Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Garikapati Bhagavantham ,Krishna vs K.Venkaeshwararo on 20 August, 2025
APHC010097591999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
FIRST APPEAL NO: 2068/1999
Between:
1. GARIKAPATI BHAGAVANTHAM ,KRISHNA, S/O LAKSHMI
NARASIMHA SASTRY, AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. K VENKAESHWARARO, S/O ATHUTA RAMAYYA, R/O 18-C, A.G.
QTRS., YERRAGADDA, HYDERABAD.
2. V SATYANARAYANA, S/O DASARATHARAMAYYA, AYTAGARAM,
NANDIGAMA, D.M.C.
3. V PRASANNA RAGHAVA, S/O RAMASWAMY, PROPERTY
AYTAGARAM, NANDIGAMA, D.M.C.
4. K HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O HANUMAYYA, PROPERTY
AYTAGARAM, NANDIGAMA, D.M.C.
5. K VENKATESHWER SWAMY, S/O APPAYYA, AMBARUPET,
NANDIGAMA, DMC.
6. K LAKSHMI DIED, W/O APPAYYA, AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA,
DMC.
7. S HANUMAYAMMA DIED, W/O BRAHMAYYA, PROPERTY
AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
8. G BHASKARAM, S/O LAKSHMI NARSIMHA SASTRY, PROPERTY
AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
9. G SARASWATHAMMA, W/O LAKSHMI NARSIMHA SASTRY,
PROPERTY AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
10. S LAKSHMINARSAYYA, S/O NAGABHUSHANAM, CULTIVATION
AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
11. T SIVARAMAYYA DIED, S/O VEERAYYA, CULTIVATION
AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
12. RAMIREDDY VENKATESHWER RAO, S/O MADHUSUDHAN RAO,
CULTIVATION ATYVARAM, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
13. M VEERA RAGHAVAYYA, S/O CHANDRAYYA, CULTIVATION
ATYVARAM, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
14. V NARASIMHA RAO, S/O VADADRI, CULTIVATION ATYVARAM,
NANDIGAMA, DMC.
15. G LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SASTRY, S/O LAKSHMI NARASIMHA
BHASKARAN SANKARAM, DIED.
16. K ANNAPIRNA, W/O VENKATESHWER RAO,
17. G SEETHA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O DR. G. RADHAKRISHNA
MURTHY,
18. C ALIVELU MANGATAYARU, W/O HANUMAT SASTRY, H.NO. 5,
SWAMY STREET, T. NAGAR, MADRAS-600017.
19. K BHAVANI, W/O K.S.MURTHY, SALES TAX PRACTITIONER
SANJIVAREDDY NAGAR, HYDERABAD.
20. K BHUDEVI, W/O PARAMATMA, PARITALA, KRISHNA DIST.
21. A AMMANNA, W/O KARUNA SAGAR, PETAMATA, VIJAYAWADA.
22. G ANURADHA, D/O LAKSHMI NARSIMHA SASTRY, AMBARUPET,
NANDIGAMA, DMC.
23. M VEERA RAGHAVAIAH DIED, S/O CHANDRAIAH, ITAVARAM (V),
NANDIGAMA DMC.
24. V ANNAPOORNAMMA, W/O NARSIMHA RAO, HOUSEWIFW
CHATRAI, CHATRAI (M), KRISHNA DIST.
25. K NARASIMHARAO, S/O. LATE K. LAKSHMI, AGE 64 YEARS, R/O.
AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC, NTR DISTRICT, A.P. (L.R.
OF R-6)
26. K VENKATESWARAO SWAMY, S/O. LATE K. LAKSHMI, AGE 55
YEARS, R/O. AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC, NTR DISTRICT,
A.P. (L.R. OF R-6)
27. S BRAHMAIAH, S/O. LATE S. HANUMAYAMMA, AGE 80 YEARS,
R/O. AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC, NTR DISTRICT, A.P.
(L.R. OF R-7)
28. K PADMAVATHI, W/O. BABU, D/O. LATE S. HANUMAYAMMA, AGE
55 YEARS, R/O. AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC, NTR
DISTRICT, A.P. (L.R. OF R-7)
29. T APPA RAO, S/O. THONDEPU SIVA RAMAIAH, AGE 50 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC, NTR
DISTRICT A.P. (L.R. OF R-11)
30. T SRINIVASA RAO SREENU, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC
AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC NTR
DISTRICT, A.P. (L.R. OF R-11)
31. MADDUKURU NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. LATE M. VEERA
RAGHAVAIAH, R/O. AYTHAVARAM VIG., NANDIGAMA MANDAL,
NTR DISTRICT., A.P. NANDIGAMA DMC. RESPONDENT NOS. 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30 AND 31 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF
DECEASED RESPONDENT NO. R6, R7, R11 AND R23 VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 25.01.2024 IN I.A.NO. 1, 2, 4 AND 5 OF
2023 RESPECTIVELY IN A.S.NO. 2068 OF 1999.
...RESPONDENT(S):
appeal against the judgment & decree in OS No.165/85 dt.17-12-98 on
the file of the court of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada
IA NO: 1 OF 1999(CMP 18010 OF 1999
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 65 days in representing the SR No.25243/99 to number
the same
IA NO: 2 OF 1999(CMP 18741 OF 1999
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
asinterim injunction infavour of the 1st respondent to restrain the respondents
from alienating the suit schedule of property nor executing the sale deed in
favour of the respondents 10 to 14, 23 and 24 pending disposal of the above
appeal
IA NO: 1 OF 2003(CMP 19281 OF 2003
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 expedite the hearing of this appeal AS.NO.2068/99 and post the same for
final hearing immediately
IA NO: 2 OF 2003(CMP 19433 OF 2003
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
grant stay of all further proceedings including execution en EP.NO.2/99, ( Old
23/85 ) in OS.296/75,pending on the file of Senior Civil
Judge,Nandigama,Krishna Dt., pending disposal of the main Appeal
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
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
expedite the hearing of this appeal and fix an early date of hearing, and to
pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 grant permission to me to bring the legal representatives of the
deceased respondent 6 Late K. Lakshmi i.e. i) K. Narasimha rao, Age 64 yrs.
