The High Court · 2025

respondent-plaintiff for such inordinate delay and also ailcd to see the conduct of the respondent-plaintiff, which is lackir Lr bonafides, and he did not approach the Court with clean hands. F esp()ndent_ plaintiff did not demand for partition of the properties r ither when Godari Beeraiah vr.as alive, and there is no evidence tc shoq,that Late Beeraiah married Banamma and that rhe respond I tt_ plaintiff was born out of their wedlock. L r"/ 2123 BRMR,.J AS.No. 160 2017

3.2. The learned trial Court has misread the evidence of pW.2, .] who stated that Banamma was brought by Beeraiah only to look after his children and he did not marry her and even as per PW.2, Banamma had 1", husband by name Lasmaiah and thereafter she married Madhunaiah and children are born to her. Respondent- plaintiff does not know when his mother married Beeraiah. The evidence adduced by the respondent plaintiff is against him and some stray sentences are pickecl up to support the case. The learned trial Court failed to see that there is no birth certificate nor any school record to shon' the father's name of the respondent- plaintiff. trxs.A7 to A 17 are the documents issued by various authorities based on the declaration by the plaintiff and there is no document which could establish his claim and placed reliance on the judgment in Dolgobinda Paricha Vs Nimai Charan Misra and Othersr and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment.

4. Learned counscl for the responden t-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case coupled with the evidence led by the parties by taking into consideration Exs.A1 to A23 and rightly decreed the suit by passing a preliminary decree. No interference is called for, in of his contention he placed reliance on the decisionTin the "upqo1 // ' AIR 1959 sc 914 3123 B R 14 R,.I AS \o. L6O 20I7 cases of (1) Smt.Aina Devi Vs. Bachan Singh r L: .d :rnother 2 , (2) Chitru Devi Vs. Smt. Ram Dei and others3

5. Heard learned counsel on record, perLlsed the r atenal

6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether r he rmpugned judgment passed by the learned III Additional and -S:;sions Judge, Asifabad in OS.No.9 of 2016, dated 06.0i.2017 suf :rs lrom any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interirence o[ this Court? 7 . Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for partitior L and separate possession of vacant land against the appellanr Nos. 1 to 3- defendant Nos.1 to 3 in respect of seven scheduir propertics in different survev numbers with specific boundaries. l , is stated in the plaint that father of the respondent-plaintiff br -ramc Godari Beeraiah was the owner and possessor of lands rr Sy. No.463lA admeasuring to an extent of Ac.00-08 guntas; Sy.No.475lA admeasuring to an extent of 9075 Sq. yards; _r ,'.No 654/A admeasuring to an extent of Ac.00-06 guntas, Sr'.No.658/A admeasuring to an extent of Ac.00-03 7z guntasi 35;.No.660/A admeasuring to an extent of Ac.00-05 % guntas; S "'.No.663/AA admeasuring to an extent of Ac.00-36 guntas, an(l n 51 .No.683 'z ltR t98o A ahabad 174 3 aIR 2002 Himachal Pradesh 59 ....../ \- \ \, --- "r-* 11 4123 BRMR,J AS.No.l60 20r7 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.02 20 guntas, which is the plaint schedule property. Godari Bheeraiah succeeded the above said property from his father namely Godari Mallaiah in the partition that took place among the sons of late Godari Mallaiah. Godari Bheeraiah has married Godari Poshamma and out of wedlock, they are blessed with 3 children, who are appellants-defendant Nos.l to

3. After the death of Poshamma, Godari Bheeraiah has married Banamma and that the respond ent- plaintiff is born to them. After the death of Godari Bheeraiah, Banamma left the society of the respondent-plaintiff and married one Chegrama Madhunaiah, resident of Andugulapet Village of Mandamarri Mandal. Since then she is living there at, and that Banamma has no right over the suit schedule properties. Godari Bheeraiah died about 12 years back, leaving the respondent-plaintiff and appellant Nos.1 to 3- defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as his legal heirs under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act.

