G.Applanaidu And G.Nookaraju vs K.Venkayammadiedand ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1514 AP

                                                            MVR,J
                                                            A.S.No.1163 of 1999
                                     1


                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA

                           A.S.No.1163 of 1999

JUDGMENT:

This regular appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against the

decree and judgment in O.S.No.108 of 1988 dated 16.03.1999 on the file

of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli.

2. The defendants are the appellants. The first appellant died

during pendency of the suit. The second appellant is the sole legal heir

of the deceased first appellant, who was not married and had no legal

heirs except the second appellant. The second appellant also died

during pendency of this appeal and the appellants 3 to 10 are his legal

heirs.

3. The respondents are the plaintiffs. The first respondent died

during pendency of the suit and her only issue, being the second

respondent, was brought on record in the course of trial.

4. The first respondent instituted the suit informa pauparis under

Order 33 Rule 1 and Order 7 Rule 1 and Section 26 CPC against the

appellants 1 and 2. The relief sought in the suit was for partition of

plaint 'A' schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such

share to her while allotting another share to the appellants 1 and 2. She

also requested to grant relief of possession of item - 1 of plaint 'B'

schedule properties after evicting both these appellants there from and

to grant a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with

her peaceful possession and enjoyment of item - 2 of plaint 'B' schedule

properties. She also requested for a direction to determine future

mesne profits.

MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

5. The properties set out in the plaint 'A' & 'B' schedules are as under:

'A' Schedule Visakhapatnam District - Anakapalle Sub-D-Rajupalem village-Dry

land bearing Patta No.139 - Survey Nos. and Extents as follows in full

(Pure):

         Sl.No.             Survey No.                         Extent.
          1.                  65/30                         Ac.0.23 cents
          2.                  66/1                          Ac.1.60 cents
          3.                  68/6                          Ac.0.21 cents
          4.                  68/22                         Ac.0.45 cents
          5.                  72/5                          Ac.0.92 cents
          6.                  68/2                          Ac.0.14 cents
                                                    ------------------------------
                                  Total :               Ac.3.55 cents Dry Land
                                                            1.438 hectors
                                                    ------------------------------
                                     'B' Schedule
(1)      Visakhapatnam District - Anakapalle Sub - D - Rajupalem Village -

Patta No.298, S.No.68/17 an extent of Ac.0.38 cents

68/21 an extent of Ac.0.36 cents

---------------------------------

Total extent of Ac.0.74 cents of Dry Land

(2): Visakhapatnam District - Anakapalli Sub-D - Rajupalem village -

a vacant site roughly about Ac.0.3½ cents - (1.46 hectors) in S.No.72

bounded by East: Kasireddy Ramaswamy House, South: Amujuri Ramu,

West: House of Gaipuri Appala Naidu, North: Gollavilli Appalaswamy

house; site situated in Narasingaraopeta village of Rajupalem Panchayat

to the north of National Highway - 5.

6. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and

nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

scan through the case pleaded by these parties in their respective

pleadings.

7. The case of the respondents in the plaint was as under:

(i) Sri Padamatayya is the father of Sri Appala Swamy @ Abbai.

The first respondent was the wife of Sri Appala Swamy @ Abbai. Sri

Padamatayya gave the daughter of his brother Smt.Yerramma in

marriage to Sri Bapanayya. Since Sri Bapanayya and Smt.Yerramma had

no issues, they adopted Sri Suryanarayana. The appellants 1 and 2 are

the sons of Sri Suryanarayana.

(ii) During his lifetime, Sri Padamatayya along with Sri Bapanayya

was cultivating the lands jointly. After his demise, his son Sri Abbai,

began to enjoy these properties along with Sri Bapanayya and after

lifetime of Sri Bapanayya, he and Sri Suryanarayana were together

enjoying these properties as members of an undivided Hindu Joint

Family. Sri Suryanarayana was thus managing plaint 'A' & 'B' schedule

properties and thereafter the first respondent began to enjoy them

along with the appellants 1 and 2 jointly. She used to live in a thatched

house constructed in item - 2 of plaint 'B' schedule properties. Profits

from these properties were being shared during lifetime of Sri

Suryanarayana with the first respondent and thereafter for some time,

the appellants were giving away small portion of it to her.