(ii) K. Venkateswara Rao (Swamy) Age. 55 yrs, (sons) on record as
respondents No. 25, 26 in the above mentioned Appeal A.S. 2068/1999 for
better adjudication and to avoid future legal complications and for further
proceedings and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2023
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 grant permission to bring the legal representatives of the deceased
respondent-7 late S.Hanumayamma (i). S. Brahmaiah, Age 80 yrs. (Husband),
(ii) K. Padmavathi, W/o. K. Babu, Age 55 yrs. (Daughter) on record as
respondents No. 27 & 28 in the above mentioned appeal A.S. 2068/1999 for
better adjudication and to avoid future legal complications and further
proceedings and pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2023
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 grant permission to bring the legal representative (i) S.
Seetharavamma-wife of the deceased respondent No. 10 late S. Lakshmi
Narasaiah on record as respondents No. 29 in the above mentioned appeal
A.S. 2068/1999 for better adjudication and to avoid future legal complications
and in all further proceedings and pass
IA NO: 4 OF 2023
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
grant permission to bring the legal representatives of the deceased
respondents 11, Thondepu Sivaramayya s/o Veeraiah, i.e. i). T. Apparao, age
50 yrs-son ii).T. Srinivasarao Sreenu age. 48 yrs., on record as respondents
No. 30 to 31 in the above mentioned appeal A.S. 2068/1999 in order to better
adjudication and to avoid future legal complications and further proceedings
and pass
IA NO: 5 OF 2023
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 grant permission to me to bring the legal representative
Mr.maddukuru Narasimha Rao (Son) of the deceased respondents 23-
Maddukuru Veera Raghavaiah on record as respondents No.32 in the above
mentioned Appeal A.S.2068/1999 for better adjudication and to avoid future
legal complications and for further proceedings and pass
IA NO: 6 OF 2023
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 grant permission to bring the Legal representatives of the
deceased respondent 24. Veesam Annapurna W/o V. Narasimha Rao, on
record as respondent No. 33 and 34 in the above mentioned appeal AS No.
2068 of 1999 for better adjudication for avoiding future legal complications in
all further proceedings and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 order for paper publication in any local news paper as substitute
service of summons on respondents 25 to 28 31 in above mentioned appeal
and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. J CH Y NARASIMHAM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K A NARASIMHAM
2. J UGRANARASIMHA
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
–
This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short
„the C.P.C.‟], is filed by the Appellant challenging the decree and judgment,
dated 17.12.1998 in O.S.No.165 of 1985 passed by the I Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Vijayawada [for short „the trial Court‟].
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 24 herein
are the defendants in O.S.No.165 of 1985. During the pendency of the appeal,
the respondents 25 to 31 were brought on record as legal representatives of
deceased respondent Nos.6, 7, 11 and 23.
3. The appellant / plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the decree in
O.S.No.296 of 1975 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Vijayawada, is
not binding on the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the plaint
schedule property, including the property alienated to the defendants 2 to 7 by
the 1st defendant 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.165 of 1985 are as under:
(i) One Garikapati Lakshmi Narasimha Bhaskara Sankaram had a
son by name Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry and a daughter.
Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry had three sons and eight daughters.
The plaintiff is the third and last son of Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry.
One Bhaskaram and Srinivasa Chandrasekhar are the plaintiff‟s
elder brothers of whom Chandrasekhar died in 1984. The
plaintiff‟s paternal grandfather Lakshmi Narasimha Bhaskara
Sankaram and the plaintiff‟s father Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry
were never on amicable terms. The 1st defendant is the son-in-
law of said Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry and the brother-in-law of
the plaintiff. The defendants 2 to 7 are the alienees of the 1st
defendant. The 8th defendant is the eldest brother of the plaintiff
and the 9th defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the legal
heir of the deceased son Chandrasekhar.
(ii) The 1st defendant filed O.S.No.296 of 1975 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge‟s Court, Vijayawada against the plaintiff and
his two brothers alleging that the plaintiff‟s grandfather had
entered into an agreement of sale with 1st defendant on
14.03.1971 for the sale of the plaint schedule property comprising
Ac.29.10 cents for Rs.40,000/-, that the 1st defendant had paid
Rs.20,000/- at the time of agreement and that it was agreed that
the balance of Rs.20,000/- has to be paid by 14.06.1971 and the
plaintiff‟s grandfather had given possession of Ac.29.10 cents at
the time of agreement itself, that the 1st defendant had given back
possession of Ac.29.10 cents to the plaintiff‟s grandfather for
management that the income on Ac.29.10 cents should be set off
against the balances of purchase money, that for three years the
income was Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.4,400/- respectively.
The plaintiff‟s grandfather died on 26.08.1975 after executing a
Will dated 09.12.1964 and getting it registered on 09.12.1964 that
he had bequeathed all his properties to the plaintiff and his two
brothers. The 1st defendant had called upon the plaintiff and his
two brothers to execute a regular sale deed, as they failed to
execute the same, the 1st defendant filed O.S.No.296 of 1975 for
specific performance of contract entered into with the plaintiff‟s
grandfather. Suit summons were served on the 1st defendant in
that suit and he remained ex parte. As the defendants 2 and 3 in
that suit were minors, notices were served on their father as
guardian. He also remained ex parte and the suit was tried and a
decree was passed ex parte on 10.03.1976. After obtaining the
decree in O.S.No.296 of 1975, the 1st defendant alienated
Ac.8.67 cents of land to the defendants 2 to 7. The plaintiff
further pleaded the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.296 of
1975 on 10.03.1976 against the defendants in that suit, including
two minors, was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. As
such, the minor defendants had been put to great loss by the
gross negligence of the guardian i.e. their father.
