IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 408 OF 2022 Between: 1. RAAVI SYAMA SUNDARA RAO, S/o China Perayya Aged about 70 years R/o D.No. 17-5-15, Ayodhyaramapuram, Samalkot, Kakinada. 2. Burugupalli Jayalakshmi, W/o Veera Swan-1y Aged about 51 years R/o Samalkot, Kakinada, ...Appellants/Defendants 1 and 3 AND 1. YARLAGADDA TATABBAI CHOWDARY, (Plaintiff) SR) Late Nehru aged about 46 years R/o D.No. 15-5-28, Satyanarayanapuram, Samalkot, Kakinada, 2. Kandula Venkata Rama Krishna, (2nd Defendant ) S/o Chinnarao Aged about 54 years D.No. 66-4-9, Narasanna Nagar, Opp. Kamlendranadh Hospital, Kakindada. ...Respondents/Plaintiff/2nd defendant Appeal under section 100 of CPC against orders Appellant above named begs to prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Second. Appeal against the Judgment and Decree, dated 22-07-2022, made in A.S. No. 315 of 2018 on the file of IV Additional District Judge. Kakinada Confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 01-06-2016, made in O.S. No. 945 of 2011 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Kakinada , and pray to set-aside the same IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings in pursuance to the Judgment and Decree, dated 22--07¬2022, made in A.S. No. 315 of 2018 on the file of IV Additional District Judge. Kakinada, Confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 01-06- 2016, made in O.S. No. 945 of 2011 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge' Kakinada pending disposal of the S.A., and to pass such Counsel for the Appellants: M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the 1st Respondent: G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following: Judgment: This second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 22-7-2022, in A.S.No.315 of 2018 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, in confirming the judgment and decree, dated 01-6-2016, in O.S.No.945 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 2. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are defendants 1 and 3, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is 2nd defendant in O.S.No.945 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.945 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, with a prayer for declaration of title of plaintiff over plaint-B schedule property and consequential relief for recovery of possession thereof. 4. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, preliminarily decreed the suit against the defendants 1 to 3, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint-B schedule and therefore, he is entitled to recover possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint-B schedule as consequential relief thereof. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants 1 and 3 in the above said suit filed A.S.No.315 of 2018 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dismissed the appeal suit by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants 1 and 3 approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.945 of 2011, is as follows: (a) It is pleaded that plaint-A schedule property is an extent of 606 square yards of site and is part of total extent of 1100 sq. yards of site belonging to the 1st defendant. Both the defendants 1 and 2 distributed pamphlets in town that there is an agreement between them to construct 8 flats in plaint-A schedule on the west out of 1100 sq. yards of site belonging to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant agreed to sell his undivided extent of site with compound walls to 8 persons at 75¾ sq. yards each, for which both the defendants agreed that they would arrange the activity of construction of flats to the said 8 persons. Having believed the representations of defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff had accepted their offer. Accordingly, he purchased item No.1 of plaint-B schedule i.e. 1/8th share in the plaint-A schedule to an extent of undivided 75¾ sq. yards of site from the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed vide Document No.3072/1999 of Sub Registrar’s office, Samalkot, dated 27-10-1999, for a sale consideration of Rs.21,000/-. (b) It is further pleaded that as agreed upon between the plaintiff on one side and defendants 1 and 2 on the other, the plaintiff also entered into a registered builders’ agreement vide Document No.3073/1999 of Sub Registrar’s office, Samalkot, dated 27-10-1999, with the 2nd defendant, who represented a proprietary concern, by name M/s S.G. Constructions, Kakinada, for construction of an apartment B.G-3 in the ground floor of proposed Srinish Plaza, Block-B. The said proposed B.G-3, Srinish Plaza, is described as item No.2 of plaint-B schedule. The plaintiff paid total amount of Rs.1,93,168/- from time to time to the 2nd defendant and thereby paid total amount of Rs.2,14,168/- (Rs.21,000/- + Rs.1,93,168/-) to the defendants 1 and 2. (c) It is further pleaded that after some time, the plaintiff learnt that the defendants 1 and 2 stopped the construction work and when he questioned them, they informed him