IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE XXV ADDL.

CHIEF JUDGE::
CITY CIVIL COURT:: AT: HYDERABAD

I.A.No OF 2021
IN
O.S.No. 309 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Smt. Mallelollu Laxmamma
.Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND

Dargupalli Narsimha & others

..Respondents/defendants

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT NO.53

I, M.Narsimha Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy, age 74 years, Occ:…..R/o 12-

13-1237, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, do hereby Solemnly affirm and state on
Oath as follows.

1. I am the deponent herein and respondent/defendant no.53 in the

main petition as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the
case and I am able to depose here under.

2. At the out-set the affidavit filed by the petitioner is neither

maintainable on law nor on facts. The allegations made in the
affidavit are all false, frivolous, vexatious and invented for the
purpose of filing the petition. The petitioner did not approach the
Hon’ble Court with clean hands, hence this
Respondent/defendant no.67 deny all the allegations except
those which are specifically admitted hereunder. The petitioner is
put to strict proof of the same and is liable to be dismissed in
limini. The petition of the petitioner suffers from the defect of
supprecio vari and suggestion falsi. The averments made in the
 2

affidavit which those are specifically not admitted deems to be

denied.

3. In reply to Para no.I & II of the affidavit are descriptive in nature,

hence needs no reply.

4. With regard to Para no.III (1) of the affidavit under reply, this
respondent/defendant is not aware that whether the petitioner
and respondent/defendants no. 1 to 3, 291 to 293 are the legal
heirs and successors of late Durgapalli Pentaiah who died
intestate. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

5. With regard to Para no.III (2) of the affidavit under reply, it is

submit that this respondent/defendant is not aware of the fact
that the respondent/defendant no.2 is the son of late D.Babaiah
and grandson of late Durgapalli Pentaiah and
respondent/defendant no.3 is the son of late D.Ettaiah and
grandson of Late Durgapalli Pentaiah. This respondent/defendant
is not aware that the respondent/defendant no.293 is the son of
late Vennela Sayamma who is the daughter of late Durgapalli
Pentaiah.

6. With regard to Para no.III (3) of the affidavit under reply, it is

submitted that, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner and
respondent/defendants no.1 to 3 and 291 to 293 are the joint
lawful owners and possessors of the agricultural land in
Sy.no.177 admeasuring Ac.11-07gts., situated at
Vattenagulapalli village and Rajendra Nagar Mandal, now
Gandipet mandal, R.R.District acquired the same by virtue of
succession and inheritance being ancestral property. The
petitioner/plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same All the
averments made there in are not true and correct hence, denied.
As a matter of fact, D.Pentaiah was the absolute owner and
 3

possessor of agricultural land in Sy.no.177 admeasuring Ac.11-

07gts., situated at Vattenagulapalli village and Rajendra Nagar
Mandal, now Gandipet mandal, R.R.District and it is self-acquired
property of D.Pentaiah and also obtained 38E certificate under
AP(Telangana) Tenancy and Agricultural land Act,1950. The
ownership of the said lands transferred to the said D.Pentaiah in
the year 10-07-1975 vide proceedings No.LRW/121/75. The D.
Pentaiah being exclusive owner competent to sell in favour of M/s
Maharaja Real Estates i.e. respondent/defendant no.4 herein.

7. With regard to Para No.III(4) of the affidavit under reply, it is

submitted that, this respondent/defendant is not aware that
D.Pentaiah in the year 1990s suffered with several ailments such
as cardiac problem, hypertension and nerve problems since he
was about 75 years of old but it is incorrect to say that the
petitioner and respondent/defendant no. 1 to 3, 291 to 292 use
to cultivate the said land jointly. The petitioner is put to strict
proof of the same. All averments made therein are not true and
correct hence, denied.

