Civil Law – Partition – Relinquishment Deed – Validity – Fraud or Misrepresentation – Burden of Proof
– The plaintiff sought partition of suit schedule properties claiming them to be joint family properties and alleging that the registered relinquishment deed executed in favour of the 1st defendant (father) was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.
– Evidence showed that the 1st defendant, being an RMP doctor, purchased the properties out of his independent income. No proof was produced to establish that the properties were ancestral or that the relinquishment deed was obtained by fraud.
– The document was a registered relinquishment deed, executed voluntarily before the Sub-Registrar, bearing the admitted signatures of the executants and carrying the presumption of due execution.
– Plaintiff’s long silence and absence of any complaint after execution of the deed further weakened the allegation of fraud.
→ Held: The relinquishment deed was true, valid, and binding on the plaintiff.
Will – Revocation – Effect of Cancellation During Testator’s Lifetime
– The plaintiff relied on a Will dated 08.10.1985 said to have been executed by the 1st defendant.
– The 1st defendant subsequently executed a registered cancellation deed and issued notice to the plaintiff informing revocation.
→ Held: Once a Will is cancelled during the lifetime of the testator, no right can accrue to any beneficiary under it. The plaintiff cannot claim any right based on the revoked Will.
Evidence – Oral Testimony – Weight and Reliability
– Plaintiff’s witness (P.W.4) admitted he was not a party to the transaction and unaware of the document’s contents. His evidence was found unreliable and insufficient to prove fraud or coercion.
Self-acquired Property – Presumption and Proof
– When the father had independent source of income and purchased property in his own name, the presumption is that such property is self-acquired, not joint family property.
– Plaintiff failed to produce evidence of joint family nucleus or contribution from ancestral funds.
Appeal – Scope of Interference
– Appellate Court found no perversity or illegality in the findings of the Trial Court. The appreciation of evidence and application of law were correct.
→ Held:
-
Properties are self-acquired of the 1st defendant.
-
Relinquishment deed dated 19.09.1985 is valid and binding.
-
Will dated 08.10.1985 stands validly revoked.
-
Plaintiff not entitled to partition or cancellation of relinquishment deed.
-
Appeal dismissed. No costs.
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Validity of Relinquishment Deed:
When a registered relinquishment deed is executed voluntarily by the executants before a competent registering authority, acknowledging receipt of consideration, and bearing their admitted signatures, there arises a presumption of due execution and voluntariness. The burden lies on the person alleging fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation to prove the same by cogent evidence. Mere oral assertions or long silence after execution are insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of validity.→ Therefore, a registered relinquishment deed, duly executed and registered, cannot be set aside on mere allegations of fraud without convincing proof.
-
Nature of Property – Self-acquired vs. Joint Family:
When the father or Karta of a Hindu family is shown to have had an independent source of income and has acquired property in his own name, the property is presumed to be self-acquired, unless it is affirmatively proved that the acquisition was made from joint family nucleus or ancestral funds.→ Hence, in the absence of proof of joint family nucleus, property acquired by a father from his independent earnings is his self-acquired property, and sons have no coparcenary right therein during his lifetime.
-
Effect of Revocation of Will:
A Will, being revocable at any time during the lifetime of the testator, confers no vested right upon the beneficiary until the testator’s death. Once the testator executes a registered cancellation deed revoking the Will, the same ceases to have any legal effect.→ Thus, a beneficiary under a revoked Will cannot claim any right or title based thereon.
Appellate Interference:
An appellate court will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled legal principles.→ In the absence of perversity or illegality in appreciation of evidence, the appellate court is bound to uphold the trial court’s judgment.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3397]
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
FIRST APPEAL NO: 27/2007
Between:
1. K. MOHAN, S/O DAMODHARAN R/O MACHALA STREET
PUNGANUR CHITTOOR DIST.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. K DAMODARAN, S/O KRISHNA DOCTOR R/O 45/27,
MADANAPALLE RAOD PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST.
2. K SURENDRA, S/O DAMODARAN II-65, PATTAMBI ROAD
KUNNAMKULAM, TALLAPULLI TQ., TIRCHUR DIST.,
3. K SANTHA, W/O T. DIWAKARAN CASHEIR STATE BANK OF INDIA
PUNGANUR CHITOOR DIST.
4. K SARALA, D/O DAMODARAN R/O 45/27, MADANAPALLE RAOD
PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST.
5. K RADHA, W/O KRISHNA R/O C/O T. DIWAKAR STATE BANK OF
INDIA PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST.
6. K RAMANI DIED AS PER LRS 9 TO 11, W/O RAMESH BABU
ADVOCATE NAGAPALEM PUNGANUR CHITTOOR DIST.
7. K VANITHA, W/O K. RAJENDRA KUMAR R/O CHENDRA REDDY
STREET PUNGANUR CHITTOOR DIST.
8. GNANAVATHAMMA, KEPT MISTRESS OF K. DAMODARAN D.NO.
27-131-A-1 UBEDULLAH COMPUND NEAR YETIGADDAPALEM
2025:APHC:44397
PUNGANUR
9. B RAMESH BABU, S/O B.VASUDEVAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL STREET,
PUNGANUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
10. BOJONNALA SUNDEEP, S/O B. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCC PVT EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL
STREET, PUNGANUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
11. B NAVEEN, S/O B. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC
STUDENT, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL STREET, PUNGANUR
TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. AS PER COURT ORDER DATED
05.07.2023 IA NO 1 OF 2021 IN A.S.NO. 27 OF 2007 IMPLEADED
THE RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF
DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.6
12. K VASANTHY, W/O LATE K. SURENDER, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O 27-82/2, POLICE LANE, MBT ROAD-PONGNUR, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517247. RESPONDENT NO
12 IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED
RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 IN
I.A.NO. 3 OF 2025 IN A.S.NO.27 OF 2007.
