O.S.No.403/2013 1/20 18.04.

2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TIRUPATI

Present: Sri D. Yedukondalu,
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati

Thursday, the 18th day of April, 2019

O.S.No.403/2013

P.Prabhavathi … Plaintiff
Vs.

1. V.Kasthuramma
2. P.Srinivasulu Naidu … Defendants

This suit is coming on 01.04.2019 before me in the presence of Sri M.Mohan Raju,
Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri. P.Prabhakara Naidu, Advocate for the 1 st defendant and
the 2nd defendant remained exparte, and this matter having stood over till this day for
consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants 1 and 2 seeking the reliefs of
declaration of title that the plaintiff got right and title over the plaint schedule property
and permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, followers, etc.,
from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint
schedule properties, or in alternative directing the defendants to deliver the possession
of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff, or in alternative granting permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule property; and
for costs of the suit.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:- The land in S.No.672/1 in an
extent of Ac.1.45 cents out of Ac.2.90 cents and S.No.672/2 in an extent of Ac.0.19
cents (plaint schedule properties) originally belonged to one S.Nagaiah and he sold the
same to one G.Chengaiah under registered sale deed dated 02.06.1957 for
consideration and possession was delivered to him on the same day. The said
Chengaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase to
the knowledge of one and all by raising crops and paying cists. The plaintiff perfected
her right by long possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties. After
the death of the said Chengaiah, his son Bodaiah sold the said properties to one
K.Dileep Kumar under registered sale deed dated 14.05.2007. The said Dileep Kumar
had been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties and he sold the same to
one V.Sudhakar Naidu and L.Prabhakar Naidu under registered sale deed dated
25.02.2008 and also delivered possession of the same to them. The said V.Sudhakar
Naidu and L.Prabhakar Naidu were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later,
O.S.No.403/2013 2/20 18.04.2019

they sold the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff for valid consideration under
registered sale deed dated 02.05.2009 and delivered possession of the same to the
plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property from
the date of his purchase with absolute rights. Prior to that, her vendors and
predecessors in title were in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule
properties with absolute rights. So, the plaintiff got right, title, interest, possession and
enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties. The defendants 1 and 2 and their
predecessors in title have no right, title, possession, or enjoyment over the plaint
schedule properties.

2.2) One Venkata Reddy purchased the remaining property from the said
V.Sudhakar Naidu and L.Prabhakar Naidu and he has been in possession and
enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. Taking into consideration the possession
and enjoyment of the said Chengaiah and Bodaiah, the revenue authorities issued
ryotwari pass book in favour of the said Bodaiah, who was the vendor of the said
Dileep Kumar in the year 1979 vide patta No.354. The defendants 1 and 2 and others
created false and frivolous documents and revenue records in respect of the plaint
schedule properties and other properties with an intention to grab the same. The
documents if any created are not valid and binding on the plaintiff. The Special Deputy
Tahsildar also issued an order dated 30.08.1970 for splitting up of joint patta for
mutation of the name of the said Bodaiah in patta No.354 for plaint schedule
properties. The said Bodaiah also paid land revenue to the Government as per the
entries in the revenue records i.e., Re-survey and Settlement Register. The plaint
schedule properties are classified as patta dry lands. The registered sale deed and
revenue records also reveal that the plaintiff and her predecessors in title have got
right, title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties. But, the
revenue authorities falsely issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of
defendants 1 and 2 without prior notice and without conducting enquiry and without
consideration of possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. So, the pattadar pass book
and title deed issued by the Tahsildar in favour of defendants 1 and 2 are not valid and
binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the grant of pattadar pass
book before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati who passed an order dated
21.05.2013 with a finding that the plaintiff had to obtain decree for title and right from
competent Civil Court and till then no order could be passed. So, he kept operation of
entries of pattadar pass book and title deed of 2 nd defendant in abeyance. So, having
no other option, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. If the
Court finds that the defendants are in possession of the property on the basis of
created revenue records, the possession will be delivered in alternative.
O.S.No.403/2013 3/20 18.04.2019

2.3) While so since two days prior to the date of filing the suit on the basis of the
order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, the defendants attempted to interfere
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule
properties. They also tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule
properties. They also tried to create sham and nominal sale deeds in respect of the
plaint schedule properties with an intention to create the multiplicity of litigation. When
the plaintiff questioned the highhanded acts of the defendants and their men, they
proclaimed that they would interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff
and dispossess her at any cost. If the defendants succeed in their attempts, the plaintiff
will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and
possession, or in alternative for permanent injunction.

3) The 2nd defendant remained exparte and the first defendant filed her written
statement. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: She specifically
denied the material allegations in the plaint and submitted that item No.1 of the plaint
schedule property in an extent of Ac.2.90 cents in S.No.672/1 of Surappakasam village
accounts, Renigunta Mandal was the ancestral property of one Annadanam
Krishnamachari. He was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same as owner.
He was having absolute right, title, interest and possession over the said property. The
said Annadanam Krishnamachari and his minor son Seshadri Raghavan sold the same
in favour of one Bunga Naghabushanamma wife of B.Gangaiah under registered sale
deed dated 01.09.1980 for consideration, and they also delivered possession of the
same in her favour. She was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same from
the date of her purchase. The said Naghabushanamma mortgaged the said property in
favour of PACS, Gajulamandyam and also obtained loan. The said
Naghabushanamma and her sons sold the said property in favour of the first defendant
under registered sale deed dated 07.02.2000 for consideration and also delivered
possession of the same in her favour. So, the first defendant has been in absolute
possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute right and title over the said
property. The revenue authorities also issued pattadar pass book in her favour in
respect of the said property after due enquiry. She also laid underground PVC pile line
from the well of her younger brother R.D.Subramanyam Reddy for the purpose of
irrigation. She also put barbed wire fencing around the property. She dug a bore-well,
and she was raising paddy, ground nut, Bazarra and sugarcane crops. She also raised
Eucalyptus, Mango, and Coconut trees, and they are aged about 8 years. She also
constructed a house within two portions with asbestos sheets for her temporary stay
and also for the residence of workers. She obtained electricity service connection
O.S.No.403/2013 4/20 18.04.2019

bearing S.C.No.5522303000728 in her name. So the possession of the first defendant

is known to one and all including the plaintiff. The plaintiff never raised any objection.
Further more, the Government wanted to acquire the land and it also made paper
publication in newspaper in which the name of the first defendant was shown as owner
of the said land. She also put the said property as security for the bank loan of his
brother.

