Ganta Papa, vs P. Prakasam,
2024 Latest Caselaw 6867 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Ganta Papa, vs P. Prakasam, on 8 August, 2024

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

             THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                              PRESENT
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                   APPEAL SUIT No.4526 OF 2004


Between:

Ganta Papa, W/o.Ramachandra Rao,
R/o.Jagannadhapuram, K.D.M.C.,
West Godavari District.                                ...    Appellant

                                 AND

1. Padru Prakasam, S/o.Swamy, R/o.Jagannadhapuram,
   K.D.M.C., West Godavari District. (DIED)

2. Padru Abbulu, S/o.Prakasam, R/o.Vadalakunta,
   K.D.M.C., West Godavari District.

3. Kandrakota Venkataratnam, R/o.Vadalakunta,
   K.D.M.C., West Godavari District.
                                                      ... Respondents


Counsel for the appellant:

Sri Ch.Dhanunjay appearing on behalf of Sri Venkat Challa

Counsel for the respondents

Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri


The Court made the following:
                                     2                                  VGKRJ
                                                              AS.No.4526 of 2004



JUDGMENT:

-

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 30.10.2004, in O.S. No.88 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute title holder of the suit schedule property and to grant consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property by force or from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.88 of 1996, are as under:

The plaint schedule properties along with other properties were acquired by plaintiff's mother late Nagaratnam under a registered partition deed dated 25.09.1947 and registered settlement deed dated 07.03.1950. The said Nagaratnam executed a will dated 02.11.1958 bequeathing all her properties in favour of the plaintiff, who was then a minor. The said will was executed by her in a sound and disposing state of mind and it was attested according to law and it was the last testament of Nagaratnam, who died on 05.11.1958. The plaintiff being the sole legatee under the said will has taken possession of all the properties of her 3 VGKRJ

mother Nagaratnam represented by her father as a guardian, who is the first defendant herein. The plaintiff sold away some of the properties bequeathed to her. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant and the defendants 1 and 2 partitioned their properties under a registered partition deed dated 06.11.1984, later the defendants 1 and 2 fabricated a registered partition deed dated 25.11.1994 as if item No.1 of the plaint schedule property with an extent of Ac.22.37 cents fell to the share of second defendant and Ac.2.32 cents out of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property fell to the share of first defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement by admitting the execution of will dated 02.11.1958 by his wife Nagaratnam and that it was her last testament executed by her in a sound and disposing state of mind with due attestation according to law and after the death of Nagaratnam, the plaintiff being the sole legatee took possession of all the properties of Nagaratnam and he pleaded that the second defendant misrepresenting to him, got signed on stamped papers by stating that he is rectifying some mistakes in the partition deed dated 06.11.1984. Thus, the contents of document dated 25.11.1994 are not read over and explained to him.

6. The second defendant filed a written statement denying the contents of the plaint and further contended as under:

The second defendant's mother Nagaratnam never executed any will in any time much less on 02.11.1958 and the alleged will is a rank forgery, concocted and brought into existence. According to the second defendant, Nagaratnam died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 as her legal heirs. After the plaintiff's marriage, her 4 VGKRJ

husband Ganta Ramachandrarao lived in the house of first defendant at Vadalakunta and thereafter he has also shifted his residence along with first defendant, the plaintiff and the second defendant to Jagannadhapuram. The first defendant was managing the properties left by Nagaratnam on behalf of plaintiff and the second defendant also.

When some of the properties originally belonged to Nagaratnam was sold, the first defendant being the manager of the family, on behalf of the plaintiff and the second defendant sold the same but not as the agent of the plaintiff. Later the plaintiff's husband insisted for division of item Nos.1 and 2 of the property, then an extent of Ac.11.00 cents towards 1/3 rd in item No.1 was given to the plaintiff, similarly 1/3rd in item No.2 towards Northern side was given to the share of plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 retained the remaining property. During the year 1994 when the first defendant became ill, he requested to have a partition in respect of the remaining joint properties, thus the registered partition deed dated 25.11.1994 was executed.