(iii) The very Will mentions that Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry i.e. the
father of the minors should not act as guardian for the properties
of the minors. The 1st defendant, who is fully aware of the same,
deliberately issued suit summons to Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry,
the father of the guardian and the said Court misled into
appointing said Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry as guardian vide
orders in I.A.No.4668 of 1975 in O.S.No.296 of 1975, dated
03.02.1976. If it was brought to the notice of that Court, that the
testator had forbidden the said Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry to act
as guardian, the said Court, could have appointed a Court
Guardian. Even otherwise, when the guardian remained ex parte,
the said Court should have seen that the minors‟ interests were
safeguarded and proceeded to appoint a Court Guardian.
Because of the gross negligence of the guardian in not contesting
the suit, the minor defendants therein could not prove that the
alleged agreement of sale was a sham and collusive document
and that Rs.20,000/- was paid at the time of agreement, that the
plaintiff‟s grandfather was not accountable for the income on
Ac.8.67 cents, the alleged endorsement of payment by the
plaintiff‟s grandfather was made without any consideration, the 1st
defendant did not pay the balance as agreed upon and that the
whole transaction was myth calculated to defeat the interest of his
son and others.
(iv) The plaintiff in this suit was born on 27.05.1964 and he attained
majority on 27.05.1982. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration
that the decree passed in O.S.No.296 of 1975 on the file of Sub
Court, Vijayawada on 10.03.1976 is not binding on the plaintiff on
the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation of the 1st defendant as
plaintiff in that suit and also on the ground of gross negligence on
the part of the guardian whose interests are in conflict with those
of the minors and also for recovery of possession of the plaint
schedule property. Neither the 1st defendant in that suit nor the
2nd defendant is the Manager of the family of the plaintiff in this
suit.
6. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant
are as follows:
(i) The plaintiff‟s grandfather had a large extent of property which
was divided between him and his sons in a partition suit filed by
the plaintiff‟s paternal grandfather against the plaintiff‟s father
Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry. After partition, the parties to the suit
were enjoying their respective shares allotted to them separately.
The allegation that the plaintiff in O.S.No.296 of 1975 was
directed to deposit Rs.2,648.25 ps within a month from the date of
decree dated 10.03.1976 is not correct. There is no such
direction in the said decree. The 1st defendant has executed
registered sale deeds in favour of the purchasers, their nominees,
except Ramireddi Venkateswara Rao, after vacating the
temporary injunction order in I.A.No.1860 of 1985. Mere
allegations of fraud cannot sustain the claim of the plaintiff. This
suit is a collusive and speculative one and engineered by the
father of the plaintiff, through his son. The plaintiff with a view to
harass the defendants, filed this suit, which is abuse of process of
Court.
(ii) The suit agreement of sale, which is subject matter of suit in
O.S.No.296 of 1975 on the file of the Sub Court, Vijayawada, was
executed by the plaintiff‟s grandfather late Garikapati Lakshmi
Narasimha Bhaskara Sankaram for valuable consideration. The
vendor received Rs.20,000/- by way of advance and consented to
the 1st defendant taking possession of suit schedule properties in
part performance of the contract. As an agent of the 1st
defendant, late Garikapati Lakshmi Narasimha Bhaskara
Sankaram managed the properties and became liable to account
for the income of the properties realized by him in the course of
his management as the agent of the 1st defendant. In fact, he
admitted that he received Rs.2,951.75 ps as the net income
realized by him for the first year 1972, to which, he endorsed on
the agreement of sale towards balance of consideration payable
by the 1st defendant under the sale agreement. Thereafter, the 1st
defendant issued notice dated 22.05.1975 to Garikapati Lakshmi
Narasimha Bhaskara Sankaram, calling upon him to execute a
registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant after rendering
the accounts of the income of the suit property as the agent in
management and to receive the balance of sale consideration.
To the said notice, said Garikapati Lakshmi Narasimha Bhaskara
Sankaram issued a reply dated 05.07.1975, admitting the
agreement of sale dated 14.03.1971 and payment of Rs.20,000/-
as advance consideration and receipt of Rs.2,961.75 ps as the
income on the lands for the first year as endorsed on the
agreement of sale. Thereupon, the 1st defendant got issued
notice dated 25.07.1975 to Sri G.V.Raghava Rao, counsel for the
vendor calling upon the vendor to render a true account of the
income realized by him within a fortnight from the date of receipt
of the notice, failing which, the 1st defendant would treat
Rs.5,000/- per year as average net income realized by him during
the said period, Garikapati Lakshmi Narasimha Bhaskara
Sankaram died on 26.08.1975 and by the time of his death, as
the suit property of said Garikapati Lakshmi Narasimha Bhaskara
Sankaram, was already sold away to the 1st defendant, what
devolved upon the plaintiff and his two brothers as legatees could
be only any balance of consideration that remained due to the
deceased vendor / testator along with the obligation to execute
the sale deed or deeds.
(iii) The legatees, who took the properties under the Will, cannot have
greater right than the testator himself in the suit properties, which
are fastened with a solemn agreement for sale and in respect of
which, the testator himself stood in the position of a trustee,
bound by a legal obligation to convey the suit properties by way of
sale pursuant to the agreement of sale. The 1st defendant filed a
memo into the Court within one month from the date of decree i.e.
on 03.04.1976, categorically stating that the 1st defendant is
entitled to set off the amount of Rs.2,648.25 ps against the costs
portion of the decree, which is obviously higher of two amounts.
The plaintiff cannot dispossess the 1st defendant or his alienees
(defendants 2 to 7) from any portion of the suit properties. The
plaintiff is not entitled to any relief at all. The defendants 2 to 9
are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. The plaintiff
is not entitled to question the alienations in favour of the
defendants 2 to 7. On the other hand, the father of the plaintiff,
who acted as guardian in O.S.No.296 of 1975 is assailed as
continuing gross negligence would be necessary and proper party
to the suit, but he has not been deliberately impleaded. The suit
is therefore bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary
parties. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as
claimed in the suit. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
7. The 1st defendant filed additional written statement with a specific
plea that the plaintiff has neither title nor any tenable claim against the 1st
defendant and the alienees from the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, who has
absolutely no tenable claim and he has been procrastinating the trial of the
suit.