(iii) It was continued for about six years prior to filing of the suit

and thereafter on account of increase in the value of the lands in view

of construction of steel plant at Gajuwaka, the appellants 1 and 2 tried

to grab the entire properties driving away the first respondent from her

house, which made her to go to Kasim Kota, where she began to stay

with her brother.

MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

(iv) Plaint 'B' schedule properties were acquired by Sri Appala

Swamy, which are also being managed by Sri Suryanarayana during his

lifetime along with other properties in plaint 'A' schedule. They are not

part of the property of the joint family. The thatched house in item - 2

of plaint 'B' schedule was affected on account of lack of maintenance

and consequently got dilapidated. The appellants 1 and 2 began to

threaten the first respondent preventing her from reconstructing the

house in its place.

(v) In the above circumstances, since the first respondent felt

that it was no longer convenient for her to remain joint with the

appellants 1 and 2 and to get the properties managed, she intended to

have partition of these properties mentioned in plaint 'A' schedule and

for possession of plaint 'B' schedule properties.

8. On such basis, the first respondent requested a decree in her

favour.

9. The appellants 1 and 2 resisted the claim of the first respondent

in the plaint denying it in entirety contending in the written statement

as under:

(i) The first respondent was a total stranger to them and that they

did not know either Padamatayya or Sri Appala Swamy or the first

respondent. The properties in plaint schedule were never enjoyed

together by them nor afore stated persons were ever constituted a joint

Hindu family along with them nor lived with them. The properties were

not under the management at any time during lifetime of Sri

Suryanarayana nor there was sharing of the properties with the first

respondent.

MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

(ii) The suit properties absolutely belonged to the family of the

appellants being ancestral in nature. During the lifetime of Sri

Suryanarayana, the first appellant and himself executed a

relinquishment deed dated 01.09.1958 in favour of the second appellant

giving up their right and interest to these properties. The first appellant

also executed a gift settlement deed dated 24.04.1978 of a part of these

properties in favour of Chinathalli, who is the daughter of the second

appellant. Under a registered sale deed dated 08.08.1978, the first

appellant sold away a part of these properties to the second appellant.

Thus, they have been enjoying these properties with absolute right, title

and interest.

(iii) The first respondent was set up by their enemies in the

village to cause loss to them.

10. Upon addition of the second respondent, the appellants also

contended that she did not have any right in the suit properties while

questioning the maintainability of the suit itself.

11. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues

and additional issues for trial:

"1. Whether Suryanarayana the father of the defendants 1 and 2 is the adopted son of Bapanayya and Yerramma?

2. Whether that Yerramma is the daughter of the brother of Padamatayya the father of the husband of plaintiff?

3. Whether the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 ever lived as Hindu Joint Family Members governed by the Principles of Kithakshara School?

4. Whether the Plaint 'A' schedule properties are the joint properties of late Suryanarayana, the father of the defendants and late Abbai alias Appalaswamy, the husband of the plaintiff?

5. Whether 'B' schedule properties are the separate properties of the husband of the plaintiff and were in the management of late Suryanarayana at any time?

MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

6. Whether item No.2 of B schedule ever in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction prayed for?

8. Whether the relinquishment deed dated 01.09.1958 in favour of D2 executed by D1 and his father is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

9. Whether the Gift Settlement Deed, dated 24.04.1978 executed by D1 in favour of G.Chinatalli is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

10. Whether the registered sale deed, dated 08.08.1978 executed by D1 in favour of D2 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

11. Whether the schedule is not correct?

12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of A schedule properties prayed for?

13. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to eject the defendants from item No.1 of 'B' schedule and recover possession of the same?

14. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for ascertainment of future profits?

15. To what relief?

Additional Issue, dt.12.03.1997:

Whether second plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?"

