Page No.1 of 23 OS No.

15 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT WANAPARTHY

Wednesday, the 4th day of September, 2024

Present:- V.Rajani,
Prl. Senior Civil Judge,
Wanaparthy.

Original Suit Number 15 of 2012

Between:
1. Undekoti Venkataiah, S/o Undekoti Ranganna @ Rangaswamy,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Coolie & Agriculture, R/o Wanaparthy.
2. Undekoti Kurumurthy, S/o Undekoti Ranganna @ Rangaswamy,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Coolie & Agriculture, R/o Wanaparthy.
...Plaintiffs.
AND
1. Undekoti Balaswamy, S/o Undekoti Jammulu (died) per LRs
defendant Nos.7 to 9.
2. Undekoti Ranganna @ Rangaswamy, S/o Undekoti Jammulu,
Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Wanaparthy.
3. Undekoti Thirumalaiah S/o Undekoti Jammulu, Age: 52 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
4. Sheshamma W/o Ranganna, Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture,
(died) per LR defendant No.6
5. Balamma W/o Ushanna, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture
(Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are added as per order in IA No.563
of 2015 dated 18.07.2018.)
6. Gokam Ramulu S/o Ranganna, Age: 40 years, Occ: Mason
(defendant No.6 is the LR of defendant No.4 and brought on
record as per order in IA No.292 of 2022 dated 01.09.2023)
7. Undekoti Balapeer S/o late U.Balaswamy, Age: 50 years, Occ:
Mason
8. Undekoti Manyam S/o late U.Balaswamy, Age: 48 years, Occ:
Mason
9. Ginkala Jayamma W/o Venkataswamy, Age: 55 years, Occ:
Household
All are R/o of Wanaparthy Town.
(Defendant Nos.7 to 9 are the LRs of defendant No.1 and
brought on record as per order in IA No.7 of 2024 dated
Page No.2 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

09.01.2024.)
10. Gokam Alivela W/o Venkataiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Coolie,
R/o Wanaparthy.
(Defendant No.10 is added as per order in IA No.173 of 2024
dated 13.06.2024)
…Defendants.
Sub: Suit for partition and separate possession.
***
This case coming before me for disposal in the presence of Sri
G.Bal Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Sri Vijaya Bhasker,
learned counsel for defendant No.2, Sri P.Sreeram Rao, learned
counsel for defendant No.3, defendant Nos.5 and 6 having remained
ex parte, defendant Nos.1 and 4 died, Sri.T.Srinivasa Chary, learned
counsel for defendant Nos.7 to 9 and Sri G.Dinesh Reddy, learned
counsel for defendant No.10 and the matter having been heard and
having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the
following-
JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition of lands of

an extent of Acs.0-27 gts in Sy.No.29, of an extent of Acs.0-30 gts in

Sy.No.271, of an extent of Acs.0-36 gts in Sy.No.272, of an extent of

Acs.2-19 gts in Sy.No.273, of an extent of Acs.6-00 gts in Sy.No.274

and of an extent of Acs.1-20 gts in Sy.No.256 in total Acs.12-12 gts

situated at Wanaparthy revenue limits (hereinafter referred to as “the

suit schedule property”) and to allot 1/9th share out of 1/3rd share of

defendant No.2 to each of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in the suit schedule

property.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are that-

Page No.3 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

(i) Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are brothers and sons of Undekoti

Ranganna @ Rangaswamy, who is defendant No.2. Defendants Nos.1

to 3 are brothers and sons of late Undekoti Jammulu. Plaintiffs and

defendant Nos.1 to 3 are coparceners and co-owners of the suit

schedule property which is derived from their ancestors.

(ii) Originally land of an extent of Acs.15-06 gts was belonging to

Undekoti Jammulu, Undekoti Ramulu and Undekoti Jaya Ramulu in

Sy.Nos.271, 272, 273 and 274 ad measuring Acs.1-05 gts, Acs.1-15

gts, Acs.3-29 gts and Acs.8-37 gts in total Acs.15-06 gts situated at

Wanaparthy revenue limits. Each brother has got Acs.5-02 gts towards

their share. Out of which, the second brother/Undekoti Ramulu

bequeathed his share of one-third to defendant Nos.1 to 3, sons of

Undekoti Jammulu under a registered gift deed. Thus defendant Nos.1

to 3 have become the co-owners and joint possessors of the shares of

their father Undekoti Jammulu and also Undekoti Ramulu

ad measuring Acs.10-04 gts situated at Wanaparthy revenue limits.

