Sri I.SRINIVASA MURTHY, Principal Senior Civil Judge. FAC : Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC), GUDIVADA Present: Sri I.SRINIVASA MURTHY, Principal Senior Civil Judge. FAC : Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Monday, this the 24th day of August, 2020. OS.No.276/2008 Between 1.Kodali Kalyani ( died) 2. Kodali Nageswara Rao, S/o. late Lakshmaiah, Hindu, aged 74 years, resident of Vijayawada. 3.Kodali Srikanth, S/o.Nageswar Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, Flat No.204, Brundavan Colony, Vasanta Nilaya, Labbipet, Vijayawada. 4. Kodur Annapurna, W/o. Nagendra BAbu, D/o.Kodali Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 56 years, Flat No.48, RTC colony, Vijayawada. ( Plaintiffs 3 & 4 are represented their General Power of Attorney holder and father of Kodali Nageswara Rao, as per Orders in IA.146/2019, dt.4.11.2019) ( Amended as per orders in IA.145/2019, …..Plaintiffs. dt.4.11.2019) AND 1.Kodali Ram Babu, S/o.Venkata Appa Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, properties, R/o.Plot No.2, Mukti Enclave, Sri Ramachandra Mission Road, Manapakkam, Chennai. 2. Adusumilli Venkateswara Prasad, S/o.Krishnaji Rao, Hindu, aged 46 years, properties, R/o.Mega Town ship, Dr.No.T.F.1, Hemanth Residency, Patamata, Vijayawada. 3. Rajulapati Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Dharma Raju, Hindu, aged 47 years, cultivation, R/o.Old Kurumaddali, Pamarru Mandal, ...Defendants. Krishna District. This Suit has come up on 04.03.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.V.Panduranga Rao, advocate for plaintiff and of Sri G.L.N.V.Appaji, advocate for 1st defendant and of Sri D.Veeraiah, advocate for defendants 2 and 3 and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following: JUDGMENT 2 Originally 1st plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants to declare that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, which is an extent of 548.4 sq.yards of house site with terraced building, Mangalore tiled house and shed therein bearing Dr.No.5/84 situated at Kurumaddali village; for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1st plaintiff over the plaint schedule property; to declare the registered sale deed dated 21.08.2008 executed by D1 in favour of D2 in respect of plaint schedule property described as item No.1 in the schedule of the said sale deed, is not binding on the 1st plaintiff; and for costs. 2. During the pendency of the suit, 1st plaintiff died and her LRs are brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 4 and accordingly the relief portion is changed to declare the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and to declare that the registered sale deed executed by D1 in favour of D2 is not binding on them with consequential relief of permanent injunction. 3. Brief averments of the amended plaint are as follows: Originally, the plaint schedule property and another extent of Ac.0.59 cents of wet land situated at Kurumaddali village belonged to one Kodali Lakshmaiah, who is the father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff. The said Lakshmaiah was also having one house bearing Dr.No.5/73 situated at Kurumaddali village. During his lifetime, Kodali Lakshmaiah executed a registered Will dt.07.07.1997 bequeathing the plaint schedule property and the wet land of an extent of Ac.0.59 cents in favour of the 1st plaintiff and bequeathing the house bearing Dr.No.5/73 in favour of the son of the 1st plaintiff by name Srikanth, 3 who is the 3rd plaintiff. In the said registered Will, the properties bequeathed in favour of the 1st plaintiff are described as A-schedule and the property bequeathed to the 3rd plaintiff is described as B- schedule. Later Lakshmaiah died on 17.01.1999 and by the time of his death Lakshmaiah was not having any other properties. ii) After the death of Lakshmaiah, 1st plaintiff became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the said Will. In fact, Lakshmaiah executed a registered Will dt.02.07.1997 earlier and the same was cancelled as some mistakes were crept in and later he executed a registered Will dt.07.07.1997. Though the husband of the 1st plaintiff (2nd plaintiff) is a native of Kurumaddali village, he started residing at Vijayawada since 1969 along with the 1st plaintiff till 1993. In April 1993, 2nd plaintiff shifted the family to Chennai along with 1st plaintiff and her children and they lived there till 2002. Subsequently, they returned to Vijayawada on 19.12.2002. During the lifetime of Lakshmaiah, he used to manage the landed properties of the 2nd plaintiff and the children of the 1st plaintiff. After the death of Lakshmaiah, 1st plaintiff and her husband required a person to manage their properties. 