8. Appellant Nos.l to 3-defendant Nos. 1 lo 3 [rled their written statement and contended that Godari Beeraiah died on 15.07.1998 and the suit is barred by limitation as it is liled beyond 12 years. And the respondent-plaintiff is aware that there is no joint ownership over the suit lands and the respondent-plaintiff never enjoyed the possession or ownership rvith that of the appellant sl23 ilR\'tR.J .\S \o l{)0 2ol7 Nos. i to 3-defenclant Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent-plai rtiff did not mention the date, month and year of the allegerl marriage of Godari Bhceraiah with Banamma. Banamma is the s'ife of Cheryama Madhunaiah and she sti1l continues to b: his rvi [e ln fact, Banamma has married one Duta Lasumaiah (a 'achulu, Son of Posham, resiclent of Mudigunta and thereafter, she left him and married Mzrdhunaiah about 50 years back, and slr is living in Housc No.2-13 at Andugula Pet, she never resided a Garimila zrt any point of time. Respondent-plaintiff is not tht' legal hcir of Godari Beeraiah, and has no right or share in the suit propertl'and prayed to dismiss the same. 9 The learned trial Court has framed the follou'ing lSSUES: i. )

4. Whether the plaintiff is the son of Bana r Godari Beeraiah or not? Lma and Whether the plaintiff is the legal heir c Beeraiah along with defendant Nos.l to t Whetl-rer the suit schedule properties arr I famil5' properties of plaintiff and defenda r Whether the suit ProPerties are . r partition? If so, what is the share of the I . Godari :r not? not joint is? Lble for arntifl-.:

5. To vr,hat reiieP

10. Respondent-plaintiff has amended the plaint rnd six more properties wcre added to the schedule which are tt':r Nos S to 13 6123 BRMR,J AS No t60 2017 I I It is worth mentioning that there is no pieading with regard to item Nos.8 to 13 properties except amending the schedule I 1 . After amending the schedule, appellant Nos. 1 to 3- defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed their additional written s[atement and contended that respondent-plaintiff is not the son of late Beeraiah and he is not entitled for any share in suit schedule properties No. 1 to 13, and that the suit is barred by limitation.

12. By the time the plaint is amended, the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff is closed and the same was coming up for defendant evidence (appellants herein). As the learned trial Court was of the opinion that no additional issues will arise and thereafter posted the matter for iurther evidence of the appellants- defendants.

13. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW. 1, and he also examined PW.2-B Shankaramma, PW.3-Avunuri Narsaiah, got marked Exs.AI to A23. Appellant No.1 is examined as DW. 1 and appellant No.2 is examined as DW.2, DW.3-Ch.Rajam and PW.4- Jummidi Rayamallu.

74. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed lor 7123 tJ RIlR.J r\S No.l60 2017