3.2) The said Nagaiah, G.Chengaiah, G.Bodeiah, K.Dilip Kumar, V.Sudhakar

Naidu, L.Parabhakar Naidu and the plaintiff are totally strangers to the said property
including Pothireddy Venkata Reddy. They were never in possession and enjoyment
of the same. They have no right, title and possession over the said property. The
documents filed by the plaintiff are created documents for the purpose of litigation and
to knock away the property. The names of the first defendant and her predecessors in
title are mutated in all the revenue records. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati
held in the said appeal that the name of Chengaiah was tampered. The 2 nd defendant
is a collusive party of the plaintiff and as such, he did not contest the revenue appeal.
The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit is not properly valued. The said
Chengaiah and others are proper and necessary parties to the suit and as such, the
suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The suit is hit by Sec.54 of
Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As the alleged vendors’ vendors’ vendor of the
plaintiff’s sale deed dated 02.06.1957 for value of Rs.795/- was unregistered. The said
document is invalid and it cannot convey any title to the said Chengaiah from the said
Nagari and consequently, the said Dileep Kumar and also to the plaintiff. So, the said
Dileep Kumar had no right or title to sell the plaint schedule properties in favour of the
said Sudhakar Naidu and Prabhakar Naidu and in-turn, they cannot execute sale deed
in favour of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff has no title over the plaint schedule
properties, and she prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

4) Basing on the pleadings, as there were no elements of settlement, my learned

predecessor framed the following issues for the purpose of trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property, having absolute
rights as prayed for?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs is entitled for delivery of possession of the schedule
property?
(3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(4) Whether the suit is not valued properly and court fee paid correctly?
(5) Whether the suit is hit by Sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act as claimed by the
first defendant?
O.S.No.403/2013 5/20 18.04.2019

(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration over the plaint schedule property
as prayed for?
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
(8) To what relief if any?

5) During the trial, to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s husband
P.Venkataramana gave evidence as PW1, and she examined PW2 G.Munirathnam,
PW3 V.Sudhakar Naidu, PW4 A.Mangaiah and PW5 A.K.Govardhanaswamy on her
behalf. The evidence of PW4 A.Mangaiah was eschewed on 05.09.2018. Exs.A1 to
A11 and Ex.X1 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the first
defendant’s husband viz., V.Subramanyam Reddy gave evidence as DW1, and she
examined DW2 J.Venkatapathi on her behalf. Exs.B1 to B16 are marked on behalf of
the first defendant.

6) Heard the learned counsel for the first defendant and the learned counsel for
the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the first defendant and the learned counsel for the
for plaintiff filed their respective written arguments and I would discuss the same at
relevant time.

7) Issue No.1:- In a suit for declaration of title and possession or for permanent
injunction, the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove that she is the absolute
owner of the plaint schedule property, and she is entitled for the declaration with
possession, or in alternative permanent injunction irrespective of the weakness in the
title set up by the first defendant. In this regard, the learned counsel for the first
defendant relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India
& Ors. v. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. &Ors. 1, wherein at Para No.12, it was
held as hereunder:
“It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to
make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness,
if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the
plaintiff.”
He further relied upon a Division Bench decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Sajana Granites, Madras and another v. Manduva Srinivasa Rao and
others2, wherein at Para No.10, it was held as hereunder:
“The Supreme Court in M.P. Athanastus case (supra), M.M. Catholices v. Polo Avira
case (supra) and this Court in C. Audilakshmamma case (supra) held that plaintiff in a
suit for declaration of title, and for recovery of possession, can succeed only on the

1 2014 SAR (Civil) 191

2 2002 (1) ALT 466 (D.B.)
O.S.No.403/2013 6/20 18.04.2019

strength of his own title and that it is not obligatory on the defendants to plead and
prove the possible defects in the plaintiffs title and so if the plaintiff fails to establish his
title, even if the defendant fails to establish his own title, plaintiff must be non suited. In
this case since appellants are seeking declaration of their title to the suit property they
have to establish their title; and cannot expect relief on the basis of the weakness of the
case of respondents 1 and 2, or on the basis that the evidence adduced by respondents
1 and 2 does not establish their title to the suit property.”
So, it is clear from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India and the
Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that in a suit for declaration
and possession or for permanent injunction, the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to
make out clear title on the strength of her own title documents and the weakness on
the part of the first defendant in establishing her title to the property shall not itself
confer any title to the plaintiff. It is also clear that if the plaintiff failed to prove her title
and the first defendant also failed to prove her title to the property, the plaintiff must be
non-suited. So, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove her title to the plaint schedule
property irrespective of the weakness of the first defendant in establishing her title if
any.