...RESPONDENT(S):
appeal against the judgment & decree in OS No. 85/99 on the file of the
Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor Dist.
IA NO: 1 OF 2007(ASMP 26 OF 2007
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
condone the delay of 1385 days in representing the ASSR No. 95273/02
before thsi Hon'ble Court
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(ASMP 2986 OF 2013
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
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(ASMP 425 OF 2014
2025:APHC:44397
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
take the above AS for hearing on Out of Turn basis
IA NO: 2 OF 2014(ASMP 899 OF 2014
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
grant injunction restraining the respondents herein from changing nature of
the suit property and creating third party rights over pending disposal of the
appeal
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
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
pleased to permit me to bring the respondents No.9 to 11 on record as the
legal heirs of the respondent No.6 in the appeal and
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
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
pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.04.2014 passed in ASMP No.899
of 2014 IN A.S.No. 27 of 2007 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to condone the delay of 1092 days in filing the petition to the
proposed respondent No.12 as legal representatives of the diseased 2nd
respondent, and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may be pleased to set-a-side the abetment order in filing the application to
the proposed respondent No. 12as legal representatives of the diseased 2nd
respondent and pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
2025:APHC:44397
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
Pleased to allow/permit to bring on the record the proposed LR that is
respondent No.7 Smt. K, Vasanthy, who are the L.R.s of late K. Surendra as
respondent No.12 in AS No. 27 OF 2007and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.S PARINEETA
2.P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy
3..
4.S U V SRINIVAS
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: -
This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”], is filed by the Appellant challenging the
decree and judgment, dated 29.08.2002 in O.S.No.85 of 1999 passed by
learned Senior Civil Judge, Punganur [hereinafter referred to as “the trial
Court”].
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents 1 to 8 herein
are the defendants in O.S.No.85 of 1999. During the pendency of the appeal,
the respondents 9 to 11 were brought on record as legal representatives of
deceased respondent No.6 and 12th respondent was brought on record as
legal representative of deceased respondent No.2. The appeal against the 1st
respondent was dismissed for default as per the Court order dated
25.04.2016.
3. The appellant / plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule
properties into eight equal shares and allot 1/8th share to the plaintiff by
2025:APHC:44397
division by metes and bounds and by setting aside the relinquishment deed
dated 19.09.1985 in respect of the plaintiff‟s share or in the alternative to allot
the properties as per the Will dated 08.10.1985 to the plaintiff and for costs of
the suit.
4. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed
before the trial Court.
5. The brief averments of the plaint in O.S.No.85 of 1999 are as under:
(i) The plaintiff and 2nd defendant are brothers and they are the sons
of 1st defendant. The defendants 3 to 7 are the sisters of plaintiff.
The 8th defendant is the kept mistress of 1st defendant. The
plaintiff himself, D-1 and D-2 constitute a Hindu joint family, for
which 1
st defendant has been acting as 'Kartha' and Manager of
the family. Their family originally belonged to 'Kunnam Kulam'
Kerala State and they have came down to Punganur about 35
years back. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule
properties belonged to his mother 'Ammu Ammaniyamma‟ and
she died about fourteen years back leaving behind the plaintiff
and defendants 1 to 7 as her legal heirs. After demise of his
mother, he himself and D-1 to D-7 inherited the properties
through his deceased mother.
(ii) The plaintiff got married, after the demise of his mother against
the wish of his father (D-1). The 1st defendant started disliking
him. All the children of D-1 were married except D-4 and after the
marriages of the children, some misunderstandings arose among
the woman folk. On account of misunderstandings, the 1st
defendant filed a civil suit in O.S.No.111 of 1985 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge Court, Madanapalle for grant of injunction in
respect of item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule with false
allegations. But, subsequently, the well-wishers and elders of the
2025:APHC:44397
locality compromised the matter and settled that the 1st defendant
must made equal distribution of the properties to his male
children and they should take the burden of performing the
marriage of 4th defendant as the other daughters had already
married and the children of D-1 including plaintiff should
relinquish their right in the plaint schedule properties in favour of
their father and in turn D-1 should bequeath the properties in
favour of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant with an obligation to
celebrate the marriages of the 4th defendant. As per the advice of
elders, the plaintiff along with D-2 to D-7 executed the registered
Relinquishment Deed in favour of 1st defendant on 19-9-1985 in
respect of plaint schedule property and 1st defendant executed
registered Will dated 08.10.1985 bequeathing the properties
shown in the plaint to the plaintiff and 2nd defendant. After
compromise, the parties i.e., the plaintiff and D-2 to D-7 lived
happily without any misunderstandings.
(iii) While so, the 1st defendant at the instance of 8th defendant and
6
th defendant, who are very much attached to 1st defendant, got
issued a notice on 07.03.1988 to the plaintiff stating that he has
cancelled the Will and that he would deal with the plaint schedule
properties as he likes, thereby the 1st defendant played fraud
upon the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for setting
aside the relinquishment deed dated 19.09.1985 and for partition
of his legitimate 1/8th share in all the plaint schedule properties or
in the alternative to allot the properties if possible as per the Will
dated 08.10.1985
6. Defendants 3, 5 and 6 remained set ex parte.
The 1st defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the
defendants 2 and 4.
