IN THE JIDGF :

COURT OS THE 1ST ADDL.SENT OR CIVIL

E.G.DTST.: RAJAHMUNDRY
S. NO. 492 /2018
BETWEEN : D.

INDUGLILA VENIKATESWARAO
AND
AND ANOTHERPLAINTIFF erin!
_cn
ENDRAVARAA
VANKA LAVANYAMANI

" . DEFENDANT

WRITTEN
1) The main
STATEMENT
and
FILED BY THE DEFENDANT

Suit 3re
material 11 egati ons in the

not true and filed the

Correct ad the suit 13
sUppessed tacts and with.ho 2hle allegationS anc the

suit is not maintainable pither in law or an facts.

The allegatios in Dn a 2rp not true Bnd COrrecta

The allegations that the plaintiffs are the absolute

OneTS of the terraced house tooe t h e r twith 3oint lanes

the extent 138 sq yards COVered by D.NO.29-2g-6,

Badireddyvari Street near Al1uri Sitaramaraju junction
Lakshmivaapu peta, 14th Muncipal ward
Rajahmundry
Muncipal corrortation 1imits and it COROrises of 3 itemg
which Bre more particulariy described in the Schedule
appended to the plaint are Talse and incorrect.

3) The further 21legations in the para the

plaint 8re not true and
cOrrect. It is false to al] ege
that One indugula Adinarayna

Dlaintiffs and 2
Raburao father of the
origid.*red title to the vacant
Site COvered by the plaint
schedule under Settlement
Ceed dated 22-65-1946 from his
mother Indugul a Gang&mma
who reserved life interest for
property,
herself fo enioyment in
the plaint Schedule
4) The fLrther allegati Ons in
the para the
8nd
plaint are nRt true
correct. It is
false to alleCe
nefendnat
 ..2..

that ane P. Satyanarayana is

the
father of the
he is 8lso the
nephew of the defendant
Adinarayana @ Baburao and Out of Plaintiffs father
P.
Satyanarayana at ter g
relationship
prevailed
the S&id

upon Smt Ganamma

MOther of
Adinarayana baburap,made
e
her eecuted
revocation Deed dated 9426-1980 for the
settlement datpd
22-05-1946. The said revocation deed is an invalid 8nd
in operative document and the
settlement deed dated 22
G5-1946 accepted &nd
ful}y acted ipon
Consequently the revocation deed for the
is non-est
Settlement deed
the eye of 1a4 as it is
LInilateral1
document Got e%ecuted by
5)
Gangamma.
The. further
allegations in the para 6 of
the plaint
Rre not true and
correct. It is
alleged that the
Plaintiffs father Adinaavana RaburaD LISed
to (wOrk
muncipal e mplOyee and he retired as LuNcial
he worked at Manager and
RajahUndry and other places and there
used
to be
house abutting to the plaint Schedule
and the ame was sold in property
favoUr of one
P.
Satyanaray ana father
K.Sumathideyi and
of the
plaintiffs defendant by
father Baburao e
Adinaravana and bis mOther
through their power of attarney Ganganma
agent BunneSwarao vide G
PA dated
Ø2-02-1987 and the sale transaction is
by poWer of effected
attorney acent Gnneswarso Lnder
sale deed dated registered
12-04-198A are false and incorrect.
The further
allegations in the paa 6 of the plaint
not true and
Correct. It is false to
alleae that
Adinarayana father of the
nlaintiffs had been remained
with the plaint
schedule property With iont 1aneS.
6) The further al leations in the parB of the

Mo
De ¿ndant
 paint not true and COrrect. It is false to B1lece

athile so when the poSsessi lon of Adi naray ana Babura in

respect of the Schedule Property wIS at tempted to be

disturbed
Adinarayana filad sit 1 0.9.NO. 739/1998

agan i s t +he defedants fa+her Putchala Satyanarayzna

and obtained decree on 9~1997 hiCn bec&me final .

The father of the defend ant since the time of salp of

the property adjacent to th laint schedule property to

Gnnes#ar8 RaO hiS brothen bod cast an eye tO Occupay

the schedule property. As the nlaintif fs were aw&y from

with
RajahmAnd ry due to their enn ]vment, the defendant
the connivan of her father P. Satyanarayana filed SLit

in 0.5. NO. 21/2BØG which on transfer became 0.s.NO.