The land in Sy.Nos.29 and 256 is also ancestral property. This

property belongs to the plaintiffs and defendants as ancestral property.

(iii) Father of plaintiffs i.e., Undekoti Ranganna @ Rangaswamy/

defendant No.2 addicted to bad habits and neglected the plaintiffs and
Page No.4 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

did not take care of them. Defendant No.2 was under the influence of

his two brothers i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 3 and defendant Nos.1 and 3

got manipulated forged documents from defendant No.2, in

detrimental to the interests of the plaintiffs. There was no partition of

the properties. That the documents if any executed by defendant No.2

in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 3, under their influence are void. The

suit schedule properties are the joint family properties, which are not

partitioned. Plaintiffs demanded the defendants for partition and

allotment of their share. They also gave notice to defendants on

16.02.2009 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule

property. On 03.03.2009, the defendants gave false reply. Again on

12.12.2011, plaintiffs asked the defendants for partition and separate

possession before the caste elders. But the defendants refused for the

same. Hence this suit for partition of the suit schedule property into 3

shares and allotment of 1/9th share to plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 from out of

the 1/3rd share of defendant No.2.

3. Written statement is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 admitting

that the plaintiffs are brothers and sons of defendant No.2. It is also

admitted that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are brothers and sons of Undekoti

Jammulu. It is denied that plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners of

Page No.5 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

the suit schedule property.

3.1 It is stated that the plaintiffs purposefully not mentioned female

members in the genealogical tree and therefore the same is not correct.

That the plaintiffs have one sister by name Alivelamma, W/o Gokam

Venkataiah, R/o Wanaparthy town. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 also have

two sisters i.e., Sheshamma W/o Ranganna, R/o Wanaparthy and

Balamma W/o Ushanna R/o Wanaparthy. Plaintiffs purposefully not

showed them as parties to the suit and therefore the suit is not

maintainable.

3.2 It is stated that the ancestral lands were already partitioned more

than 32 years back in between the defendants and defendant No.2 sold

out his share to defendant Nos.1 and 3 long back for his family

necessities, which was legally mutated in the revenue record.

3.3 It is admitted that an extent of Acs.15-06 gts in Sy.Nos.271, 272,

273 and 274 was originally belonging to Undekoti Jammulu, Undekoti

Ramulu and Undekoti Jaya Ramulu and each brother has got Acs.5-02

gts towards their share and the second brother Undekoti Ramulu

bequeathed his 1/3rd share to defendant Nos.1 to 3 under a registered

gift deed. It is denied that defendant Nos.1 to 3 became co-owners and

Page No.6 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

joint possessors of the share of Undekoti Jammulu and Undekoti

Ramulu for Acs.10-04 gts. It is also denied that land in Sy.Nos.29 and

256 are ancestral properties. It is stated that the said property is self

acquired property of defendant Nos.1 and 3.

3.4 It is denied that defendant No.2 was addicted to bad habits and

taking advantage of the same, defendant Nos.1 and 3 got him to

execute sale deed in their favour transferring his share to them. It is

stated that plaintiffs and defendant No.2 colluded with each other and

filed the present partition suit.

3.5 It is stated that defendant Nos.1 to 3 partitioned their lands prior

to 1980 and subsequently for identification of land, they prepared

partition list on 24.05.1980 which is signed by all defendants before

the witnesses. It is stated that since prior to 1980, defendants are

enjoying their respective shares with full ownership. In 1992,

defendant No.2 sold his entire land for his family necessities to

defendant Nos.1 and 3 for a consideration of Rs.59,000/-. Thereafter,

the lands were legally mutated in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 3.

Accordingly defendant Nos.1 and 3 are the absolute owners and

possessors of the suit schedule land. The entire villagers and caste
Page No.7 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

elders of the parties to the suit are well aware of the said fact. At

present the value of the land is highly escalated and as such with

greedy intention, plaintiffs created illusory litigation with the active

collusion of defendant No.2. Accordingly, it is stated that the suit is

not maintainable. It is prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. After the written statement of defendant Nos.1 and 3, the

plaintiffs filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151

CPC r/w Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice in IA No.563 of 2015 to

implead Undekoti Sheshamma and Undekoti Balamma, sisters of

defendant Nos.1 to 3 as defendant Nos.4 and 5 and for consequential

amendment of the plaint by adding para that defendant Nos.4 and 5 are

the sisters of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the sons

and daughters of Undekoti Jammulu. That marriages of defendant

Nos.4 and 5 were performed by Undekoti Jammulu during his lifetime

by giving sufficient gold, silver and cash towards their share in the suit

schedule property and as such defendant Nos.4 and 5 are not having

any share in the suit property and they are only proforma defendants in

the suit. The said petition was allowed by this Court by order dated

18.07.2018.