8. With regard to Para No.III (5) of the Affidavit under reply, it is

incorrect to say that during the life time of D.Pentaiah used to
give share in the yield to the petitioner herein and later after
demise of D.Pentaiah the respondent/defendants no. 1 to 3 used
to give shares in the yield to the petitioner. The petitioner is put
to strict proof of the same. In fact, during the life time of
D.Pentaiah sold the entire land in Sy.no.177 through registered
document vide Doct.no.8434/1998 dtd 29-10-98 extent Ac.11-
07gts., in favour of respondent/defendant no.4 herein, which was
his self acquired property and the question of giving share in the
yield to the petitioner does not arise at all. All averments made
therein are not true and correct hence, denied.
 4

9. With the regard to Para No.III (6) of the affidavit under reply, it is
incorrect to say that since last two years the petitioner is facing
financial scarcity, she held a panchayat before elders and well -.
wishers to get her share in the petition schedule property for the
purpose of self-cultivation, wherein the respondent/defendants
no. 1 to 3 consented for the same, but they did not keep up their
purpose. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The
petitioner is not entitled to seek any share, as the petition
schedule property is not joint family property or ancestral
property and after alienation by her father in the year 1998 itself
in favour of respondent/defendant no.4 along with his sons who
are also parties to the sale deed, though they are not necessary
parties to the said sale deed they have signed as a consenting
parties. Now, the land is not available for self-cultivation. The
said land has been converted to nala and several plots were
alienated to various purchasers. Now, these
respondent/defendant is one of the plot owner vide Doct.no…….
i.e. Plot bearing no.58A & 59 in Sy.no.137 & 177 admeasuring
…….. Sq.yds., (scheduled property no.62) which is purchased
from Respondent/defendant no.4 & 5 for valid sale consideration.
This Respondent/defendant is bonafide purchaser of the said plot
and this respondent/defendant is in physical possession of the
same from the date of purchase.

10. With regard to Para No.III (7) of the affidavit under reply, it
is submitted that, it is incorrect to say that disgusted with their
attitude the petitioner demanded the respondent/defendants 1 to
3 for partition of the said property with separate possession to
which the respondent/defendants 1 to 3, initially consented for
the same but again they played delaying tactics on one or the
other reason and successfully dragged the matter till recently.
 5

The petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. All averments

made therein are not true and correct hence, denied. The
petition schedule property was alienated to
respondent/defendant no.4 & 5 by D.Pentaiah as aforesaid i.e.
father of the petitioner which was his self acquired property and
no land available to demand partition as respondent/defendant
no.1 to 3 are parties to the sale deed and it is binding on them
and also on this petitioner and other respondent/defendants.

11. With regard to Para no.III(8) of the affidavit under reply. It is

submitted that, it is incorrect to say that several meetings were
held in the year 2021 wherein the respondent/defendants 1 to 3
did not healed to the advice of the elders and well- wishers and
finally on 04-04-2021 once again the petitioner has demanded
the respondent/defendants no. 1 to 3 for partition and allotting
her share in the said property, but the respondent/defendants
no. 1 to 3 have refused for the same. The petitioner is put to
strict proof of the same. All averments made therein are not true
and correct hence, denied. The dates mentioned in the affidavit
are imaginary and illusive and there is no cause of action. When
no land is available for partition as on the date of demand of
partition, the question of demanding partition and allotting
shares does not arise. When there was no cause of action the
affidavit itself liable to rejected in limini.

12. With regard to the para no.III(9) of the Affidavit under reply,
it is incorrect to say that having suspicious about the conduct
and attitude of the respondent/defendants no. 1 to 3, the
petitioner approached the Sub-registrar concerned and obtained
Encumbrance certificate and certified copies reflected therein
and astonished to late D.pentaiah along with his sons have sold
the said property to respondent/defendant no.4 herein. The
 6

petitioner herein have no locus standi to question the alienation

made by her father D.Pentaiah to respondent/defendant no.4 & 5
which was his self acquired property.

13. With regard to Para no.III(10) under reply, it is incorrect to

say that taking undue advantage of the ill-health and unsound
mind of late D.Pentaiah, his sons namely D.Babaiah, D.Etaiah,
D.Narsimhha, grandson D.Raju conspired and colluded together
and hatched a plan to have illegal gains and accordingly they
have fraudulently sold the said land total admeasuring Ac.11-
07gts., to the respondent/defendant no.4 by way of executing a
registered sale deed bearing Doct.No.8434 of 1998 dated 29-10-
1998 without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner
herein. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. All
averments made therein are not true and correct hence, denied.
The D.Pentaiah during his life time executed registered sale deed
in favour of respondent/defendant no.4 and his sons were also
parties to the said sale deed, therefore, the question of
consipiration, collusion and hatching a plan does not arise. The
petitioner herein kept quiet since 1998 till this day and did not
question and now she filed the present petition on frivolous
grounds and illness of her father which is un-believable and
created the same for purpose of filing of the petition.

