Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Musunuru Nageswara Rao vs Thota Venkateswarlu on 24 October, 2025
APHC011021372017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 42 OF 2018
Between:
1. MUSUNURU NAGESWARA RAO, S/o. Late Seetharamaiah, R/o
Kolakaluru Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District.
...Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff
AND
1. THOTA VENKATESWARLU, S/o. Late Venkatadri, R/o. Kolakaluru
Village, Tenalil Mandal, Guntur District.
2. THOTA KRISHNA, S/o.VENKATESHWARLU R/o. Kolakaluru Village,
Tenali Mandal, Guntur District.
3. TALLURU VENKATA SUBBAMMA, (hence died), W/o. Late Hanumantha
Rao
...Respondents/Appellants/Defendants
Appeal under section 100 of CPC against orders to set aside the
Judgment and Decree AS.No. 25 of 2012 dated 28.10.2017 passed by the XI
Addl District and Sessions Judge , Tenali, reversing the Decree and
Judgment in OS.No. 73 of 2006, dated 29.11.2011 the file of Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Tenali and to confirm the decree and judgment in OS.No. 73 of
2006, dated 29.11.2011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali and
pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2017(SAMP 46342 OF 2017
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
grant stay of operation of decree and judgment in A.S.No. 25 of 2012 dated
28.10.2017 on the file of XI Addl District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, pending
disposal of the Second Appeal and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner: VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL
Counsel for the Respondents: V V L N SARMA
The Court made the following:
Judgment:
This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 28-10-2017,
in A.S.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali,
Guntur District, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 29-11-2011,
in O.S.No.73 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.
2. Originally, the trial Court clubbed both the suits O.S.Nos.73 of 2006
and 27 of 2009. O.S.No.73 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff for seeking the
relief of possession of the plaint schedule property and also for recovery of
damages as prayed in the plaint. O.S.No.27 of 2009 was filed by the
3rd defendant in O.S.No.73 of 2006 for seeking the relief of cancellation of
registered gift settlement deed said to have been executed by the
3rd defendant herein in favour of the plaintiff herein. The learned trial Judge
clubbed both the suits and a common judgment was pronounced in both these
suits and O.S.No.73 of 2006 was decreed partly by granting possession of the
plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and the relief of recovery of damages
was dismissed. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit filed by the
3rd defendant herein vide O.S.No.27 of 2009, against which no appeal was
preferred by the plaintiff in the said suit. Therefore, the said finding in
O.S.No.27 of 2009 reached its finality. Aggrieved against the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.73 of 2006, A.S.No.25 of 2012 was filed by the
defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The learned first appellate Judge allowed the
appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial
Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff approached this Court by way of
second appeal.
3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are
defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.73 of 2006.
4. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will
be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit O.S.No.73 of 2006.
5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in
O.S.No.73 of 2006, is as follows:
(a) It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the grandson of Nagaratnam, who is
sister of Tulluru Venkata Ramayya who got a son Hanumantha Rao i.e., the
3rd defendant's husband. Late Tulluru Hanumantha Rao got item No.1 of the
suit schedule property under registered sale deed, dated 17-8-1978,
executed by Jagarlamudi Siva Nageswara Rao for valid consideration.
The 3rd defendant similarly became owner of Ac.0-77 cents of land in
D.No.635 of Kolakaluru Village including Ac.0-50 cents in item No.2 of the suit
schedule property under registered sale deed, dated 29-4-1981, executed by
J.S. Nageswara Rao for valid consideration and they had been in possession
and enjoyment of the said properties with absolute rights to the knowledge of
one and all including the defendants 1 and 2 herein, who are father and son
and happened to be their neighbours belonging to different castes of the
3rd defendant and her husband.
(b) It is further pleaded that the 3rd defendant had no issues and as
such, they used to depend upon the plaintiff and his family for their day-to-day
necessities. The defendants 1 and 2 are southern neighbours of the
3rd defendant. Late Tulluru Hanumantha Rao during his life time, in a sound
and disposing state of mind executed his last Will and testament, making two
bequeaths, one to the plaintiff in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule
property, directing him to discharge his debt of Rs.25,000/- payable to one
Patibandla Seetha Ramaiah by selling away sarkar donka under his
possession as per convenience of the plaintiff and pay some amount to his
Sagothraja that performs his obsequies and the remaining amount to be given
to his wife, and other bequeath to the 1st defendant i.e. vested remainder in
respect of the residential thatched house bearing No.14-108 after his life time
and life time of his wife/3rd defendant. The said testator died on
22-11-2004, therefore the plaintiff became absolute owner of item No.1 of the
suit schedule property harvested the paddy crop and raised sun-hemp, while
the 3rd defendant became life estate holder of the above said residential
thatched house. The obsequies of Hanumantha Rao were performed by
Tulluru Sambasiva Rao of the same village and the plaintiff looked after all the
affairs but could not sell the sarkar donka and discharged the debt as no
purchaser came forward. On the 11th day ceremony of late Hanumantha Rao,
the above said Will was read over in the presence of all the invitees and the
defendants as well, and there was no protest from anybody, much less from
the defendants.