The 7th defendant filed memo stating that she has no written statement
and prayed to decree the suit.
2025:APHC:44397
The brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant
are as follows:
(i) The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on
facts. The defendant No.1 admitted the relationship pleaded by
the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant No.1 denied that 8
th
defendant is his kept mistress. Defendant No.1 also denied the
contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, D-1 and D-2 have
constituted Hindu joint family and D-1 is the Manager. The
Defendant No.1 admitted that the plaintiff married after the death
of his mother. D-1 never objected nor expressed any displeasure
against the plaintiff marrying a woman of his choice. According to
D-1, the plaintiff has been disobedient and has been leading a
wayward life from the beginning and he was not regular and
steady in his stay with the parents. He has been living with his
wife from the time of his marriage and he has been visiting 1st
defendant's House whenever he wanted money and when the 1st
defendant refused to oblige him, he has been behaving
aggressively and indecently towards the 1st defendant. The
plaintiff abused in vulgar language and attempting to assault him.
(ii) The 1st defendant has tolerated the bad behaviour of the plaintiff
out of love and affection, but as the conduct the plaintiff turned
violent and became unbearable, the 1
st defendant given a
complaint to the police and 1st defendant was also constrained to
submit a protection petition in the month of February, 1988 to the
Superintendent of Police, Chittoor seeking the help from the
police as the 1
st defendant apprehended danger from the plaintiff.
Subsequently, the plaintiff has been coming to the house of the
1
st defendant and has been creating scenes by exhibiting
indecent behaviour and by intimidating the 1st defendant and the
4
th defendant, who is unmarried by threats of violence before and
after filing of the suit.
2025:APHC:44397
(iii) According to D-1, there are no properties belonged to the alleged
joint family and the properties mentioned in item Nos.1 to 3 of
plaint A-Schedule are acquired by him by his independent and
self exertions and none of his children including the plaintiff had
any right in them. According to D-1, the execution of
relinquishment deed, dated 19.09.1985 by the plaintiff and D-2 to
D-7 and execution of registered Will by him dated 08.10.1985
have nothing to do with the alleged compromise. According to D-1,
the execution of the said relinquishment deed by the plaintiff and
D-2 to D-7 was voluntary act. Similarly, the 1st defendant
executed the said Will voluntarily. He purchased the site
comprising item No.2 of the plaint A-schedule for consideration of
Rs.1,000/- under a registered sale deed with his own money. He
executed a registered Gift deed dated 19.06.1958 in favour of his
wife 'Ammu Ammal' nominally. Ever since the purchase, he was
in possession of the said site and never parted with the same at
any time. The gift deed executed by him in favour of his wife,
neither intended to be acted upon nor acted upon. His wife never
in possession of the property mentioned in the Gift Deed dated
19.06.1958. His wife came from poor family and she had no
support from her parents side and she was not in a position to
have any construction. She had no capacity to contribute any
money independently for the acquisition of any property.
(iv) The 1st defendant offered all the three items of the plaint „A‟
schedule to the Indian Bank, Punganur as collateral security, as
guarantor for the loan advanced to the plaintiff for purchase of
lorry. The 2nd defendant has been living in item No.1 of the plaint
„A‟ schedule since the time of its construction. The 2nd defendant
married one Vasanthi in the year 1976 and continued to live in the
said house with his wife and children. The 2nd defendant‟s wife‟s
2025:APHC:44397
two sisters namely Shobana and Ananda Kumari have been living
at Dubai. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.
7. The 8th defendant also filed written statement with the following
contentions:
The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
The 8th defendant has no concern with the alleged joint family of the plaintiff
and other defendants. She is interested in item No.4 of the plaint schedule
property. She purchased the site of item No.4 of the plaint schedule under
registered sale deed dated 11.09.1981. Later she got constructed a house in
the said site in the year 1983 after getting plan approved from the Gram
Panchayat, Punganur and ever since she has been in possession of the same
and paying cist to the Punganur Gram Panchayat, previously and later she is
paying to Punganur Municipality. According to D-8, the plaintiff or other
Defendants have no right whatsoever over item No.4 of the plaint schedule
property. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following
issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff and D-1 and D-2 constitute joint family and
whether the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit properties along
with D-1 and D-2?
(2) Whether the judgment in O.S.111/85 on the file of this Court would
not bind the plaintiff?
(3) Whether item No.4 exclusively belong to the 8th defendant?
(4) Whether the institution of the joint family is unknown among the
Caste of the parties?
(5) Whether item No.1 to 3 of plaint A-schedule are the self acquisition
of 1st defendant?
(6) Whether the relinquishment deed dated 19.09.1985 and the Will
deed dated 08.10.1985 are true, valid and if so whether would they
effect the rights of D-1 over item No.1 to 3 herein?
(7) Whether item No.1, 23 to 28, 31, 34, 40to 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54 to
56 of Commissioner‟s Report in course of inventory of item No.1 of
2025:APHC:44397
plaint A-schedule belong to the wife of D-2 by name Vasanthi and
the other items as mentioned in para 17 of the written statement of
D-1 belong to the persons mentioned therein which were invented by
the Commissioner so also in para 18 and 19 of the written statement
of D-1?
(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition if so to what share?
(9) To what relief?
9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff,
P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were
marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and
Exs.B.1 to B.10 were marked.
10. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both
sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment, dated 29.08.2002,
against which the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit
questioning the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.
11. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri P.V.Venkata Ravi Sankar and Dr.P.B.Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondents.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the decree
and judgment passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence
and probabilities of the case. He would further contend that on the advice of
elders, the plaintiff, his brother and sisters executed a relinquishment deed in
favour of their father 1st defendant and subsequently the 1st defendant failed to
fulfill his promise and cancelled the Will said to have been executed by the 1st
defendant and that the relinquishment deed is liable to be cancelled and the
relinquishment deed is obtained by father by playing fraud and
misrepresentation and that the same has to be cancelled. Learned counsel
for the appellant would further contend that the reasons given by the trial
Court for dismissing the suit are unsustainable and that the appeal may be
2025:APHC:44397
allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial
Judge.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that
on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, learned trial Judge rightly
dismissed the suit and that there is no need to interfere with the said finding
given by the learned trial Judge.
14. Now the points for determination in the present appeal are:
1) Whether item No.4 of plaint A-schedule property exclusively
belongs to 8th defendant?
2) Whether Ex.A.1 registered relinquishment deed is liable to be
cancelled and whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of
partition of the plaint schedule property?
3) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit?
15. Point No.1:
Whether item No.4 of plaint A-schedule property exclusively
belongs to 8th defendant?
It is the specific case of the plaintiff that item No.4 of the plaint Aschedule property is joint family property and it was purchased by the 1st
defendant in the name of 8th defendant and the 1st defendant is having illegal
contact with the 8th defendant and 8th defendant is the concubine of the 1st
defendant. The own brother / 2nd defendant and sisters of the plaintiff /
defendants 3 to 7 strongly disputed the aforesaid contention taken by the
plaintiff and they contended that they are no way connected with item No.4 of
plaint A-schedule property and they denied the statement of the plaintiff that
the 1st defendant is having illegal contact with the 8th defendant. The
undisputed facts of both the parties are the plaintiff and 2nd defendant are
sons and the defendants 3 to 7 are daughters. According to the defendants 1
to 7, item No.4 is the exclusive property of 8th defendant and they are no way
concerned with item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule property. The 8th defendant
2025:APHC:44397
was examined as D.W.5 before the trial Court. As per the evidence of
D.W.5/8th defendant, item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule property is her self
acquired property and she purchased the same under a registered sale deed
after paying sale consideration under original of Ex.A5 registered sale deed
and he was present at the time of registration of the sale deed and her
husband is working as a Painter and his second so is a RMP Doctor and she
is residing along with her husband and children and she is unconnected with
the family affairs of the 1st defendant. As stated supra, the defendants 1 to 7
i.e., father, own brother and sisters of the plaintiff are not even supports the
case of the plaintiff to prove that item No.4 of the schedule property is
purchased by the 1st defendant in the name of 8th defendant. The plaintiff has
taken a specific plea that item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule property was
purchased by his father in the name of 8th defendant. Therefore, the initial
burden is on the plaintiff to prove the same. But undoubtedly, the plaintiff
failed to prove the same. The own brother and sisters of the plaintiff are also
not supporting the case of the plaintiff and the plaintiff failed to discharge his
burden to prove that item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule property was
purchased by the 1st defendant in the name of 8th defendant. On the other
hand, the 8th defendant proved that item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule
property is her self acquired property. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled the
relief of partition in item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule property. Accordingly,
point No.1 is answered against the appellant / plaintiff.
16. Point No.2:
Whether Ex.A.1 registered relinquishment deed is liable to be
cancelled and whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of
partition of the plaint schedule property?
It is the specific case of the appellant / plaintiff that item Nos.1 to 3 of
the plaint A-schedule properties are exclusive properties of her mother by
name “Ammu Ammaniyamma” and she got the same through her parents at
Kerala and she sold the property which was got from her parents and with the
2025:APHC:44397
sale proceeds, she purchased item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint A-schedule
property. The plaintiff approached the civil Court for seeking the relief of
partition of plaint schedule properties. Therefore, the initial burden is on the
plaintiff to prove the same.
17. As seen from the material on record, item No.1 of the plaint Aschedule property is situated at Kerala. The specific case of the 2nd
defendant, which is supported by the 1st defendant is that in item No.2 of the
plaint schedule property, the 2nd defendant is living with his wife and children.
The same is undisputed by the plaintiff. As seen from the material on record,
item No.1 of the plaint A-schedule property is situated at Kerala and item
Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint A-schedule property are situated at Punganur town.
It is the specific case of the plaintiff that all the schedule properties are
exclusively belongs to his mother and she purchased the said property with
the sale proceeds of the property which was given by her parents and she
died at about 14 years ago leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7
as her legal heirs and after the death of mother of the plaintiff, they inherited
the properties. It is undisputed that the mother of the plaintiff and defendants
2 to 7 died intestate. It is the specific case of the 1st defendant that all the
schedule properties i.e. item Nos.1 to 3 are his self acquired properties and he
has every right to deal with the said properties. He further contended that in
view of the relinquishment deed executed by defendants 2 to 7 and plaintiff in
his favour in respect of the suit properties, he is having absolute rights in the
suit property and the Will executed by him dated 08.10.1985 is validly
cancelled by the registered revocation deed and the same is informed to the
plaintiff by issuing a legal notice under Ex.A.2. The 1st defendant further
contended that subsequent to the cancellation of the Will, item No.1 of the
schedule property was given to the 2nd defendant and item No.2 was given to
the 4th defendant and he retained item No.3 of the plaint schedule property. It
is the specific case of the 1st defendant that he is no way connected with item
2025:APHC:44397
No.4 of plaint A-schedule property and he is not having any relationship with
the 8th defendant as alleged by the plaintiff.