12. At the trial, the second respondent examined herself as P.W.1,

three more witnesses on her behalf being P.W.2 to P.W.4 while relying

on Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 in support of their contentions. The second appellant

examined himself as D.W.1 while relying on the testimony of D.W.2 to

D.W.6 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B17 in support of their contentions.

13. Basing on the material and evidence, learned trial Judge accepted

the contention of the respondents holding that the plaint 'A' schedule

properties were amenable for partition while refusing to accept the case

of the respondents in respect of plaint 'B' schedule properties. Thus, a

preliminary decree was passed directing the division of plaint 'A'

schedule properties into two equal half shares and to allot one such

share to the second respondent. However, in respect of item - 3 of MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

plaint 'A' schedule in Survey No.68/6 the decree was confined to only 12

cents against 21 cents stated in the plaint. It was further directed to

ascertain the mesne profits by means of a separate application at the

instance of the second respondent.

14. It is against this decree and judgment, the appellants preferred

this appeal.

15. Sri Raghupatruni Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for the

appellants and Sri Yogesh, learned counsel for Sri Raghuram, learned

counsel for the respondents addressed arguments in this appeal. It has

to be noted that the respondents did not prefer either cross-objections

or a separate appeal against that portion of the decree and judgment,

whereby a part of relief was denied to them. To that extent, the decree

and judgment of the trial Court, particularly with reference to plaint 'B'

schedule properties, have become final.

16. It is against this backdrop, the following points, which arise for

determination need consideration now.

1. Whether the suit properties are amenable for partition between the respondents and the appellants and if they constituted the properties belonging to an undivided Joint Hindu Family?

2. Whether the learned trial Judge is justified in granting a decree for partition in favour of the respondents and against the appellants?

3. To what relief?

17. POINT No.1: The specific case of the appellants at the trial was

that plaint 'A' schedule properties absolutely belonged to them being

ancestral in nature. They further contended that they never constituted

an undivided joint Hindu family during the lifetime of their father Sri

Suryanarayana or their grandfather Sri Bapanayya along with Sri MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

Padamatayya paternal grandfather of the second respondent or that of

Sri Appala Swamy, her father.

18. In these circumstances, the burden is on the appellants to prove

and establish that the plaint 'A' schedule properties are of such nature

as propounded by them.

19. The second appellant deposed as D.W.1 at the trial setting out

their claim. The appellants relied on Ex.B1 a registration extract of

Relinquishment Deed dated 01.09.1958, whereunder according to them

Sri Suryanarayana and the first appellant relinquished their share in the

properties of their family in favour of the second appellant.

20. Contents of Ex.B1 are that of an extent of Ac.4.00 cts and a house

located within the specified boundaries at Narsingaraopeta.

Narsingaraopeta is about 2 kms., from Rajupalem, where plaint 'A'

schedule properties are situate. It is pertinent to note that Ex.B1 did

not refer to particular survey number to describe Ac.4.00 cts of land

given away there under in favour of the second appellant.

21. It appears, in the trial Court during the course of arguments, it

was contended on behalf of the respondents that this village was an

erstwhile estate covered by Estate Abolition Act, where under pattas

were issued to the deceased first respondent, Sri Kasireddy Venkaiah and

also Sri Suryanarayana, the father of the respondents 1 and 2. However,

no material was placed in the course of trial in support of such

contention. However, learned trial Judge considered this factor in

appreciating Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 to support the contention of the

respondents, which would be considered infra at appropriate stage.

Suffice to say that village was a part of erstwhile estate. No effort was MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

made on behalf of the appellants to connect Ac.4.00 cents of the land

covered by Ex.A1 to plaint 'A' schedule properties.

22. The second appellant as D.W.1 in cross-examination admitted that

by the year 1958 his father Sri Suryanarayana was indebted to Sri Takasi

Apparao and Sri Yellamantri Venkata Narasimham. It was suggested to

him on behalf of the respondents that the original of Ex.B1 was brought

out in order to avoid payment of debts to the creditors by Sri

Suryanarayana and that it is a nominal document.