15. In Dolgobincla Paricha casel, the Supreme Cor,.r, observed at Para Nos.6 and 7 rvhich reads as under: "6. The Evidence Act states that the expression ' fac r in issue 'means and includes any fact from which either b1 t ;elf rrr in connection with other facts the existence, non ( <istcnce, nature or exlent of any right, liability or disability as x)rtcd or denied in any suit or proceeding necessarily follon,; :vidt:nce' means and includes (l) all statements which the cour permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in I r ation to matters of fact under enquiry ; and (2) a1l documents ,roduced lor the inspectron of ttre court. It further states that r rr: far:t is said to be relevant to another when the one is conn,r, ted \,,'rth the other in anv one of the ways referred to in the pro' isions of the Evidencc Act relating to the relevancy of facts. St r tion 5 of the Evidencc Act lays down that evidence may be gir r : in an;' suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existencr rf cvery, fact in issue and 'of such other facts as are declar:d to be relevant and of no others. It is in the context )f these pror.isions of the Evidence Act that we have to consid: Se('tion 5O which occurs in Chapter II, headed "Of the Rcle,anc), of Facts". Section 50, in so far as it is relevant for our plpose, is in these tenns. On a pli n reading of the section it is quite clea- thrrt it deals \r'ith rcle|ancv of a particular fact. It states in ,r'-ect that when the court has to form an opinion as to the relat r nshrl; of one person to another the opinion expressed by conrlr ct as to the existence of such relationship of any person ,,ho has special means of knowledge on the subject of that rc : tionship is a relevant fact. The two illustrations appended to rlr section clearly bring out the true scope and effect of the st rtion. lt appears to us that the essential requirements of ttr section are (1) thert' must be a case where the court has t,, torm AS.No. L60 20 17 Fl tsRMR,J opinion as to the relationship of one person to another; (2) in such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the efstence of such relationship is a relevant fact; (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the fajnily or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship; in other words, the person must fulfil the condition laid dou.n in the latter part of the sectron. [f the person fulfils that condition, then what is relevant is his opinion expressed by conduct. Opinion mea.:os something more than more retailing of gossip or of hearsay; it mearrs judgment or belief, that is, a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question_ Now, the ,belief or conviction may marifest itself in conduct or behaviour which indicates the existence of the belief or opinion. What the Section says is that such conduct or outward behaviour as evidence of the opinion held is relevant arrd may, therefore, bc proved. 7. It is necessa5r to state here that how the conduct or externa-l behavior which expresses the opinion of a person coming withrn the meaning of Section SO is to be proved is not stated in the section. The seclion merely says that such opinion is a relevant fact on the subject of relationship of one person to another in a case where the Court has to form an opinion as to that relationship. part II of the Evidence Act is headed "On Proof'. Chapter III thereof contains a fascicule of sections relating to facts which need rrot be proved. Thcn there is Chapter IV dealing with oral evidence and in it occurs S. 6O which savs inter alia: "Section 60. Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, direct; that is to say- if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be - Elid".,." of a witness who says he saw it; 9123 tsR\IR.1 AS.\o.160 20 t7 if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it mr r evidence of a u-itness who says he heard it; if it refers to a fact which could be perceived b1. z sense or in erny other manner, it must be the evirlr witness who says he perceived it by that sense ,) manner'; rf it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on $1 opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the pt: holds that opinion on those grounds. " t be the ny other nce of a in that ich that ron who [[ we remember that the offered item of evidence und-. conduct in the sense explained above, then th,:: difficulty in holding that such conduct behaviour proved in the manner tard down in S. 60; if the condrr, to something rvhich can be seen, it must be prov: person who sarv it; if it is something which can be hr:i it must be proved by the person who heard it; and sc conduct must be of the person who fulfrls the conditions of S. 50, and it must be proved in the mru down in the provisions relating to proof. It appeats .r that portion of S. 6O which provides that the person r\: zrn opinion rnust be called to prove his opinion r necessaril-v delimit the scope o[ S. 5O in the sense thil expressed by conduct must be proved only by tlt whose conducr expresses external the opinion. ( perceptible fact. may be proved either by the testimc r person himself whose opinion is evidence under S. I some other person acquainted w.ith the facts whiclL such opinion, and as the testimony must relate tc facts which constitute conduct and is given bv personally acquainted wrth such facts, the testimonl. : case direct u.ithin the meaning of S. 60. This, in our o: the true inter-relation between S. 5O and S. 60 of the I Act. S. 50 is nust be t relates . by the rd, then on. The :ssential ner laid us that ro holds oes not opinion person onduct, y of the 0orby express :xternal persons in each nion, is vidence .t' f,F.& r0123 BRMR,.I AS.No.160 2017 S. 5o affords an exceptiona-l way of proving a relationship and by no means prevents any person from stating a fact of which he or she has special means of knowiedge' we do not agree with Hutchins J., when he says that t}.e section seems to imply that the person whose opinion is a relevant fact cannot be ca,lled to state his own opinion as expressed by his conduct and that his conduct may be proved by others only when he is dead or cannot be called. We do not think that S' 50 puts any such limitation".

16. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that father's name of the Plaintiff is shown as Beeraiah, which 1S evident from Exs.A7 to Al7 and they are pubiic documents. Presumption has to be drawn that respondent-plaintiff is the son of Beeraiah.

17. In Smt. Aina Devi's sa5sz, Allahabad High Court observed at Para 9 which reads as under: "9. Having perused the entire evidence on the record' l am unable to agree witJl the frndings of the tria-l court' Purna Devi was shown to be the married wife of Bachan Singh in the extract from the electoral ro11 and the family register o[ the village. The extract of the family register of the villages also showed that the father of her three children was Bachan Singh. The trial court was in error in thinking that the entries in the family register had to be proved by evidence a-Iiunde' The family register was a public document The entries made therein were proved by the certified copy of the extract' vide' Ext. II. The document proved its content's The entries were *'-.presumptive evidence of what they recorded' until disproved 7t123 E}RMR,J AS.No.160 2017 by satisfactory evidence to the contrary. The burden was on the respondents to prove that the entries were incorrect. The same applies to the certifled copy of the extract from the electoral roll, Ext. I".

18. In Chitru Devi's case3, High Court of Himachal Pradesh observed at Para No.23 which reads as under: "23. The next contention of the learned counsel for the plaintilT that no reliance can be placed on voter [sts mark Exts. DA, DB and DC showing Smt.Tap Dassi wife of Teku as these documents pertain to the years 1981, 1983 and 1988 respectively ald no voter list prior to the said period was brought on record by the defendants to prove their claim. These voter lists were prepared by the competent official of the election department in the discharge of his ofhcial duties and the plaintiff has never challenged correctness and validity of the voter lists before the competent authority in any proceedings. The learned frrst Appellate Court has rightly relied upon the voter lists to prove that Smt. Tap Dassi was the wife of Teku. The electoral roll is a public document and admissible in evidence unless it is rebutted by cogent and reliable evidence. The plaintiff has failed. to rebut the entries recorded in the electoral roll and on the basis of the documentar5z evidence proved on record, I hnd no cogent reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the first Appellate Court that Smt. Tap Dassi was the wife of Teku and out of their wedlock Sidhi Singh was born whose legal representatives are defendants 1 to 3 in the suit and thus they are entitled to inherit the estate of Teku" / lzl23 I]RMR,J AS.No. 160 2017 It is the respondent-plaintiff who has to prove that his D. mother Banamma has married Godari Beeriaiah and out of lawful wediock he is born.

20. The respondent-plaintiff stated in his cross-examination that he do not know whether one Lasmaiah was the first husband of Banamma, and he do not know when his mother has married Godari Beeraiah, so also he do not know in which year his mother has deserted him. After deserting Godari Beeraiah, his mother has married another person by name Seggem Madanaiah, and she has begotten 4 children, and at present, she is living at Andugulapeta of Mandamarri Mandal, and he do not know the names of the four children born through Seggem Madanaiah Beeraiah was the resident of Sunnambatti Wada of Mancherial town, and he do not know the date of his death, in the Appointment Order his address is mentioned as resident of Jenda Venkatapur of Chiennur Taluq' witness adds that he was brought up by his maternal uncle and in the family attendance book his address is shown at resident of Narva, Jaipur Mandal, so also in the sale deed, gas papers, and other documents no where it is mentioned that he is resident of Mar\cherial. He did not give any instructions to his counsel that his matehal uncle has brought him up. Until Iiling of the suit' no legal notice is issued claiming share in the schedule propeftres 13123 BR[,IR,J AS No 160 2017 Before he secured a job, he lived at Venkatapur, ar d he cannot give the boundaries of the property covered under E::r.A18 to A23, and the names of the appellant Nos. I to 3-defendant I os.1 to 3 are shown as pattedars and possessors in the above sa < exhibits, so alsb he did not h1e any document to show that proper y covered by Exs.A18 to h23 belong to Godari Beeraiah. PW. denied the suggestion that Godari Beeraiah never married his m,r her by name Banamma, and that he is not the son of Beeraiah. i I also he did not participate in the Final rights and that he is not :ntitled for a share in the suit schedule properties.

