KADASANI ALIVELAMMA Vs. KADAPA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
LAWS(APH)-2019-8-54
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 28,2019

Kadasani Alivelamma Appellant
VERSUS
Kadapa Municipal Corporation Respondents




JUDGEMENT

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - (1.)Aggrieved by the order in W.P.No.16262 of 2013 dated 12.09.2018, the unsuccessful petitioners preferred this writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent on various grounds.
(2.)The case of the petitioners before this Court in brief is that, a suit O.S.No.120 of 2011 filed by the second respondent-K.Bhaskar Reddy against K.Alivelamma and others including the writ petitioners 1 and 2 [defendants 1 & 2] is pending on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa for partition and other reliefs. On 06.11.2005, the husband of the first petitioner executed a partition list in the presence of his two sons, viz., K.Sudershan Reddy, the second petitioner herein, and K.Bhaskar Reddy, the second respondent herein and the first petitioner's younger brother, K.Subba Reddy, by dividing his self acquired and ancestral properties into three shares. Properties in Column Nos.1 & 2 were respectively, allotted to the second petitioner and the second respondent. The property in Column No.3 was kept by K.Ramachandra Reddy, the husband of the first petitioner. In that partition list, the said land in Sy.Nos.665/1 & 665/2 is shown as "Road Autula Chenu" (or) "Satramkada Moola Chenu" at item No.7. K.V.Ramana Reddy, brother of the first petitioner's husband is inimical to her family. He along with his son, K.Raghunatha Reddy, with the active support of K.Bhaskar Reddy, the second respondent herein, who was addicted to bad habits, and the legal adviser, Akumalla Raja Gopal and Y.Gopal Reddy, colluded together and created an unregistered forged Will deed by forging the signature of the husband of the first petitioner. Based on the 'Will', the second respondent filed suit in O.S.No.120 of 2011 for partition. The second respondent intentionally did not mention the property in Sy.No.665/1 of an extent of Ac.1.94 cents and also many other ancestral properties as part of the 'A' schedule in the said suit. But, he dishonestly included the self acquired properties of the second petitioner and of his maternal uncle, K.Subba Reddy, in the said suit schedule.
(3.)In the said suit, an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1717 of 2011 was filed for appointment of a Receiver in respect of created 'A' schedule property. The Court below having considered the facts and the partition list, dated 06.11.2005, appointed a Receiver insofar as the properties that fell to the share of the second respondent and also for the properties that fell to the share of the husband of the first petitioner, which are mentioned in the columns of the partition list; but, granted liberty to the second petitioner to enjoy his share of property as per the partition list. Another application in I.A.No.1495 of 2011 was also filed for grant of injunction insofar as the property covered by the created 'A' schedule. By order, dated 19.03.2013, the Trial Court granted injunction in respect of the share of the second respondent and the share of the first petitioner's husband, but granted liberty to the second petitioner herein to enjoy his share of property mentioned in the partition list. Thus, the second respondent is seeking partition of the properties, which were in fact, partitioned, on 06.11.2005. The second respondent spoiled the family reputation and good will of his father, i.e., the husband of first petitioner. The second respondent is an accused in C.C.No.108 of 2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 468 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C'). The said C.C relates to sale of Alto car of the husband of the first petitioner, on 30.06.2011, to one N.Srinivasulu, by forging the signatures of the husband of the first petitioner in the necessary transfer forms. The second respondent and his associates colluded together in order to knock away the properties in Column No.3 of the partition list and introduced a fictitious person, by name, Katasani Sankar Reddy, who is a coolie and a cart puller; they changed his surname, his name and his father's name as Katasani Siva Sankar Reddy S/o Chinna Veera Reddy, by influencing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Markapur. They obtained a certificate, dated 26.11.2010, with regard to the change of name. After changing the name of that fictitious person, the second respondent with the active support of his associates and the said person and also one Kavali Sekhar had created fake FMB showing sub divisions of Sy.Nos.665/1 into 665/1-A, 1-B, 1-C and obtained pattadar passbook and title deed, vide Patta No.120 for Sy.No.665/1-C to an extent of Ac.0.65 cents and 1-B Form for Sy.No.665/1-C and surprisingly for Sy.No.665/1-B also. Sy.No.665/1 was never sub divided at any point of time. The second respondent and his associates introduced the fictitious person to knock away the entire share of the husband of the first petitioner which is mentioned in the partition list and they also created the story of sub-division of the survey number. Thus, they created several documents.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.