23. The contention so advanced on behalf of the respondents cannot

be brushed aside nor it is without any basis. One of the reasons in this

context is failure of the appellants to connect this document to plaint

'A' schedule lands by leading appropriate evidence at the trial.

24. It is the further contention of the appellants that the first

appellant executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of

Smt.Chinathalli, who was examined at the trial as D.W.5 (who was by

then married) giving away a part of plaint 'A' schedule properties and it

is also the version of the appellants.

25. Ex.B2 dated 24.04.1978 covers Survey No.68/17 of 12 cents(item-

1 of plaint 'B' schedule), Survey No.65-B of 10 cents (item-1 of plaint 'A'

schedule) and Survey No.66-1 of 15 cents (item-2 of plaint 'A' schedule).

Recitals in Ex.B2 are that these extents are the ancestral properties of

the first appellant and which were allotted to him in the family

partition.

26. It is the deposition of the second appellant as D.W.1 that Ac.4.00

cents given away to him under the original of Ex.B1 constituted entire

family property and that there is no other property to their family

except that extent.

MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

27. In the light of the statements of D.W.1, as rightly observed by

learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment, it is beyond

comprehension, how in the year 1978 when Ex.B2 was executed, the

first appellant had these extents and to claim that they were allotted to

him in the family partition. It is not the plea of the appellants in the

written statement or at the trial including through D.W.1 that there was

a family partition among Sri Suryanarayana and the appellants 1 and 2

during his lifetime. Thus, Ex.B2 itself is a questionable transaction

suffering for want of credibility. When the first appellant never had any

of the family properties to vest with him by the date of Ex.B2, bringing

out this Gift Deed clearly affects the claim of the appellants. It further

affects their version of relinquishment of shares by Sri Suryanarayana

and the first appellant in favour of the second appellant.

28. Another circumstance of significance in this context is the version

of the appellants that the first appellant had executed a sale deed on

08.08.1978 for valuable consideration in favour of the second appellant

selling away Ac.0.15 cents in Sy.No.68-21(item 2 of 'B' schedule) under

Ex.B3. The reasons which affected consideration of Ex.B2 Gift Deed

apply with equal force to the transaction covered by Ex.B3.

29. When the first appellant had no right or interest or title to any of

the items in plaint 'A' schedule properties by the date of Ex.B3 sale

deed, going by the contention of the appellants, it is indeed doubtful,

how this sale transaction was entered into.

30. At the trial, the second appellant come forward with a new

version that the first appellant raised a dispute and therefore, at the

instance of elders, he was made to part Ac.1.00 cents of land in his

favour under an oral understanding. It was never the case of these MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

parties in the written statement and also in examination-in-chief of the

second appellant as D.W.1. He offered this explanation only in cross-

examination of the respondents. It has no foundation of any nature or

kind. Therefore, this explanation has to be rejected on the face of it

being false.

31. Therefore, when effect of Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 are considered in

relation to the transaction covered by Ex.B1, it is manifest that all these

documents were brought into existence or procured in an attempt to

justify their claim to plaint 'A' schedule properties.

32. It is further to be noted that the house claimed by the

respondents in item-2 of the plaint 'B' schedule is described as the

eastern boundary of the house, referred to in Ex.B1. Specific

description of this house as eastern boundary is the house of Sri Appala

Swamy, who is none other than the husband of the first respondent. In

this context, it is further to be noted that the vacant site of such

description in item - 2 of plaint 'B' schedule is not disputed by the

appellants. Their pleadings and evidence established that there is such

vacant site claimed in the plaint described as item - 2 of 'B' schedule.

Ex.B1 re-enforces the stand of the respondents in respect of this item of

the properties. Unfortunately, they did not choose to question the

decree and judgment in this respect as already stated, by cross-

objections or a regular cross appeal. Thus, though the material is

available on record to justify such stand of the respondents in respect of

this item of the properties in plaint 'B' schedule, in view of the scope of

the present appeal, it is not desirable to exercise the power of this

Court under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, in this respect.

MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

33. Nonetheless a consideration of the nature of pleadings and

evidence let-in by the appellants at the trial clearly manifested that it

was only a show put up by them to hang on to these properties and to

hold their possession.