21.1. PW.2 is the sister of Godari Beeraiah. She , .eposed that Godari Beeraiah married one Posamma, they are bles; ,d with three sons who are the appeilant Nos. 1 to 3 - defendant Nt ;. 1 to 3, and thercafter Beeraiah has married a divorcee by name Eir .namma and through Banamma they are blessed with the respoll lent-plaintiff when the respondent-plaintiff was two years o1d, Banir nma has left her brother Beeraiah and married another perst r by name Chegrama Madhunaiah, resident of Andugulapr t Village of Mandamarri, Mandal. And the respondent,plaintiff ,r ls taken by his maternal uncle by name Bandari Posham and hr ,vas brought up there at- Godari Bee raiah died about 15 1.,,, .rs back at Chunnambattir,r.ada of Mancherial Town, and the d,r .th message .\ 14123 BRMR,.I AS.No.160-2017 was given to the respondent plaintift he attended the obsequious of Beeraiah. Godari Beeraiah possesses properties at Garmilla Village, and they are in joint possession of the respondent-plaintiff and appellant Nos.l to 3-defendants.

21.2. In her cross-examination, she stated that Godari Beeraiah has married Poshamma and Poshamma gave birth to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein), and she do not know when Poshamma died and his brother Beeraiah used to reside in Saikuntawada Mancherial till his death. Banamma is the mother of plaintiff (respondent here). First husband of Banamma is Doota Lasmaiah, he is still alive, and she do not know whether divorce of Banamma and Doota Lasmaiah took place. Her brother'by name Beeraiah brought Banamma to his house by purchasing sarees and blouses, and her brother has not married said Banamma, Beeraiah has brought Banamma to look after his children. Banamma haS married another person by leaving the plaintiff (respondent herein) at the house of his maternal uncle, and she came to know that she married one Madanaiah and she do not know the date of birth of the plaintiff, his birth has taken place in Mamidigattu Venkatapuram. She do not know that Banamma gave birth to 4 children out of the wedlock with Madanaiah, and she do not know in r,,'hose name the Patta stands with regard to .\. .,. ls123 BRI'fR,.I AS.No 160 2017 the suit schedule property, so also she do not knc,v r.r,,hether the pedigree submitted by Beeraiah to the Bank, ttLr name of the plaintiff is not mentioned, and the plaintiff is havrr g six children. PW.2 denied the suggestion that Banamma is ne t -rer the legally wedded wife nor mistress of Beeraiah, and that B::raiah has not brought Banamma by presenting sarees and b1ous,: r, and that the plaintiff is not the son of Beeraiah through Banamnr, .. 22,1. PW.3 deposed that Late Godari Beerair r has seven properties in Garimalla Shivar of Mandal Mancherrz I and they are the joint properties of the respondent,plaintiff, appe I ant Nos. 1 to 3 -defendants. Godari Beeraiah has first married po:;, Lama and they are blessed with defendant Nos.l to 3 (appellant 1r rein). Godari Beeraiah has married Banamma and through her, tl ey are blessed with the plaintiff (respondent herein). After the birth of the plaintiff, Banamma left Godari Beeraiah by leavirL; his son, and thereafter, his maternal uncle by name Bandari p(.( ham, resident of Jenda Venkatapur Village, took away the plaintil when he was 3 or 4 years old. Plaintiff is entitled for 1/46 she re in the suit schedule properties.

22.2. ln his cross examination, he stated that t,laintiff never resided at Mancherial. Beeraiah has married Bari mma, who is the resident of .Jenda Venkatapur of Nennal Manda rfter one vear 7 t6123 tsRMR,J AS.No.160 2017 of the death of Pochamma, and he do not know the hrst marriage of Banamma, he do not know whether Banamma has again married during the lifetime of Beeraiah, So also he do not know whether she is still alive or not. PW.3 denied the suggestion that piaintiff is not the son of Beeraiah, and that he is not entitled for any share.