(c) It is further pleaded that the 3rd defendant, late Hanumantha Rao's
wife, having satisfied with the service of plaintiff, out of her love and affection
executed a registered gift deed, dated 11-02-2005, in respect of item No.2 of
the suit schedule property consisting of Ac.0-50 cents of land. The plaintiff
accepted the same and accordingly, he had been in possession and
enjoyment of item No.2 of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, even
during the life of Hanumantha Rao, cultivated the properties of Hanumantha
Rao and 3rd defendant including the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff
also submitted an application, dated 16-6-2005, to issue pattadar pass book
and title deed in his favour in view of the Will executed by Tulluru Hanumantha
Rao and on account of his death on 22-11-2004, and also obtained pattadar
pass book and title deed for item No.2 of the suit schedule property basing
upon the registered gift deed, dated 11-02-2005. The 3rd defendant remained
as absolute owner of Ac.0-27 cents of wet land in between item Nos.1 and 2,
while residing in her thatched house as life estate holder under the above said
Will, dated 20-11-2004. The 1st defendant was learnt to have obtained
alleged registered sale deed, dated 13-5-2005, for an alleged amount of
Rs.82,500/- from the 3rd defendant as if her husband died intestate for the
purpose of discharging alleged promissory notes. Similarly, the 2nd defendant
was learnt to have obtained a registered gift deed, dated 13-5-2005, from the
3rd defendant in respect of Ac.0-25 cents of land belonged to the 3rd
defendant.
(d) It is further pleaded that the defendants 1 and 2 removed boundary
stones to item No.2 of the suit schedule property in high-handed manner and
then the plaintiff moved the Mandal Surveyor by paying challan, dated
22-6-2006 and the Mandal Surveyor duly fixed boundary stones for item No.2
of the suit schedule properties and that the suit for delivery of possession of
suit schedule properties from the defendants to the plaintiff was filed by the
plaintiff.
6. The 1st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court
denying the material averments made in the plaint, which was adopted by the
2nd defendant by filing a memo. The brief averments in the written statement
of 1st defendant are as follows:
It is contended that the plaintiff is no way related to the 3rd defendant
and her husband Tulluru Hanumantha Rao. Tulluru Hanumantha Rao did not
execute any Will on 20-11-2004 and did not make two bequeaths in favour of
the plaintiff or anybody else in respect of the plaint schedule property and
other properties. The Will, dated 20-11-2004, filed by the plaintiff is a forged
and fabricated one. On 13-5-2005, the 3rd defendant sold item No.1 of the
plaint schedule property for a valuable consideration of Rs.82,500/- to the
1st defendant for the purpose of discharging debts due to others and thereby
discharged the promissory note, dated 11-10-2003, due to Changalasetty
Peda Srinu, son of Venkateswarlu, to a tune of Rs.27,500/- and discharged
the promissory note debt, dated 18-02-2003, due to Senagabandi
Venkateswarlu to a tune of Rs.30,000/- and also discharged promissory note
debt to a tune of Rs.25,000/- from out of the sale consideration of item No.1 of
the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant paid an amount of Rs.82,500/-
to the 3rd defendant and facilitated her to discharge the above promissory note
debts. The 3rd defendant executed a registered sale deed, dated 13-5-2005,
bearing document No.801/2005 of Sub Registrar's office, Duggirala. On the
same day, the 3rd defendant delivered possession of item No.1 of the plaint
schedule property to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff never became absolute
owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. The 3rd defendant did not
execute the gift deed, dated 11-02-2005, in respect of item No.2 of the plaint
schedule property as alleged in the plaint in favour of the plaintiff. He prayed
to dismiss the suit with costs.
7. The 3rd defendant filed written statement by denying the plaint
averments and further contended that the plaintiff is not a relative of the
3rd defendant or her husband Hanumantha Rao as alleged in the plaint and he
never looked after this defendant or her husband and her husband did not
execute any Will, dated 20-11-2004, in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing item
No.1 of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff created the alleged
registered gift deed, dated 11-02-2005, in respect of item No.2 of the plaint
schedule property with mala fide intention to grab the property of 3rd
defendant, she filed the suit in O.S.No.257 of 2009 on the file of Principal
Senior Civil Judge's Court, Tenali, for cancellation of the gift deed, dated 11-
02-2005 and the same is pending. Tulluru Hanumantha Rao died intestate
leaving behind the 3rd defendant as sole legal representative after the death of
her husband, his entire estate including item No.1 of the plaint schedule
property to the 1st defendant and delivered possession of the same. The 3rd
defendant and her husband brought up the 2nd defendant as their foster son
and got performed his marriage and also the 2nd defendant looked after late
Tulluru Hanumantha Rao affectionately during his life time and also looking
after this defendant affectionately. For that, on 13-5-2005, this defendant
gifted Ac.0-27 cents of wet land to the 2nd defendant under a gift deed, dated
13-5-2005 and handed over possession of the said property to the 2nd
defendant and the remained only Ac.0-50 cents i.e. item No.2 of plaint
schedule property with this defendant for her livelihood, there are no other
property and source of income except item No.2 of the plaint schedule
property for the livelihood of 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant is aged woman.
She prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the
following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got title to the plaint schedule property ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the plaint schedule property ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,000/- ?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits ? and
(5) To what relief ?
9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff,
P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-19 were marked. On behalf of
the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked.
Ex.X-1 was also marked.
10. The learned trial Judge after conclusion of trial, on hearing the
arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary
evidence on record, partly decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved thereby, the
unsuccessful defendants 1 to 3 filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.25 of 2012,
wherein the following points came up for consideration:
(1) Whether the Will executed by late Tulluru Hanumantha Rao bequeathing item
No.1 to the plaintiff, dated 20-11-2004 is free from suspicious circumstances and
genuine ?
(2) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of the plaint schedule
property without seeking the relief of declaration is maintainable ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,000/- ? and
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profits ?