18. It is in the evidence of plaintiff / P.W.1 that with the sale proceeds of
his mother‟s property, which was got from her parents at Kerala, they
purchased the suit property and he came to know the same through his
mother. As seen from his own evidence, it is evident that the plaintiff is not
having personal knowledge over the same. The own witnesses of the plaintiff,
P.Ws.2 to 5 have not stated in their evidence that with the sale proceeds of
property of wife of 1st defendant which was got from her parents, the 1st
defendant purchased the schedule properties. In his evidence in crossexamination, P.W.6 admits that the 1st defendant is well known RMP Doctor in
Punganur town and the residential house of 1st defendant was got constructed
prior to age of his discretion and hospital building was constructed by the 1st
defendant more than 30 years ago. He further admits he does not know the
details with regard to the partition between mother of the plaintiff, his brothers
and sisters. Therefore, it is evident that he is not having very much
knowledge about the properties possessed by the mother of the P.W.1.
P.W.2 is a Senior Assistant in Sub-Registrar office. He is no way connected
with the family affairs of the plaintiff. P.Ws.3 and 4 have not deposed in their
evidence that with the sale proceeds of property of mother of the plaintiff,
which was got from her parents, the 1st defendant purchased the schedule
properties. P.W.6 is no way connected with the family affairs of the plaintiff.
He is a Senior Assistant in Sub-Registrar office.
19. The 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1. It is in the evidence of 1st
defendant / D.W.1 that the parents of his wife are agricultural coolies and his
in-laws have no financial capacity to help him and also his wife. It is in the
evidence of D.W.2 / 2nd defendant that item No.1 of the schedule property was
purchased in the name of his mother and the 1st defendant himself got
constructed the house with his own amount and the 1st defendant spent the
amount and he got constructed the same in the item Nos.1 to 3 of plaint A2025:APHC:44397
schedule property. The house site was purchased by the 1st defendant in the
name of his mother and subsequently, the 1st defendant constructed the
house with his own amount. He further deposed that item No.4 of A-schedule
property does not belongs to their family and the 1st defendant used to run
hotel business at Punganur and subsequently he practiced as a medical
practitioner at Punganur and he is a well known medical practitioner and he
used to earn good income in the medical profession and with that income, he
purchased the sites in the name of his mother and constructed houses at
Punganur and Kerala. He further deposed that his parents are very poor and
they are living by doing cooli work. D.W.3 deposed in his evidence that the 1st
defendant is his brother-in-law, neither himself nor his brothers or his father
never helped the 1st defendant financially in purchasing the house sites and
construction of houses in Punganur town and also at Kerala. He further
deposed that the 1st defendant initially started hotel business and
subsequently he started medical practice and in the medical practice, the 1st
defendant earned good income and with the said income, the 1st defendant
purchased the said house sites and constructed the houses. D.W.4 deposed
in his evidence that the 1st defendant came to Punganur and started business
and subsequently, he entered into the hotel business and he started medical
practice in Punganur town and he used to earn good income in the medical
practice. Even as per the own witness of the plaintiff / P.W.4, the 1st
defendant is practicing as a RMP Doctor in Punganur town and P.W.4 used to
take treatment with the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant constructed
houses in Punganur town. Another own witness of the plaintiff / P.W.5 admits
the 1st defendant is a well known RMP Doctor in Punganur and the residential
house of 1st defendant was got constructed prior to age of his discretion and
hospital building was constructed by the 1st defendant for more than 30 years
ago.
20. As per the evidence of D.W.1, at about 12 years ago, he got
purchased the lorry for the sake of the plaintiff for his livelihood. The same is
2025:APHC:44397
undisputed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also admits that his father purchased
the lorry. D.W.1 further deposed that he purchased the lorry by obtaining loan
from the Indian Bank, Punganur branch. D.W.1 further deposed that P.W.1
did not discharge the said bank loan and he repaid the due amount in the said
loan account. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that
he married the daughter of their maidservant without the consent and
permission of his father. He further admits that the 1st defendant stood as a
surety for the loan borrowed from the bank for purchase of lorry and the said
loan is still due to the bank. He further admits the 2nd defendant acquired
some more properties with his own income in Kerala.
21. The material on record reveals that the mother of the plaintiff and
defendants 2 to 7 is not an employee and she is not an earning member in the
family. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that the mother of
the plaintiff / wife of 1st defendant got the property from her parents. There is
also no evidence on record that with the sale proceeds of the said property,
the 1st defendant purchased item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint A-schedule property.
Even as per the evidence of own witness of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant
used to work as a registered medical practitioner and he himself constructed a
house property at Punganur town and also at Kerala. The own brother / 2nd
defendant and sisters of the plaintiff are not even supporting the case of the
plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff approached the Court for seeking the relief of
partition of the plaint schedule property, with a specific plea that with the sale
proceeds of property of their mother / wife of the 1st defendant, they
purchased item Nos.1 to 3 of A-schedule property. But the same is not
proved by the plaintiff. The plaintiff not even examined the single relative of
the mother of the plaintiff or brothers and parents of the mother of the plaintiff.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff failed
to prove that item Nos.1 to 3 of the A-schedule properties are purchased with
the sale proceeds of the property of the mother of the plaintiff, which was got
from her parents.