34. It is interesting to note that none of these documents traced the

right, title and interest to the properties from a particular source,

except stating that they are ancestral in nature. The original

preposition of these properties is not at all referred to, in these

documents. The case set up by the appellants in their pleadings and the

trial is silent to explain that these properties were held by Sri

Bapanayya, their grandfather and if he had acquired them from a

particular source. It is further to be noted that the appellants have

been emphatic in claiming that Sri Suryanarayana is the natural son of

Sri Bapanayya and Smt.Yerramma denying the case of the respondents

that he was adopted by them.

35. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously

contended that the respondents failed to place any proof of this

adoption of Sri Suryanarayana and that the evidence let-in by the

respondents particularly through P.W.1 is not at all making out the

relationship pleaded in the plaint or as deposed to by her. Further

contentions are advanced on behalf of the appellants that the testimony

of P.W.1 is reflective of her total ignorance of the ground realities, to

explain away how the properties held by their family and if

Sri Padamatayya, Sri Appala Swamy and the first respondent ever lived

at Narasingaraopeta or Rajupalem. Reference is made to the testimony

of P.W.2, contending that the version of the respondents is that they

lived at Kothuru and that his claim that he was cultivating item-1 of the MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

plaint 'B' schedule properties are not at all established by acceptable

evidence.

36. It is true that the evidence let-in by the respondents has suffered

the deficiencies in proving the relationships among the parties as

pleaded in the plaint. Both the respondents are illiterates. It is also in

the evidence of P.W.1, viz., the second respondent that she has been

living at Eluru after marriage. It is faraway place from the village,

where these properties are located. Few years prior to institution of the

suit as per the evidence on record, the first respondent accompanied the

second respondent to Eluru. Her version in the trial is also making out

that she was occasionally visiting Rajupalem and that she did not have

any acquaintance with any of these villagers nor she could give the

details of the properties held by their family, referring to survey

numbers or identity particulars.

37. Learned trial Judge took into consideration such deficiency in the

evidence let-in by the respondents and also held that the relationship

among these parties is not established satisfactorily.

38. The presumption is in favour of jointness of a Hindu undivided

family. The claim of the respondents should be considered in the

context of the nature of defence offered by the appellants. Reasons are

assigned supra, which clearly pointed out that the whole case set up by

the appellants is on the foundation of falsity. They went to the extent

of bringing out documents right from the year 1958 in the manner stated

above in order to justify their hold, on these properties. Learned trial

Judge rightly took into consideration these circumstances and concluded

that denial of relationship between themselves and the respondents is

nothing but an attempt to support their claim. This inference was drawn MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

by learned trial Judge basing on Ex.A4 an extract of adangal for fasli

1406 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli covering the plaint

schedule lands and also Ex.A1 pattadar pass book issued to the first

respondent.

39. Ex.A4 described different extents in plaint 'A' & 'B' schedules.

The names of Sri Suryanarayana and the first respondent are seen as

pattadars in Column No.12 of Ex.A4. The second appellant and the first

respondent are stated as the persons in enjoyment of these lands in

Column No.13 of Ex.A4. Though it reflected the situation during

pendency of the suit, being a public document issued by a public

authority in the course of discharge of its duties, credence has to be

attached to it. The contention of the appellants that it was fabricated

during the pendency of the suit, as rightly observed by learned trial

Judge in the judgment is without any basis. Having regard to its

authentic nature, a presumption has to be drawn that the situation of

these lands also existed by the date of filing this suit, i.e. way back in

the year 1988, that was prevailing earlier. Presumption of affairs on the

ground to continue backwards is apt to raise, in these circumstances.

The second appellant as D.W.1 offered to produce relevant revenue

records to disprove the nature of Ex.A4. No steps were taken during

trial in that direction.