5. Defendant No.2 filed written statement admitting that Undekoti

Page No.8 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

Jammulu, Undekoti Ramulu and Undekoti Jaya Ramulu got Acs.5-02

gts each. Undekoti Ramulu bequeathed his 1/3rd share to defendant

Nos.1 to 3 under a registered gift deed and they could become co-

owners and joint possessors for the shares of Undekoti Jammulu and

Undekoti Ramulu which is the suit schedule property ad measuring

Acs.10-04 gts situated at Wanaparthy revenue limits. That the land in

Sy.Nos.29 and 256 is also ancestral property. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are

entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property.

5.1 It is admitted that defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters of

defendant Nos.1 to 3 and their marriages were performed by Undekoti

Jammulu during his life time and sufficient gold, silver and cash were

given at the time of their marriages towards their share in the suit

property and they are not having any share in the suit property.

5.2 It is denied that defendant No.2 was addicted to bad habits and

neglected the plaintiffs and executed forged documents in favour of

defendant Nos.1 and 3.

5.3 It is stated that suit schedule properties are joint family

properties of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and are not partitioned.

Page No.9 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

5.4 It is stated that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are joint owners and

possessors of the suit schedule property which is not yet divided and

that defendant Nos.1 to 3 each are entitled to 1/3 rd share in the suit

schedule property.

6. Defendant No.5 in spite of service of summons on her did not

choose to make her appearance before the Court. Therefore she was

set ex parte. Defendant No.4 died and by order in IA No.292 of 2022

dated 01.09.2023, defendant No.6 was brought on record as LR of

defendant No.4. In spite of service of summons defendant No.6 did not

choose to make his appearance before the Court and therefore he was

set ex parte by this Court.

7. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and his LRs

were brought on record as defendant Nos.7 to 9 as per order dated

09.01.2024 in IA No.7 of 2024.

8. Defendant Nos.7 to 9 filed additional written statement stating

that plaintiffs filed the suit in collusion with the other defendants to

grab the land of these defendants. It is stated that father of the

plaintiffs sold his share of land to the father of defendant Nos.7 to 9

and their names were implemented in the revenue record and pattadar
Page No.10 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

passbooks were issued to them. Apart from the same, the suit of the

plaintiffs suffers from number of legal infirmities and therefore it is

liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

9. Sister of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 filed IA No.173 of 2024 under

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead her in the suit as defendant

No.10. The said petition was allowed by this Court on 13.06.2024.

10. Defendant No.10 filed her written statement admitting that

Undekoti Jammulu, Undekoti Ramulu and Undekoti Jaya Ramulu

each got Acs.5-02 gts of land. Out of which, Undekoti Ramulu

bequeathed his 1/3rd share to defendant Nos.1 to 3 under a registered

gift deed. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 became the joint owners and

possessors of the shares of Undekoti Jammulu and Undekoti Ramulu

to an extent of Acs.10.04 gts and they also got ancestral property in

Sy.Nos.29 and 256. It is stated that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant

No.10 are children of defendant No.2.

10.1. It is stated that defendant No.10 does not know whether any

gold, silver and cash were given to defendant Nos.4 and 5 at the time

of their marriages. It is stated that nothing was given to defendant

No.10 by defendant No.2 at the time of her marriage and that the suit
Page No.11 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiffs and

defendants and defendant No.10 is entitled to 1/12 th share out of 1/3rd

share of her father/defendant No.2.

11. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed

for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of partition

and separate possession of 1/9th share out of 1/3rd share of
defendant No.2 in the suit schedule property as prayed
for?

2. To what relief?

12. The following additional issue is framed for trial:

1. Whether defendant No.10 is entitled to 1/12 th share in 1/3rd

share of defendant No.2 in the suit schedule property as
prayed for?

13. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and

Exs.A1 to A3 are marked. On behalf of defendant Nos.7 to 9 (LRs of

defendant No.1), D.W.1 is examined. No documentary evidence is

adduced. The counsel for defendant No.2 reported no evidence. Since

none appeared for defendant No.3, the evidence of defendant No.3 is

treated nil. Defendant No.10 is examined as D.W.2 and no

documentary evidence is adduced on her behalf.

Page No.12 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

14. Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and

defendants. I have gone through the material available on record.

15. ISSUE NO.1 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE: The admitted facts

in the suit are defendant Nos.1 to 3 are brothers and defendant Nos.4

and 5 are their sisters and they are all children of Undekoti Jammulu.

It is also an admitted fact that Undekoti Jammulu had two brothers by

name Undekoti Ramulu and Undekoti Jaya Ramulu. Each has got

Acs.5-02 gts of land in Sy.Nos.271, 272, 273 and 274 situated at

Wanaparthy revenue limits and that Undekoti Ramulu gifted his share

of Acs.5-02 gts in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 under a registered

gift deed. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 had become the joint owners and

possessors of Acs.10-04 gts.

16. While it is the case of plaintiffs and defendant No.2 that the suit

schedule property is not partitioned among defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is

the case of defendant Nos.1 and 3 that they partitioned their lands

before 1980 and subsequently for identification of the lands, they

prepared partition list reduced into writing on 24.05.1980. It is also

their case that in 1992 defendant No.2 sold his entire land for his

family necessities to defendant Nos.1 and 3 for a consideration of

Page No.13 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

Rs.59,000/- and thereafter the lands were mutated in the name of

defendant Nos.1 and 3 and the entire village has notice of the same. It

is their case that land in Sy.Nos.29 and 256 is not their ancestral

property and that it is their self acquired property.

17. Plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 in his evidence in chief reiterated the

version stated in the plaint. He marked Exs.A1 to A3. Exs.A1 to A3

are the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 and certified copies of

pahanies for the years 1973-74 and 1984-85. Ex.A1 shows that

Undekoti Jammulu, Undekoti Ramulu and Undekoti Jaya Ramulu are

the pattadars and shareholders of land in Sy.Nos.271, 272, 273 and

274. Ex.A2 shows Undekoti Jammulu, Undekoti Ramulu and

Undekoti Jaya Ramulu as pattadars of Acs.1-05 gts in Sy.No.271,

Acs.1-15 gts in Sy.No.272, Acs.3-29 gts in Sy.No.273 and Acs.8-37

gts in Sy.No.274 and thus Acs.15-06 gts.

18. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, by the counsel of defendant

Nos.7 to 9, it is elicited from him that his paternal aunt i.e., defendant

No.4 died and she is having three daughters and one son and only

defendant No.6 is brought on record as LR of defendant No.4 and her

daughters were not brought on record as her LRs. He denied the

Page No.14 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

suggestion that his father/defendant No.2 sold his share in the suit

schedule property to defendant Nos.1 and 3 and there was partition of

the properties among defendant Nos.1 to 3 long back and his father

after partition, sold away his share of land to defendant Nos.1 and 3

and pattadar passbooks were also issued in the names of defendant

Nos.1 and 3 and that by colluding with his father, the suit is filed. He

denied the suggestion that he did not add all the necessary parties in

this suit and therefore, this suit is not maintainable.

19. P.W.2, in his evidence in chief deposed in the similar lines of the

case of the plaintiffs.

20. In the cross-examination of P.W.2 by the counsel of defendant

Nos.7 to 9, it is elicited from him that he belongs to the caste of the

parties to the suit, but he has no relation with them. He stated that he

came to know about the gift executed by Undekoti Ramulu in favour

of defendant Nos.1 to 3 during the panchayath talks and defendant

Nos.1 to 3 are the sons of Undekoti Jammulu. Undekoti Jammulu also

have two daughters. He denied the suggestion that there was partition

of the suit properties among defendant Nos.1 to 3 and that their names

were mutated in the revenue records for their respective shares and
Page No.15 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

they also got pattadar passbooks. He denied the suggestion that

defendant No.2 sold away his share to defendant Nos.1 and 3 and after

selling the land, defendant No.2 colluding with the plaintiffs got this

suit filed.