2025:APHC:44397
22. It is the specific case of the plaintiff and the plaintiff also deposed in
his evidence that after the death of his mother, his father filed O.S.No.111 of
1985 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge‟s Court at Madanapalle against them
in respect of the suit property for injunction. But he admits in his evidence in
cross-examination that he is not a party to the suit O.S.No.111 of 1985. It is
the specific case of the plaintiff that at the intervention of the elders, his father
agreed to withdraw the said suit and agreed to convey the suit properties to
them and the village elders advised his father to execute a document in favour
of their father and their father agreed to execute a Will in their favour. He
further pleaded in pursuance of the said mediation, his father not-pressed the
suit O.S.No.111 of 1985 and all of them executed a relinquishment deed
under original of Ex.A.1 dated 19.09.1985. The plaintiff himself admitted in his
evidence in cross-examination itself that he was not a party in the suit filed by
his father vide O.S.No.111 of 1985 and he does not know against whom his
father filed a civil suit O.S.No.111 of 1985.
23. It is in the evidence of plaintiff that after filing of suit against him and
others vide O.S.No.111 of 1985 in respect of the suit property for injunction, at
the intervention of elders, a compromise has taken place and in pursuance of
the said compromise, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 executed a registered
relinquishment deed by relinquishing their rights in the schedule property and
their father assured that he will give property to all the children by way of Will
and consequently the alleged Will dated 08.10.1985 was executed by his
father bequeathing item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to plaintiff and
item No.1 to 2nd defendant and item No.3 was given to defendants 3 to 7. The
plaintiff further pleaded that subsequently, the said Will was cancelled and he
further contend that by way of misrepresentation and fraud, his father obtained
a registered relinquishment deed. The execution of registered relinquishment
deed under original of Ex.A.1 dated 19.09.1985 is undisputed by the plaintiff
and defendants 2 to 7. The plaintiff approached the civil Court for seeking the
relief of partition of plaint schedule property by setting aside the registered
2025:APHC:44397
relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff along with his
brother and sisters dated 19.09.1985. Moreover, the own brother and own
sisters of the plaintiff i.e. defendants 2 to 7 are not even supporting the case of
the plaintiff. It is not their specific case that their father obtained a registered
relinquishment deed by way of fraudulently and misrepresentation. Therefore,
it is for the plaintiff to prove that in pursuance of the compromise of
O.S.No.111 of 1985 which was filed by the 1st defendant, he executed a
registered relinquishment deed in favour of the 1st defendant along with
defendants 2 to 7. The initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that original of
Ex.A.1 i.e. Ex.B.7 registered relinquishment deed was obtained by the 1st
defendant from himself and defendants 2 to 7 by way of misrepresentation
and fraudulently.
24. To discharge his burden, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of
P.Ws.2 to 5. P.W.2 is a Senior Assistant in Sub-Registrar Office, Punganur.
P.W.3 is one B.Ramesh Babu, who is a resident of Punganur. As per the
evidence of P.W.3, a Panchayat was taken place in the house of Ex-Village
Munsif, in respect of property of 1st defendant. In the said Panchayat, the
elders allotted the house property to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant agreed that
he will execute a Will deed after execution of the relinquishment deed by the
plaintiff and his daughters and son and in pursuance of the same, the
relinquishment deed was executed and at the time of execution of Ex.A.1, the
1
st defendant did not pay any amount to his children. But in his evidence in
cross-examination, he admits that he is none other than the husband of 6th
defendant. Admittedly, the 6th defendant is remained set ex parte. In crossexamination, he admits that he separated from his family after marrying 6th
defendant and he does not know the details and financial status of the plaintiff
and sisters-in-law. He further admits that Ex.A.1 shows the 1st defendant paid
Rs.40,000/- consideration to the executants and he know the 1st defendant
since his age of discretion and in his childhood itself, the 1st defendant was a
famous Doctor in Punganur town. He further admits that as per Ex.A.1, the
2025:APHC:44397
plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 have no right in the properties of the 1st
defendant. As seen from the evidence of P.W.3, though he stated in his
evidence in chief examination that nothing was paid by the 1st defendant, but
he admits Ex.A.1 document itself reveals that the 1st defendant paid
Rs.40,000/- consideration to the executants of the document and as per
Ex.A.1, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 have no rights in the properties of
the 1st defendant. As per the evidence of P.W.5, one Rajendra is another
attestor to the alleged relinquishment deed. But the said Rajendra is not
examined by the plaintiff.
25. P.W.4 deposed in his evidence that he went to Village Munsif for
obtaining certification of his son and he noticed there was a conversation with
regard to the properties of 1st defendant and the daughters and son of 1st
defendant executed an agreement in favour of Ranga Reddy Ex-Village
Munsif. His evidence is not even supporting the case of the plaintiff. The
names of P.Ws.3 and 4 are not even referred in the plaint. In the plaint, there
is no whisper that P.Ws.3 and 4 are acted as elders in the mediation. There is
no whisper in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 that in pursuance of the
compromise, the suit filed by the 1st defendant vide O.S.No.111 of 1985 was
not-pressed by the 1st defendant and in pursuance of the said settlement, the
plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 executed a registered relinquishment deed in
favour of the 1st defendant. No evidence is produced by the plaintiff to show
that original of Ex.A.1 i.e. equivalent to Ex.B.7 is obtained by way of
fraudulently and undue influence. The other executants of the document
Ex.A.1 i.e. own brother and sisters of the plaintiff are not even supporting that
the registered relinquishment deed is obtained by their father by playing fraud
and undue influence. Ex.A.1 relinquishment deed is undisputed by both the
parties. There is no whisper in the registered relinquishment deed that in
pursuance of the mediation held by the elders, the 1st defendant agreed to
give the properties by executing a Will subsequent to the execution of the
relinquishment deed by the plaintiff, his brother and sisters.