23. It is worth mentioning that PW.2 and PW.3 spoke about suit schedule property Nos. 1 to 7 only contending that they are in joint possession of the plaintiff (respondent herein) and defendants (appellant Nos. 1 to 3 herein). And there is no evidence with regard to other properties i.e., schedule property Nos.8 to 13 which were added by way of amendment of the suit uide lA.No.248 of 2014, dated 29.06.2015.

24.7. The evidence of DWs. I and 2 is the same as that of their wrltten statement

24.2. DW.1 stated in his cross-examination that his father's sister by name Sankaramma is still alive and there are boundar5r disputes between them with that of Sankaramma. Item Nos.1, 2 and 6 are the ancestral properties and the remaining propert5r is acquired by him and his brothers. Item Nos.S, 11 and 13 are also the ancestral properties, whereas item Nos.9, 10, and 12 are the -',^ 7t /23 BRMR..J AS.No.160 2017 properties acquired by him and his brothers i nd there are registered sale deeds for all the properties acquir: I by them, he has not fi1ed them. He has no prior acquaint Lnce with the plaintiff and the mother of the plaintiff is Banam; r a. His mother died about 35 years back. DW. 1 denied the suggr:r lion that after the death of his mother by name pochamma, his f Lther Beeraiah has married Banamma and through them, the pl .intiff is born. DW. 1 also denied the suggestion that plaintiff has >articipated in the death ceremony of his father and bore his shar,r of expenses at that time and that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4tt sl are in the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff is working in Singir eni Collieries, and he do not know whether in the service records, :f the plaintiff and also in the revenue records, his father's name s mentioned as Godari Beeraiah.

24.3. DW.2 stated in his cross-examination that lrr do not know Seggam Banamma and Seggam Madunaiah. So :l know Dutha Laxmaiah @ Lachulu of Mudigunta \ ;o, he do not 'illage and he know PW.3, who acted as elder at Sunnam.r rtti Wada of Mancherial. Plaintiff is an employee in Singareni Col ieries, and he do not know whether in the Academic records :rrLr Employment records of the plaintiff, his surname is mentior rr d as Godari. Witness adds that he came to know that fathc r name of the {;. BRMR.J AS.No.160 2017 Y.,.1 plaintiff was mentioned as Godari Beeraiah in Education records and Employment records. Except the property in Sy'Nos'669, 67O arrd 671 other properties are the ancestral properties, they are acquired by him and other defendants' DW'2 denied the suggestion that after the death of his mother Posamma, his father has married Banamma and that the plaintiff is their son, also denied the suggestion that after the birth of the plaintiff, his mother (Banamma) left the plaintiff and her husband, and since then plaintiff was brought up by his maternal uncle by name Bandari Pocham of Jenda Venkatapur Village in Ninnel Mandal' DW.2 also denied the suggestion that plaintiff is entitled fot I l4n share in the suit schedule property.

24.4. DW.3 is an independent witness. His evidence is that the plaintiffhasnomannerofrightwhatsoeveroverthesuitschedule property and he is not the son of Beeraiah, and the defendants have inherited the properties of late Godari Beeraiah, who is having lands in Garimalla Village of Mancherial Mandal' In his cross- examination, he stated that all the defendants live in one house and he is an agriculturist. He denied the suggestion that by taking money he is giving evidence in favour of the defendants'

24.5. DW.4 is the relative of the defendants, his evidence is .that / Godari Beeraiah has married Godari Posamma, out of /awful 19123 BRMR,J -i\S No.160 2017 wedlock, they are blessed with defendant Nos. l Nos.l to 3 herein) and after the death of pc: to 3 (appellant amma, Godari Beeraiah did not perform any marriage with anybor y and that the plaintiff is not the son of Godari Beeraiah son of ll rllaiah, he has never seen the plaintiff in the house of his maternz:l uncle by name Godari Beeraiah, and he do not know who is St Banamma. Beeraiah died on 15.07.199g and the 1r all concerned with the family of Godari Beeraiah. r{.ay concerned with the suit schedule lands, and tl ggam Banu @ rintiff is not at Plaintiff is no e lands are in possession of D1 to D3, and patta was transferrecl i r their names. The plaintiff has hled the suit with an intention ic grab thc suit schedule propertres of the defendants by impersonrr ing himself as son of Godari Beeraiah_