21. P.Ws.1 and 2 are not cross-examined by defendant No.3.

Though it is suggested in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that the suit

is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e., sister plaintiff Nos.1

and 2, subsequently, as already stated above, sister of plaintiff Nos.1

and 2 was impleaded as defendant No.10. Though in the cross-

examination of P.W.1, it is elicited from P.W.1 that defendant No.4 is

also having three daughters apart from defendant No.6 and they were

not brought on record and therefore the suit is bad for non joinder of

necessary parties, it is to be seen that defendant Nos.7 to 9 did not take

any pleading in respect of the same in their written statement and

therefore now this Court cannot go into the said aspect.

22. The learned counsel for defendant Nos.7 to 9 contended that

Exs.A1 to A3 do not show about the possession of land by defendant

Nos.1 to 3 in Sy.Nos.29 and 256; that the total extent of land shown by

the plaintiffs is not correct; that plaintiffs failed to show joint

Page No.16 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

possession of the suit as on the date of filing of the suit; that there was

already partition of the suit lands among defendant Nos.1 to 3 and also

defendant No.2 sold his share of property to defendant Nos.1 and 3

and therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

23. Defendant No.7 as D.W.1 in his evidence in chief stated that

their grandfather Undekoti Jammulu and his brother Undekoti Ramulu

are own brothers and Undekoti Jaya Ramulu was only brought by their

great grandfather and therefore he was given some extent of lands by

their great grandfather. That his sons Undekoti Jaya Ramulu sold his

share of land to defendant Nos.2 and 3. Later defendant Nos.2 and 3

and their father Balaswamy have got partitioned orally. Defendant

No.2 sold out his share to defendant Nos.1 and 3 long back about 40

years. After purchase of the said land from defendant No.1, defendant

Nos.1 and 3 got partitioned orally and they got implemented their

share of land in the revenue records, pattadar passbook and tile book

were also issued to their father/defendant No.1. That his father died on

09.08.2016. After his death, he and his brother got implemented their

names in the revenue record. They got pattadar passbooks, title books

and also receiving Rythubandu benefits for the last 5 years. That the

plaintiffs in collusion with their father/defendant No.2 filed the suit to

Page No.17 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

grab their land.

24. D.W.1 did not choose to adduce any documentary evidence in

proof of partition among defendant Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule

lands and also that the lands in Sy.Nos.29 and 256 are self acquired

property of defendant Nos.1 and 3 or that there was partition list

executed on 24.05.1980 or that in 1992, defendant No.2 sold his share

of land for Rs.59,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 3. There is also no

evidence to show that land in Sy.Nos.29 and 256 is self acquired of

defendant Nos.1 and 3.

25. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, he admitted that the suit

schedule properties originally belonged to his great grandfather,

Thirumalaiah. He admitted the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55

recorded the names of Undekoti Jammulu, Undekoti Ramulu and

Undekoti Jaya Ramulu as sharers for the suit schedule properties. He

stated that Undekoti Ramulu had five daughters, out of them, three

died and two are alive. He admitted his great grandfather Thirumalaiah

owned and possessed Acs.15.00 gts of land and Undekoti Ramulu and

Undekoti Jammulu had got each Acs.5.02 gts of land from out of the

said Acs.15.00 gts and Undekoti Ramulu given his share of land to
Page No.18 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

Undekoti Jammulu in Sy.Nos.271, 272, 273 and 274. He admitted

Undekoti Jammulu was having Acs.12.12 gts of land i.e., the suit land

in Sy.Nos.271, 272, 273, 274, 29 and 256 and Undekoti Jammulu died

intestate and the suit lands were not partitioned during his lifetime. He

admitted Undekoti Jammulu is having three sons and two daughters

viz., defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.4 and 5 and marriages of

defendant Nos.4 and 5 were performed during the lifetime of Undekoti

Jammulu. He admitted he does not know that at the time of marriages

of defendant Nos.4 and 5, they were given gold, silver and clothes and

he did not enquire from his father about the gifts given to defendant

Nos.4 and 5 at the time of their marriages. He denied the suggestion

that sons of Undekoti Jaya Ramulu did not sell any land to defendant

Nos.2 and 3. He stated that he has not seen any documents of the said

alleged sale transactions. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing

falsehood that defendant Nos.1 to 3 partitioned the suit lands orally.

He admitted that he has not filed any document in the Court to show

that defendant No.2 sold out his share to his father Balaswamy/

defendant No.1 and to defendant No.3. He denied the suggestion that

the suit lands are still in joint possession of plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1

to 3 and 7 to 10.
Page No.19 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

26. The cross-examination of D.W.1 by defendant No.3 is treated

nil as none appeared for defendant No.3.