2025:APHC:44397
26. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the suit for permanent injunction
was filed by the plaintiff against him and others and in pursuance of the said
suit, a compromise was taken place. But as per the own admissions of the
plaintiff, the said suit is not filed against him and he is not even a party to the
said suit. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff himself admitted that a suit in
O.S.No.111 of 1985 is not filed against him. The certified copy of the
relinquishment deed is filed and marked as Ex.A.1. As seen from the recitals
of the registered relinquishment deed, there is no mention in Ex.A.1 about
filing of suit by the 1st defendant for permanent injunction and also in view of
the alleged compromise, the relinquishment deed was executed by the plaintiff
and defendants 2 to 7. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence in chief
examination itself that himself and defendants 2 to 7 executed a registered
relinquishment deed dated 19.09.1985 in favour of their father / 1st defendant.
He further admits, he executed Ex.A.1 registered relinquishment deed under
original of Ex.A.1, himself and defendants 2 to 7 relinquished their rights in the
plaint schedule property. He further admits under Ex.A.1, the plaintiff and
defendants 2 to 7 relinquished their rights in the properties of 1st defendant,
therefore, these properties are absolute properties of the 1st defendant. The
recitals of relinquishment deed goes to show that it was registered before the
Sub-Registrar and the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 relinquished their rights
in the plaint schedule joint family property by receiving amount of Rs.40,000/-
from the 1st defendant. The same is admitted by the 2nd defendant. But the
plaintiff denied about receipt of amount of Rs.40,000/- from the 1st defendant.
But P.W.3, one of the attestor of relinquishment deed, admits that as per
Ex.A.1, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 have no right in the property of 1st
defendant.
27. It is in the evidence of D.W.1 that when P.W.1 raised a dispute with
regard to the suit properties, he paid Rs.40,000/- in consideration of the
registered relinquishment deed said to have been executed by his sons and
daughters to avoid future litigation. He deposed that his sons and daughters
2025:APHC:44397
have no right and share in item Nos.1 to 3 of the schedule property and he is
no way concerned with item No.4 of the schedule property. The 2nd defendant
/ D.W.2, who is own brother of the plaintiff, deposed in his evidence that in the
year 1985, the plaintiff quarreled with the 1st defendant with regard to the
property. He along with the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 7 executed a
registered relinquishment deed in favour of the 1st defendant dated
19.09.1985 by receiving consideration of Rs.40,000/- and Ex.B.7 is the said
registered relinquishment deed. He further deposed under Ex.B.7, they
relinquished their rights with an understanding that the 1st defendant is at
liberty to enjoy the property as he likes. He further deposed that even prior to
Ex.B.7, they have no right and share in the property since the said properties
are self acquired properties of 1st defendant.
28. The execution of registered relinquishment deed is undisputed by
the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7. The plaintiff himself specifically admits that
he along with defendants 2 to 7 executed a registered relinquishment deed
dated 19.09.1985 in favour of the 1st defendant. The recitals of Ex.A.1 goes to
show that after receipt of Rs.40,000/- amount from the 1st defendant, the
plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 relinquished their rights in the joint family
property by giving absolute rights to 1st defendant to deal with the suit
properties. The execution of original of Ex.A.1 registered relinquishment deed
is undisputed by either the plaintiff or the defendants 2 to 7. Furthermore, the
own brother of the plaintiff i.e. the 2nd defendant supported the recitals of
Ex.A.1 relinquishment deed. The recitals in registered relinquishment deed is
undisputed by the defendants 2 to 7, who are the executants to the
relinquishment deed.
29. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in Ex.A.1
itself, it was recited the schedule properties are the joint family properties. As
seen from the registered relinquishment deed, the plaintiff, his brother and all
sisters relinquished their share in the plaint schedule property. Now, the
plaintiff cannot seek partition of the plaint schedule property against him father
2025:APHC:44397
and it is the absolute property of his father. On the other hand, the plaintiff
failed to prove that with the sale proceeds received by his mother by way of
sale of property, which was got from her parents, they purchased item Nos.1
to 3 of plaint A-schedule properties. The defendants 2 to 7 are own brother
and sisters of the plaintiff. Neither the brother of the plaintiff nor the sisters of
the plaintiff i.e. defendants 2 to 7 supports the plaintiff that the suit properties
are purchased with the sale proceeds of the property inherited from the
parents of their mother. The plaintiff did not even choose to examine the
parents of her mother or any relative of his mother to prove the same.
30. The original of Ex.A.1 registered relinquishment deed i.e. equivalent
to Ex.B.7 registered relinquishment deed is undisputed by both the parties.