7.2) In order to prove the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties,
she relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 5 coupled with Exs.A1 to A11 and
Ex.X1. Obviously, the plaintiff’s husband gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and
the first defendant’s husband also gave evidence on her behalf. They are competent to
give evidence in view of the express provisions Under Sec.120 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. Coming to the evidence of PW1 P.Venkatarama coupled with Ex.A1
registered sale deed dated 02.05.2009, the said Sudhakar Naidu and Prabhakar Naidu
sold Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff.
Obviously, the first defendant is not claiming any right or title over the Item No.2 of the
plaint schedule property. So, there is no dispute as to the right and title of the plaintiff
over Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. But, the claim of the first defendant is
only against Item No.1 consisting of Ac.1.45 cents out Ac.2.90 cents of land in
S.N.672/1 of Surraprakasam village Accounts. According to the version of the plaintiff,
the said Sudhakar Naidu and Prabhakar Naidu purchased the plaint schedule
properties under registered sale deed dated 25.02.2008 from the said Dileep Kumar
who in-turn purchased the same from the said Bodaiah under registered sale deed
dated 14.05.2007. The registration copies of the sale deed executed in favour of the
said Dileep Kumar and the sale deed executed in favour of the said Sudhakar Naidu
and Prabhakar Naidu are marked as Exs.A2 and A3. The plaintiff did not file the
original sale deeds. Though the plaintiff pleaded the sale transactions in favour of her
O.S.No.403/2013 7/20 18.04.2019

vendors Sudhakar Naidu and Prabhakar Naidu as well as their vendor Dileep Kumar,
she did not lay any foundation for production of the certified copies instead of originals
of Exs.A2 and A3. But, the learned counsel for the plaintiff during the arguments
contended that the originals were handed over to one more purchaser who filed a suit
in O.S.No.401.2013 on the file of this Court and as such, the plaintiff filed an
application vide I.A.No.234/2018 on the file of this Court to send for the originals, more
particularly, the originals of the documents marked as Exs.A4 to A6, but this Court
dismissed the said application. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first
defendant argued that this Court dismissed the application for the reason that the said
documents cannot be sent for from a suit filed by a third party and the order for the
dismissal became final. As argued by the learned counsel for the first defendant, if the
plaintiff filed those documents in some other suit, those can be sent for to this suit and
may be marked.

7.3) Once the said suit was instituted by a third party, and he produced the
documents in his suit, those cannot be sent for to this suit. At best, the plaintiff can
make an application to summon the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.401/2013 to
give evidence and to produce the originals of Exs.A4 to A6. But, the plaintiff did not
take any such steps either to produce the originals of Exs.A2 and A3, or to produce the
originals of Exs.A4 to A6. Ex.A4 is the copy of ryotwari pass book attested by Notary,
Ex.A5 is copies of cists receipts (2 in number) attested by Notary and Ex.A6 is copy of
order dated 30.08.1970. Once the said documents are crucial documents to establish
the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff could have taken the steps for production of the
originals. But, the plaintiff did not choose to produce the originals of Exs.A2 to A6 and
purposefully withheld the same. When a document was purposefully withheld without
production before the Court, an adverse inference can be drawn that if the document
was produced, it would be unfavourable to her. In this regard, the learned counsel for
the first defendant relied upon a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
Kannubhai Jashbhai Patel, S/o Jashbhai Shankar Bhai Patel And Ors. v. Shri
Tirumala Venkateswara Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., And Ors. 3, wherein at Para
No.23, it was held as hereunder:
“Willful withholding or suppression of useful evidence naturally leads to the inference
that the evidence, if produced, would go against the party who withholds it. In other
words, if a man wrongfully withholds evidence, every presumption to his disadvantage
consistent with the facts admitted or proved will be adopted. Since the Plaintiff claims to
be a registered society consisting of several members, relevant documentary evidence
in respect of all aspects would be available with the Plaintiff society. If the best evidence

3 2011 (2) ALT 563

O.S.No.403/2013 8/20 18.04.2019

is not produced, which is admittedly in possession of the Plaintiff society, a presumption

of willful withholding of the evidence can be drawn under Section 114(g) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. “
But, in the present suit, though the plaintiff did not produce the originals of Exs.A2 to
A6, she produced the certified copies or copies of documents attested by the Notary
and marked the same as Exs.A2 to A6. Those two kinds of documents are regarded
as secondary evidence. The secondary evidence can be admitted in evidence only
under the circumstances contemplated Under Sec.65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the certified copies of the sale deeds
can be admitted in evidence as secondary evidence. In this regard, he relied upon a
decision of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Datti Kameswari v. Singam Rao Sarath Chandra
And Another4, wherein at Para No.16, it was held as hereunder:
“In view of the above analysis, the xerox copy certified by the designated Public
Information Officer under Right to Information Act of the private documents are not
certified copies within the meaning of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
They are merely true copies of the private documents available in the records of the
particular Department. The production and marking of such copies is permissible only
after laying a foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence under clauses (a) (b) or
(c) of Section 65 of the Act. The condition prescribed under the above cases (a), (b) or
(c) of Section 65 of the Act have to be fulfilled before marking the true copies obtained
under the Right to Information Act. However, the true copies of public documents
certified by the designated Information Officer can be taken as certified copies of the
public documents.”
So, in order to admit the certified copy of the registered sale deeds as secondary
evidence, the conditions prescribed Under Sec.65 (a) to (c) are to be satisfied. But,
upon going through the plaint, none of the conditions mentioned Under Sec.65 (a) to
(c) was pleaded nor satisfied. If the version of the plaintiff is true that the originals of the
registered sale deeds as well as the other documents were handed over to another
plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.401/2013 on the file of this Court, the plaintiff can
make a simple request to the plaintiff therein to get the unmarked documents returned
as the said suit was already dismissed for default and the plaintiff herein can
conveniently file the originals before the Court in the present suit. But, the plaintiff
chose to file either the certified copies or the copies attested by notary before the
Court. As such, those documents marked as Exs.A1 to A6 are inadmissible in
evidence.