7. The third defendant remained exparte in the trial Court itself. The first defendant died during the pendency of the suit.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her title to the plaint schedule property, and for permanent injunction sought for?

(ii) Whether the will dated 02.11.1958 is true, valid and binding on defendants?

     (iii)      To what relief?
                                            5                                  VGKRJ




Additional Issues:

      (i)       Whether the registered partition deed dated 25.11.1994
                is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

      (ii)      Whether the plaintiff has perfected her title by plaint
                schedule property by her adverse possession?

9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A27 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 to DW4 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 were marked.

10. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court partly decreed the suit vide its judgment, dated 30.10.2004, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

11. Heard Sri Ch.Dhanunjay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluru, learned counsel for the respondents.

12. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the trial Court ought to have seen that PW2 is aged about more than 80 years, who has admittedly no enimity with DW1 and his evidence being the attestor of the Ex.A3 ought to have accepted in Toto without giving any credence to the minor discrepancies. He would further contend that the trial Court went in wrong in disbelieving Ex.A3 on the flimsy grounds that the scribing of the document differs with the signature of the scribe and that the paper used in Ex.A3 is a latest one. He would further contend that the trial Court 6 VGKRJ

ought to have believed Ex.A3 will is true and genuine, considering the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW7 and he would further contend that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.

13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents would contend that on appreciation of entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit in part and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge. He would further contend that the appeal may be dismissed.

14. The plaintiff before the trial Court sought the relief of declaration of title in the entire plaint schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property, but after completion of trial, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit in part in favour of the plaintiff declaring her title to the undivided half share in the plaint schedule property. Aggrieved against the said decree and judgment, the plaintiff filed the instant appeal, the defendants did not prefer any cross objections against the said decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

15. Now in deciding the present appeal, the points that arise for determination are as follows:

(i) Whether the will dated 02.11.1958 is proved in accordance with law?

(ii) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled the relief of declaration of title as prayed in the plaint?

7 VGKRJ

(iii) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled the consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint?

16. Point No.1:

Whether the will dated 02.11.1958 is proved in accordance with law?

The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the plaint schedule properties along with other properties were acquired by her mother late Nagaratnam under a registered partition deed dated 25.09.1947 and a registered settlement deed dated 07.03.1950. She would further contend that the said Nagaratnam executed a will dated 02.11.1958 bequeathing all her properties in favour of appellant/plaintiff, who was then a minor and it was a last testament of Nagaratnam who died on 05.11.1958. She would further contend that after the death of testatrix Nagaratnam, rights in the entire properties under the said will be transferred to the plaintiff herein.

17. The second defendant filed a written statement with a specific plea that his mother Nagaratnam never executed any will at any point of time, much less on 02.11.1958 and the alleged will dated 02.11.1958 is a rank forgery and concocted, brought up into the existence by the plaintiff. He would further contend that Nagaratnam died suddenly at the age of 25 years and she never executed any will and there was no scope for the execution of the will on 02.11.1958 i.e., 3 days prior to her death since Nagaratnam was at Vadalakunta only.

8 VGKRJ

18. The respondents herein disputing the alleged will dated 02.11.1958, therefore, the heavy burden lies on the profounder of the alleged will dated 02.11.1958. Before I consider the facts of this case, it is well to set out the principles which govern the proving of a will. This was considered by the Apex Court in H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N.Thimmajamma 1. It was observed by Apex Court in that case that the made of proving a will did not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will as per Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. Admittedly, the alleged disputed will is unregistered will dated 02.11.1958. It is not in dispute by both sides that the testatrix died on 05.11.1958 i.e., within 3 days of the alleged will. No doubt, the will is not a compulsory registerable document.

19. The law is well settled that even though the will is a registered will, no importance will be given to the registered will and it cannot be treated as a genuine will unless it is proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1956. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:

"68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested-

If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of

AIR 1959 SC 443 9 VGKRJ

the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specially denied."