27. In the cross-examination of D.W.1 by defendant No.2, D.W.1

admitted that he has not filed in the Court any document to show that

defendant Nos.1 to 3 partitioned the suit schedule properties and also

that defendant No.2 sold his share of land to defendant Nos.1 and 3.

28. Defendant No.10 as D.W.2 in her evidence in chief deposed that

plaintiffs are her younger brothers and defendant No.2 is her father.

That she is entitled to 1/12th share in the suit schedule property, on par

with the plaintiffs and defendant No.2.

29. In the cross-examination of defendant No.2 by the counsel for

the plaintiffs, she denied the suggestion that at the time of her

marriage, she was given dowry and therefore, she is not entitled to any

share in the suit schedule property.

30. In the cross-examination of defendant No.2 by the counsel for

defendant Nos.7 to 9, she denied the suggestion that the suit lands are

in the exclusive possession of defendant No.1 and after his death,

defendant Nos.7 to 9 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands

Page No.20 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

and that her father sold the suit lands to defendant Nos.1 and 3.

31. As already stated above, defendant Nos.7 to 9 did not choose to

file any document either in proof of partition of the suit schedule

properties among defendant Nos.1 to 3 or sale of land by defendant

No.2 to defendant Nos.1 and 3. They have also not filed any document

to show that they are in exclusive possession of the suit schedule

properties. Though the learned counsel for defendant Nos.7 to 9

contended that the extent claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit is not

tallying with the extent shown in Exs.A1 to A3. A perusal of Exs.A1

to A3 show that Undekoti Jammulu, Undekoti Ramulu and Undekoti

Jaya Ramulu are co-sharers and pattadars and possessors of Acs.15-06

gts of land in Sy.Nos.271, 272, 273 and 274. There is no dispute of the

fact that these 3 sharers have got Acs.5-02 gts each. There is also no

dispute that Undekoti Ramulu gave his Acs.5-02 gts of land to

Undekoti Jammulu/defendant Nos.1 to 3. Thus it is not in dispute that

Undekoti Jammulu has become the owner of Acs.10-04 gts of land.

Though there is no document in respect of Sy.Nos.29 and 256, in his

cross-examination D.W.1 admitted that Undekoti Jammulu was the

owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties including the land

in Sy.Nos.29 and 256. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 did not choose to file
Page No.21 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

any document to show that the land in Sy.Nos.29 and 256 shown in

the suit schedule is their self acquired property.

32. There is no document on record to show that the suit schedule

land was partitioned among defendant Nos.1 to 3 and that defendant

No.2 after partition sold away his share of land to defendant Nos.1 and

3 in 1992 for a consideration of Rs.59,000/-. Therefore it is to be taken

that suit schedule property is still in the joint possession of defendant

Nos.1 to 3.

33. It is the case of plaintiffs as well as defendant No.2 that

defendant Nos.4 and 5, who are the sisters of defendant Nos.1 to 3,

and defendant No.10, who is sister of plaintiffs were given sufficient

dowry in the shape of cash, gold and clothes at the time of their

respective marriages and therefore, they are not entitled to any share in

the suit schedule property. The said contention of the plaintiffs cannot

be accepted as there is no material on record to show that defendant

Nos.4, 5 and 10 were given sufficient amounts towards their share in

the suit schedule properties at the time of their respective marriages.

Therefore, defendant Nos.4, 5 are also entitled to share in the suit

schedule lands along with defendant Nos.1 to 3. Consequently

Page No.22 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

plaintiffs and defendant No.10 are entitled to equal share out of the

share of their father/defendant No.2 in the suit schedule property. Issue

No.1 and additional issue are accordingly answered.

34. ISSUE NO.2: In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed,

without costs, dividing the suit schedule property into 5 shares,

allotting 1/5th share each to defendant Nos.1 to 5 and allotting 1/20 th

share each to plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and defendant No.10 from out of the

1/5th share of their father/defendant No.2.

-Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court, on this the 4th day of September, 2024.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

P.W.1: Undekoti Venkataiah
P.W.2: Balamoni Narasimha.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

D.W.1: Undekoti Balapeeru
D.W.2: Gokam Alivela

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of khasra pahani for the year 1954-55.
Ex.A2: Certified copy of a pahani for the year 1973-74.
Page No.23 of 23 OS No.15 of 2012

Ex.A3: Certified copy of a pahani for the year 1984-85.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: -Nil-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.