7.4) The learned counsel for the first defendant argued even if those documents

4 2016 (1) ALT 700 = AIR 2016 (A) 112

O.S.No.403/2013 9/20 18.04.2019

were admitted in evidence, the case of the plaintiff fails for want of tile to the vendors of
the plaintiff. According to the evidence of PW1 Venkataramana coupled with Ex.A1, the
plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule properties from the said Sudhakar Naidu and
Prabhakar Naidu under Ex.A1, they in turn purchased the properties under Ex.A2 from
the said Dileep Kumar who purchased the same under Ex.A3 from the said Bodaiah.
Coming to the evidence of PW1 Venkataramana coupled with Ex.A4, the Government
issued Ryotwari pass book in favour of the said Bodaiah in respect of the plaint
schedule properties mentioning Patta No.354. According to his evidence coupled with
Ex.A5, the said Bodaiah paid land revenue and according to his evidence coupled with
Ex.A6, the then Special Deputy Thasildar, Chandragiri passed an order for splitting up
of joint patta. In all the documents, the patta number was mentioned as 354. But, as
per the pleadings of the plaintiff, originally the plaint schedule properties belonged to
one S.Nagaiah, he sold the same to the said Chengaiah under unregistered sale deed
dated 02.06.1957 and upon the death of Chengaiah, his son Bodeiah sold the property
to the said Dileep Kumar. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not file any document evidencing
that the said Nagaiah was the original owner of the properties, and he sold the same to
the said Chengaiah under unregistered sale deed dated 02.06.1957. If the version of
the plaintiff is true that the property is conveyed under an unregistered sale deed,
whether it creates any right to the purchaser is also a point for consideration. During
the cross-examination, PW1 Venkataramana admitted that the said Chengaiah paid a
sum of Rs.795/- under unregistered sale deed. So, the unregistered sale deed was
executed for the property worth more than Rs.100/-. When the sale of immovable
property for more than Rs.100/- was taken place, it shall be only by way of registered
instrument as required Under Sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In this regard,
the learned counsel for the first defendant relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Guman Singh And Others v. Manga Singh (D) By Lrs. And
Others5, wherein at Para No.15, it was held as hereunder:
“From the facts narrated above, it becomes manifest that the purported sale deed dated
02.05.1966 was never registered and remained an unregistered document. Even as per
the appellants, consideration for the suit land was Rs. 9000/-, i.e., more than Rs.100.
The transaction pertains to immovable property. Such a sale deed was compulsorily
registrable under Section 17of the Indian Registration Act. The consequence of non-
registration are provided in Section 49 thereof. Such document cannot be led into
evidence and no rights indicated in the said documents can be pressed and claimed.”
In the present suit, the plaintiff did not file the so called unregistered sale deed before
Court. But, she simply pleaded the same. The learned counsel for the first defendant
further relied upon another decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

5 (2016) 2 ApexCourtJudgments (SC) 670

O.S.No.403/2013 10/20 18.04.2019

Koyyada Andalu v. Lingala Sathyanarayana 6, wherein at Para No.25, it was held as

hereunder:
“It is settled law that title cannot be transferred under an unregistered sale deed and
registration is mandatory to convey title.”
He further also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
Agina Chandra Mouli v. Agina Varamma 7, wherein at Para No.100, it was held as
hereunder:
“It went further and held that there was an oral sale by N. Srinivas and others in favour
of the 1st defendant and he had paid Rs. 80,000/- to them and secured possession of
the above property and therefore, the 1st defendant is the owner of the property from
29-06-1990. This is also perverse and contrary to law since there cannot be a transfer
of title under an oral sale since the law requires a transfer under a written sale deed
which is registered (See Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 r/w Section 17
of the Registration Act, 1908).
So, even if the contention of the plaintiff is taken into consideration without any
document that the said Nagaiah was the original owner of the property, the said
Chengaiah could not get any right over the property for want of registered sale deed in
his favour. So, consequently the said Bodaiah, son of Chengaiah could not convey any
title to the said Dileep Kumar under Ex.A3 registered sale deed. In other-words, a
person who has no title to the property cannot convey title to the other person. In this
regard, the learned counsel for the first defendant relied upon a decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in M/s. Eureka Builders & Ors. v. Gulabchand S/o. Veljee
Dand Since Deceased by LRS. &Ors. Etc. 8, wherein at Para No.40, it was held as
hereunder:
“It is a settled principle of law that a person can only transfer to other person a right, title
or interest in any tangible property which he is possessed of to transfer it for
consideration or otherwise.”
As on the date of execution of Ex.A3 sale deed in favour of the said Dileep Kumar, the
said Bodaiah did not get any right over the immovable property for want of registered
sale deed in favour of his father from the said Nagaiah. Moreover, the learned counsel
for the first defendant had drawn my attention to the contents of Ex.A3 sale deed in
which the said Bodeiah mentioned that his father inherited the said property from his
ancestors, and he became owner of the property upon the death of his father. He never
stated that his father purchased the property under unregistered sale deed from the
said Nagaiah as pleaded by the plaintiff. So, by mentioning false recitals, the said
Bodeiah executed Ex.A3 sale deed without any title in favour of the said Dileep Kumar

6 2014 (5) ALT 714

7 2014 (5) ALT 714
8 2018 SAR (Civil) 851
O.S.No.403/2013 11/20 18.04.2019

who in turn executed Ex.A3 sale deed in favour of the Sudhakar Naidu and Prabhakar
Naidu who in turn executed Ex.A3 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. So, the flow of
title was not passed in accordance with law for want of registered sale deed in favour of
the father of the said Bodeiah and consequently, the plaintiff cannot get any title to the
property even if the total case pleaded by the plaintiff was assumed to be true.