It is evident that in cases where the document sought to be proved is required by law to be attested, the same cannot let be in evidence unless at least one of the attesting witnesses has been called for the purpose of proving the attestation if any such attesting witness is alive and capable of giving evidence and is subject to the process of the Court. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act deals with execution of unprivileged Wills and, inter alia, provides that every Testator except those mentioned in the said provision shall execute his Will according to the rules stipulated therein. It reads:

"63. Execution of unprivileged wills.- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:

(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.

(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.

(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary."

10 VGKRJ

Among the witnesses examined, PW1 is no other than the husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not enter into the witness box. It is not the case of the plaintiff that she is bed ridden, her husband gave evidence before the Court below as PW1 on 16.07.2004, as per his own admissions on 13.07.2004 the plaintiff was brought to the Court. It is not the case of the plaintiff that she is suffering from severe ailments. The suit is instituted in the year 1996, as on today, the plaintiff is alive. As per the evidence of PW1, she has no personal knowledge about the will, in fact, the case of the appellant is that she is a minor by the date of alleged will and PW1 is also very young and her marriage is not performed with PW1.

20. It is a well settled principle that in every case, the burden lies on the profounder of the will and it is the duty of the profounder of the will, she has to satisfy the conscious of the Court that the instrument as propounded is the last will. In order to discharge her burden, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of PW2. PW2 is the second attestor in the alleged Ex.A3 unregistered will. PW2 in his affidavit in liew of his chief examination stated that Ex.A3 will was scribed by Ch.Satyanarayana, along with him one G.Satyanarayana Murthy signed as an attestor on Ex.A3 and the testatrix narrated the contents of the will to the scribe and on her directions the scribe has prepared and scribed the will and read over the contents therein to testatrix in the presence of himself and others and Nagaratnam admitted the said contents are true and put her thumb impression on the first page and last page of the will. In his evidence in cross examination, he admits that he does not remember the date, month and year of Ex.A3 will and he cannot say the details of alleged scribe and he does not remember the age of the alleged scribe at the time of drafting the alleged Ex.A3 will. He further admits that he does not know the 11 VGKRJ

father's name or village particulars of the alleged scribe of Ex.A3, Nagaratnam was residing at Vadalakunta itself and he cannot say specifically in which year Nagaratnam died. He further admits that he does not remember whether the parents of Nagaratnam were alive or not by the date of alleged Ex.A3. The undisputed fact by both sides is that her mother was died and father was alive by the date of alleged Ex.A3. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the alleged will is executed at the house of father of the testatrix. He further admits that he does not remember now many children were born to Nagaratnam by the date of alleged Ex.A3. He further admits that the other attestor and himself signed on Ex.A3 will with the pen provided by the scribe and Ex.A3 was drafted on a white paper but not on a stamp paper. As seen from original will Ex.A3, it goes to show that the signature of first attestor Satyanarayana Murthy is with a different ink and it appears to be done with ball pen and the other signatures and the contents of Ex.A3 are appears to be written with ink pen. Another important circumstance to disbelieve Ex.A3 is that as per the evidence of PW2, Ex.A3 was drafted on a white paper, but on physical verification, it is noticed that the alleged Ex.A3 was drafted on a conquest paper. On considering the admissions of PW2, in his evidence in cross examination, his evidence is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and his evidence is not a trustworthy.

21. Admittedly, the alleged Ex.A3 will is an unregistered will dated 02.11.1958. The another attestor was not examined by the plaintiff. As per the case of the plaintiff, the other attestor i.e., first attestor was died and the son of the first attestor is examined as PW7. He simply identified the signature of his father on Ex.A3 will, therefore, his evidence is no way 12 VGKRJ

helpful to prove the genuineness of the will because he is not having any personal knowledge about Ex.A3 will.