that they had financial problems and therefore, delay was caused in continuing the construction work. He further learnt that the defendants 1 and 2 constructed a semi-finished flat B.G-3 in item No.1 of plaint-B schedule. He questioned the 1st defendant who informed that the 2nd defendant went away and therefore, he would cancel both the sale deed and the builders’ agreement. (d) It is further pleaded that both the defendants 1 and 2 made false representations and played fraud and that they made him believed that they would sell plaint-A schedule of 7 other shares and both the defendants 1 and 2 would construct 8 flats therein. That having believed the representations made by the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff purchased plaint-B schedule property and parted with total amount of Rs.2,14,168/- by way of payment of a sale consideration and towards charges for construction of item No.2 of plaint-B schedule i.e. flat B.G-3 in Srinish Plaza Apartment Complex. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the aforesaid reliefs. 7. Subsequent to filing of the suit, on coming to know that the 1st defendant executed a registered gift deed vide Document No.436/2003 of Sub Registrar’s office, Samalkot, dated 19-02-2003, in favour of the 3rd defendant to an extent of undivided 513¼ sq. yards of site out of 606 sq. yards of plaint-A schedule property, the donee of said property was made to be impleaded as 3rd defendant to the suit. 8. The defendants 1 to 3 filed separate written statements before the trial Court. The brief averments in the written statements are as follows: (a) It is contended by the 1st defendant that the plaintiff never paid any amounts to him i.e. sale consideration and he did not make any promises to the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. He constructed a house with his own funds long back in the schedule property and is continuing in possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute rights from 1956. The 2nd defendant approached him in the month of September, 1999 with a proposal to construct apartments in A and B Blocks at 8 flats for each block in total extent of 1094 sq. yards, for which the 2nd defendant made a proposal to construct such flats and he executed a document on 11-10-1999, but he did not keep up his promise and evaded to construct apartments as agreed upon. (b) It is contended by the 2nd defendant that no transaction was transpired between him and the plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff being the owner of site, requested him to draw a plan for the proposed construction work with the money provided by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. As such, he pleads that he is only a contractor and started work in the name of his firm, which is a proprietary concern. (c) It is contended by the 3rd defendant that she is no other than the daughter of 1st defendant and is donee of undivided remaining extent of 513¼ sq. yards of site out of 606 sq. yards of plaint-A schedule property. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the sale deed dated 27-9-1999 vide document No.3072/1999 is true, valid and binding on the 1st defendant ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for registered builders’ agreement dated 27-10-1999 vide document No.3073/1999 is true, valid and binding on defendants 1 and 2 ? (3) Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Arbitration clause in the builders’ agreement ? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for declaration of title and consequential relief of possession of items 1 and 2 of plaint-B schedule ? and (5) To what relief? 10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A-1 and A-13 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. 11. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, preliminarily decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants 1 and 3 filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.315 of 2018 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, wherein the following points came up for consideration: (1) Whether there are any irregularities in appreciating the evidence or giving findings by the trial Court in its judgment in O.S.No.945 of 2011 and if so, interference of appellate Court is warranted ? and (2) What relief ? 12. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants 1 and 3 and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the defendants 1 and 3. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.No.945 of 2011 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 13. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the second appeal on 23-9-2022, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated in not considering as to whether the suit for possession of undivided share is maintainable without asking for partition of the plaint schedule property ? (2) Whether the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated in considering that the suit filed for declaration and recovery of possession is maintainable without asking for cancellation of Ex.A7-Gift Deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant prior to filing of the suit ? and (3) Whether the delivery of Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in favour of a third party vitiates the judgments of the Courts below ? 