7.5) However, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A7 order of the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Tirupati dated 21.05.2013 contending that the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirupati observed that the entries in 10(1) account were meddled with and the parties
were referred to competent Civil Court for declaration of their title. In order to prove the
said facts, the plaintiff further relied upon Ex.A8 in which the name of the said Dileep
Kumar was rounded off and the name of the first defendant was mentioned, but the
contention of the plaintiff is that the 10(1) account marked as Ex.A10 was tampered. In
order to prove the same, the plaintiffs summoned PW5 A.K.Govardanaswamy, the
Deputy Tahsildar, Renigunta and got admitted Ex.X1 attested copy of 10(1) account
relating to Khatha No.354 of Surraprakasam Village. Of course, Exs.A8 to A10 were
also marked during his evidence. It is elicited from his evidence that there was
difference in the ink used in writing letters of Ac.2.90 cents against S.No.672/1 and the
same was visible in the original as well as Ex.X1. There may not be any dispute about
the said fact. But, it is the case of the plaintiff that an extent of Ac.2.90 cents of land is
situated in S.No.672/1 of Surraprakasam village. Once it is the positive case of the
plaintiff that the said land is situated in the said survey number, the difference of ink
used for writing the letters mentioning Ac.2.90 cents of land against S.No.672/1
assumes no importance. But, during the cross-examination PW5
A.K.Govardhanaswamy deposed that as per original of Ex.X1, one Annadanam
Krishnamacharyulu, Anthyodaya Mandali Trustees viz., P.V.Raghavulu and Prabhakar
were the original owners of the lands in Patta No.354 of Surraprakasam village. He
further categorically deposed that the names of the said Nagaiah and Bodeiah were not
found in the original of 10(1) account. He further also deposed that if the property was
purchased, the name of the original owner would be rounded off and the name of the
new owner would be entered. He further also deposed that the name of K.Dileep
Kumar was rounded off against S.N.672/1 and the name of the first defendant was
mentioned in Ex.A9 and finally, he deposed that as per Ex.A9 the first defendant is the
owner and she possessed of Ac.2.90 cents in S.No.672/1 of Surraprakasam Village. If
the version of the plaintiff is true that the said Nagaiah was the original owner of the
property, and he sold the same to the said Chengaiah, their names could be found
place in Ex.A11/X1/B8. But, the name of the said Nagaiah and Bodaiah were not found
place and Katha No.354 was opened in the name of said Annadanam
O.S.No.403/2013 12/20 18.04.2019

Krishnamacharyulu. Once Khatha No.354 itself was in the name of Annadanam

Krishnamacharyulu, I cannot presume the ownership either the said Nagaiah or
Bodeiah. But, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the then Tahsildar,
Renigunta Mandal produced Ex.A11 extract of Ex.A10/X1/B8 before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, tirupati in enquiry by mentioning the names of Nagaiah, Dhanaraj
and Bodaiah in respect of Khatha No.354 in the plaint schedule properties. If the said
fact is true, their names could have been found place in Ex.A10/X1/B8 and the Khatha
No.354 shall be in the name of the said Nagaiah, but not in the name of Annadanam
Krishnamacharyulu. So, the plaintiff failed to prove that the said Nagaiah was the
original owner of the property and subsequently, his right and interest in the property
was transferred in favour of the plaintiff by registered instruments especially for want of
sale deed by the said Nagaiah in favour of the said Chengaiah, father of said Bodaiah.

7.6) On the other hand, PW1 Venkataramana in his cross-examination admitted

that he filed the present suit for Ac.1.45 cents of land and the plaintiff in
O.S.No.401/2013 filed the said suit for remaining Ac.1.45 cents of land out of Ac.2.90
cents of land. Admittedly, the suit in O.S.NO.401/2013 was dismissed for default and
the plaintiff in O.S.No.401/2013 collected originals from the plaintiff herein and filed the
same before this Court. In such a case, the plaintiff in O.S.No.401/2013 can get back
the originals and deliver the same to the plaintiff herein in order to produce the same
before this Court, as I earlier discussed. But, the plaintiff did not take any such steps.
Apart from it, PW1 Venkataramana in his cross-examination admitted that the said
Ac.2.90 cents of land is not the ancestral property of said Bodeiah. But, as I earlier
discussed, he mentioned the same in Ex.A3 registered sale deed. Apart from it, PW1
Venakataramana deposed that they filed a suit for declaration and injunction, and he
again deposed that they were not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule
property, and they sought delivery of property. Admittedly, there are Coconut, Mango,
Eucalyptus and other trees aged about 15 years over the plaint schedule property and
the plaintiff did not plead anything about the same. PW1 Venkataramana also admitted
that there was a bore well in the plaint schedule property with electrical motor and
service connection in the name of the first defendant. Though he deposed that he
raised groundnut crop and other crops, he did not file any record to prove the same. He
also admitted that there were two portioned asbestos sheeted house over the plaint
schedule property and a pipe line was laid to take water from the well of the
R.D.Subramanyam Reddy, brother of the first defendant. So, the admissions of PW1
Venkataramana proved that the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of
Item No.1 plaint schedule property and other property by exercising the right of
ownership and the plaintiff had no clarity whether she had possession over the
O.S.No.403/2013 13/20 18.04.2019

property, or not.

7.7) However, the plaintiff examined PW2 Munirathnam to prove the sale deed
executed by the said Sudhakar Naidu and Prabhakar Naidu in favour of the plaintiff.
Even if the sale deed is proved by examining PW2 Munirathnam, no purpose would be
served for the reason that the plaintiff failed to prove that her vendors had right to
property and it was properly conveyed to them by way of registered instruments from
time to time. Hence, the evidence of PW2 Munirathnam shall not serve any better
purpose to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also examined PW3 Sudhakar Naidu who sold the
property as one of the sellers under Ex.A1. He also deposed that his vendor mentioned
in Ex.A3 that the said Bodaiah purchased the property from Nagaiah and the plaint
schedule properties were not the ancestral properties of the said Bodaiah. As I earlier
discussed, the property was not conveyed from the said Nagaiah to Chengaiah and
consequently, the said Bodeiah cannot convey the same to the said Dileep Kumar and
in-turn, he cannot convey the same to PW3 Sudhakar Naidu and another. So, there is
no proper documentary evidence which proved the title of the plaintiff over the plaint
schedule property and as such, the plaintiff failed to prove her title over Item No.1 of
the plaint schedule property. So, the question of shifting the onus of proof on the first
defendant to make better title does not arise. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of
the first defendant and against the plaintiff.