8. The defendant Nos.18, 19 and 21 filed a memo by adopting the
written statement filed by the 20th defendant.
9. The 20th defendant filed written statement by supporting the case of
the plaintiff.
10. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following
issues:
(1) Whether the decree in O.S.No.296 of 1975 was obtained by fraud
and misrepresentation as contended by plaintiff?
(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation against D-8 and D-9?
(3) Whether the defendants 2 to 7 can retain possession by virtue of
Sec.53-A of Transfer of Property Act?
(4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of plaintiff‟s father Laxmi
Narasimha Sastry as a necessary party to the suit?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession?
(7) To what relief?
The trial Court also framed the following additional issues:
(1) Whether the sale agreement and sale deed executed by D-1 in
favour of D-10 to D-14 and D-23 and D-24 are binding on the
plaintiff?
(2) Whether there is any gross negligence on the part of the guardian?
11. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff,
P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.17 were marked. On behalf of the
Defendant No.1, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to Ex.B.17 were marked.
12. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both
sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment, dated 17.12.1998,
against which the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit
questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.
13. Heard Sri J.Ch.Y.Narasimham, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
K.A.Narasimham, learned counsel for the 1st respondent / 1st defendant and
J.Ugranarasimham, learned counsel for the 8th respondent.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the decree
and judgment passed by the trial Court is wrong, contrary to law, weight of
evidence and probabilities of the case. He would further contend that the trial
Court failed to observe that the 1st respondent is no other than the brother-in-
law of the plaintiff and while the grandfather of the plaintiff died on 26.08.1975
and he would further contend that the 1st defendant issued a registered notice
under Ex.B.2 dated 28.10.1975 to the plaintiff‟s father, mother and brother to
execute a sale deed in pursuance of the agreement, specifically pleaded that
as per the registered Will, the plaintiff and his two brothers are legally bound
to execute the sale deed as legatees under the Will. He would further contend
that the trial Court failed to observe the ex parte judgment in the suit is no
judgment in the eye of law and the same is ignored completely by the learned
trial Judge. He would further contend that the trial Court came to wrong
conclusion and dismissed the suit.
15. Learned counsel for 8th respondent / 8th defendant would contend
that the trial Court wrongly appreciated the evidence on record and without
appreciating the evidence in a proper manner, dismissed the suit filed by the
plaintiff.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for 1st respondent / 1st defendant would
contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial
Judge came to right conclusion and dismissed the suit and there is no need to
interfere with the findings arrived by the learned trial Judge.
17. Now the points for determination in the appeal are:
1) Whether there was a gross negligence on the part of the father
of the plaintiff herein in conducting the proceedings in
O.S.No.296 of 1975?
2) Whether the decree in O.S.No.296 of 1975 was obtained by
fraud and misrepresentation as pleaded by the plaintiff herein?
3) Whether the plaintiff in the present suit in O.S.No.165 of 1985, is
entitled the relief of declaration and possession as prayed for?
4) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit?
18. Point No.1:
Whether there was a gross negligence on the part of the father of
the plaintiff herein in conducting the proceedings in O.S.No.296 of
1975?
It was alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint that the minor defendants in
O.S.No.296 of 1975 had been put to great loss, because of gross negligence
of the guardian i.e. their father. Ex.A.4 is the decree passed in O.S.No.296 of
1975. It shows that one Kapilavai Venkateswara Rao instituted a suit in
O.S.No.296 of 1975 against one Garikapati Bhaskaram and 2nd and 3rd
defendants were shown as minors represented by their father Lakshmi
Narasimha Sastry. It is undisputed that the plaintiff herein is the 3rd defendant
in that suit proceedings and 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit in O.S.No.296 of
1975 are his own brothers. It is also not in dispute that by the date of
institution of the suit in O.S.No.296 of 1975, the 1st defendant in that suit is a
major. Admittedly, the 1st defendant in that suit i.e. 8th defendant in the
present suit, has not been specifically pleaded either in that suit or in the
present suit that on colluding with his father, the plaintiff therein obtained an
agreement of sale and also obtained ex parte decree. Admittedly, the 2nd
defendant in O.S.No.296 of 1975 attained majority in the year 1978 itself, after
attaining majority, the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.296 of 1975 has not filed any
suit alleging that the decree in O.S.No.296 of 1975 is obtained by playing
fraud. The 2nd defendant in O.S.No.296 of 1975 died in the year 1984. It is
undisputed by both the parties that the 2nd defendant in that suit proceedings
died at the age of 24 years without marriage.
19. As could be seen from the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiff herein
specifically pleaded that the minor defendants in O.S.No.296 of 1975 had
been put to great loss by the gross negligence of the guardian i.e. their father.
Initially, the plaintiff herein has not filed the present suit by showing his father
as one of the defendants in the present suit proceedings. His mother is
shown as 9th defendant in the suit since his brother Srinivasa Chandrasekhar
died unmarried. The 9th defendant died during pendency of the suit. After the
death of the mother of the plaintiff i.e. 9th defendant, defendants 15 to 22 were
added as legal representatives of the 9th defendant in the year 1992. The 15th
defendant is none other than the husband of 9th defendant and also the father
of the plaintiff. In fact, no specific allegations are leveled against his father by
the plaintiff herein except making bald allegations in the plaint that the minor
defendants in O.S.No.296 of 1975 had been put to great loss by the gross
negligence of the guardian i.e. their father.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the suit for
specific performance of agreement of sale is filed on 26.12.1975 against the
minors and an ex parte decree has been passed on 10.03.1976 i.e. within 74
days, which itself shows that it is a collusive decree. As could be seen from
the decree passed by the Court in O.S.No.296 of 1975, the said suit is filed
against three defendants and out of which, the 2nd and 3rd defendants are
shown as minors, represented by their natural guardian-father. The 1st
defendant in the said suit is none other than the own brother of 2nd and 3rd
defendants therein and 1st defendant in the said suit proceedings is major by
the date of institution of the suit. He was alive till so far.