22. Admittedly, the alleged Ex.A3 is unregistered will dated 02.11.1958 and the testatrix died on 05.11.1958 within 3 days of the alleged will. As on the date of alleged will the testatrix is aged about 35 years. Admittedly, she had no serious ailments on the date of alleged will, except bald statement in Ex.A3 alleged will that she has been suffering from sickness. As seen from Ex.B3 death certificate of late Nagaratnam, she died on 05.11.1958 due to fever, Nagaratnam was resident of Vadalakunta and she died at Vadalakunta. As seen from the evidence of PW2, Ex.A3 was prepared at the house of father of late Nagaratnam at Jagannadhapuram village and he was called by the first defendant to attest the alleged will and Ex.A3 will was prepared at the house of father of late Nagaratnam at Jagannadhapuram village. In Ex.A3, the testatrix stated with the consent of her husband she is executing the will, in such a case what is the necessity to the testatrix to go to her parents house instead of at her husband's house to execute the alleged Ex.A3 will. As noticed supra, Ex.B3 goes to show that the cause of death of Nagaratnam was due to fever and she was aged about 35 years. There is no evidence on record that late Nagaratnam was suffering from prolonged illness as on the date of alleged will. The appellant also failed to produce any evidence regarding the custody of Ex.A3 right from the year 1958 till the date of production of the alleged will before the Court below. Furthermore, the testatrix died on 05.11.1958, within 3 days of the execution of the alleged will, then what prevented the plaintiff to produce Ex.A3 alleged will before any revenue office for mutation of her name in the revenue records. Admittedly, the name of the plaintiff is not mutated in the revenue records till so far though the testatrix died on 05.11.1958. It is also one of the 13 VGKRJ

strong suspicious circumstances to doubt the genuineness of the alleged will.

23. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled by the Apex Court in a case of Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others 2. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held as follows:

"It is trite law that execution of will must be held to have been proved not only when the statutory requirements for proving the will or satisfied but the will is also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances when such evidences are brought on record, the Court may take aid of the presumpting evidences also".

As noticed supra, in every case, the burden lies on the profounder of the will and it is the duty of the profounder of the will, she has to satisfy the conscious of the Court that the instrument as propounded is the last will of a free and capable testator meaning thereby obviously that the testator at the time when she subscribe her signature on a will in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory and ordinarily, however, the onus is discharged as regards to due execution of the will, if the profounder leads evidence to show that the will bears the signature and marks of the testator and the will was duly attested. The mandatory requirement to comply the execution of will is lacking in the case on hand.

24. Another strong suspicious circumstance to doubt the genuineness of the alleged Ex.A3 will is some of the properties covered under the alleged Ex.A3 will were sold away by the plaintiff along with her father. Admittedly, the alleged Ex.A3 will is not at all referred in those documents.

2 (2008)15 SCC 365 14 VGKRJ

The respondent produced Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 sale deed transactions entered by the plaintiff and first defendant. In the transactions covered under Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 dated 26.05.1988, the will is not at all referred. It is also one of the strong suspicious circumstances to doubt the genuineness of the will. Furthermore, the testatrix died in the year 1958, the plaintiff instituted the present suit in the year 1996 i.e., after lapse of 38 years of the death of the testatrix. Admittedly, she did not produce the alleged will in any public office. For the first time, she has produced the said alleged will at the time of institution of the suit in the year 1996. The plaintiff has to explain what prevented her to mutate her name in the revenue records during the afore said 38 years. As stated supra, Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 are the transactions under registered sale deeds dated 26.05.1988 executed by the plaintiff and her father. Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 properties are some of the properties covered under the alleged will. If really, any will is executed by the mother of the plaintiff on 02.11.1958, it should have mentioned in Ex.B8 an Ex.B9, there is no need to sign on the registered documents of 26.05.1988 by the father of the plaintiff. In Ex.B8 and Ex.B9, there is no reference of alleged will. Those are all strong suspicious circumstances to doubt the genuineness of the alleged will.

