1. Smt. Chencharapu Umadevi v. Jinna Bhupathi Reddy & three others

Judgment

..Respondents This Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs agairrst the decree and judgment dated 2l.Ol.2OL3 dismissing O.S. No. 17O of 2OO2 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal.

3. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

The suit is to declare plaintiffs as owners of suit schedule property; to evict defendants from suit schedule property; t.o a'*,ard damages of Ils. 1,00,OOO/- from defendants wrth pedente lite interest Ai 189'0 p.a. and for costs. The suit schedule property is a house plot l:earing No. 27 admeasuring 490 square yards fonning part of Survey No. 424 situated at Central Excise Colony, Wacldepally Sivar, Hanamkonda. .\ .-3 ,./J .-.*A*, 2

3.1. The case of Plaintiffs is that their father Sri Ginna (Jinna) Itflalla Reddy was a member of the Central Excise Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hanamkonda (Housing Society) who purchased the suit schedule property from thr: Housing Society, on being allotted, by way of a registererl sale deed Doc.No. 1181/ 1978 dated 18.05.1978. He settled the same through registered Gift Deeds bearing Doc. Nos. 617'll2OO1 and 6172l2OOi dated 19.12.2OO1 as pasupu kumkunra in favour of plaintiffs. In January 2OOl, plaintiffs came to know that Defendant No.1, who is none other than their junior paternal uncle, is trying to alienate the same to the third parties; therefore, they got issued legal notice dated 04.01.2OO2 but the same was returned unserved; later they got issued a paper publication in Eenadu Daily newspaper dated

06.01.21)02.

3.2. While so, Defendant No.l trespassed into the suit schedule property on 11.01.2OO2 and forcibly occupied it and got constructed a compound wall towards southern side and two rooms in spite of due resistance of plaintiffs. Then, they lodged a complaint on 11.O1.2OO2 with Subedari Police but police have not taken any action since it is a dispute of civil nature. Subsequently, Plaintiffs came to know that Defendant No.1 ha.d obtained Municipal permission and House No- 2-Z-TST .t I i ] 3 as allotted by the Municipality on 24.12.2001. Therefore, the father of plaintiffs lodged a complaint with the Municipality; the commissioner, warangal Municipal corporation issued notices to both the parties to submit their evidence to prove their ownership and claim and after due enquiry, the Municipal authorities cancelled the House Number allotted to Defendant No.1.

3.3. Defendant No.1 has got issued a legal notice dated o8.o2.2oo2 to plaintiffs and their father claiming t.l.at he is owner of the suit schedule property which has fallen to his share in the partition in 1987; the father of plaintiffs executed a notarized affidavit dated 04.08.19g9 in his favour by dectaring that the property was allotted to Defendant No.1 in the family arrangement between the brothers and his father executed a Parishakar Patram dated L2.o2.19g9. plaintiffs got issued reply notice dated 26.02.2002 to Defendant No. I denying the contents of his legal notice. 3.4- Plaintiffs contend that suit schedule propert5r was purchased by their father out of his salary earnings, as such it is his self-acquired property; neither defendants nor anybody has any right over it. Defendants have forcibly occupied the suit schedule propert5r on 11.01.2oo2 and constructed compound wall etcetera. Hence the suit. , \ \ \ 4