21. Ex.A.6 is certified copy of docket proceedings in O.S.No.296 of
1975. Those proceedings goes to show that the suit in O.S.No.296 of 1975 is
filed on 26.12.1975 and the Court has been issued summons to the
defendants and posted the suit proceedings to 03.02.1976 and on
03.02.1976, summons were not returned. It does not mean that summons to
the defendants were unserved on the defendants in O.S.No.296 of 1975. On
03.02.1976, when the defendants in O.S.No.296 of 1975 were called, one
G.V.Raghava Rao, Advocate offers to file Vakalat for all the defendants
including the 1st defendant, who is a major by then and the suit is adjourned to
19.02.1976 on which date, the said G.V.Raghava Rao filed Vakalat for all the
defendants. Later, the said suit is posted to 03.03.1976. On 03.03.1976, the
defendants called absent and remained set ex parte and posted to 10.03.1976
for plaintiff‟s evidence, on which date, the suit was decreed.
22. Ex.B.2 certified copy of legal notice goes to show that prior to
institution of the suit in O.S.No.296 of 1975, the plaintiff in that suit issued a
legal notice to one Garikapati Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry, Garikapati
Saraswathamma, who are the natural guardians for the minors i.e. 2nd and 3rd
defendant and 1st defendant in the suit proceedings in O.S.No.296 of 1975. In
the said Ex.B.2 legal notice, it was specifically mentioned about the
agreement executed by one Garikapati Lakshmi Narasimha Bhaskara
Sankaram on 14.03.1971. Ex.B.3 shows notice was addressed to said
Garikapati Lakshmi Narasimha Bhaskara Sankaram. The said Garikapati
Lakshmi Narasimha Bhaskara Sankaram also issued a reply notice under
Ex.B.4 and in the said notice, the said Garikapati Lakshmi Narasimha
Bhaskara Sankaram i.e. the grandfather of the plaintiff admitted about the
execution of agreement of sale and also delivery of possession of the
property. It is also specific case of the 1st defendant herein that the
grandfather of the plaintiff executed a Will by bequeathing the total extent of
property in favour of defendants 1 to 3 in the suit proceedings in O.S.No.296
of 1975 and the same is undisputed by the plaintiff herein. Furthermore, all
the defendants in O.S.No.296 of 1975 engaged one Advocate. It is not the
specific case of the 1st defendant in O.S.No.296 of 1975 that he has not
engaged the said Raghava Rao, as a counsel in the said suit proceedings.
Though he was shown as 8th defendant in the present suit proceedings, he did
not choose to prosecute the present suit and he remained set ex parte. No
defence has been taken by the 8th defendant in the present suit that he has
not appointed said Raghava Rao, Advocate to defend the suit proceedings in
O.S.No.296 of 1975.
23. As stated supra, Ex.B.4 is the reply notice to Ex.B.3 notice given by
the grandfather of the plaintiff, wherein the grandfather of the plaintiff by name
Garikapati Lakshmi Narasimha Bhaskara Sankaram admitted about the
execution of agreement of sale and delivery of possession of the property to
the plaintiff in O.S.No.296 of 1975. In fact, the plaintiff herein admitted about
the execution of agreement of sale in favour of the 1st defendant herein by his
grandfather.
24. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
balance sale consideration of Rs.2,648.25 ps has not been deposited by the
plaintiff in O.S.No.296 of 1975 proceedings and the plaintiff in O.S.No.296 of
1975 filed a memo before the trial Court on 03.04.1976 by taking a plea of set
off in the memo filed by the plaintiff. The said memo is marked as Ex.B.6 in
the present suit by the 1st defendant. The recitals in the said memo are as
follows:-
“The balance of sale consideration is Rs.2,648.25. The costs in the suit
decreed in favour of the plaintiff alone came to more than this amount.
Approximately the amount due towards the costs is Rs.3,000/-. The plaintiff is
entitled to set off the amount of Rs.2,648.25 towards costs decreed in the suit
as part satisfaction of the same. Hence the deposit of balance of sale
consideration under the circumstances must be deemed to have been
complied with.”
The plaintiff herein challenged the said memo by filing civil revision
petition vide C.R.P.No.1070 of 1989. The said civil revision petition was
dismissed by this Court on 05.12.1989 on hearing both sides by holding that
the memo filed by the plaintiff to set off the amount due to him towards the
costs under the same decree towards balance of sale consideration within the
stipulated time by the Court, can be treated as a sufficient compliance of the
terms of the decree. Having been aggrieved by the orders passed by the
Court below on the memo filed by the plaintiff in that suit, filed the civil revision
petition and the same has been dismissed, now it is not left open to the
plaintiff herein to argue that the plaintiff in that suit has not been deposited the
balance sale consideration.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the Will
executed by his grandfather, it was reiterated by his grandfather that the father
of the plaintiff has not been attending the welfare of the family and used to
spend the money lavishly and that his grandfather has given entire property
under the said Will to the plaintiff herein and his two brothers and that the
Court below has not exercised the discretion to appoint mother as a guardian
or to appoint Court Guardian. The material on record in O.S.No.296 of 1975
clearly goes to show that the plaintiff in that suit filed an application under
Order XXXII Rule 3 of the C.P.C. by seeking appointment of a guardian. In
that application, the plaintiff in that suit had shown the father, mother and
Court Guardian and the same was numbered as I.A.No.4668 of 1975 and the
Court appointed the father as a natural guardian for two minor sons, the same
is also reflected on the copy of the decree itself that the father has been
appointed as a natural guardian for minor defendants 2 and 3. In fact, the
appellant alone challenged the said decree. The other two brothers did not
challenge the said decree passed in O.S.No.296 of 1975. One of the brother
of the plaintiff i.e. D2 in O.S.No.296 of 1975 attained majority in the year 1978
and he was alive till 1984, but he did not choose to challenge the decree. The
8th defendant herein is figured as 1st defendant in that suit. Though he is a
major by the date of institution of the said suit proceedings, he did not choose
to contest the said suit and in fact, he also engaged the Advocate Sri
G.V.Raghava Rao along with other minor defendants 2 and 3.