11. The learned first appellate Judge after hearing the arguments,
answered the points, as above, against the plaintiff and allowed the appeal by
setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Felt
aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.73 of 2006 filed
the present second appeal before this Court.
12. On hearing both sides' counsel at the time of admission of the
second appeal on 09-01-2024, this Court framed the following substantial
questions of law:
(1) Whether the first appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment of
the trial Court with regard to the genuineness of Ex.A-2 Will merely on the
basis of probabilities and suspicious circumstances as discussed by the
appellate Court ?
(2) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in holding that suit for
possession is not maintainable without seeking declaration of the validity of
Ex.A-2 Will deed and Ex.A-9 gift deed by the appellant ? and
(3) Whether the Court below justified in dismissing the suit to the extent of item
No.2 of schedule property ignoring the fact that O.S.No.27 of 2009 filed by
defendant No.3 seeking cancellation of the gift deed dated 11-02-2005 was
dismissed and no appeal is preferred which has become final ?
13. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff and Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents
/defendants 1 to 3.
14. The law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC, High Court
cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by first appellate Court, which is
final Court of facts, except in such cases where such findings were erroneous
being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the
basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon
inadmissible evidence or without evidence.
In the case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh1, the Apex Court held
as follows:
"The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to
whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which
was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of
non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature."
In the case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar2,
the Apex Court held as follows:
"The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First
Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the
lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory
provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of
pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon
inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence."
15. The appellant herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.73 of 2006 and the
respondents are defendants in the same suit on the file of the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The appellant herein filed the suit for
possession of suit schedule property and also for recovery of compensation
with future mesne profits. The trial Court decreed the said suit in part by
ordering recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and negatived
the reliefs of compensation with interest and future mesne profits at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per annum and costs. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed first
appeal before the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali. The plaintiff has not
filed any cross-objections against the judgment and decree passed by the
1
AIR 1993 SC 398
2
AIR 1999 SC 471
learned trial Judge for not awarding damages and future profits by the trial
Court, therefore, the said finding reached its finality.
16. The 3rd respondent herein, by name Talluru Venkata Subbamma,
filed O.S.No.27 of 2009 against the plaintiff herein for cancellation of the gift
deed, dated 11-02-2005, said to have been executed by the 3rd defendant
herein in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in the present suit. The learned trial
Judge dismissed the suit filed by the 3rd defendant herein and gave conclusion
that the registered gift deed said to have been executed by the 3rd defendant
herein in favour of the plaintiff in the present suit is valid in respect of item
No.2 of the plaint schedule property, therefore, the said finding reached its
finality.
17. The learned Senior Counsel for appellant/plaintiff would contend
that Ex.A-2 Will is proved in accordance with law and the learned trial Judge
rightly decreed the suit, on believing Ex.A-2 Will, but the learned first appellate
Judge came to wrong conclusion and set aside the findings of the trial Court.
The specific case of the plaintiff is that Talluru Hanumantha Rao is the
absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in an extent of
Ac.0-75 cents in D.No.635, the same is undisputed by the defendants. It is
the specific case of the plaintiff that he is a nephew of late Hanumantha Rao
and late Hanumantha Rao bequeathed item No.1 of the plaint schedule
property under the Will, dated 20-11-2004, in a sound and disposing state of
mind and in the Will, it was also observed to discharge his debt payable to
Seetha Ramaiah by selling away sarkar donka as per convenience of the
plaintiff and pay some amount to the person who performs his obsequies and
remaining amount to be given to his wife and the testator bequeathed vested
remainder rights in thatched house and site to the 1st defendant after the life
time of himself and his wife/3rd defendant. The alleged original Will was
marked as Ex.A-2.
18. The propounder of the Will was examined as P.W.1. P.Ws.2 and 4
are attestors and P.W.5 is scribe of Ex.A-1. Chief-affidavit of another attestor
was also filed as P.W.3, but he did not turn up for cross-examination before
the trial Court and the learned trial Judge eschewed the said chief-affidavit of
P.W.3. As stated supra, the specific case of plaintiff is that Talluru
Hanumantha Rao, who was absolute owner of item No.1 of the schedule
property bequeathed the said property in favour of the plaintiff under the Will,
dated 20-11-2004, in a sound and disposing state of mind. It was contended
by the 1st defendant that the plaintiff is not a relative to the alleged testator or
his wife and the said relationship is denied by the defendants. But, the
1st defendant as D.W.1 admitted in his evidence that the plaintiff is a distant
relative of the testator. It is the specific case of plaintiff that he is a son of
Nagaratnam, who is sister of Talluru Venkataratnam i.e., the testator's father.
The 3rd defendant did not specifically denied relationship, she specifically
admitted that her father-in-law is Talluru Venkataratnam and the said
Nagaratnam is sister of her father-in-law. She further admitted that herself
and the plaintiff belong to kamma by caste, the defendants 1 and 2 are none
other than the father and son, and both the defendants 1 and 2 are southern
side neighbours of the house of 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant admitted
that the defendants 1 and 2 are her southern boundary holders and they
belong to different castes and she was brought by the defendants 1 and 2 to
the Court. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff is none other than the close
relative of 3rd defendant and the defendants 1 and 2 are neighbours of the 3rd
defendant.