14. Heard Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 and 3 and Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ plaintiff. 15. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence. In the case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh1, the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.” In the case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar2, the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of 1 AIR 1993 SC 398 2 AIR 1999 SC 471 law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 16. The undisputed facts are that plaint-A schedule property in an extent of 606 sq. yards of the site originally belongs to the 1st defendant and there was a registered agreement (khararunama), dated 11-10-1999, under Ex.A-10 in between the defendants 1 and 2. The terms and conditions in between the defendants 1 and 2 in Ex.A-10 registered agreement (khararunama), which are reiterated as follows: “The first party/1st defendant in Ex.A-10 Khararunama agreed to execute 8 sale deeds with 1/8th share undivided joint rights with expenses of second party/2nd defendant and get it registered, that Rs.1,00,000/- for each flat in B-Block valued at the time of registration of the said flats, totaling to Rs.8,00,000/- is to be paid by second party/2nd defendant to the first party in cash and after registration of the said flats, the said 8 flats after fully constructed with all amenities can be allotted to the buyers by the second party/2nd defendant.” 17. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2 distributed pamphlets in Samalkot town that there was an agreement (Ex.A-10) between them to construct 8 flats in plaint-A schedule property on the west out of 1100 sq. yards of site belongs to the 1st defendant and the plaintiff purchased item No.1 of plaint-B schedule i.e. 1/8th share in plaint-A schedule to an extent of undivided 75¾ sq. yards of site from the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed, dated 27-10-1999, executed in the Sub Registrar’s office, Samalkot, by paying sale consideration of Rs.21,000/-. The plaintiff on one side and the 2nd defendant on the other side entered into a registered builders’ agreement vide Document No.3073/1999 in Sub Registrar’s office, Samalkot, on 27-10-1999 and the plaintiff and 2nd defendant entered the said builders’ agreement and the 2nd defendant, who represented the proprietary concern of M/s. S.G. Constructions, Kakinada, for construction of an apartment B.G-3 in the ground floor of proposed Srinish Plaza, Block-B3 and the said property is described as item No.2 of plaint-B schedule. 18. As stated supra, the plaintiff purchased 1/8th share in item No.1 of plaint-B schedule i.e. to the extent of undivided 75¾ sq. yards of site from the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed after paying sale consideration of Rs.21,000/- to the 1st defendant and thereupon, he entered a registered builders’ agreement with the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant agreed to construct a flat B.G-3 in the ground floor of proposed Srinish Plaza, which is item No.2 of plaint-B schedule and thereupon, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,93,168/- from time to time to the 2nd defendant and therefore, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.21,000/- to the 1st defendant in respect of site value and paid an amount of Rs.1,93,168/-, in total Rs.2,14,168/- to the defendants 1 and 2. The same is well established by the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. Both Exs.A-1 and A-2 are registered documents and those documents are registered on the same day in the Sub Registrar’s office i.e. on 27-10-1999 and those document Nos. are 3072/1999 and 3073/1999 respectively. Therefore, it is evident that the 1st defendant is very much aware of the original builders’ agreement in between the plaintiff and 2nd defendant, and the 2nd defendant is very much aware of the sale transaction in between the plaintiff and 1st defendant. 19. Exs.A-3 and A-4 clearly support the case of the plaintiff. Ex.A-4 clearly reveals that the plaintiff paid payments to the 2nd defendant by complying the terms and conditions in Ex.A-2 builders’ agreement. Ex.A-7 dated 19-02-2003 goes to show that the 1st defendant executed a registered gift deed in favour of his daughter/3rd defendant on 19-02-2003 in respect of item No.1 of plaint-B schedule site. In the said document, the plaintiff sale deed is referred by the donor/1st defendant, therefore, the 3rd defendant is having very much knowledge about Ex.A-1 transaction. It is evident that the 1st defendant executed a registered gift deed in favour of the 3rd defendant in respect of the site in item No.2 of plaint-B schedule property on 05-01-2008. 20. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the suit for possession of undivided share is not maintainable without asking for partition of the plaint schedule property. The aforesaid series of transactions under Exs.A-1 to A-4 clearly goes to show that the plaintiff purchased 1/8th share in plaint-A schedule property to the extent of undivided 75¾ sq. yards of site from the 1st defendant under a registered document and thereupon, the plaintiff and 2nd defendant entered into a builders’ agreement on the same day in the same Sub Registrar’s office at Samalkot and the 2nd defendant also agreed to construct a flat viz., B.G-3 in the ground floor of proposed Srinish Plaza, Block-B, which is item No.2 of plaint-B schedule property and thereupon, the plaintiff made total payments to the 2nd defendant as per the conditions in builders’ agreement. Ex.A-1 transaction is referred in the gift deed transaction executed by the 1st defendant in favour of his daughter 3rd defendant. The gift deed transaction relates to the year 2003 and Ex.A-1 transaction relates to the year 1999. 21. The material on record goes to show that as per the builders’ agreement in between the plaintiff and 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant has to complete construction of item No.2 of plaint-B schedule apartment and to deliver the same to the plaintiff. As stated supra, the registered sale deed under Ex.A-1 and the registered builders’ agreement under Ex.A-2 are registered on the same day simultaneously vide Document Nos.3072/1999 and 3073/1999 and Ex.A-2 is within the knowledge of plaintiff and attestors in Ex.A-1 sale deed are nephew and son-in-law of the 1st defendant. Furthermore, Ex.A-1 is registered khararunama in between the defendants 1 and 2, is much earlier to Exs.A-1 and A-2 transactions, to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant intentionally executed a registered gift deed in the year 2008 under Ex.A-9, dated 05-01-2008, in respect of the site of item No.2 of plaint-B schedule. In view of the aforesaid series of events, there is no need to seek partition of the plaint schedule properties. 22. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the suit for declaration and recovery of possession is not maintainable without seeking cancellation of Ex.A-7 gift deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 3rd defendant. 23. Ex.A-7 is a gift settlement deed. The 1st defendant/donor referred about the alienation of property under Ex.A-1 to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the nephew and son-in-law of 1st defendant are attestors to Ex.A-1 sale deed and one of the attestors in Ex.A-1 sale deed is none other than the 3rd defendantis husband. Ex.A-7 is gift deed, dated 19-02-2003. Ex.A-1 is registered sale deed dated 27-10-1999. Ex.A-1 is much prior to Ex.A-7 gift transaction. There was a clear admission of 1st defendant/D.W.1 in his evidence itself that the 3rd defendant is his daughter, himself and the family of 3rd defendant living together in one house. The execution of Ex.A-1 sale deed is disputed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. He deposed that the plaintiff took him to Sub Registrar’s office and obtained his signature on Ex.A-1 on the pretext that Ex.A-1 is a builders’ agreement. But, he admitted that both the attestors to Ex.A-1 are his nephew and son-in-law and they signed on Ex.A-1 along with him. 24. The 1st defendant/D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross- examination itself that the 2nd defendant got obtained an approved plan in his favour for construction of apartment in plaint-A schedule property and Ex.A-7 bears his signature and he gave instructions for getting a registered gift deed executed in favour of his daughter. He further admits that he conveyed the eastern half to his wife and western half to his daughter/3rd defendant and Ex.A-8 is a registered gift deed executed in favour of his wife. He further admits that the 3rd defendant’s husband took a loan from the Central Bank of India, Samalkot, for establishing a footwear factory, by the year 1999 himself and his daughter/3rd defendant are residing under one roof, the 3rd defendant’s husband entrusted him that the 2nd defendant intended to construct an apartment in the site and the 2nd defendant agreed to construct an apartment covering the entire extent of 1100 sq. yards and to that effect, the 2nd defendant executed an agreement and the said fact is well known to the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant further admits that he executed the original of Ex.A-3 in favour of the 3rd defendant to an extent of 530¼ sq. yards of site. The 2nd defendant/D.W.3 admits in his cross-examination that previously he was owner of the firm, by name M/s. J.J. Constructions, Kakinada and the 1st defendant and his son-in-law approached him for preparing a building plan for construction of residential group housing in two Blocks in an extent of 606 sq. yards and another is 494 sq. yards. He further admits that the name of the builder mentioned in Ex.A-2 builders’ agreement denotes his identity. He further admits that the 1st defendant introduced the plaintiff to him that he is his