14. With regard to Para No,III(11) under reply, it is incorrect to

say that as the petitioner is married she is residing in her
matrimonial house as such, petitioner was not aware about the
said fraudulent transactions. The petitioner is put to strict proof
of the same. The petitioner was given sufficient amount at the
time of her marriage and her sisters also was given sufficient
amount at their marriage. Therefore, still expecting share in the
alienated property by her father is only with ill intention for her
 7

un-lawful gains. There were no absolutely fraudulent

transactions. For his legal necessities D.Pentaiah sold his
property to respondent/defendant no.4 for valid sale
consideration.

15. With regard to Para no.III(13) under reply, it is incorrect to

say that as the petitioner is the legal heir and coparcener and
successor of late D.Pentaiah she is having her legitimate share
and right in and over the said property and obtained the revenue
records and certified copies of the sale deeds since the
respondent/defendants no. 4& 5 have made plots in the said land
and sold it to third parties who are made as parties to this
petition as respondent/defendants no. 6 to 290 as such, it took a
lot of time for obtaining certified copies. The petitioner is put to
strict proof of the same. All averments made therein are not true
and correct hence, denied. At the time of executing sale deed in
the year 1998 Vendor ie. D.Pentaiah was hail and healthy and he
was in sound mind. As his sons were also present and parties at
the time of executing the said document.

16. With regard to Para no.III(14) under reply, it is submitted

that the judgment of Supreme Court of India and also Sec-6 of
the Hindu Succession Act and other amendment act with regard
to the equal rights to the daughters irrespective of their marriage
is not applicable to the instant case, as the father of the
petitioner D.Pentaiah alienated the petition schedule –I property
i.e. Sy.no.177 admeasuring Ac.11-07gts., of Vattinagulapally
village, Rajendra nagar mandal which was his self acquired
property and obtained ownership certificate under 38 E under
AP(Telangana …act) on 10-06-1975. So the said property is
alienated in the year 1998 itself which is not joint family property
 8

and petitioner cannot take advantage of the Sec-6 of the Hindu

Succession Act.

17. With regard to Para no.15 of the affidavit under reply, it is

submitted that, the petitioner is not having any right in Sy.
no.177 to any extent much less Ac.11-07gts., It is true that
Respondent/defendant no.4 &5 made plots in entire land in
Sy.no.177 together with other survey numbers and executed
different sale deeds to different persons who in turn sold the
same to different persons. They have valid documents. The
petitioner herein has no locus standii to question the sale deeds
as the father of the Petitioner D.Pentaiah executed sale deed in
favour of Respondent/defendant no.4&5 for valid sale
consideration and right from the date of purchase they are in
physical possession and enjoyment of the same.

18. With regard to the Para No.16, 17 & 18 of the affidavit

under reply, it is submitted that it is denied that the petitioners
could not keep proper vigil over the petition schedule properties
after due course of time, it is very much in their knowledge
regarding the mutation and obtaining title deeds in favour of
respondent/defendant no.2 & 3 and also 4 & 5 have made the
plots over the petition schedule properties and there is no
properties available for the partition in respect of the petition
schedule properties in view of the alienation made by the
respondent/defendants no.2&3 in favour of Respondent no. 4 & 5
in respect of the petition schedule properties and question of
seeking partition by the petitioners does not arise. It is incorrect
to say that the petitioners are having their individual share in
and over the petition schedule properties as the petitioners are
not coparceners of HUF, legal heirs or successors as per Hindu
Succession Act as they were married long back and living with
 9

their husband families and also in view of not taking steps to

recover the properties if any, for more than 21 years, they loose
their rights in all aspects. More over, the petitioner is not entitled
to any right in respect of the alienated property by her father
which was his self acquired property and the execution of sale
deeds in favour of respondent/defendant no. 4 & 5 is valid
document and nothing is remained for partition as stated supra.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. That originally the land in Sy.no.177 admeasuring Ac.11-07gts.,

situated at Vattenagulapally village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal now
Gandipet Mandal, R.R.District belongs to Durgapalli Pentaiah
which was obtained under sec-38 E certificate which was his self
acquired property. Subsequently, during his life time D.Pentaiah
executed registered sale deed along with sons in favour of M/s
Maharaja Real Estates i.e. Respondent/defendant no.4 herein
Rep. by it’s Manager I.e. Respondent/defendant no.5 through
registered doct.no.8434/98 dtd29-10-1998 for valid sale
consideration and the same was converted into plots along with
other land by the respondent/defendant no.4 in Sy.no.177. All the
plots have been alienated to various purchasers. All the plot
owners become absolute owners in respective plots.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is not entitled to seek