4. The case of Defendants 1 to 3 is that G' (J) Malla Reddy(fatherofplaintiffs),alongwithG.PrabhakarReddy,G. BhupathiReddy(DefendantNo.l),G.SudhakarReddyandtheir father G. Sanjeeva Reddy constitute Hindu Joint Family and theywert:havingpropertiesatThaherapur(Mandaripetvillage) and at Hanamkonda as on the date of joining of J. Malla Reddy asmemtleroftheHousingSociety.Sincehewasamemberof theHous;ingSocieW,thesuitschedulepropertywaspurchased by the joint family in the name of Jinna Malla Reddy for the benefit c,f joint family out of joint family funds. The joint family propertir:s i.e., agricultural lands and house property at Mandar:.pet village, the suit schedule propert5r, were partitioned on 28.10.1987. In view of the objections raised by J-Malla Reddy,afamilyre-arrangementwasmadeon|2.02.1989and thereaft.er, a final settlement was arrived on 21'04'1991 between the joint family members. In the final partition of the joint family ltroperties among the joint family members, suit schedule property fell to the share of Defendant No. 1. Since the suit schedule property is registered in the name of Ginna (Jinna) Malla Reddy, father of plaintiffs, a notarized affidavit was executed by him in favour of Defendant No.1 on O4'O8' 1988 and originerl registered sale deed was also handed over to Defendant No.l rilong with possession of suit schedule property Since / / 5 then, Defendant No.1 is in possession of suit schedule propert5r; he got constructed a compound wall and a small house. The Municipal Corporation, Warangal assessed the constmctions and all0tted House No. 2-7-757 in the name of Defendant No.1 for the suit schedule propert5r. To perform the marriage of his daughters (Defendants 2 and 3), Defendant No.l intended to settle half of the suit schedule property to them and executed a registered Gift settlement deed dated 29.12.2001 in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

4.1. It is further stated, Malla Reddy along with some others came to the suit schedule property on the night of 2l.Ol.2OO2 and caused damage to the propert5r. Hence, a police complaint was todged. Defendant No.l denied the allegation of trespass into the suit schedule property. It is also stated, Malla Reddy along with plaintiffs created the registered gift settlement documents, though they have no right in the suit schedule propert5l. He stated about the exchange of legal notices. Defendant No.1 produced copies of notarized affidavit executed by J. Malla Reddy in his favour; family re-arrangement dated t2.O2.1989 before the Municipal Corporation as directed by the Commissioner. Defendants contend that plaintiffs or their father has no right, title, ownership in the suit schedule \ \ 6 property which exclusively belongs to Defendant No.l and through him to Defendants 2 and 3.

5. Warangal Municipal Corporation as Defendant No'4 fiIed its written statement averring that it is not concerned with the title dispute between plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 3. on the Application made by Defendant No.l, inspection of suit schedule property was done, existence of structures was verified and house No. 2-7-757 was allotted. On the complaint of plaintifls, corporation verified the documents produced by them and cztncelled the house number. Defendant No- 1 on 31.05.2002 submitted an Application along with a notary affidavit executed by the father of plaintiffs and partition documr:nt showing allotment of suit schedule property in his favour before the Municipal Corporation to mutate his name. The au.thorities after inspecting the site found one A.C. Sheet Shed t'hereon, hence, the propert5r was mutated in the name of Defendant No.l on 15.01.ZCiOZ. Later, both the parties filed complzrints with documents. The Corporation therefore, suggested them to agitate their rights and settle the matter before the Civil Court.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court frame<l as many as nine issues. Plaintiffs examined six witnes,ses as PWs. 1 to 6 and marked Exs. A1 to A55. On the I \\ 7 t other hand, DWs. I to 7 were examined and Exs. 81 to B15 were marked. Two documents were marked as Exs. C1 and C2.

7. The trial Court dismissed. the suit holding that it is proved that suit schedule property was purchased not out of the self-acquired funds of P.W.2 and it was purchased out of a joint family funds.

8. For better understanding, the relationship between plaintiffs and defendants, it is necessary to look at the following facts: Sri Jinna Sanjeev Reddy and Smt. Maduramma @ Mangamma have 4 sons and one daughter, viz. Malla Reddy, Bhupathi Reddy, Prabhakar Reddy, Sudhar Reddy and Nagamani. For the lis on hand: Malla Reddy has two daughters Smt. Uma and Smt. Suma (plaintiffs) and Bhupathi Reddy (Defendant No.l) has two daughters Smt. Saritha and Smt. Haritha (Defendants 2 and 3).