relative and the 1st defendant introduced that plaintiff belongs to his community and he is prospective purchaser of the flats in the plaint schedule property. The 3rd defendant/D.W.2 in her evidence admits that the property that was got from her father pertains to B-Block and her father entered into an agreement with the 2nd defendant in the year 1999 and Ex.A-5 photographs reflect B-Block of the apartments. She further admits as per the agreement between his father and 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant has to construct 8 flats in B-Block and he has to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for each flat after alienation of the said flats. She further admits that Exs.A-1, A-8 and A-9 bear the signatures of her husband as an attestor. 25. The aforesaid admissions of D.Ws.1 to 3 are very much clear that the sale transaction under Ex.A-1 and a builders’ agreement in between the plaintiff and 2nd defendant under Ex.A-2 transaction in respect of item No.2 of plaint-B schedule property are within the knowledge of defendants 1 to 3 and the 3rd defendant’s husband. Therefore, now the 1st defendant cannot simply plead ignorance that the plaintiff took him to Sub Registrar’s office and obtained his signatures before the Sub Registrar. Admittedly, Ex.A-1 registered sale deed is not yet cancelled till so far. Therefore, Ex.A-1 sale deed prevails over Exs.A-7 and A-9. Therefore, the 1st defendant, who executed a gift deed under Ex.A-9 gift deed, was not the legal owner in respect of item No.2 of plaint-B schedule property. Therefore, the said gift deed in respect of item No.2 of plaint-B schedule property is void ab initio with respect to the superior title holder/plaintiff. The property i.e. site alone in respect of plaint-B schedule was sold to the plaintiff under a registered document in the year 1999 by the 1st defendant, the prior transfer creates a superior title and the subsequent gift is ineffective. Moreover, the plaintiff is not a party to the gift deed transaction. Therefore, the plaintiff can simply file the suit for declaration of his own superior title. The alleged gift deed is not binding on the plaintiff. The declaration of the superior title automatically nullifies the effect of gift concerning the challenger’s interest. A superior title is a direct challenge to the donor’s capacity to transfer plaint-B schedule vacant site. 26. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration and possession of item No.2 of plaint-B schedule property without seeking the partition of properties. The learned counsel for 1st respondent/plaintiff brought to the notice of this Court that the plaintiff filed a memo along with affidavit of the plaintiff by narrating that plaint- B schedule flat was delivered to the plaintiff on 12-9-2023 by the Court below in execution of the decree of the present suit, the same is undisputed by the plaintiff. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that there is no obligation on the plaintiff to claim the relief of partition in respect of the plaint schedule property and there is no need to seek the cancellation of gift transaction which was happened in the year 2008. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration. 28. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge as well as the learned first appellate Judge arrived at concurrent finding that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint-B schedule property and for possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint-B schedule property. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But, it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are -- where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. The present case does not come within the ambit of aforesaid exceptions as stated supra. 29. In the case at hand, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit for declaration and possession filed by the plaintiff and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record on all issues decided by the trial Court and after framing the points for consideration as required under Section 96 of C.P.C., the learned first appellate Judge rightly dismissed the first appeal. In the light of the material on record and upon earnest consideration now, it is manifest that the substantial questions of law raised in the course of hearing in the second appeal on behalf of the appellants did not arise or remain for consideration. This Court is satisfied that this second appeal did not involve any substantial question of law for determination. 30. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. YARLAGADDA TATABBAI CHOWDARY, (Plaintiff) SR) Late Nehru aged about 46 years R/o D.No. 15-5-28, Satyanarayanapuram, Samalkot, Kakinada, 2. Kandula Venkata Rama Krishna, (2nd Defendant ) S/o Chinnarao Aged about 54 years D.No. 66-4-9, Narasanna Nagar, Opp. Kamlendranadh Hospital, Kakindada. 3. One CC to SRI. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. G RAMA GOPAL Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT VGKRJ DATED:23/10/2025 ORDER SA NO. 408 OF 2022