partition in respect of the self acquired property of her father
who alienated his land in the year 1999 itself to the
respondent/defendant no. 4 & 5 and they are in physical
possession of the same from 1999 itself. After lapse of many
years, the petitioner herein got filed the petition against the
purchasers and challenging the same after long lapse of time
which is hopelessly barred by limitation without right, title and
 10

interest in respect of the petition schedule property. In the

instant case as stated supra, Sec-6 of Hindu Succession Act is not
applicable and the limitation to seek declaration regarding
documents if any right exists they should challenge within 3
years from the date of registration of sale deeds or any
document. There is no cause of action to file the present petition
as it is not a joint family property or ancestral property and the
alienation by her father in favour of respondent/defendant no. 4&
5 and subsequent purchasers .

3. In the above stated facts and circumstances it is therefore

prayed that the Hon’ble Court that the petitioners have
approached the Hon’ble Court with unclean hands and filed the
present suit after long lapse of time without perfect title, right,
interest over the suit schedule property only with a view to
harass the respondents/ defendants to extort money under guise
of Injunction. If the injunction is granted in favour of the
petitioners herein the respondents/defendants will be put to
irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensate in any
manner.
4.

5. I further submit that the petitioners utterly fails to prove their

contention with any basis and filed the above case, As such,
prima facie case is in our favour, the petitioners prove their
contention to satisfy the Hon’ble Court with sufficient
documentary evidence so, Balance of convenience is always in
favour of respondents/defendants.

Therefore, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the

inter-locutary application which is filed along with the suit with
costs in the interests of Justice.
 11

Sworn and signed before me

On this Day of July 2024 DEPONENT
At: Hyderabad.

Adv/Hyd

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE

XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE::
CITY CIVIL COURT::
AT: HYDERABAD

O.S.No. 309 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
Smt. Mallelollu Laxmamma
.Plaintiff

AND

Dargupalli Narsimha & others

..Defendants

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON

BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT NO.
53

Filed On: -07-2024

Filed By:

M/s K.R.K.GARGEYA
ADVOCATE
 12

SAROORNAGAR, HYDERABAD

Counsel for Defendant No.56

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE::

CITY CIVIL COURT:: AT: HYDERABAD

O.S.No. 309 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
Smt. Mallelollu Laxmamma
.Plaintiffs
AND

Dargupalli Narsimha & others

..Defendants

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

No.53

The Defendant no.53 humbly submits his written statement as under:

1. At the out-set the plaint filed by the plaintiff is neither

maintainable on law nor on facts. The allegations made in the
plaint are all false, frivolous, vexatious and invented for the
purpose of filing the suit. The plaintiff did not approach the
Hon’ble Court with clean hands, hence this Defendant no.67
deny all the allegations except those which are specifically
admitted hereunder. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the
same and is liable to be dismissed in limini. The suit of the
plaintiff suffers from the defect of supprecio vari and suggestion
falsi. The averments made in the plaint which those are
specifically not admitted deems to be denied.
 13

2. In reply to Para no.I & II of the plaint are descriptive in nature,

hence needs no reply.

3. With regard to Para no.III (1) of the plaint under reply, this
defendant is not aware that whether the plaintiff and defendants
no. 1 to 3, 291 to 293 are the legal heirs and successors of late
Durgapalli Pentaiah who died intestate. The plaintiff is put to
strict proof of the same.

4. With regard to Para no.III (2) of the plaint under reply, it is submit
that this defendant is not aware of the fact that the defendant
no.2 is the son of late D.Babaiah and grandson of late Durgapalli
Pentaiah and defendant no.3 is the son of late D.Ettaiah and
grandson of Late Durgapalli Pentaiah. This defendant is not
aware that the defendant no.293 is the son of late Vennela
Sayamma who is the daughter of late Durgapalli Pentaiah.