19. The plaintiff filed original Will and marked as Ex.A-2. The said
alleged Ex.A-2 Will is strongly disputed by the defendants 1 to 3. Therefore,
it is for the propounder of the Will to prove Ex.A-2 Will. The law is well settled
that Will has to be proved in accordance with law and the same has to be
proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 63
of the Indian Succession Act. In the case of Murthy v. C. Saradambal3, the
Apex Court held as follows:
"The fact that the testator died within a period of fifteen days from the date of
the execution of the will, casts a doubt on the thinking capacity and the
physical and mental faculties of the testator. The said suspicion in the mind of
the court has not been removed by the propounder of the will i.e. first plaintiff
by producing any contra medical evidence or the evidence of the doctor who
was treating the testator prior to his death. In the instant case, there is no
evidence as to whom the testator gave instructions to, to write the will.
The scribe has also not been examined. It is also not known as to whether
the assistance of an advocate or any other trustworthy person was taken by
the testator in order to make the testament and bequeath the property to only
the son of the testator. It is highly improbable that the only son of the testator
who was a practising advocate and on whom the bequest of the house was
made, was unaware of the execution of the will by his father. It is unnatural
that the father would not have disclosed to his only son about the bequest of
the property (particularly when the son was a practising advocate) and had
also not taken his son's assistance in the drafting as well as execution of the
will. Signature of the testator on the will does not tally with his signatures on
other document. Name of the person written the Will is not known. Plaintiffs
have not been successful in proving the validity of the will in accordance with
law inasmuch as the suspicious circumstances surrounding the very
execution of the will have not been cleared by any cogent evidence, rather, its
genuineness remains in doubt. Plaintiffs have failed to prove the Will in
accordance with law inasmuch as they have not removed the suspicious
circumstances, surrounding the execution of the will. Hence, Will, not being
a valid document in the eye of law, no Letters of Administration can be
granted to the respondents-plaintiffs."
20. As stated supra, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A-2 alleged Will, which is
said to have been executed by Hanumantha Rao. It is undisputed that the
said Hanumantha Rao purchased item No.1 of the schedule property under
registered sale deed Ex.A-1, dated 17-8-1979. The recitals of Ex.A-2 Will go
3
AIR 2022 SC 167
to show that by the date of Ex.A-2 Will, the testator was having wife and no
issues and the testator was suffering from cancer.
21. As per the recitals of Ex.A-2, the 1st defendant and plaintiff have
been looking after the testator, under Ex.A-2 the testator gave item No.1 of the
schedule property to the plaintiff and his wife/3rd defendant was given life
interest in the thatched house and vacant site and vested remainder rights
were given to the 1st defendant. It is undisputed that the 3rd defendant got
Ac.0-75 cents of another land in the same Survey number, which is adjacent
to item No.1 of the schedule property. It is also undisputed that both the items
Nos.1 and 2 are contiguous plots. Therefore, it is evident that the testator has
given importance to the plaintiff, 1st defendant and 3rd defendant by
bequeathing item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and also
bequeathed the house and house site to the 1st defendant by giving life
interest to the wife/3rd defendant. As noticed supra, Ex.A-2 Will is strongly
disputed by the defendants, therefore, the said Will has to be proved in
accordance with law by the propounder of the Will/plaintiff. As noticed supra,
the testator did not bequeath all his properties to the plaintiff. Item No.1 of the
schedule property alone was given to the plaintiff under Ex.A-2 Will. In Ex.A-
2, it was recited that the plaintiff has to discharge the debt of Rs.25,000/- due
by him to Seetha Ramaiah and pay the amount to a person who performs his
obsequies by selling sarkar donka which was in his possession and if any
amount remains, it will be given to the 3rd defendant. The trial Court, on
appreciation of the entire evidence on record, rightly held that the discharge of
debt is not a conditional precedent. As seen from the original Will, it is not
a conditional Will. The plaintiff explained the circumstances in the plaint as
well as in his evidence for not discharging the said debt due to Seetha
Ramaiah by Hanumantha Rao.
22. The recitals in Ex.A-2 Will go to show that the plaintiff has to sell
sarkar donka in his possession as per his convenience and pay some amount
to the person who performs his obsequies and the remaining amount is to be
given to the 3rd defendant. According to the plaintiff, no purchasers came
forward to purchase, for selling the said sarkar donka and as such prior to
filing of the suit, he could not sell and discharge the debts. The material on
record reveals that the alleged Will is dated 20-11-2004 and the suit was filed
on 01-9-2005, in between the said approximately ten months' period, the
defendants 1 and 2 trespassed into the schedule property by removing
boundary stones which leads to filing of the suit by the plaintiff on 01-9-2005.
23. The plaintiff relied on the evidence of attestors P.Ws.2 and 4. They
deposed that the testator, in a sound and disposing state of mind, executed
the Will, dated 20-11-2004 and Ex.A-2 was scribed by P.W.5 after obtaining
instructions from the testator and the contents were read over to the testator in
the presence of P.Ws.2 to 4. They further deposed that the testator satisfied
with the contents and dispositions he intended and put his left thumb
impression in the presence of the said three attestors, who in turn, attested
the said Will in the presence of testator and lastly, the scribe put his signature
at the bottom of the document, at that time Hanumantha Rao handed over his
link document, pass book and title to Musunuru Nageswara Rao i.e., the
plaintiff herein. The 3rd defendant/ wife of testator admitted that Hanumantha
Rao was present at the time, the scribe came to her house and her husband
gave link documents Exs.A-1, A-4 and A-5 and cist receipts. The wife of
testator/D.W.6 admitted in her evidence that P.Ws.2 to 4 are residents of their
village and she has no disputes with P.Ws.2 to 4. As noticed supra, chief-
affidavit of P.W.3 was filed, but P.W.3 failed to appear before the trial Court
and that his chief-affidavit was eschewed by the trial Court. P.W.5 is scribe of
Ex.A-2. He also supported the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4. Moreover, it is
admitted by the 1st defendant/D.W.1 that P.Ws.2 and 4 are the residents of his
village and he has no disputes with them. Likewise, the 3rd defendant/D.W.6
also admitted in her evidence that P.Ws.2 and 4 are residents of her village
and she is not having disputes with them. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2
and 4, attestors to the Will, inspired confidence and their presence at the time
of the Will is quite natural and undoubted.