8) Issue No.2: In view of my findings in issue No.1, the plaintiff failed to prove
that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having the absolute right
over the same. Apart from it, the plaintiff categorically pleaded in Para No.5 of the
plaint stating that the said Sudhakar Naidu and Prabhakar Naidu sold the plaint
schedule properties to her under registered sale deed dated 02.05.2009, marked as
Ex.A1, they delivered possession of the same, and she had been in possession and
enjoyment of the property with absolute rights. But, she never pleaded that she was
dispossessed from the plaint schedule property at a particular point of time. But, she
sought the relief of permanent injunction or in alternative delivery of possession. On the
other hand, the learned counsel for the first defendant argued that the first defendant
became the absolute owner of the Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and other
property in an extent of Ac.2.90 cents of land by virtue of registered instruments, and
she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. In order to prove the said
facts, the first defendant relied upon the evidence of DW1 V.Subramanyam Reddy
coupled with Exs.B1 to B16. Coming to the evidence of DW1 V.Subramanyam Reddy
coupled with Ex.B1 registration copy of sale deed dated 07.02.2000, the first defendant
purchased the total Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and other property in an
O.S.No.403/2013 14/20 18.04.2019

extent of Ac.2.90 cents from B.Nagabhushanamma under registered sale deed.

According to the recitals of Ex.B1 sale deed, the first defendant purchased the total
Ac.2.90 cents of land from the said Nagabhushanamma for consideration and obtained
possession of the same.

8.2) As I earlier discussed, the name of the said Annadanam Krishnamachari

was found the place in 10-1 account marked as Ex.X1/B8 and according to the recitals
of Ex.B2 registration copy of sale deed dated 01.09.1980, the aid Annadanam
Krishnamachari and others sold the said property in favour of the vendor of the first
defendant. But, the first defendant also filed the registration copies of Exs.B1 and B2
without producing the original sale deeds. The learned counsel for the plaintiff did not
object the admission of the registration copies of sale deeds nor questioned DW1
Subramanyam Reddy about the originals. So, there is no dispute about the execution
of sale deeds under Exs.B1 and B2. Apart from it, according to the evidence of DW1
Subramayam Reddy coupled with Ex.B3, 1-B extract (ROR) the name of the first
defendant was mutated in the revenue records in respect of Ac.2.90 cents of land out
of which item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in an extent of Ac.1.45 cents is part.
Similarly, according to Ex.B4, the name of the first defendant is found place for Ac.2.90
cents of land in computer generated 1-B extract (ROR). Moreover, according to his
evidence coupled with Ex.B5 adangal/pahani, the first defendant was shown as
pattadar and her name was mentioned in the column of enjoyment. Even according to
Ex.B6, 1-B extract obtained under the Right to Information Act, the name of the first
defendant herein was found place as pattadar. According to his evidence coupled with
Ex.B7, the first defendant made an application to furnish the copies of 1-B extracts
from the year 1955 to 1987 as well as adangals. But, the Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal
gave an endorsement stating that the adangals were not available from the year 1955
to 1987 and he furnished 1-B extract. Even according to 1-B extract furnished by the
Tahsildar under Ex.B7, the first defendant’s name was found place as pattadar and
owner for an extent of Ac.2.90 cents of land in S.No.672/1. As I earlier discussed,
Ex.B8,10-1 account in patta No.354 stands in the name of the said Annadanam
Krishnamachari and Anthyodaya Mandali Trustees, P.V.Raghavulu and Prabhakar.
The names of either the said Nagaiah, Chengaiah or Bodaiah or Dileep Kumar or the
vendors of the plaintiff were not found place. Moreover, it is the specific case of the first
defendant that she constructed a house in the part of the said Ac.2.90 cents of land
and has been paying house tax as well as electricity charges. In order to prove the
same, the first defendant produced Ex.B9 house tax demand notice and Ex.B10 house
tax receipts and she also produced Ex.B11 to B14 electricity charges demand notices
as well as receipts for two service connections. Apart from it, as per the endorsement
O.S.No.403/2013 15/20 18.04.2019

under Ex.B15 issued by the said Bank of India, Gajulamanyam Branch, the original
sale deed is kept with the bank. Of-course, the registration copies were not disputed by
the other side.

8.3) However, the first defendant did not enter into witness box and examined
her husband as DW1 by producing Ex.B16 prescription stating that she was not doing
well. As I earlier discussed, the plaintiff also did not enter into the witness box and
examined her husband. PW1 Venkatramana and DW1Subramanyam Reddy are
competent witnesses to give evidence according to the provisions of Sec.120 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. During the cross-examination, nothing was elicited by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff to prove that the first defendant dispossessed the plaintiff and
occupied the plaint schedule property at a particular point of time. But, basing on the
entries of the name of one Dhanaraj in Ex.A11, a question was put to DW1
Subramanyam Reddy that the name of K.Dhanaraj was also mutated as pattadar in
respect of suit survey number, and he pleaded ignorance. It was not the case of the
plaintiff that the said Dhanaraj also became owner of the plaint schedule properties by
virtue of either registered sale deed or unregistered sale deed. Surprisingly, the said
suggestion was put to the said Subramanyam Reddy that the said Dhanaraj sold the
said property to the vendors of the plaintiff and it was denied by DW1 Subramanyam
Reddy. Admittedly, as per Para No.4 of the plaint and as per the contents of Ex.A2 sale
deed, the said Dileep Kumar sold the plaint schedule properties to the vendors of the
plaintiff, but not the said Danaraj. So, Ex.A11 is highly suspectable document. DW1
Subramanyam Reddy categorically denied a suggestion that they were not in
possession of the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiff was in possession and
enjoyment of the same. It may not be out of place to mention that PW1 Venkatramana
during his cross-examination voluntarily deposed that they are not in possession and
enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and they sought delivery of possession. If
the version of the plaintiff was true that the possession of the plaint schedule properties
was delivered to her under Ex.A1 sale deed, she could have been dispossessed at a
particular point of time, but PW1 Venkatramana himself deposed that they were not in
possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and as such, they sought
delivery of the possession. Moreover, he himself admitted that there are coconut,
mango, eucalyptus and other trees aged about 15 years over the plaint schedule
property and there is bore well with electrical motor and service connection. As I earlier
discussed, the first defendant has been paying the electricity charges having service
connection in her name. PW1 Venkatramana also admitted that there is two portioned
asbestos sheeted house over the plaint schedule property. As I earlier discussed, the
first defendant has been paying house tax and electricity charges to the building also.
O.S.No.403/2013 16/20 18.04.2019