5. With regard to Para no.III (3) of the plaint under reply, it is

submitted that, it is incorrect to say that the plaintiff and
defendants no.1 to 3 and 291 to 293 are the joint lawful owners
and possessors of the agricultural land in Sy.no.177 admeasuring
Ac.11-07gts., situated at Vattenagulapalli village and Rajendra
Nagar Mandal, now Gandipet mandal, R.R.District acquired the
same by virtue of succession and inheritance being ancestral
property. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same All the
averments made there in are not true and correct hence, denied.
As a matter of fact, D.Pentaiah was the absolute owner and
possessor of agricultural land in Sy.no.177 admeasuring Ac.11-
07gts., situated at Vattenagulapalli village and Rajendra Nagar
Mandal, now Gandipet mandal, R.R.District and it is self-acquired
property of D.Pentaiah and also obtained 38E certificate under
AP(Telangana) Tenanacy and Agricultural land Act,1950. The
 14

ownership of the said lands transferred to the said D.Pentaiah in

the year 10-07-1975 vide proceedings No.LRW/121/75. The D.
Pentaiah being exclusive owner competent to sell in favour of M/s
Maharaja Real Estates i.e. Defendant no.4 herein.

6. With regard to Para No.III(4) of the plaint under reply, it is

submitted that, this defendant is not aware that D.Pentaiah in
the year 1990s suffered with several ailments such as cardiac
problem, hypertension and nerve problems since he was about
75 years of old but it is incorrect to say that the plaintiff and
defendant no. 1 to 3, 291 to 292 use to cultivate the said land
jointly. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. All
averments made therein are not true and correct hence, denied.

7. With regard to Para No.III (5) of the Plaint under reply, it is

incorrect to say that during the life time of D.Pentaiah used to
give share in the yield to the plaintiff herein and later after
demise of D.Pentaiah the defendants no. 1 to 3 used to give
shares in the yield to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is put to strict
proof of the same. In fact, during the life time of D.Pentaiah sold
the entire land in Sy.no.177 through registered document vide
doct.no.8434/1998 dtd 29-10-98 extent Ac.11-07gts., in favour of
defendant no.4 herein, which was his self acquired property and
the question of giving share in the yield to the plaintiff does not
arise at all. All averments made therein are not true and correct
hence, denied.

8. With the regard to Para No.III (6) of the plaint under reply, it is
incorrect to say that since last two years the plaintiff is facing
financial scarcity, she held a panchayat before elders and well -.
wishers to get her share in the suit schedule property for the
purpose of self-cultivation, wherein the defendants no. 1 to 3
 15

consented for the same, but they did not keep up their purpose.
The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The plaintiff is not
entitled to seek any share, as the suit schedule property is not
joint family property or ancestral property and after alienation by
her father in the year 1998 itself in favour of defendant no.4
along with his sons who also parties to the sale deed, though
they are not necessary parties to the said sale deed they have
signed as a consenting parties. Now, the land is not available for
self-cultivation. The said land has been converted to nala and
several plots were alienated to various purchasers. Now, these
defendant is one of the plot owner vide Doct.no…….. i.e. Plot
bearing no.58 & 59 in Sy.no.137 & 177 admeasuring
……..Sq.yds., i.e. Schedule property no..62) which is purchased
from defendant no.4 & 5 for valid sale consideration. This
defendant is bonafide purchaser of the said plot and this
defendant is in physical possession of the same from the date of
purchase.

9. With regard to Para No.III (7) of the plaint under reply, it is

submitted that, it is incorrect to say that disgusted with their
attitude the plaintiff demanded the defendants 1 to 3 for
partition of the said property with separate possession to which
the defendants 1 to 3, initially consented for the same but again
they played delaying tactics on one or the other reason and
successfully dragged the matter till recently. The plaintiff is put
to strict proof of the same. All averments made therein are not
true and correct hence, denied. The suit schedule property was
alienated to defendant no.4 & 5 by D.Pentaiah as aforesaid i.e.
father of the plaintiff which was his self acquired property and no
land available to demand partition as defendant no.1 to 3 are
parties to the sale deed and it is binding on them and also on this
plaintiff and other defendants.
 16

10. With regard to Para no.III(8) of the plaint under reply. It is

submitted that, it is incorrect to say that several meetings were
held in the year 2021 wherein the defendants 1 to 3 did not
healed to the advice of the elders and well- wishers and finally on
04-04-2021 once again the plaintiff has demanded the
defendants no. 1 to 3 for partition and allotting her share in the
said property, but the defendants no. 1 to 3 have refused for the
same. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. All
averments made therein are not true and correct hence, denied.
The dates mentioned in the plaint are imaginary and illusive and
there is no cause of action. When no land is available for partition
as on the date of demand of partition, the question of demanding
partition and allotting shares does not arise. When there was no
cause of action the plaint itself liable to rejected in limini.