24.6. In his cross-examination, he stated that he ciic not bring any documents to prove that his mother is the own sis -t r of Beeraiah. He denied the suggestion that his mother is not th: brood rerative of Beeraiah and that he is giving false evidence at t re lnstance of defendanLs, and the plaintiff is also son of Godari Be e :aiah through his second wife 25- PW.2 and pW.3 have stated in their evide,rce that the plaintiff was brought up by Bandari posham when t anamma has left the company of Goda-ri Beeraiah. IJt not Lh r case of the # 20123 BRMR.J AS.No.160 2017 respondent-plaintiff that he was brought up by his uncle by name Bandari Posham and there is no pleading to that effect. It is worth mentioning that Banamma is still alive and the respondent-plainriff did not examine his mother to substantiate his contention that his mother's marriage is performed with Godari Beeraiah after the death of Posamma. Respondent-plaintiff has with held the best evidence for the reasons best known to him. Respondent-plaintiff has failed to prove that Banamma has married Godari Beeraiah. The admissions made by the respondent-plaintiff in his cross-examination is sufhcient to come to a conclusion that the marriage of Banamma with Godari Beeraiah is not proved. Respondent-plaintiff also do not know the date of death of late Beeraiah. PW.2 who happens to be the sister of Godari Beeraiah admitted in her cross-examination that the hrst husband of Banamma is Doota Lasmaiah, who is still alive, and she do not know whether divorce of Banamma has' taken place with Doota Lasmaiah, and her further admission is that her brother Godari Beeraiah has not married Banamma, she was brought to look after the children and Banamma has married one person by name Madanaiah.

26. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that Exs.A7 to A17 do not help the case 9f the ,/ 2U23 BRMR..J AS.No l60 2017 respondent-pl:rintiff, in view of the fact that the c|r luments were issued by various authorities based on the declaratro r given by the respondenl-plerintiff. Respondent-plaintiff has not fi1, d any record to show that his lather's name is Godari Beeraiah :,r ch as Schoo] certificate, Date ol Birth certificate, Birth certillcate n absence of the above said documents, it cannot be said that tlr plaintiff is born to Banamma through Godari l admission madc bv PW.2 is sufhcient that Godari Be: responden t- :eraiah. The 'aiah has not married Banamma and she was brought to look after I ee children.

27. The riecision cited by the respondent counscl in Smt.Aina Dcvi's casc is dealt under Hindu Marriage Act and tl-: decision in Chitru Devi's case is in respect of a declaration suit hat they are thc orvners anrl possessors of the land mentioned t rerein. The facts in the abovc said decision differ with the facts ) the present case, and thel'errc not applicable.

28. The decision cited by the appellant,s counsel rr Dolgobinda Paricha's casel js srluarely applicable to the case on h,l rd.

29. Thc learncd trial Court has misread the evidence adduced by the parties :rnd l:tiled to note the admissions made L ,, pW. 1 and PW .2 in lheir r_-ross-examination and wrongly z r :ived at a conclusion that thr: respondent-plaintiff is the son : . Banamma 22123 HKMl<,J AS.No.160 20l7 and Godari Beeraiah and he is the iegal heir along with the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (appellant Nos. 1 to 3 herein), when the factum of the marriage of Banamma with that of the Godari Beeraiah is not proved

30. The respondent-plaintiff has also not produced any academic record to show that his father's name is shown as Godari Beeraiah i.e., Birth certificate, School leaving certihcate, etc., and the best part is that Banamma who is still alive is not examined in the case. The Judgment of the learned trial Court suffers from perversity and suit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff after 13 years of the death of Godari Beeraiah. Furthermore the respondent-plaintitf has not shown any reason for the delay and as rightly contended by the Senior Counsel that Exs.A7 to A 17 are issued by various authorities based on the declarations given by the respondent- plaintiff.