9. The entire lis depends on the Issue No.l lMhether the suit plot was purchased in the name of G. Malla Reddy out of the income from his joint family or out of his own earnings?'. It is to be seen, the father of plaintiffs Ginna (Jinna) Malla Reddy came into witness box as PW2, who deposed in support of the contents of plaint. PW-3 is the colleague of PW-2 and he deposed of partition of properties at Mandaripet village between the family members of plaintiffs' father in October L997 - He \ \ 8 deposed that suit schedule property was purchased from the personal savings of Malla Reddy. PW-4 a family friend deposed that Malla reddy purchased the suit schedule property from his earnings.

10. The Advocate Commissioner appointed in IA No. 780 of 2103 and another Advocate Commissioner appointed in IA No. :150 of 2OO2 deposed of the structures in the suit schedule property. Defendant Np.1 has chosen to depose as DW- 1 in support of their written statement. DW-2 a resident of the Exci:;e Colony deposed that Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Jinna Sudhakar Reddy, l>rother of Defendant No.1 and father of plaintiffs, and Smt. Jinna Madhuramma @ Mangamma mother of Defendant No.l and father of plaintiffs, deposed as DWs.3 and 5. They have cat.egorically deposed that that suit schedule property was purchased from the joint family funds in the name of Malla Reddy; in the partition dated 28.10.1987 and re-arrangement dated LtI,.O2.1989, the suit schedule property fell to the share of Defendant No. l. They deposed that Defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit schedule property by constructing compound wall and structures thereon, and neither Malla Reddy nor plaintiffs have any right in the suit schedule properh/. when Jinna Malla Reddy and Jinna sanjeeva Reddy / / 9 ) raised objections, again an adjustment in partition was affected on 2L.O4.1991. The re-arrangement to partition made on 2t.O2-1989 was mentioned in the said document whic.h was executed in the presence of mediators.

11. Another crucial witness is DW-4. Mr. G. Vasudeva Reddy, Clerk of Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao, Advocate notary, who notarized and attested the affidavit given by the father of plaintiffs Malla Reddy on 04.08.1988. He deposed that while he worked as Advocate Clerk and Typist in the O/o Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao, Advocate Notary, Jinna Bhupathi Reddy and his brother Jinna Malla Reddy came to their office on O4.O8.1988 and at the instructions of Jinna Bhupathi Reddy, Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao drafted an affidavit which was typed by him (DW-a) on the stamp paper brought by Jinna Malla Reddy. After going through it, Jinna Malla Reddy signed on the affidavit which was attested and notarized by Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao, Advocate Notary, on the same date. DW-4 identified the signature of Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao on the affidavit which was marked as Ex. B15. 12- A relative and family friend Mr. Revuri Mohan Reddy was examined as DW-6. He deposed of joint family and partition that took place. He also deposed that since partition, the suit schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of \ l0 r' Defendant No1. DW-7 also deposed about the joint family and the partition. Based on the record, the trial Court recorded that the adrritted facts are that the suit schedule properi, was registered in the name of Jinna Malla Reddy, father of plaintiffs, uide reg..stered Sale Deed dated 16.05. L978; the original sale deed was marked by Defendants as Ex.B-2, whereas plaintiffs marked a certified of the said sale deed as Ex. A- 1. Jinna Malla Reddy, .linna Bhupathi Reddy, Jinna Prabhakar Reddy, Jinna Sudhakzrr Reddy are the sone of Jinna Sanjeeva Reddy and joint family rnembers and they partitioned their properties on

28.l}.ltl87 and later it was revised and reviewed by the above family rrrembers. As on the date of filing of the suit, Defendants 1 to 3 are in possession of the suit schedule property.

13. The trial court further recorded that Jinna Malla Reddy -father of the plaintiffs, in the affidavit Ex. 815 stated that suil schedule property was allotted to Defendant No. 1 and the sanre was corroborated by Ex. B-14 Parishkara Patram. Though plaintiffs denied all these documents, they have not chosen ':o examine any of the family members who are parties to the parr-ition. On the other hand, defendants examined Jinna sudhakar Reddy as DW-3 (brother of PW2 and DWl), Jinna Madhuramma @ Mangamma who is the mother of PW2 and DWs 1 zLnd 3, as D.W.s. // / / ), ,'