26. The plaintiff herein admitted in his evidence in cross-examination
itself about the execution of agreement of sale dated 14.03.1971 in favour of
the 1st defendant in that suit in respect of Ac.29.10 cents. Furthermore, the
appellant / plaintiff admitted that in a land ceiling declaration filed by his father,
an extent of Ac.29.10 cents is not shown in the schedule before the learned
Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal.
27. As seen from the evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff in his
evidence in cross-examination admits that his father educated him from the
beginning up to degree level and there are no disputes between him and his
father and his father performed the marriages of his six sisters and elder
brother. He further admits that his second brother is unmarried and his elder
brother Bhaskar is a party in O.S.No.296 of 1975 and his father represented
him and his second brother as their guardian in O.S.No.296 of 1975 and he
know that the wife of the 1st defendant herein filed O.S.No.278 of 1966 on the
file of the II Assistant City Civil Judge, Hyderabad against his father for
recovery of money. In cross-examination, when elicited, he pleaded
ignorance about the pattadar passbooks issued in the name of the 1st
defendant for the extent retained by him after selling some property.
Furthermore, he admits by the date of filing of the suit, his father was alive and
he did not implead him as a party to the suit and after death of his mother / 9 th
defendant, his father came on record as her legal representative as 15th
defendant. Another crucial admission made by him is that neither his father
nor his mother, raised any objection for the said petition filed in I.A.No.1668 of
1975 in O.S.No.296 of 1975 to appoint either the father or mother as a
guardian or to appoint Court Guardian on behalf of the minor defendants 2
and 3. As seen from the above admissions of the plaintiff in his evidence, it is
quire clear that the plaintiff herein did not leveled any single allegation against
his father. Furthermore, he certified that his father has attended his welfare
and educated him from the beginning up to degree level and his father also
performed the marriages of his six sisters and his elder brother. Therefore,
the contention of the plaintiff that his father played fraud with the plaintiff in
O.S.No.296 of 1975 in obtaining ex parte decree by the plaintiff in that suit, is
of no avail and the same is unbelievable. It is also quite clear that except self-
testimony of the plaintiff as P.W.1, no other evidence is adduced by the
plaintiff to prove the alleged fraud. As stated supra, the own admissions of the
plaintiff itself not supporting the claim of the plaintiff.
28. Learned counsel for the appellant placed a reliance of
K.P.Natarajan and another v. Muthalammal and others1. Learned counsel
for the appellant also placed another reliance of Patri Seetharama Rao v.
Kasturi Vignana Bhaskaram2. In that decision, it was held as follows:
“……A decree against a person who is not represented is a nullity. In
Dwarika Halwai v. Sitla Prasad (10) AIR 1940 Allahabad 256 it was held
that even where there was an order appointing a person as guardian, if
that guardian did not properly represent the minor. the decree would not
be binding on the minor. Such a decree would be void ab initio and not
merely voidable. It was followed in Inder Pal Singh v. Sarnam Singh (11)
AIR 1951 All. 823. The Supreme Court observed in Ramchandra v. Man
Singh (12) AIR 1968 SC 954 thus :
1
(2021) 15 Supreme Court Cases 817
2
1990 (2) APLJ 301
“It is now well settled principle that if a decree is passed against
a minor without appointment of a guardian, the decree is a nullity
and is void and not merely voidable.”
Thus when a guardian who was appointed does not do his duty then
under Order 32 rule 11 (1) CPC he has to be removed and another
guardian has to be appointed and till a new guardian is appointed, the
suit cannot be proceeded with as enjoined under order 32 Rule 11 (2)
CPC. When steps under Order 32 Rule 11 CPC are not taken, it has to
be held that a minor was not represented and exparte decree against
the minor is a nullity. So the contention for D1-appellant that the ex parte
decree against D-5 and D-6 herein in SC 209/60 is a nullity has to be
upheld.”
In the case on hand, the material on record reveals that the plaintiff in
O.S.No.296 of 1975, filed an application under Order XXXII Rule 3 of C.P.C. by
showing the father, mother and the Court Guardian to represent minor
defendants 2 and 3 and the same was numbered as I.A.No.4668 of 1975 by the
Court and the Court appointed the father Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry as a
guardian of his two minor sons. There was a clear admission by the plaintiff in
his evidence itself that neither his father nor his mother has not raised any
objection for appointing the father as a guardian to the minor sons. In fact, after
obtaining ex parte decree, the 2nd defendant in that suit attained majority in the
year 1978 and he was alive till 1984. But he did not challenge the said decree.
Though the 1st defendant was a major by the date of institution of the suit and
now he is also alive, he did not choose to contest either in the earlier suit
proceedings and also in the present suit proceedings. He never pleaded in the
present suit that by colluding with his father, the plaintiff in O.S.No.296 of 1975
obtained an ex parte decree. In fact, the material on record reveals that the
Court appointed the father of the defendants 2 and 3 as a guardian vide
I.A.No.4668 of 1975 by order dated 03.02.1976 and all the defendants in that suit
engaged the same Advocate and Advocate also filed Vakalat and after passing
decree, the 1st respondent herein filed E.P.No.123 of 1985 and the appellant
herein raised objections on the memo filed by the 1st respondent and the
Executing Court over ruled the said objection, against which, a civil revision
petition vide C.R.P.No.1070 of 1989 was filed by the appellant herein. But the
said civil revision petition was dismissed by this Court.
29. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a case law in Chanda
(Dead) through L.Rs. v. Rattni and another 3 . In the case on hand, in
execution proceedings, the 1st respondent in the present appeal filed a memo
with regard to the balance sale consideration of amount and at that time, the
plaintiff herein raised objections and the Executing Court over ruled the said
objections, against which, a civil revision petition vide C.R.P.No.1070 of 1989
was filed and the same was dismissed by this Court. Now, it is not left open to
the plaintiff to argue that the balance of sale consideration was not deposited
by the plaintiff in that suit.
30. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance of Kamal Kumar
v. Premlata Joshi and others4. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the plaintiff
himself admitted about the execution of agreement of sale by his grandfather
and he also contested in the execution petition proceedings initiated by the
plaintiff in that suit.
31. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a case law in Janardan
Das and others v. Durga Prasad Agarwalla and others 5 , wherein the
Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows:
“Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, mandates that a
plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract must aver and
prove that they have performed or have always been ready and
willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to
be performed by them. This requirement is a condition precedent
and must be established by the plaintiff throughout the
proceedings. The readiness and willingness of the plaintiff are to be
determined from their conduct prior to and subsequent to the filing
of the suit, as well as from the terms of the agreement and
surrounding circumstances. The rationale behind this provision is to
ensure that a party seeking equitable relief has acted equitably
themselves. Specific performance is a discretionary relief, and the
plaintiff must come to the court with clean hands, demonstrating
sincerity and earnestness in fulfilling their contractual obligations.
Any laxity, indifference, or failure to perform their part of the
contract can be a ground to deny such relief……….
3
(2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 26
4
(2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 704
5
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2937
……. It is settled law that for relief of specific performance, the
plaintiff has to prove that all along and till the final decision of the
suit, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It
is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove his readiness and
willingness by adducing evidence. This crucial facet has to be
determined by considering all circumstances including availability
of funds and mere statement or averment in plaint of readiness and
willingness, would not suffice.”
In the case on hand, the own brother of the plaintiff i.e. 1st defendant in
the suit in O.S.No.296 of 1975 is remained set ex parte. Though he is a party
in the present suit proceedings, he also did not pleaded that earlier decree in
O.S.No.296 of 1975 is obtained by playing fraud by his father with the plaintiff
in that suit. In fact, not even single allegation leveled against his father by the
plaintiff herein in the present suit proceedings. Furthermore, the plaintiff
herein certified in his evidence itself about the goodness of his father. He
certified in his evidence in cross-examination itself that his father educated
him from the beginning up to degree level and his father also performed
marriages of his six sisters and eldest brother and his father represented him
and his second brother as their guardian and his eldest brother did not contest
the suit O.S.No.296 of 1975. Another crucial admission made by him is that in
the suit proceedings in O.S.No.296 of 1975 at no point of time there was any
objection raised by his father acting as their guardian.
32. In a case of P.Ramalaxmi v. Peetala Tatayya and others 6 ,
wherein the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
“In order to maintain a suit for cancellation of decree, the plaintiff
has to prove two things viz., fraudulent suppression of summons
and also that the claim of that suit was false. The falsity of the
claim may be considered along with non-service of the summons
as supplying the motive for and leading to the legitimate inference
of fraudulent suppression as held by the Division Bench of Calcutta
High Court in Md. Yunus vs., Nabi Hossain (AIR 1982 Calcutta
488)……”
6
2006 (1) ALT 79 (S.B.)
In a case of Aquadev India Ltd., rep. by its Director, Gummadi
Venkateswarlu v. Kode Basava Venkateswara Rao and another 7, wherein
the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
“However, one important aspect needs to be taken into account.
The facility to file a separate suit to set aside the decree and
judgment passed in another suit is available only to a person who
was not a party to the decree sought to be set aside. If he happens
to be a party to the suit in which the decree was passed, he has to
avail further remedies before the very Court, which passed the
decree, or in the Superior Courts by filing appeal or revision. A
person, who has suffered a decree, does not have a right to
challenge that decree by filing a separate suit. If such a course is
permitted, he would be able to deprive the benefit of the decree in
a suit to the decree holder therein by filing a separate suit after
losing in every forum. Law does not permit such a course of
action.”
To that the plaintiff herein approached the Court with a specific plea that
the plaintiff in O.S.No.296 of 1975 has obtained an ex parte decree by playing
fraud with his father. The alleged fraud as pleaded by the plaintiff is not even
support his own admissions in the present case as stated supra. The law is
very clear that the allegation of fraud must be clearly and specifically pleaded
and proved by the party pleading, by adducing unimpeachable cogent and
convincing evidence. In the present case on hand, it is evident that the above
pre-requisites to prove the alleged fraud are missing even in the own evidence
of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot avoid a decree passed against
him, because he is represented by his father as a guardian in O.S.No.296 of
1975. Though his father and another brother (major) of the plaintiff are shown
as parties to the present suit proceedings, they did not even raise their little
finger to show that the plaintiff in O.S.No.296 of 1975 has obtained ex parte
decree fraudulently by playing fraud without their knowledge. Moreover, the
plaintiff in O.S.No.296 of 1975 is none other than the own brother-in-law of the
plaintiff herein.
7
2012 (1) ALT 699 (S.B.)
33. In the case on hand, except taking bald plea in the plaint itself that
the minor defendants in O.S.No.296 of 1975 had been put to great loss by the
gross negligence of the guardian i.e. their father, no specific allegations have
been leveled against his father. In fact, the own elder brother of the plaintiff
herein is alive, he did not raise any little finger alleging that the decree was
obtained by the plaintiff therein by playing fraud with his father. The 1 st
defendant in that suit never raised any objection in the present suit
proceedings by saying that the plaintiff therein obtained a fraudulent ex parte
decree by playing fraud. Admittedly, the ex parte decree has been passed
against the defendants 1 to 3. As noticed supra, the 1st defendant in the said
suit proceedings, was a major, who is none other than the own brother of the
defendants 2 and 3. Admittedly, the 2nd defendant attained majority in the
year 1978 subsequent to passing of ex parte decree. Though he was alive till
1984, he did not challenge the said decree. The 3rd defendant in the said suit
proceedings, subsequent to the death of his second brother in the year 1984,
the present suit has been instituted in the year 1985. Furthermore, the plaintiff
himself certified in his evidence about the goodness of his father and he never
leveled any single allegation against his father in his own evidence itself.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court held that the plaintiff failed to
prove that there was gross negligence on the part of the father of the plaintiff
herein in conducting the proceedings in O.S.No.296 of 1975. Accordingly,
point No.1 is answered against the plaintiff.