558/23A8 the file of Principal Junior civi1 Judge

for In junction aganist the plaintiffs and

Rajahmudnry
that plaintiffs father
others alleging falsely
Adinarayana @ Babura sold away the schedule property to

p0ssession of the S&me

the defendant and deliered the
11-12-2gB6 and the Said
to here and obtained decree on
properly and as result of
suit not Brasecuted

hich the suit ag decreed.

allegat i onS in the para of the
The further
7)

true
&nd coorrect. It is talse to allege
plaint
to
kngw about the alleged sale
that after Coming
plaintiffs in favour of the defendant,
tranaction by
enquiries and btained certifed copy
the plaintiffs made
to have been executed
by Plaintiffs
of the sale deed
18-97-1994 in favor of the
father Adinarayana
Seeing the dDCImert and plaintiffs to
and on
defendant, consternatl O found that the sipnatures
and
their disay their father Adinarayana @ Baburao
deed of
the sale
pefendant

Me
V.La
 4,.

Were foraed and Adinareye hever sioned on the alleqed

Sale deed dated 19-97-1994 for the reaSonS that

was retir exployee

Adinarayana who muncipal Sever

signed in Telugu and ne tsed to si gn on ly in English

except the alleged signaTues of Baburao Adinaraysna on

the Sale deed in Te lugu there were no signatures

Adinarayana a Raburso n Telugu at any p!ace and thus

the sale transaction dated 18-87-1994 is [ yoid

transaction the sale deed not executed by

Indugula Baburao@ AdinarRy ana and since the sale deed

not exeuted by Adinarayana @ Baburao is forged
document and conseguently a void one there is no need for
the plaintiffs to seek for cancellation of the sale
deed and late Baburao Adinaray ana during his Iife

time in a SQnd and disposinQ state of mind bequeated

the plaint Schedule property in favour of the
plaintiff
vide registered 4il! dated 173-1998
being NO. 64/1599
bequathing the plint schedule roperty
favoLUT of
olaintiffs with abSolute rights and the
said wil] came
in to force subsequently when Adinarayana beathet his
last and thus the plaintiffs became the
exciISive and
ahsolute owneS of the plaint
schedule property from +ho
death of Adinarayana @ Babura0.
8) The further allegations in the para 11
the
plaint &Te not true Correct, It is false to
that the defendant with the active allege
Support of her fa ther
Connivance and
Satvanaray ana Inder the
decree for
guise
injunc tion in o.S.NO. 558/20Gg
on the file
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmdnry of

the plaint
Schedule site by exploiting
barged
the
into

Continuous
situation
absence of the plaintifs at

Rajahmudnry Cue
to thei empl oyment at VaiG pl aceses the defendant

illegally Occupaied the property immediately after

obtaining decree Tor pOsSeseign dated 11 -12-2ØØ6.
8) The further alIegatione in the para 12 of the plaint

are not true and cOrret, T is false to allece that

the mne anwhile the defendant knowing fully well that she
had no title to the propertv, developed the
by
constructing bui lding in the plaint Schedule Property
after removing the
existing structures and the

defendant Came to occupay the schedule property in the

middle of December 2ø06, i.e 15-12-2396 the plaintiffs

is obliged to file the Suit for declaration of title and
possession within 12 yeaS from the date

dispOSsession in the iddle of Decemebr 2556 and thus

the claim of the plaintiffs for p0sseSsion is ithin the
time i.e t4ith in 12 ye8rS form the date of

dispossession.
The further allegations in the para 13 the

plaint are not true and correct. It is false to

allege
that the defedant claimed adverse title to the

property by virture of the al]eged sale deed dated 18

S7-1994 in her favour the plBintiffs are advised to seek

the relief decla3ration of title also and the

plaintiffs due to ther employment l3ere B4ay from

Rajahmundry Bnd recently retired from service, they

filed the present suit and befOre filing of the suit,

the plaintiffs got issued a registered notice dated 16

1g-2318 to the defendant who got issued ContentiUS

reply dated 22-1 1-2918.