Apart from it, the plaintiff’s name was not shown in the notification when the
Government issued notification for acquisition of property. So, from any angle it is
viewed, there is no evidence on record to prove that the plaintiff obtained possession
over the plaint schedule property, and she was dispossessed by the defendants. Apart
from it, the title of the plaintiffs over Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was not
proved whereas the first defendant proved better title than the plaintiff by producing the
revenue record as well as Ex.B1 and B2 registration copies of the sale deeds. Once
the plaintiff failed to prove the title as well as dispossession, she is not entitled for
possession over the plaint schedule property. This issue is answered accordingly in
favour of the first defendant and against the plaintiff.

9) Issue No.3: Though the plaintiff filed the suit basing on registered sale deed
dated 02.05.2009 executed by the said Sudhakar Naidu and Prabhakar Naidu seeking
the relief of permanent injunction or in alternative delivery of possession and the suit is
based on title, the plaintiff never stated the date of dispossession from the plaint
schedule properties. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the limitation to
file a suit for declaration and possession based on title is 12 years from the time when
the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff, under article 65 of
the Limitation Act, 1963. In this regard, he relied upon a decision of Hon’ble High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh in Gottumukkala Sundara Narasaraju And Others v. Pinnamaraju
Venkata Narasimharaju And Other 9, wherein at Para No.10.9, it was held as
hereunder:
“Having regard to the reasons and the precedential guidance, this Court holds that the
period of limitation for institution of a suit for declaration of title seeking the further relief
of recovery of possession based on title is governed by Article 65 and that, therefore,
the period of limitation is twelve years from the time when the possession of the
defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs.”
As I earlier discussed, the plaintiff never pleaded the date when she found that the
possession of the first defendant became adverse to her interest over the Item No.1 of
the plaint schedule property which is part of Ac.2.90 cents of land in S.No.672/1. The
aspect of limitation under article 65 is a mixed question of fact and law. The moment
the plaintiff failed to state the starting part of limitation and the parties are at issue with
respect to their dispute over the title to the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property
since long time, I cannot infer that the limitation started at an particular point of time
and a suit was filed within a time. As it could be seen from the sale deed of the first
defendant under Ex.B1, it was executed on 07.02.2000 but the sale deed of her vendor

9 2016 (2) ALT 497

O.S.No.403/2013 17/20 18.04.2019

was executed on 01.09.1980 and the trees aged about 15 years were found over item
No.1 of the plaint schedule property as admitted PW1 Venkatramana in his cross-
examination. So, the trees must have been planted by the vendor of the first defendant
prior to the date of Ex.B1 sale deed. She was in possession and enjoyment of the
same from the year 1980 by exercising her right as absolute owner. In such a case, in
the absence of a pleading in respect to starting point of limitation, I cannot come to
conclusion that the suit was filed within time. If it is considered that the possession of
the first defendant became adverse to the interest of the plaintiff from the date of Ex.B2
the suit is barred by limitation and if the same is reckoned from the date of Ex.A1, the
suit is within time and it is reckoned from the date of Ex.B1, the suit is beyond 12 years
as it was executed on 07.02.2000 and the plaint was presented on 16.07.2013. Once
the first defendant has been enjoying her property from the date of Ex.B1 and the plaint
was presented beyond 12 years without any pleading as to the starting point of
limitation, I can come to conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. This issue is
answered accordingly in favour of the first defendant and against the plaintiff.

10) Issue No.4: The first defendant also contended that the suit is not valued
properly and a correct court fee was not paid. According to the valuation mentioned in
the certificate, the total value of the plaint schedule property was Rs.10,85,000/-. For
the purpose of declaration and possession, suit was valued on the 3/4 th of the market
value of Rs.8,13,750/- and Court fee was paid Under Sec.24(a) of APCF & SV Act,
1956. The plaintiff also sought the reliefs of the permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment and also to restrain the
defendants from alienating the property for which the plaintiff valued the suit at
Rs.10,000/- each for the two reliefs and paid Court fee Under Section 26(c) of APCF &
SV Act. So, the plaintiff properly valued the suit and paid the correct Court fee. This
issue is answered accordingly favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

11) Issue No.5: The first defendant also contended that the suit is hit by Sec.54
of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for want of registered sale deed by the said Nagaiah
in favour of the said Chengaiah which I discussed while answering issue No.1. The
learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that when the said Bodeiah inherited the
property from his father who had no registered sale deed in his favour, his rights are
projected Under Sec.43 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In this regard, he relied upon
a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Tanu Ram Bora v. Promod Ch. Das
(D) Through Lrs. And others10, wherein at Para No.8, it was held as hereunder:
“An identical question came to be considered by thisCourt in the case of Ram Pyare