14. The triar court also recorded that in spite of some discrepancies in cross-examination, on the whole, the evidence of DWs- 1 to 3 is consistent in respect of the suit schedule propert5r fallen to the share of Defendant No.1 and the same was purchased out of joint family funds, though it stands in the name of PW2 and Defendant No.1 is in possession of the same. Their evidence supported partition of the properties and the partition documents i.e. parishakar patram and Notarized Aflidavit Ex.Br5. plaintiffs have not filed any document to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. 15. On the analSrsis of the oral and documentary evidence, the court berow answered Issue No. r in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 and against plaintiffs. L6' In view of the eraborate discussion, anarysation of oral and documentary evidence on lssue No. 1, the Trial court, answering th: other issues, herd that Jinna Malra Reddy had execured the Notarised Affidavit dated o4.0g.19gg (Ex. E}15); suit schedule property fallen to the share of Defendant No.l; Defendants have proved the family re-arrangement dated L2-12.1989 between pw-2 and DW-r and other members of the joint family; Defendant No. 1 is having right over the suit schedule property; plaintiffs are not entitred for declaration and recovery of possession; Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants \ \ '\ \ t2 1 to 3 herve itlegally occupied the suit schedule property; and Plaintiffs are not entitled for any damages claimed in the plaint' Thus hol<ling, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs, by judgment and decree dated l2-Ol'2013'

17. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs preferred this Appeal on the following grounds: - i) The de,cree and judgment under appeal is against law and facts of the case. ii) The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper Pt:rsPective. iii) The trial Court ought to have decreed the suit in view of the evidence ted bY Plaintiffs. iv) Since only the first sheet of Ex. B- 1 partition deed dated 28.10. tg87 was filed and the remaining sheets are not filed, the same ought not to have been accepted by the trial Court. v)ThetrialCourttookapartofExs.BlandA48into consideration and rejected the remaining part of the documents' Documetrts have to be taken into consideration or rejected in their entirety, but a part of the same cannot be taken into consideration. vi) The trial court erred in coming to a finding that though in Ex. B14 Parishara patram dated t2.O2.1989, item No. 11 ie. suit sch.edule property, stands in the name of Malla Reddy (pw2), it has been transferred to Respondent No. 1 (DW 1) through a notarized affidavit pursuant to a partition dated 28.1O.1987. vii) The trial Court ought to have given a finding that schedule property which is registered in the name of Malla Reddy (Pw 2) will be of his own. // / l3 viii) The trial Court out to have ignored the evidence of DW-4 in view of Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act. ix) Since there is no whisper in Ex.B2 sale deed that the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of PW-2 out of the joint family funds, the trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that suit schedule property is a joint family property. The observations in this regard are unwarranted. x) the trial Court to have read the evidence of DW-6 in conjunction but not in isolation. The Court had omitted the evidence of DW-6 which is in favour of plaintiffs. xi) Evidence of DW-s that lands which were purchased by her husband (father of PW-2 and D-1) were in his name, makes it clear that if suit schedule propert5r was bought from the joint family funds, it would have been registered in the name of Sanjeeva Reddy, father of PW-2 and D-l but the trial Court failed to notice it. xii) The trial Court failed to consider Exs. A45 and A47 Application of Jinna Malla Reddy dated 20.06.2005 to the Commissioner, WMC and Commissioner Warrant dated 23.O3.2024. xiii) The 1"t defendant deposed that he'along with mother and family members have been residing in the house since long time having plinth area of 24 Sq.Ft, which is as small as a bath room and which cannot accommodate even one person. The trial Court lost sight of this aspect. xiv) The discrepancy in the evidence of Advocate Commissioner as PW-5 regarding the structures is not taken note of. xv) The registered gift settlement deed executed by D- 1 in favour of Defendants 2 and 3 in respect of suit schedule proper$r on the strength of assessment made by the WMC under E;x-C-2 dated 24.12.2001 has no validity since Ex.C2 was cancelled by \ \ \ t4 the Conrmissioner, WMC by proceedings Ex.B-24. The trial Court fa:led to notice it. xvi) The trial Court's judgment is perverse, bad in law and slipshod and sans proper reasons.