25. In the case on hand, the scribe is not at all examined by the plaintiff. Though the second attestor is examined as PW2 to prove the alleged will, his evidence is not inspiring confidence about the alleged execution of the will. PW1 or PW2 or PW7 failed to furnish the full details of the alleged scribe. As noticed supra, the testatrix died a way back in the year 1958. If really, the testatrix executed any will in the year 1958 in favour of the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff will be mutated in the revenue records, but for the reasons best known to the appellant/plaintiff, no steps have 15 VGKRJ

been taken for mutation of her name in the revenue records. The appellant relied on Ex.A4 to Ex.A11 bunch of land revenue receipts, but most of the land revenue receipts are in the name of first defendant. It is also settled that mere payment of land revenue does not confer any right in favour of plaintiff in the plaint schedule property, more over, the testatrix is not a signatory. admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove the genuineness of the thumb mark of the testatrix, those are all the strong suspicious circumstances to doubt the genuineness of the will which supports the contention of the defendant No.2 that Ex.A3 is not a genuine will.

26. As stated supra, there are several suspicious circumstances to doubt the genuineness of the will, but the profounder of the will was unable to dispel the suspicious circumstances. As stated supra, there are several suspicious circumstances surrounded the execution and attestation of the will, moreover, the profounder who instituted the suit failed to enter into the witness box. It is not the case of the plaintiff that she is suffering from serious ailments, the profounder failed to dispel all the suspicious circumstances as referred above. The Court would expect that all the legitimate suspicious circumstances should be completely removed before the document was accepted as the last will of the testator. But the plaintiff failed to remove all the suspicious circumstances as referred above to prove the alleged Ex.A3 will. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the alleged will is not proved in accordance with law, accordingly, the point No.1 is answered against the appellant.

16 VGKRJ

27. Point Nos.2 and 3:

Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled the relief of declaration of title as prayed in the plaint?

Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled the consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint?

The appellant/plaintiff in the suit is claiming relief of declaration of title in the plaint schedule property. It is well settled that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weaknesses, if any, of the case setup by the defendant would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. Even if the title setup by the defendants is found against them, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff's own title, the plaintiff must be non suited.

28. In the case on hand, the claim of the plaintiff is that by virtue of Ex.A3 alleged will, she is having right and title in the plaint schedule property. It was held in point No.1, as noticed supra, that the Ex.A3 will is not at all proved by the plaintiff in accordance with law. It is an admitted fact by the appellant that except the alleged will there is no other document to the plaintiff to prove her title in the plaint schedule property. As stated supra, the alleged Ex.A3 will is not at all proved by the profounder in accordance with law. Admittedly, there is no other evidence 17 VGKRJ

on record to show that the appellant/plaintiff is having valid title in the total plaint schedule property. The appellant/plaintiff relied on Ex.A4 to Ex.A11 bunch of land revenue receipts. Most of the land revenue receipts are in the name of her father. It is also settled that mere payment of land revenue does not create any right in the plaint schedule property. In view of the above reasons, undoubtedly the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled the main relief of declaration of title in the total plaint schedule property. Since the plaintiff is not entitled the main relief of declaration of title, questioning of granting consequential relief of permanent injunction does not arise. By giving cogent reasons, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is having title in the half of the plaint schedule property, since plaintiff and second defendant are only surviving members of the family of first defendant and late Nagaratnam. The first defendant died during the pendency of the suit, the appellant sought the relief of declaration of title in total plaint schedule property, the learned trial Judge by giving cogent reasons held in its judgment that the plaintiff is entitled the relief of declaration of title to the undivided half share in the plaint schedule property. The same is not at all challenged by the respondents/ defendants. Admittedly, the parents of the plaintiff and second defendant are no more, their mother died a way back in the year 1958, father i.e., first defendant also died during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court, therefore, the plaintiff is having title in the half share in the plaint schedule property and the second defendant is having title in the remaining half share of plaint schedule property.

29. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge, therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge is perfectly sustainable 18 VGKRJ

under law and it requires no interference. Accordingly, the point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

30. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 30.10.2004, in O.S.No.88 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.

_________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 08.08.2024 sj 19 VGKRJ

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT No.4526 OF 2004

Date: 08.08.2024

sj