal shares and he is entitled for half share in the

suit schedule properties. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff

and against the defendants.

39. Recasted Issue No.2:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for allotment and

separate possession one such divided share by taking into
consideration the good and bad qualities of the same, as prayed for?

In view of the above discussion on issue No.1, this court holds

that the plaintiff is entitled for allotment and separate possession of one

such divided share by taking consideration the good and bad qualities of

the same. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against

the defendants.

40. Recasted Issue No.3:-To what relief?

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs. The

suit schedule properties be divided into 2 (two) equal shares and to allot

one such divided share to the plaintiff by taking into consideration the

good and bad qualities.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9 th day of September,
2019.

Sd/-B.Devendra Reddy,
Junior Civil Judge,
Pakala.
 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
16
 
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

PW1: M.Munaswamy Naidu DW1 V.Rajeswara Naidu

DW2 S.Sudhakar Naidu
DW3 V.Venkatamuni Naidu
DW4 V.Munirathnam Naidu
Witnesses examined as CWs.

CW1 : E.Chenchaiah, Revenue Inspector

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 : Rough patta issued by Assistant Settlement Officer, in

favour of S.Ramaiah Naidu.

Ex.A2 : Attested copy of Fair Adangal issued by the Tahsildar.

Ex.A3 : Ryth pass book issued by Special Deputy Tahsildar,

Chandragiri in favour of S.Ramaiah Naidu.

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of title deed pass book of S.Munaswamy

Naidu.

Ex.A5 : Notice issued by the Tahsildar, Chandragiri under

section 7(2) for the enhancement of cist, dated
21.12.1969.

Ex.A6 : Revenue title deed issued by the then Mandal Revenue

Officer, Pulicherla in the name of plaintiff.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dated

25.3.1971 executed by the legal heirs of M.
Munaswamy Naidu in favour of J.Pedda Reddeppa
Chetty.

Ex.B2 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated

21.10.1973 executed by J.Pedda Reddeppa Chetty in
favour of 1st defendant /Siddaiah Naidu.

Ex.B3 Certified copy of registered gift settlement deed dated

9.10.2009 executed by the 1st defendant D1 in favour
of 3rd defendant /Tholakari Babu.

Ex.B4 1-B extract dated 28.3.2019 obtained through mee-

Seva.

Ex.B5 Adangal for the fasli 1428 obtained through mee-Seva,

dated 28.3.2019.
 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
17
 
Ex.B6 Photographs( 4 in no.) with C.D.

Exhibits marked in ‘C’ Series

Ex.C1 Attested copy of 10(1) register extract

Ex.C2 attested copy of 1-B register extract

Ex.C3 attested copy of 1-B extract pertaining to the land in

Sy.No.70/6 to an extent of Ac.0.56 cents in patta
No.259

Ex.C4 attested copy of ROR extract pertaining to the land in

Sy.No.70/6

Ex.C5 Attested copy of 1-B extract pertaining to land in

Sy. No. 70/6 to an extent of Ac.0.56 cents in patta
No.992

Ex.C6 Attested copy of adangal for the fasli 1425-1426

pertaining to land in Sy.No.70/6 to an extent of
Ac.0.56 cents in patta No.992

Sd/-B.Devendra Reddy,
Junior Civil Judge,
Pakala.
 O.S.No.19/2014 JCJ Court, Pakala
18
 

Fair judgment in OS No. 19/2014

dated 9-9-2019 JCJC, Pakala