13) The defendant subits that the plaintiff the

absolute owner of the vac ant site mè asuring 123 sq-yards

of si te situated in Laxmiyarapu peta, Rajahmudnry tuhich

Defendant.
 is schedule property purchased under the ret:isteed sale
cdeed dated 18-7-1994 from Indugula
Baburao a AdinaravBna
for a consideration O! 7,0S0/-. The said RabuRO
Adinarayaa is nothe other than the father of
plaintiff
and Perabathula Ganga Varal akshmi pedireddy Ramakumari,
Induaual Radha Kumari who &re the defendants in suit 3n
0.9.NO.358/2393 decreed on the file of Principal Junior
Civil Judge Rajahmudry .The defendant has been in

possession and enjoyment of the said schedu1e property

since the date of purchaSe.
31) The defendant filed suit 0.5.NO. 558/2004
seeking permanent Ininction in the mon th of May
uhen the plaintiff interfere t4ith the peacefu!
possession and enjoyment of the schedule property- In
the said case the
plaintiffs filed counter clai3 that
the sale deed of plaintiff was manipulated and
Up brought
dCCUMent an Some body
impeSonated the executant and
obtained the registered doc ument and the said
is Vaid
and ill egal
documnent
document. Hence the plaintiffs
pleaded hat al]
there in the present Suit
the
Honaarabie COUr decreed the suit after
CoLnter claimn of the plaintiff. negating the
Hence,
applied the present Suit with that residicata
the
is

0.S.NO. SUit
558/2A3Son the fi le of
principal
Juge, Rajahmudry. junin Civil
12) The
defendant Suboi ts, that SUit
is barred
1imitaion , since , the by
defendnat pUrchased
Schedule property the plaint
On
18-7-1994, and the Said
kngwn by the
plaintif fs and his fact is
Sisters and
the plaintiff has to file
the Suit with in
the
therefore.
three vears from 18-7-1994
chellingi the
5ale deed
perind o1
but
Defendant
Mei
4be Dlaintitf k ept quite 1 +hese vears and fiJed +his

false sui t which

is time bared. Moreover, the nlaintiff
filed the Sit in
Said sui t 15 dtree
o.9.NO. on
558/200G on 9-5-2084 and the

11-19_o004. and the plantiff did

not prefeT any apPeal and
+herefore, the CecTee 13 Tina
and from the date of suit al so time is barred ard
the
therefore t.he SUit is not maintainable per

Limitation Act.

13) The defendant, after constructed the building Sold

the majar 5chedule property to the Third parties and

they are DOSSessi on and ejoyment the Schedu]e

property after the suit is deCreed in the year 24B6 and

the of the purchased Schedule property the

necessary parties in the suit and the suit is bad for

DeceSsary party and on this sole ground the SUit: is

disimissed in Iimimi.

14) The defendant submit that the plaintiff filed P

NO. 551/2915 before Lok Adalat aoanist the defendant

questing the same subject matter and the Hon arable Judae
Lok Adalat closed af ter persuing the relavant papers.
15) The plaintiffs have neyer possession 3nd

en joyment of the schedule property at any time . The

allegation to the Contra

defendant that the Came to

OCcupay the schedule property in the middle of December

2306, i.e on 15-12-2996 are false and incorect uh en tha

pleading of the plaintiffs persued in D.5, NO, 559/90.

16) There is no C8uSe OT action for the su1 t and thhe

alleged CBUSe of action false incorrect

and

perticulars. The suit in 0.8.NO, 759/194 and w) l1 dated

Defendant

Mei
 8...

said
and t e
17-0S.1998 is ngt birdinO on the defendant
incorrect
fabricted and ! i th
suit

Rert icul8s.
that
the deferdant payS
nder the atrye ci rcuRstances.
Suit
to dismiss the
te ionarable court may be gleased

4i th costs.

Mo
DEFENDANT
ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT.

The facts stated in the above paraCrahs are

and cOrrect to the best of kncwledge snd beiet.

RAJAHMUNDRY
V. havefon mee
DATE : 25-4Ø3-2319 DEFENDANT.