11. With regard to the para no.III(9) of the Plaint under reply, it
is incorrect to say that having suspicious about the conduct and
attitude of the defendants no. 1 to 3, the plaintiff approached the
Sub-registrar concerned and obtained Encumbrance certificate
and certified copies reflected therein and astonished to late
D.pentaiah along with his sons have sold the said property to
defendant no.4 herein. The plaintiff herein have no locus standi
to question the alienation made by her father D.Pentaiah to
defendant no.4 & 5 which was his self acquired property.

12. With regard to Para no.III(10) under reply, it is incorrect to

say that taking undue advantage of the ill-health and unsound
mind of late D.Pentaiah, his sons namely D.Babaiah, D.Etaiah,
D.Narsimhha, grandson D.Raju conspired and colluded together
and hatched a plan to have illegal gains and accordingly they
have fraudulently sold the said land total admeasuring Ac.11-
 17

07gts., to the defendant no.4 by way of executing a registered

sale deed bearing Doct.No.8434 of 1998 dated 29-10-1998
without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff herein. The
plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. All averments made
therein are not true and correct hence, denied. The D.Pentaiah
during his life time executed registered sale deed in favour of
defendant no.4 and his sons were also parties to the said sale
deed, therefore, the question of consipiration, collusion and
hatching a plan does not arise. The plaintiff herein kept quiet
since 1998 till this day and did not question and now she filed
the present suit on frivolous grounds and illness of her father
which is un-believable and created the same for purpose of filing
of the suit.

13. With regard to Para No,III(11) under reply, it is incorrect to

say that as the plaintiff is married she is residing in her
matrimonial house as such, plaintiff was not aware about the
said fraudulent transactions. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of
the same. The plaintiff was given sufficient amount at the time of
her marriage and her sisters also was given sufficient amount at
their marriage. Therefore, still expecting share in the alienated
property by her father is only with ill intention for her un-lawful
gains. There were no absolutely fraudulent transactions. For his
legal necessities D.Pentaiah sold his property to defendant no.4
for valid sale consideration.

14. With regard to Para no.III(13) under reply, it is incorrect to

say that as the plaintiff is the legal heir and coparcener and
successor of late D.Pentaiah she is having her legitimate share
and right in and over the said property and obtained the revenue
records and certified copies of the sale deeds since the
defendants no. 4& 5 have made plots in the said land and sold it
 18

to third parties who are made as parties to this suit as

defendants no. 6 to 290 as such, it took a lot of time for
obtaining certified copies. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the
same. All averments made therein are not true and correct
hence, denied. At the time of executing sale deed in the year
1998 Vendor ie. D.Pentaiah was hail and healthy and he was in
sound mind. As his sons were also present and parties at the
time of executing the said document.

15. With regard to Para no.III(14) under reply, it is submitted

that the judgment of Supreme Court of India and also Sec-6 of
the Hindu Succession Act and other amendment act with regard
to the equal rights to the daughters irrespective of their marriage
is not applicable to the instant case, as the father of the plaintiff
D.Pentaiah alienated the suit schedule –I property i.e. Sy.no.177
admeasuring Ac.11-07gts., of Vattinagulapally village, Rajendra
nagar mandal which was his self acquired property and obtained
ownership certificate under 38 E under AP(Telangana …act) on
10-06-1975. So the said property is alienated in the year 1998
itself which is not joint family property and plaintiff cannot take
advantage of the Sec-6 of the Hindu Succession Act.

16. With regard to Para no.15 of the plaint under reply, it is

submitted that, the plaintiff is not having any right in Sy. no.177
to any extent much less Ac.11-07gts., It is true that Defendant
no.4 &5 made plots in entire land in Sy.no.177 together with
other survey numbers and executed different sale deeds to
different persons who in turn sold the same to different persons.
They have valid documents. The plaintiff herein has no locus
standii to question the sale deeds as the father of the Plaintiff
D.Pentaiah executed sale deed in favour of Defendants no.4&5
 19

for valid sale consideration and right from the date of purchase
they are in physical possession and enjoyment of the same.