24. The learned counsel for respondents/defendants placed reliance on
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma4, wherein a Full Bench of
the Apex Court held as follows:
"18. What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of wills? It is well-
known that the proof of wills presents a recurring topic for decision in courts
and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject.
The party propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is no
doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved,
we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of
documents. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this
purpose. Under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any
person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his
handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47 of
the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the
handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals
with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be
attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence
until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving
its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of
proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a
court of law. Similarly, Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are
also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being
a minor, may dispose of his property by will and the three illustrations to this
section indicate what is meant by the expression "a person of sound mind" in
the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to
the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his
direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear
that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section
also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as
prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder
is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of
these provisions. Has the testator signed the will? Did he understand the
4
AIR 1959 SC 443
nature and effect of the dispositions in the will? Did he put his signature to the
will knowing what it contained? Stated broadly it is the decision of these
questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the
proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved
like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation
prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof
of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect
proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual
test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters."
The learned counsel for respondents also relied on Kalyan Singh v.
Smt. Chhoti5, wherein a Full Bench of the Apex Court held as follows:
"A will is one of the most solemn documents known to law. The executant of
the will cannot be called to deny the execution or to explain the
circumstances in which it was executed. It is, therefore, essential that
trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the
court to establish genuineness and authenticity of the will. It must be stated
that the factum of execution and validity of the will cannot be determined
merely by considering the evidence produced by the propounder. In order to
judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood the
court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open
to the court to consider circumstances brought out in the evidence or which
appear from the nature and contents of the documents itself. It would be also
open to the court to look into surrounding circumstances as well as inherent
improbabilities of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the
evidence adduced by the party."
The learned counsel for respondents also placed reliance on Rabindra
Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee6, wherein the Apex Court held as
follows:
"A will contains the last desire of testator/testatrix. The courts, therefore,
normally act in accordance with the wishes of the person concerned. But
then, if the courts were to doubt either genuineness or voluntariness of the
maker of the will, they would be loathe to work in accordance with what has
been stated in the will. To put it differently, if the will is surrounded by
5
AIR 1990 SC 396
6
AIR 1995 SC 1684
suspicious circumstances, the removal of which is the burden of the
propounder, the will would not be probated"
In the case at hand, admittedly, the testator was suffering from cancer
since one year prior to the Will and Ex.A-2 Will was executed on 20-11-2004.
In the Will itself, it was instructed by the testator to scribe that he was suffering
from cancer since some period and he was aged about 75 years, due to that
he intended to make arrangement with regard to his property. In the Will,
it was recited that he was not having any children and the 3rd defendant is his
wife and plaintiff is his son-in-law by courtesy and the 1st defendant is his
neighbour, both the plaintiff and 1st defendant used to attend their welfare and
that the landed property in an extent of Ac.0-75 cents/item No.1 of the
schedule property herein was given to the plaintiff and the house and house
site property was given to the 1st defendant, by giving life interest to his wife/
3rd defendant. Therefore, the disposition made by the testator under Ex.A-2
Will is natural disposition. Furthermore, there were instructions to the scribe,
to write the Will and the scribe was also examined as P.W.5. The evidence of
attestors of the Will proves that the testator was in a sound and disposing
state of mind at the time of execution of the Will and the 3rd defendant and
1st defendant specifically admitted that P.Ws.2 and 4 are residents of their
village and they are not having any disputes with them. Therefore, the
propounder of the Will proved Ex.A-2 Will in accordance with law. The plaintiff
having succeeded to item No.1 of the schedule property by virtue of Ex.A-2
Will was illegally dispossessed by the defendants 1 and 2 and that the plaintiff
approached the trial Court for seeking the relief of possession of the schedule
property.
25. It was contended by the learned counsel for respondents that as per
the evidence of attestors, original link documents were given to the
propounder of the Will, therefore, the alleged Will is doubtful.
26. In the case of Kavita Kanwar v. Mrs. Pamela Mehta7, which was
relied on by the learned counsel for respondents, wherein the Apex Court held
as follows:
"The Will in question cannot be viewed with suspicion only because the
plaintiff had played an active role in execution thereof though she is the major
beneficiary; or only because the respondents were not included in the
process of execution of the Will; or only because of unequal distribution of
assets; or only because there is want of clarity about the construction to be
carried out by the plaintiff or only because one of the attesting witnesses
being acquaintance of the plaintiff or only because there is no evidence as to
who drafted the printed part of the Will and the note for writing the opening
and concluded passages by the testatrix in her own hand; or only because
there is some discrepancy in the oral evidence led by the plaintiff; or only
because of any other factor taken into account by the Courts or relied upon
by the defendant."
The learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on
Balathandayutham v. Ezhilarasan8, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
"In a case where the testator's mind is feeble and he is debilitated and there
is not sufficient evidence as to the mental capacity of the testator or where
the deposition in the will is unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of the
circumstances or it appears that the bequest in the will is not the result of the
testator's free will and mind, the court may consider that the will in question is
encircled by suspicious circumstances."
In the present case, both the attestors and scribe stated in their
evidence that the testator was in a sound and conscious state of mind at the
time of execution of the Will and the testator also affixed his thumb mark on
the Will. The propounder proved Ex.A-2 Will in accordance with law.
The thumb mark of testator on the Will was undisputed by the defendants and
they have not taken any steps to send Ex.A-2 Will to finger print expert along
with admitted thumb marks of the testator.
7
AIR 2020 SC 2614
8
(2010) 5 SCC 770
27. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act prescribes the mode and
method of proving the Will and going by the provisions under Section 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act, though a Will shall not be used as evidence until one of
the attesting witnesses is to be examined. It will be suffice to examine one of
the attesting witnesses to prove the same. I may hasten to add and
emphasize here that the well founded suspicious circumstances if made out
by any contestant opposing the Will, concerned will shift the onus on the
propounder of the Will to dispel the suspicious circumstances to the
satisfaction of the Court. In the case at hand, the propounder has examined
two attestors to the Will, the contestants opposing the Will/defendants 1 and 3
entered into the witness-box as D.Ws.1 and 6 and made statements on oath
that they are not having any enmity with the attestors and both are residents
of their village. There can also be no dispute that the witnesses have signed
the Will in the presence of the testator after he had executed the same.
28. As seen from the material on record, evidently the trial Court had
taken into account the entire evidence on record to conclude the legal
requirements in terms of the provisions under Section 63 of the Indian
Succession Act and under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act have been
complied with by the plaintiff and ultimately held that the plaintiff had
succeeded in proving the Will. When a finding of fact has been recorded by
the trial Court mainly on appreciation of the oral evidence, it should not be
lightly disturbed unless the approach of the trial Court in appraisal of evidence
is erroneous, contrary to well established principles of law or unreasonable.
29. The first appellate Court while exercising the power under Section
96 of C.P.C can re-do the exercise of the trial Court, however, such a power is
expected to be exercised with caution. The reason being, the trial Court alone
has the pleasure of seeing the demeanour of witnesses. Therefore, it has got
its own advantage in assessing the statement of witnesses which may not be
available to the appellate Court. In exercising such a power, the appellate
Court has to keep in mind the views of the trial Court. If it finds that the trial
Court is wrong, its decision should be on the reasoning given. A mere
substitution of views without discussing the findings of the trial Court, by the
appellate Court is not permissible. It is also made clear that if two views are
possible, it would only be appropriate to go with the view expressed by the
trial Court. While adopting reasoning in support of its findings, the appellate
Court is not expected to go on moral grounds alone. But, the learned first
appellate Judge has not properly re-appreciated the evidence on record and
came to wrong conclusion that Ex.A-2 Will was not proved by the plaintiff. As
stated supra, the plaintiff proved Ex.A-2 Will in accordance with law and the
testator died on 22-11-2004 and that the plaintiff acquired ownership rights in
item No.1 of the schedule property, which was bequeathed under Ex.A-2 valid
Will by the testator/husband of 3rd defendant. By virtue of Ex.A-2 Will, the
plaintiff is having absolute rights in item No.1 of the schedule property from
the date of death of the testator i.e. from 22-11-2004 onwards, on which date
the Will came into force.
30. The case of plaintiff is that the 3rd defendant having satisfied with
the service rendered by him, out of love and affection, executed the registered
gift deed, dated 11-02-2005, in respect of item No.2 of the schedule property,
which was duly accepted and accordingly, the plaintiff has been in possession
and enjoyment over item No.2 of the schedule property and the plaintiff was
also given pattadar pass book and title deed pass book by the Revenue
authorities in respect of item No.2 of the schedule property. Therefore, by
virtue of Ex.A-19 registered gift settlement deed, the plaintiff is having valid
right and title in item No.2 of the schedule property. Admittedly, the
3rd defendant/donor filed the suit O.S.No.27 of 2009 for cancellation of the
said registered gift deed under Ex.A-19. The trial Court clubbed both the suits
vide O.S.Nos.73 of 2006 (corresponding with the present appeal) and
O.S.No.27 of 2009 and recorded common evidence and dismissed the suit
O.S.No.27 of 2009 by holding that "Ex.A-19 gift deed is validly executed by
the 3rd defendant and there is no need to cancel the said gift deed".
Ultimately, the suit filed by the 3rd defendant herein vide O.S.No.27 of 2009 for
cancellation of the said gift deed was dismissed by the trial Court. Admittedly,
no appeal has been preferred by the 3rd defendant herein i.e., the plaintiff in
O.S.No.27 of 2009, therefore, the said finding reached its finality. During the
pendency of second appeal, the 3rd defendant died issueless, therefore, by
virtue of the valid gift deed, dated 11-02-2005 under Ex.A-19, the plaintiff
herein is having total absolute rights and title in item No.2 of the schedule
property.