1st defendant is the eldest brother’s son of the 2nd plaintiff and he used to reside in Kurumaddali village. Due to close relationship, in the year 1999, 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff requested the 1st defendant to manage the landed properties and house properties including plaint schedule property, for which 1st defendant accepted to manage the properties. 1st defendant used to pay income in respect of the landed properties, after deducting all the expenses incurred for raising crops including payment of cists in respect of the landed properties. So far as the house properties are concerned, 1st defendant used to collect the rents from the tenants, 4 and after deducting the maintenance charges and house tax including water tax, he used to pay the remaining amounts to the 1st plaintiff and her husband. iii) Lastly in the month of February 2008, 1st defendant paid an amount of Rs.8,000/- to the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff towards income from their landed properties and also their residential house property including the plaint schedule property. Since 2005 1st defendant started to live at Vijayawada for a period of one year for the purpose of his daughter’s education and subsequently he also admitted his daughter in BDS course at Chennai. In those circumstances, it was not possible for the 1st defendant to manage all the properties of the plaintiffs. Then the 1st plaintiff and her husband informed the 1st defendant in February 2008 that it is not possible for the 1st defendant to look after the properties personally and, therefore, they wish to take the assistance of the 1st defendant’s brother by name Kodali Rama Krishna to manage all the properties. At that time, 1st defendant claimed ownership over the plaint schedule property. Then, 1st plaintiff informed the 1st defendant that her father- in-law executed a registered Will dt.07.07.1997. She also asked the 1st defendant to handover the property tax receipts and water tax receipts, but the 1st defendant informed that they were not readily available with him and they would be returned subsequently. iv) Since April 2008, the brother of the 1st defendant by name Rama Krishna started looking after all the properties of the plaintiffs including the plaint schedule property and he started to live in the house belonging to the 3rd plaintiff. The brother of the 1st defendant leased out the plaint schedule property to one Nalla Mohana Rao on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-. Subsequently, when the 2nd plaintiff made 5 enquiries about the payment of property tax in respect of the plaint schedule property, it came to light that the 1st defendant has been making property tax in respect of the plaint schedule property in his name and he also got the electrical service connections transfer in his name. Subsequently, 1st plaintiff filed an application to the electricity department to record her name as consumer by virtue of the registered Will dt.07.07.1997 and accordingly the electricity department incorporated the name of the 1st plaintiff as consumer relating to service No.560. 1st plaintiff also sent a representation to the Secretary, Kurumaddali Gram Panchayat through registered post for making changes in the Panchayat records in respect of the plaint schedule property to include the name of the 1st plaintiff as owner, but he did not take any action. As far as the other house property mentioned as B-schedule in the Will bequeathed to the 3rd plaintiff, necessary changes were already made incorporating the name of the 3rd plaintiff as the owner. 1st plaintiff also filed an application to the Tahsildar, Pamarru to issue pattadar pass book and title deed pass book in respect of the landed property, which is pending. v) 2nd defendant is the brother-in-law of the 1st defendant and he has been doing contract works and he is not having any properties in Kurumaddali village. 1st defendant is having an evil idea to grab the plaint schedule property and, therefore, he executed a collusive registered sale deed dt.21.08.2008 selling the plaint schedule property and other vacant site of an extent of 484 sq.yards which was described as item No.2 in the said sale deed, in favour of 2nd defendant. In the said sale deed, 1st defendant mentioned that Lakshmaiah executed an unregistered Will dt.23.12.1998 bequeathing the properties in his favour and he got the same through the said Will. 6 In fact, the registered Will dt.07.07.1997 is the last Will of Lakshmaiah and the alleged unregistered Will set up by the 1st defendant is a forged document and it could not convey any title in respect of the plaint schedule property.