18. Heard Sri B. Harinath Rao, learned counsel for appellants and smt. B. Vanaja, learned counsel for Defendants 1to3.

19. In nut-shell, learned counsel for appellants - plaintiffr; stretched the grounds referred to above and learned counsel for respondents - Defendants 1 to 3 rebutted the same by referr-ing to the evidence and findings of the trial court. It is trite to re-appreciate the evidence to answer the grounds of Appeal.

20. The undisputed facts are : the father of plaintiffs (PW-2) zrnd Defendant No.1 are natural brothers; pW-2 was a member of the Housing Society; suit schedule property was registert:d in his name in the sale deed dated 18.05. rgz\; pw-2 settled l.he suit schedule property through registered Gift Deeds dated l').12.2oo1 in favour of plaintiffs; DW-1 (also D-1) settled the suit schedule property through registered Gift Deeds dated 29.12.2,JO1 in favour of Defendants 2 and 3. Warangal Municipral Corporation assessed the structures in the suit schedule propert5r and assigned house No 2-7-757 on ,f t l5

24.I2.2OO1 and later, on the strength of the complaint of plaintiff s father, cancelled the same on 31-O5-2OO2. 2L. The crucial point that would resolve the entire dispute is whether the suit schedule propert5r was purchased from the joint family funds of PW-2 and DW-l in the name of pw-2? whether Pw-2 has given a notarized affidavit dated

04.08.1988 that in the family partition/re-arrangement, suit schedule property was given to DW- 1?

22. Admittedly, Sri Jinna Sanjeev Reddy and Smt' Maduram ma @ Mangamma have four sons and one daughter, viz. Malla Reddy (PW-2), Bhupathi Reddy (DW-l), Prabhakar Reddy, Sudhar Reddy and Nagamani. suit schedule property was purchased in the name of Malla Reddy (Pw-2) uide registered Sale Deed clated 18.05. L978. PW-2 contends that suit schedule property was purchased from his personal earnings, whereas DW- 1 contends that it was purchased from the joint family funds. PW-2 deposed in support of the contents of the plaint. Pw-3 deposed about partition of properties in October Lgg7, but he deposed that the suit schedule property was not claimed in that partition. Pw-4 deposed that PW-2 purchased the suid schedule property from his savings. PWs. 5 and 6 are Advocate-Commissioners and they deposed regarding the.structures in the suit schedule property. ,.\ \r'. \ /' \, t6

23. Dw-l reiterated the contents of written statement. DW-2, a resident of Excise colony deposed that Defendant No.1 is in poss;ession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Jinna Sudhakar Reddy, brother of Defendant No.l and father of plaintiffs and Smt. Jinna Madhuramma O Mangamma, mother of Defen<lant No.l and father of plaintiffs, deposed as DWs. 3 and 5. 'fhey have categorically deposed that suit schedule property was purchased from the joint family funds in the name of Malla Reddy; in the partition dated 2g.10. rggr and re-arran[lement dated 12.02.1989, suit schedule property fell to the sharr: of Defendant No. 1. The.y deposed that Defenclant No. 1 is in pcssession of suit schedule property by constructing compourLd wall and structures thereon, and neither Malla Reddy rror plaintiffs have any right in the suit schedule propert5r when Jinna Malla Recldy and Jinna Sanjeeva Reddy raised otrjections again, adjustment in partition was affected on 2l-o4.1991. Re-arrangement to partition made on 2r.o2.19g9 was mentioned in the said document which was execlrted in the presence of mediators.