As per the own case of the plaintiff, he executed a registered relinquishment
deed along with his brother and sisters. The recitals in Ex.A.1 goes to show
that after receipt of Rs.40,000/- amount from the 1st defendant, the plaintiff
and defendants 2 to 7 have relinquished their rights in the schedule
properties. There is no dispute about execution of Ex.A.1 by the plaintiff and
defendants 2 to 7. The 2nd defendant, who is none other than the own brother
of the plaintiff pleaded in his written statement and also in the evidence that
they received Rs.40,000/- amount and relinquished their rights in the schedule
property. The defendants 2 to 7 are not even supporting the plaintiff. The
plaintiff did not choose to summon the defendants 3, 5 and 6 to prove his
case, who remained set ex parte and he failed to prove that the contents in
Ex.A.1 are incorrect. It is admitted case of both the parties that the registered
relinquishment deed is executed by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 by
relinquishing their rights in the plaint schedule property. As on the date of
filing of the suit, the registered relinquishment deed is in force. Unless the
said registered relinquishment deed is set aside, the plaintiff is not entitled to
file a suit for partition. The primary relief sought by the plaintiff in the present
suit is for partition of the suit schedule property. Unless the plaintiff proved the
alleged fraud and misrepresentation played by the 1st defendant in obtaining
2025:APHC:44397
the registered relinquishment deed, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain a
suit for partition of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff is not
entitled the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff
herein filed the suit for partition of the schedule properties against his father,
his brother and sisters. As long as the registered relinquishment deed is holds
good, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule
property.
31. As stated supra, the plaintiff failed to prove that the Ex.A.1 original
registered relinquishment deed is obtained by his father by way of fraudulently
and misrepresentation. As noticed supra, the plaintiff is not even entitled the
relief of cancellation of registered relinquishment deed. Unless the registered
relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff and
defendants 2 to 7 is cancelled, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition of item
Nos.1 to 3 of the schedule properties.
32. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant, who
executed a Will dated 08.10.1985 was subsequently cancelled by executing a
registered cancellation deed dated 20.07.1998 and also intimated the same
under Ex.A.2 legal notice. As seen from the recitals of the Will deed dated
08.10.1985, the testator / 1st defendant reserved his right during his lifetime to
cancel the Will or to revoke the Will. P.W.2 is a Senior Assistant in SubRegistrar Office. As per his evidence, the 1st defendant cancelled the Will
dated 08.10.1985 executed by him in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 2
to 7. Ex.X.1 is the registered cancellation deed, which was said to have been
executed on 27.02.1988. During the lifetime of the testator, the testator is
having every right to cancel or revoke the earlier Will. The registered Will
dated 08.10.1985 is executed by the 1st defendant during his lifetime by
reserving his rights to revoke or cancel the said Will. For the aforesaid
reasons, it is evident that the Will deed dated 08.10.1985 is subsequently
cancelled by the 1st defendant by way of executing a registered cancellation
deed dated 27.02.1988 and the same is also intimated to the plaintiff by way
2025:APHC:44397
of legal notice under Ex.A.2. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court held that
the plaintiff relinquished his rights in the plaint schedule property by executing
a registered relinquishment deed and the plaintiff also failed to prove the said
registered relinquishment deed is obtained by the 1st defendant by playing
fraud and misrepresentation. Unless and until the said registered
relinquishment deed is cancelled, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition of the
schedule properties. Furthermore, the existence of B-schedule movable
properties are not proved by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled
for partition of the schedule properties and Ex.A.1 original registered
relinquishment deed is valid and the same is not liable to be cancelled and the
plaintiff is also not entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties.
Accordingly, point No.2 is answered against the appellant / plaintiff.
33. Point No.3:
Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit?
In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court is justified in
dismissing the suit. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings
given by the learned trial Judge in its judgment.
34. Resultantly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. Each party do bear their
own costs in the appeal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall
stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J
To,
1. K DAMODARAN, S/O KRISHNA DOCTOR R/O 45/27,
MADANAPALLE RAOD PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST.
2025:APHC:44397
2. K SURENDRA, S/O DAMODARAN II-65, PATTAMBI ROAD
KUNNAMKULAM, TALLAPULLI TQ., TIRCHUR DIST.,
3. K SANTHA, W/O T. DIWAKARAN CASHEIR STATE BANK OF INDIA
PUNGANUR CHITOOR DIST.
4. K SARALA, D/O DAMODARAN R/O 45/27, MADANAPALLE RAOD
PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST.
5. K RADHA, W/O KRISHNA R/O C/O T. DIWAKAR STATE BANK OF
INDIA PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST.
6. K RAMANI DIED AS PER LRS 9 TO 11, W/O RAMESH BABU
ADVOCATE NAGAPALEM PUNGANUR CHITTOOR DIST.
7. K VANITHA, W/O K. RAJENDRA KUMAR R/O CHENDRA REDDY
STREET PUNGANUR CHITTOOR DIST.
8. GNANAVATHAMMA, KEPT MISTRESS OF K. DAMODARAN D.NO.
27-131-A-1 UBEDULLAH COMPUND NEAR YETIGADDAPALEM
PUNGANUR
9. B RAMESH BABU, S/O B.VASUDEVAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL STREET,
PUNGANUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
10. BOJONNALA SUNDEEP, S/O B. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCC PVT EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL
STREET, PUNGANUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
11. B NAVEEN, S/O B. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC
STUDENT, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL STREET, PUNGANUR
TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. AS PER COURT ORDER DATED
05.07.2023 IA NO 1 OF 2021 IN A.S.NO. 27 OF 2007 IMPLEADED
THE RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF
DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.6
12. K VASANTHY, W/O LATE K. SURENDER, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O 27-82/2, POLICE LANE, MBT ROAD-PONGNUR, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517247. RESPONDENT NO
12 IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED
RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 IN
I.A.NO. 3 OF 2025 IN A.S.NO.27 OF 2007.
2025:APHC:44397
13. Two CD Copies
2025:APHC:44397
HIGH COURT
VGKRJ
DATED:23/10/2025
ORDER
AS 27/2007
2025:APHC:44397