31. In view of the reasons above, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the learned trial Court suffers from perversit5r and illegality, and the same is liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside.

32. In the result, AS.No.160 by 2Ol7 is allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional District y'trdge, ::,' AS.No.160 2017 Asifabad, in OS No.9 by 2016 dated 06.O1.2O11 is set aside hled by the responc ( nt-plaintiff is Consequently, the suit dismissed without costs. lnterim Orders if any, stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed sD/-N :Allfi-s=[B?HXA 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice B.R'MAD.H - SUDHAN RAO (For His LordshiP's kind Perusal) To, 2 1 The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge' Asifabarl (with records' if any) 11 LR CoPies The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs. New Delhi 4 The Secretary, I elangana High Court Advo-cate's A; ociation Library' High il',iff'th;'6i"i" oi TJrrnsJ;,. iig-n C""t Buildinss : t Hvderabad 3

5. One CC to Sri Vedula Srinivas, Advocate IOPUC] 6 One CC to Sri K Raghuveer Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies VH/I'SI- ( \h- $t w HIGH COURT DATED: 1611012025 t-t S;n rF C) IEi a'-t f1' * JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.160 ot 2017 ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS \r \'t/7 1\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 160 OF 2017 Between:

1. Godari Ramulu S/o. Bheeraiah, Age 56 years, Occ SCC Employee, R/o. Chunnambatti Wada, Mancherial, R/M Mancherial.

2. Godari Rajam S/o. Bheeraiah, Age 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Chun nambatti Wada, Mancherial, R/M lrilancherial.

3. Godari Linga tvlurthy S/o. Bheeraiah, Age 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chunnambatti Wada, Mancherial, R/M Mancherial.

4. Godari Ammakka, Wo. Late G. Ramulu, Aged about 56 years, R/o.H.No.22- 208, Saikuntawada, Chunnambattiwada, Mancherial District, Telangana PIN - 504208.

5. Jangama Umadevi. D/o. Late G. Ramulu, Aged about 43 years, R/o.H.No 22- 208, Saikuntawada, Chunnambattiwada, Mancherial District, Telangana PIN - 504208.

6. Durgam Lavanya, D/o. Late G. Ramulu, Aged about 33 years, Rio.H.No.22- 208, Saikuntawada, Chunnambattiwada, Mancherial District, Telangana PIN - 504208.

7. Godari Srinath, S/o. Late G. Ramulu, Aged about 29 years, R/o.H.No.22-208, Saikuntawada, Chunnambattiwada, Mancherial District, Telangana PIN - 504208 (Appellant Nos. 4 to7 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Appellant No. 1 as per Court Order dated. 10.11 .2023 vide lA No. 1 ol 2023 in AS No. '160 of 2017.) ANO ...APPELLANT Nos. 4 to 7 Godari Bheeraiah S/o. Bheeraiah, Age 45 years, Occ: SCC Employee, R/o Qr.No.T-789, Krishna Colony, Srirampur, Rl/M Mancherial. ...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF Appeal filed under section 96 of CPC against the JL < gment and Decree in dated 06.0 1.2017 in O S. No 9 of 2016 on the file of the lourt of lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Asifabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing re grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the mate r al papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vedula Srinivas Adv r ;ate for the appellants and Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Appeal be and hereby is allowed, and the passed by the lll Additional District Judge, Asifabad udgment and decree n OS No. 9 by 2016 dated 06.01.2017 is set aside; and

2. fhat there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/. I,1 RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional Distrrct and Sessions Judge, Asifabac 2. Two CD Copies VH,PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1611012025 DECREE AS.No.160 of 2017 ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS (u ,l1.. L \r' 't) ,\