17. With regard to the Para No.16, 17 & 18 of the plaint under
reply, it is submitted that it is denied that the plaintiffs could not
keep proper vigil over the suit schedule properties after due
course of time, it is very much in their knowledge regarding the
mutation and obtaining title deeds in favour of defendants no.2 &
3 and also 4 & 5 have made the plots over the suit schedule
properties and there is no properties available for the partition in
respect of the suit schedule properties in view of the alienation
made by the defendants no.2&3 in favour of Defendants no. 4 &
5 in respect of the suit schedule properties and question of
seeking partition by the plaintiffs does not arise. It is incorrect to
say that the plaintiffs are having their individual share in and
over the suit schedule properties as the plaintiffs are not
coparceners of HUF, legal heirs or successors as per Hindu
Succession Act as they were married long back and living with
their husband families and also in view of not taking steps to
recover the properties if any, for more than 21 years, they loose
their rights in all aspects. Moreover, the plaintiff is not entitled to
any right in respect of the alienated property by her father which
was his self acquired property and the execution of sale deeds in
favour of defendant no. 4 & 5 is valid document and nothing is
remained for partition as stated supra.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. That originally the land in Sy.no.177 admeasuring Ac.11-

07gts., situated at Vattenagulapally village, Rajendra Nagar
Mandal now Gandipet Mandal, R.R.District belongs to
Durgapalli Pentaiah which was obtained under sec-38 E
certificate which was his self acquired property. Subsequently,
 20

during his life time D.Pentaiah executed registered sale deed

along with sons in favour of M/s Maharaja Real Estates i.e.
defendant no.4 herein Rep. by it’s Manager I.e. Defendant
no.5 through registered Doct.no.8434/98 dtd29-10-1998 for
valid sale consideration and the same was converted into
plots along with other land by the defendant no.4 in
Sy.no.177. All the plots have been alienated to various
purchasers. All the plot owners become absolute owners in
respective plots.

2. It is submitted that the plaintiff herein is not entitled to seek

partition in respect of the self acquired property of her father
who alienated his land in the year 1999 itself to the defendant
no. 4 & 5 and they are in physical possession of the same from
1999 itself. After lapse of many years, the plaintiff herein got
filed the suit against the purchasers and challenging the same
after long lapse of time which is hopelessly barred by
limitation without right, title and interest in respect of the suit
schedule property. In the instant case as stated supra, Sec-6
of Hindu Succession Act is not applicable and the limitation to
seek declaration regarding documents if any right exists they
should challenge within 3 years from the date of registration
of sale deeds or any document. There is no cause of action to
file the present suit as it is not a joint family property or
ancestral property and the alienation by her father in favour of
defendant no. 4& 5 and subsequent purchasers .

3. That there is no cause of action arose for filing the present suit
by the Plaintiff herein. The plaintiff invented all the averments
to create a false cause of action only to file this false suit
against the Defendants herein and material placed before the
Hon’ble Court do not constitute any cause of action and the
 21

suit is suffers with barred by limitation and there is no

jurisdiction to entertain the present suit by this Hon’ble Court.

4. The defendant no.53 is vested with provision of filing additional

written statement in any future change circumstances by
inserting new pleadings with the permission of the Hon’ble
Court as when required before final adjudication and just
decision of suit.

Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased

to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, in the interests of Justice.

Date: -07-2024
Place : Hyderabad DEFENDANT

Counsel for Defendant no.53

VERIFICATION

I, R.Sridhar Reddy S/o RamaLinga Reddy, the above named

Defendant, do hereby declare that the contents of the above Written
statement Paras are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief. Hence verified the same on this the Day of July 2024 at
Hyderabad

Date: -07-2024 DEFENDANT

Place: Hyderabad

Counsel for Defendant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS
22

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE

XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE::
CITY CIVIL COURT::
AT: HYDERABAD

O.S.No. 309 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
Smt. Mallelollu Laxmamma
.Plaintiff

AND

Dargupalli Narsimha & others

..Defendants

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON

BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
NO.53

Filed On: -07-2024

Filed By:
23

M/s K.R.K.GARGEYA
ADVOCATE

SAROORNAGAR, HYDERABAD

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT No.53

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE

XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE::
CITY CIVIL COURT::
AT: HYDERABAD

O.S.No. 309 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
Smt. Mallelollu Laxmamma
.Petitioner

AND

Dargupalli Narsimha & others

..Respondent
/defendants
24

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON

BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT NO.

Filed On:

Filed By:

M/s K.R.K.GARGEYA
ADVOCATE

SAROORNAGAR, HYDERABAD

COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT NO.53