24. Except DW-4, all the other witnesses of both the parties are somewhat relatives/family friends. Dw-4 is a neutral witness ''vho has ho interest in the fts. He deposed that while he worked :rs Advocate clerk and \pist in the o/o sri p. samba / t7 Shiva Rao, Advocate Notary, Jinna Bhupathi Reddy and his brother Jinna lt/lalla Reddy came to their office on O4.08.1988 and at the instructions of Jinna Bhupathi Reddy, Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao drafted an affidavit which was typed by him (DW-a) on the stamp paper brought by Jinna Malla Reddy. After going through it, Jinna Malla Reddy signed on the affidavit which was attested and notarized by Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao, Advocate Notary, on the same date. DW-4 identified the signature of Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao on the affidavit which was marked as Ex. B15. This Court perused the photo copy of Ex.B-15

25. Notarized Affidavit dated 04.08.1988 of G. Malla Reddy, S/o Sanjeeva Reddy (father of plaintiffs and PW-2). In this affidavit, PW-2 categorically stated that 'tlrc Plot No. 27 of Sy.No. 424 of Wad.dapalg Village, Warangal Taluk and District in an \ extent of a9O square gards, nominallg stitnds in his name though it is joint land.. tn tkrc partition in 1984, the said plot was allotted. and giuen,to his brother Sn G Bhoopathi Reddy with de facto deliuery of possession and since 7984, he is owning and possessing tte said land with exclusiue and absolute rights and he (Malla Reddg) has no right, interest, demand and claim in respect th.ereof. He luas no obiection if the said land be mutated in the name of his brother G. Bhoopathi Reddg.' l8 /

26. DW-4 deposed of execution of Ex.B15. Neither plaintiffs nor their father (PW-2) denied existence of Ex. 815 or its contents. Defendant No.l's brother - DW-3 and mother - DW-s have clearly deposed that suit schedule propert5r was purchased from the joint famill, funds in the name of PW-2. This evidence was not shattered.

27. From the above analysis of evidence, more particularly in the light of un-impeached Ex. B-15, it can safely be concluded that suit schedule propertv beiongs to Jinna Bhoopathi Reddy and plaintiffs have no right in it. The trial Court heLs rightly appreciated the evidence and dismissed the suit. This Appeal is therefore, devoid of rnerits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

28. Interlocutory Applications, if any shall stand closed. Sd/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER records, if any) //TRUE COPY// i

1. The ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Warangal. 2. One CC t:o Sri B. Harinath Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC t:o Smt. B. Vanaja, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD rlopies To, VH/SAv --t Ii q- -:.. ,'r ,t # n .\ -i'E ' s' "1; ,E. Fi l'..fr.j HIGH COURT DATED: 1811212025 I .\ TAS \ 3 .12 rts affi * IIAT I z. .P * JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.322 ot 2013 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 'il IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL SUIT NO: 322 OF 2013 Between:

1. smt. chencharapu Umadevi, wo. Late Rajasekhar. Reddy, Aged about 42 years, occ - Private Lecturer, R/o. H.No .2-z-qt4, Excise cotony, Subedari, Hanamkdnda, Warangal Dist.

2. smt. Pathuri guma Devi wo. Venkat Ram Gopal Reddy, aged about: 39 years, occ: Household, R/o Devasugur, shakthinagar, Raichur Dist, Karnataka State. ...APPE LLANTS/PLAI NTI FFS AND

1. Jinna Bhupathi Reddy s/o. Late sanjeeva Reddy, aged about 62 years, occ _ Agriculture,

2. Jinna saritha, D/o. Bhupathi Reddy, Aged about 34 years, occ - House. Hold, 3. Jinna Haritha, D/o. Bhupathi Reddy, aged about 2g years, occ - House Hold, The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are residents of H.No. s-11-gg2, Naimnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District

4. The Municipa[ corporation of warangal, Rep. by its commissioner. ... RESPON DE NTS/DE FE N DANTS Appeal filed under section g6 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree Dated 21-01.2o1?-in O.S.No.17O of 2OO2 on the file of the Court of the il Additionat Senior Civil Judge, at Warangal. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court betow and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. Harinath Rao, Advocate for the appellants and smt B. Vanaja, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. \ \* This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. N. SRIHARI DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To,

1. The ll Adclitional Senior Civil Judge, at Warangal. 2. Two CD C;opies VH/SA W HIGH COURT DATED i 1811212025 DECREE AS.No.322. of 2013 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS '5\ / -t