35. Point Nos.2 to 4:
2) Whether the decree in O.S.No.296 of 1975 was obtained by
fraud and misrepresentation as pleaded by the plaintiff
herein?
3) Whether the plaintiff in the present suit in O.S.No.165 of 1985,
is entitled the relief of declaration and possession as prayed
for?
4) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit?
In the case on hand, the plaintiff failed to prove that the decree in
O.S.No.296 of 1975 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. There is
no evidence on record to show that the decree in O.S.No.296 of 1975 was
obtained by playing fraud by the plaintiff in that suit. In view of my above
findings on point No.1, the point Nos.2 to 4 are answered against the
appellant. Resultantly, the plaintiff in O.S.No.165 of 1985, is not entitled to the
relief of declaration and possession as prayed for. Accordingly, the points 2 to
4 are answered against the plaintiff by holding that the trial Court is justified in
dismissing the suit. Given the preceding discussion, the view taken by trial
Court does not call for any interference and this Appeal is hereby dismissed.
36. In the result, 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 VENKAESHWARARO, S/O ATHUTA RAMAYYA, R/O 18-C, A.G.
QTRS., YERRAGADDA, HYDERABAD.
2. V SATYANARAYANA, S/O DASARATHARAMAYYA, AYTAGARAM,
NANDIGAMA, D.M.C.
3. V PRASANNA RAGHAVA, S/O RAMASWAMY, PROPERTY
AYTAGARAM, NANDIGAMA, D.M.C.
4. K HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O HANUMAYYA, PROPERTY
AYTAGARAM, NANDIGAMA, D.M.C.
5. K VENKATESHWER SWAMY, S/O APPAYYA, AMBARUPET,
NANDIGAMA, DMC.
6. K LAKSHMI DIED, W/O APPAYYA, AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA,
DMC.
7. S HANUMAYAMMA DIED, W/O BRAHMAYYA, PROPERTY
AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
8. G BHASKARAM, S/O LAKSHMI NARSIMHA SASTRY, PROPERTY
AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
9. G SARASWATHAMMA, W/O LAKSHMI NARSIMHA SASTRY,
PROPERTY AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
10. S LAKSHMINARSAYYA, S/O NAGABHUSHANAM, CULTIVATION
AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
11. T SIVARAMAYYA DIED, S/O VEERAYYA, CULTIVATION
AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
12. RAMIREDDY VENKATESHWER RAO, S/O MADHUSUDHAN RAO,
CULTIVATION ATYVARAM, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
13. M VEERA RAGHAVAYYA, S/O CHANDRAYYA, CULTIVATION
ATYVARAM, NANDIGAMA, DMC.
14. V NARASIMHA RAO, S/O VADADRI, CULTIVATION ATYVARAM,
NANDIGAMA, DMC.
15. G LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SASTRY, S/O LAKSHMI NARASIMHA
BHASKARAN SANKARAM, DIED.
16. K ANNAPIRNA, W/O VENKATESHWER RAO,
17. G SEETHA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O DR. G. RADHAKRISHNA
MURTHY,
18. C ALIVELU MANGATAYARU, W/O HANUMAT SASTRY, H.NO. 5,
SWAMY STREET, T. NAGAR, MADRAS-600017.
19. K BHAVANI, W/O K.S.MURTHY, SALES TAX PRACTITIONER
SANJIVAREDDY NAGAR, HYDERABAD.
20. K BHUDEVI, W/O PARAMATMA, PARITALA, KRISHNA DIST.
21. A AMMANNA, W/O KARUNA SAGAR, PETAMATA, VIJAYAWADA.
22. G ANURADHA, D/O LAKSHMI NARSIMHA SASTRY, AMBARUPET,
NANDIGAMA, DMC.
23. M VEERA RAGHAVAIAH DIED, S/O CHANDRAIAH, ITAVARAM (V),
NANDIGAMA DMC.
24. V ANNAPOORNAMMA, W/O NARSIMHA RAO, HOUSEWIFW
CHATRAI, CHATRAI (M), KRISHNA DIST.
25. K NARASIMHARAO, S/O. LATE K. LAKSHMI, AGE 64 YEARS, R/O.
AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC, NTR DISTRICT, A.P. (L.R.
OF R-6)
26. K VENKATESWARAO SWAMY, S/O. LATE K. LAKSHMI, AGE 55
YEARS, R/O. AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC, NTR DISTRICT,
A.P. (L.R. OF R-6)
27. S BRAHMAIAH, S/O. LATE S. HANUMAYAMMA, AGE 80 YEARS,
R/O. AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC, NTR DISTRICT, A.P.
(L.R. OF R-7)
28. K PADMAVATHI, W/O. BABU, D/O. LATE S. HANUMAYAMMA, AGE
55 YEARS, R/O. AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC, NTR
DISTRICT, A.P. (L.R. OF R-7)
29. T APPA RAO, S/O. THONDEPU SIVA RAMAIAH, AGE 50 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC, NTR
DISTRICT A.P. (L.R. OF R-11)
30. T SRINIVASA RAO SREENU, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC
AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMBARUPET, NANDIGAMA DMC NTR
DISTRICT, A.P. (L.R. OF R-11)
31. MADDUKURU NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. LATE M. VEERA
RAGHAVAIAH, R/O. AYTHAVARAM VIG., NANDIGAMA MANDAL,
NTR DISTRICT., A.P. NANDIGAMA DMC. RESPONDENT NOS. 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30 AND 31 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF
DECEASED RESPONDENT NO. R6, R7, R11 AND R23 VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 25.01.2024 IN I.A.NO. 1, 2, 4 AND 5 OF
2023 RESPECTIVELY IN A.S.NO. 2068 OF 1999.
32. Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT
VGKRJ
DATED:20/08/2025
ORDER
AS 2068/1999