40. It is further to be noted that Ex.A1 pattadar pass book was issued

to the first respondent. It is also the admission of D.W.1 that pattadar

pass books or book of title deed under ROR Act, are not issued to him in

respect of these plaint schedule lands. In the absence of better material

from the appellants to rebut the evidence so placed by the respondents,

acceptance of Ex.A4 and its contents, is justified. Its contents are

making out that these lands were recorded in the revenue records as MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

belonging to the first respondent and either Sri Suryanarayana or the

second appellant. It is establishing that these extents were, as per the

revenue records in common enjoyment of these parties, proving their

joint possession.

41. This joint possession is the sheet anchor of the findings recorded

by the learned trial Judge. No material is available on record to show

that these properties remain in exclusive possession and enjoyment of

the appellants by the date of filing the suit or earlier or at a later point

of time.

42. Though the contention of the appellants at the trial was that

Ex.A1 was issued during pendency of the suit, when the law in respect

thereof, was enacted during that period as observed by the learned trial

Judge, production of such document by the respondents, is proper.

43. The appellants also relied on Ex.B7 - a pattadar passbook.

However, it did not meet the requirements of law and its entries raised

any amount of suspicion, which did not stand compatible to Ex.A1.

Ex.B8 to Ex.B12 land revenue receipts were also produced at the trial for

the appellants. The respondents also produced Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 land

revenue receipts. When they are considered in the context of entries in

Ex.A4, they do not have impact. These lands covered by patta numbers

139 (plaint 'A' schedule properties) and 298 (plaint 'B' schedule

properties) is an undisputed fact.

44. Therefore, on the material and evidence adduced by the parties,

the inference to draw is that these plaint 'A' schedule properties were

treated as joint properties as contended by the respondents, which were

in joint possession and enjoyment of both these families. Though on

behalf of the respondents, Ex.A6 a registration extract of sale deed, MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

dated 19.07.1919 in favour of Sri Padamatayya and Sri Bapanayya in

respect of Ac.1.00 cents of land was produced at the trial, it is rather

difficult to connect this sale transaction to the lands in dispute in this

case for want of identity particulars therein. However, it is not a

circumstance by itself to reject the version of the respondents.

45. The material on record clearly established that the defence of the

appellants is totally false. When it suffers from serious want of

credibility, it could not have been accepted. From the material placed

by the respondents, the learned trial Judge rightly considered their

claim and directed partition of plaint 'A' schedule properties. If certain

effort was made in the course of trial either of the parties to this matter

or by the learned trial Judge, even the situation with reference to plaint

'B' schedule properties would have been cleared and to favour the

respondents.

46. In a claim for partition, it is not necessary for the trial Court to go

into question of title or extent of the property involved. If material on

record is establishing that the propounder of this right to partition has

interest in such properties, which according to him, are amenable for

partition, to that extent alone the Court is entitled to go into. It is

further to be noted that the defence of the appellants is not that the

respondents should have sought a declaratory relief of this right to

partition against them. A usual contention that 'suit is not

maintainable' will not meet these standards.

47. Therefore, on a careful analysis of the material on record and on

reappraisal, the inference to draw is that learned trial Judge is justified

in granting relief to the respondents in respect of plaint 'A' schedule

properties directing their division. Thus, it has to be held that the plaint MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

'A' schedule properties were available and amenable for partition by the

date of filing the suit and that they shall be divided in terms of the

decree of the trial Court, in between these parties. Hence, the plaint

'A' schedule properties should be divided into two equal half shares.

One such share should be allotted to the appellants and one such similar

share should be allotted to the respondents. Thus, this point is

answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellants.

48. POINT No.2: For the reasons stated in point No.1, division of the

properties as directed by the learned trial Judge by means of

preliminary decree, stands confirmed. Thus, this point is answered.

49. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on points 1 and 2, this appeal

should fail and in the circumstances without costs.

50. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and without costs. The

judgment of the trial Court and preliminary decree thereby issued

directing division of plaint 'A' schedule properties stand confirmed. All

pending petitions, stand closed. Interim orders if any, stand vacated.

___________________ M.VENKATA RAMANA, J Dt: 15.03.2021 Rns MVR,J A.S.No.1163 of 1999

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA

A.S.No.1163 OF 1999

Date: 15.03.2021

Rns