10 AIR 2019 Supreme Court 927

O.S.No.403/2013 18/20 18.04.2019

(AIR 1985 SC 694) (suprea). In the aforesaid decision, on considering Section 43 of the
Act, it is observed and held by this Court that as the sale deed in favour of the vendee
was result of an erroneous representation of the vendor, thereafter the sons of the
vendor, cannot claim to be transferees in good faith and therefore their suit for
cancellation of the sale deed would not be maintainable.”
The said decision cannot be applied to the present facts of the case and even if it is
applied, when there was no sale in favour of the said Chengaiah under registered
instrument as required Under Sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act 1882, his son Bodeiah
cannot get any right over the same and the right of the said Bodeiah over the said
property cannot be regarded as right by inheritance in good faith. As I earlier
discussed, while answering Issue No.1, when there was no registered sale deed in
favour of the said Chengaiah, the transaction is hit by Sec.54 of Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 and the said Bodeiah cannot become the owner of the property and
consequently, he cannot convey anything to the said Dileep Kumar Under Ex.A3 and
he cannot convey the same to the vendors of the plaintiff under Ex.A2. As I earlier
discussed, the name of the said Dhanaraj was introduced during the course of trial
after going through the contents of Ex.A11 without any pleading. So, the sale
transaction pleaded by the plaintiff in favour of the said Chengaiah is hit Section 54 of
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in view of settled legal preposition discussed in issue
No.1 supra. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the first defendant
and against the plaintiff.

12) Issue No.6: Once the plaintiff failed to prove her title to the plaint schedule
property, she is not entitled for declaration or recovery of possession as discussed
supra. Hence, the suit for declaration is liable to be dismissed. This issue is answered
accordingly.

13) Issue No.7: As I earlier discussed while answering issue Nos.1 and 2, PW1
Venkatramana admitted that they were not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint
schedule property. Moreover, the first defendant examined DW2 J.Venkatapathi to
prove that the first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of
the plaint schedule property and the remaining Ac.1.45 cents of the land i.e., total
extent of Ac.2.90 cents by raising mango, coconut, etc., trees over the said land. He
also stated that she laid PVC pipe line for the purpose of irrigation and also raising
granite stones fencing around Ac.2.90 cents of land. The possession of the first
defendant as deposed by DW2 Venkatapathi was found lawful while answering issue
No.2. Nothing was elicited from his cross-examination to disprove her possession over
the said Ac.2.90 cents of land including item No.1 of the plaint schedule property.
 O.S.No.403/2013 19/20 18.04.2019

Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction either to restrain
the defendants to interfere with her alleged possession and enjoyment or to restrain the
defendants from alienating the property. As such, the suit for permanent injunction is
also liable to be dismissed. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the first
defendant and against the plaintiff.

13) Issue No.8: In view of my findings in issue Nos.1 to 7, the suit is liable to be
dismissed, with costs.

14) In the result, the suit is dismissed. The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the suit
to the first defendant, and she shall bear her own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, on this the 18th day of April 2019.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TIRUPATI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For First Defendant:

PW1: P.Venkatramana DW1: V.Subramanyam Reddy.

PW2: G.Munirathnam DW2: J.Venkatapathi.
PW3: V.Sudhakar Naidu
PW4: A.Mangaiah (Eschewed)
PW5: A.K.Govardhanaswamy

Documents marked
For Plaintiff:

Exhibit Date Description of document

A1 02.05.2009 : Registered sale deed executed by V.Sudhakar Naidu and
L.Prabhakar Naidu in favour of the plaintiff.
A2 25.02.2008 : Registration copy of sale deed executed by K.Dileep Kumar in
favour of V.Sudhakar Naidu and L.Prabhakar Naidu.
A3 14.05.2017 : Registration copy of sale deed executed by G.Bodaiah in favour
of K.Dileep Kumar.
A4 31.05.1979 : Copy of ryotwari pass book attested by notary.
A5 -- : Copies of cist receipts (2 in number) for 1368F attested by
notary.
A6 30.08.1917 : Copy of order passed by Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri attested
by notary.
A7 21.05.2013 : Order of Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati.
O.S.No.403/2013 20/20 18.04.2019

A8 -- : Attested copy of A-Register.

A9 -- : Attested copy of adangal/Pahani.
A10 -- : Attested copy of 10-1 account relating to Khatha No.354 of
Surraprakasam Village.
A11 10.12.2018 : Copy of Thasildar covering letter to Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirupati.
X1 -- : Attested copy of 10-1 account relating to Khatha No.354 of
Surraprakasam village.

For First Defendant:

Exhibit Date Description of document

B1 07.02.2000 :: Registration copy of sale deed executed by
B.Nagabhushanamma and others in favour of first defendant.
B2 01.09.1980 :: Registration copy of sale deed executed by Annadanam
Krishnamacharyulu and others in favour of
B.Nagabhushanamma.
B3 -- :: Endorsement with 1-B extract.
B4 -- : 1-B extract in the name of first defendant obtained through
Mee-seva.
B5 -- : Adangal copy in the name of the first defendant obtained
through Mee-seva.
B6 -- : 1-B extract issued by the Tahsildar, Renigunta under Right to
Information Act.
B7 -- : 1-B extract issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Renigunta under
Right to Information Act.
B8 -- : Certified copy of 10-1 account issued by Tahsildar, Renigunta.
B9 -- : House tax demand notice.
B10 -- : House tax receipts (6 in number)
B11 -- : Electricity demand notice for Service Connection
No.5522303000728.
B12 -- : Electricity demand notice for Service Connection
No.5522303000728.
B13 -- : Electricity demand notice for Service Connection
No.5522303000915 (2 in number).
B14 -- : Electricity demand notice for Service Connection
No.5522303000915.
B15 18.09.2018 : Endorsement issued by the State Bank of India, Chandragiri
Branch.
B16 -- : Prescription issued Keerthi Neuro Hospital, Tirupati.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Tirupati.