31. In the first appeal filed by the defendants, the first appellate Court
allowed the first appeal and came to the wrong conclusion that without
seeking the relief of declaration of title, simple suit for recovery of possession
is not maintainable. It is undisputed by both the parties that Hanumantha Rao
was having valid right and title in item No.1 of the schedule property, and
purchased the same under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed in the year 1979. As
stated supra, the said Hanumantha Rao bequeathed item No.1 of the
schedule property under Ex.A-2 Will and he died testate on 22-11-2004. But,
the 1st defendant contended that he purchased item No.1 of the schedule
under Ex.A-1 sale deed, dated 13-5-2005. As seen from Ex.B-1, admittedly
no sale consideration was passed under Ex.B-1. As per the recitals in Ex.B-1
sale deed, the 1st defendant's husband suffered from cancer, for treatment the
vendor along with her husband made some debts and as such out of the sale
consideration, to discharge the debt to Changalasetti Peda Srinu an amount of
Rs.27,500/- has been paid by the vendor and to discharge the debt due to
Sengalabandi Venkateswarlu, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid and the
remaining amount was paid to discharge the debt to Patibandla Seetha
Ramaiah. Whereas, the 1st defendant/D.W.1 vendee under Ex.B-1 deposed
that out of sale consideration of Rs.82,500/-, Rs.65,000/- was paid under
Exs.B-2 to B-4 for discharge of the said debts and the remaining amount of
cash was given to the 3rd defendant, which is quite contrary to the recitals of
Ex.B-1 sale deed.
32. Exs.B-2 to B-4 are alleged discharge pronotes. Admittedly, Exs.B-2
and B-3 pronotes are executed by the 3rd defendant alone. In Ex.B-2,
the 1st defendant is a sole attestor and in Ex.B-3, there are no attestors.
The 1st defendant examined the creditor under Ex.B-2 as D.W.2. According to
D.W.2, the 3rd defendant herself paid the entire amount and he made
discharge endorsement on the reverse of Ex.B-2. According to D.W.2, he did
not issue any notice to the 3rd defendant claiming amount under Ex.B-2.
The creditor under Ex.B-3 was not at all examined, therefore, the alleged
discharge of Ex.B-3 is not at all proved. In Ex.B-2, the 1st defendant is only
the attestor. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, it is quite clear that the
execution of Exs.B-2 and B-3 and discharge of amounts under Exs.B-2 and
B-3 is highly doubtful. Furthermore, Ex.B-4 pronote is said to have been
executed by both the 3rd defendant and her husband on 03-10-2004, the
creditor under Ex.B-4 is also not examined as a witness by the defendants to
prove that the debt under Ex.B-4 is a genuine one.
33. In Ex.B-1, it was recited that the 3rd defendant's husband is having
absolute rights in Ex.B-1 property and he died intestate and that the
3rd defendant herein got absolute rights by way of succession in item No.1 of
the schedule property. In Ex.B-1, it was recited that the entire sale
consideration under Ex.B-1 is deemed to have been received by the vendor in
view of the discharge of alleged Exs.B-2 to B-4 pronote debts. As stated
supra, the alleged discharge of Exs.B-2 to B-4 by the 1st defendant is highly
doubtful and the same is not proved. Therefore, the 1st defendant is not
a bona fide purchaser in respect of item No.1 of the schedule property.
34. Admittedly, the plaintiff obtained pattadar pass book and title deed
pass book in respect of item No.1 of the schedule by virtue of the Will Ex.A-2,
dated 20-11-2004 and the plaintiff got absolute rights in item No.1 of the
schedule property, after the death of testator i.e. from 22-11-2004 onwards,
therefore, by the date of Ex.B-1, dated 13-5-2005, the 3rd defendant is not
having any right and title in Ex.B-1 property in view of the valid testamentary
disposition made by the 3rd defendant's husband in favour of the plaintiff
herein. Therefore, since the 3rd defendant is not having any valid title in item
No.1 of the schedule property, she cannot transfer any right under Ex.B-1 in
item No.1 of the schedule property to the 1st defendant. As stated supra, In
Ex.B-1 it was recited that the sale consideration under Ex.B-1 is deemed to
have been received by the vendor in view of the discharge of alleged Exs.B-2
to B-4 pronote debts. Therefore, the 1st defendant is not a bona fide
purchaser in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property.
35. The 2nd defendant in this case is none other than the 1st defendant's
son and the defendants 1 and 2 are residing together and they are immediate
southern neighbours to the house of 3rd defendant. According to the plaint
averments, the plaintiff is residing at a distance of half kilometre from the
house of 3rd defendant and further, item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule
properties are contiguous plots. The case of the plaintiff is that after brought
into existence of sale deeds in the year 2005, the defendants 1 and 2
removed the boundary stones to item No.2 of the schedule property in a high-
handed manner and trespassed into the suit schedule property. The case of
the plaintiff is that he requested the Mandal Surveyor to measure the land by
paying requisite fee by way of challan, dated 22-6-2005 and that the Mandal
Surveyor duly fixed the boundary stones again on 29-7-2005 and later, the
defendants 1 and 2 high-handedly dispossessed the plaintiff from item Nos.1
and 2 of the schedule property and at present, the defendant 1 and 2 are in
possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property. As stated supra, the
plaintiff is having valid right and title in item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule
property. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 01-9-2005 for seeking
recovery of possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property.
36. The learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on Anathula
Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs9, wherein the Apex Court held
as follows:
"Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have
possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a
consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in
dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for
possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an
interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is
sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter."
The learned counsel for respondents also relied on Nagar Palika v.
Jagat Singh10, wherein a Full Bench of the Apex Court held as follows:
"The onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintiff-
respondent. The court of appeal without considering the question whether
the plaintiff-respondent had proved his title to the property in dispute
proceeded to examine whether the respondent was in possession thereof.
In a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on the part of the
court of appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit
land made on behalf of the respondent. The court of appeal never
inquired or investigated that question which was at issue saying that the title
of the plaintiff-respondent was admitted by the appellant. This was a serious
error of record. The title and possession of the respondent had always been
disputed by the appellant from the stage of the written statement."
The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws is applicable to a simple
suit for prohibitory injunction. In the case at hand, the plaintiff proved his title
by virtue of Ex.A-2 Will and also Ex.A-19 registered gift deed. As stated
supra, the plaintiff is having valid title in item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint
schedule property by virtue of Exs.A-2 and A-19 documents.
9
AIR 2008 SC 2033
10
(1995) 3 SCC 426
37. The learned counsel for respondents also placed reliance on Vinay
Krishna v. Keshav Chandra11. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law
relates to declaration suit filed by the plaintiff.
38. The learned counsel for respondents relied on Union of India v.
Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. 12 , wherein the Apex Court held as
follows:
"The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed
only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing
sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question
whether the defendants have proved their case or not. Even if the title set up
by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of
plaintiff's own title, plaintiff must be non-suited."
The learned counsel for respondents also placed reliance on G. Anand
v. G. Suryanarayana Murthy13, wherein a learned single Judge of the High
Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad held as follows:
"16. The Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan
Paulo Avira (AIR 1959 SC 31) observed that:
"20. ... in a suit [for declaration] if the plaintiffs are to succeed they
must do so on the strength of their own title."
17. In Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh ((1995) 3 SCC 426), the
Supreme [Court] has observed that:
"The onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintiff-
respondent. ... In a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on the
part of the court of appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to the
suit land made on behalf of the plaintiff. The court is bound to enquire or
investigate that question first before going into any other question that may
arise in a suit."
The learned counsel for respondents placed reliance of this Court in the
case of Khatib Abdul Gaffar (Died) by his L.Rs v. Veeraballi Nagi Reddy
11
AIR 1993 SC 957
12
AIR 2014 SC 937
13
2025 (3) ALT 346 (S.B.)
(Died) by his L.Rs14 and also placed another reliance of this Court in the case
of Naraganti Ramakrishnaiah (Died) v. P. Nalini15.
In the case at hand, the vendor under Ex.B-1 is not having any valid title
in Ex.B-1 property, therefore, she cannot transfer the rights under Ex.B-1 to
the 1st defendant. Therefore, the 1st defendant will not get any valid title in
item No.1 of the schedule property from his vendor/3rd defendant.
39. The learned counsel for respondents also placed reliance of this
Court in the case of V. Srinivasu v. D. Subba Rao16, wherein it was held that
the law is well settled that Will has to be proved in accordance with law viz.,
in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the
Indian Succession Act. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:
"68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.--
If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as
evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose
of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to
the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in
proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been
registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act,
1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to
have been executed is specifically denied."
In the case at hand, item No.1 of the schedule property was
bequeathed by late Hanumantha Rao under a valid Will, dated 20-11-2004, in
favour of the plaintiff and the said Will is proved by the propounder of the Will
in accordance with law. Insofar as item No.2 of the schedule property is
concerned, the plaintiff got the same under Ex.A-19 registered gift settlement
deed executed by the 3rd defendant, though the 3rd defendant herein
challenged the said gift deed by filing a suit O.S.No.27 of 2009 and the said
14
2025(5) ALT 252 (S.B.)
15
2025(5) ALT 389 (S.B.)
16
2024(4) ALD 1 (A.P.)
suit was dismissed by the trial Court, no appeal was filed by the 3rd defendant
herein to challenge the said finding, therefore, the validity of the gift deed,
dated 11-02-2005, under Ex.A-19 has been upheld by the trial Court and the
said finding reached its finality. The 3rd defendant herein died issueless
during the pendency of the second appeal.
40. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the plaintiff is having
valid right and title in item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property, but the
plaintiff was illegally dispossessed by the defendants 1 and 2 by removing the
boundary stones without any right and title, just one month prior to filing of the
suit O.S.No.73 of 2006 in connection with the present appeal (originally the
suit was filed on 01-9-2005 by way of pauper suit P.O.P.No.160 of 2005 and
later it was numbered as O.S.73 of 2006) and that the plaintiff is entitled to the
recovery of possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property. For the
aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is having valid
right and title in item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property and the defendants
1 and 2, who are none other than the father and son, are in illegal possession
of the schedule property without having any right and title, therefore, the
plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of possession of the same from the
defendants. The first appellate Court, without re-appreciating the evidence on
record in a proper manner, came to wrong conclusion and allowed the first
appeal filed by the defendants. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed
by the first appellate Court is liable to be set aside.
41. In the result, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment and
decree, dated 28-10-2017, in A.S.No.25 of 2012 passed by the learned
XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, is hereby set aside and the
judgment and decree, dated 29-11-2011, in O.S.No.73 of 2006 passed by the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, in partly decreeing the said suit is
hereby confirmed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their
own costs in the second appeal.
REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. THOTA VENKATESWARLU, S/o. Late Venkatadri, R/o. Kolakaluru
Village, Tenalil Mandal, Guntur District.
2. THOTA KRISHNA, S/o.VENKATESHWARLU R/o. Kolakaluru Village,
Tenali Mandal, Guntur District.
3. TALLURU VENKATA SUBBAMMA, (hence died), W/o. Late Hanumantha
Rao
4. One CC to SRI. VEDULA SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to SRI. V V L N SARMA Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT
VGKRJ
DATED:24/10/2025
ORDER
SA NO. 42 OF 2018