IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADAPA

O.S No.154/2014
1) Annavaram Saraswatamma
2) Annavaram Raghunatha Reddy
3) Annavaram Yasaswani ... Plaintiffs
Vs.
1) Annavaram Venkata Narayana Reddy
2) Annavaram Maheswara Reddy
3) Annavaram Viswanatha Reddy
4) Annavaram Pullamma … Defendants
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF AFFIDAVIT OF P.W.1 (FIRST
PLAINTIFF) FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS UNDER
ORDER 18 RULE 4 (1) OF C.P.C.
I, Annavaram Saraswatamma, Widow of Mallikarjuna Reddy, Hindu,
aged about 42 years, agriculture, permanent residents of Gurijala Village
and Post, Simhadripuram Mandal, earst while Pulivendula Taluk, Kadapa
District. At present residing in the house bearing Door No.4/784, Kotireddy
Street, Nagarajupet, Kadapa City for the purpose of education of my
children, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-

1. I am the deponent herein as PW-1 in this suit. I am the first

plaintiff in the above suit and second plaintiff is my son and third plaintiff is
my daughter. I am filing this chief affidavit on my behalf and also on behalf
of other plaintiffs two and three who are my children. I know the facts of the
case.

2. I humbly submit that, the suit schedule property more fully

described in the suit plaint is the ancestral property of us and defendants.
One Sri. Annavaram Chinna Narayana Reddy inherited the suit schedule
property from our ancestors. The said Annavaram Chinna Narayana Reddy
married the fourth defendant and blessed with four sons named 1) Venkata
Narayana Reddy (First defendant), 2) Maheswara Reddy (Second defendant)
3) Mallikarjuna Reddy being my husband and father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3
and fourth son, 4) Viswanatha Reddy (third defendant herein). Annavaram
Chinna Narayana Reddy being the Karta of Hindu joint family and his four
sons named 1) Venkata Narayana Reddy, 2) Maheswara Reddy, 3)
Mallikarjuna Reddy, 4) Viswanatha Reddy and 5) Pullamma and ourselves
(plaintiff 1 to 3), constitute the members of Hindu joint family. My marriage
was solemnized with Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o. Annavaram Chinna Narayana
Reddy during 1992 year and we were blessed with one son named
 :: 2 ::

Raghunatha Reddy who is second plaintiff herein and one daughter named
Yasaswani who is the third plaintiff in the suit.

3. I humbly submit that, the property of the joint family was orally
divided among the members of the joint family during August 1996 under
the Managership of the joint family head named Chinna Narayana Reddy
and his four sons named 1) Venkata Narayana Reddy, 2) Maheswara Reddy,
3) Mallikarjuna Reddy (husband of first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2&3)
and 4) Viswanatha Reddy and every one of them have been enjoying their
share of property separately from 1996 upto now. The father of the
defendants 1 to 3 and husband of fourth defendant and father of the
husband of mine and grandfather (fathers father) of the plaintiffs 2 and 3
was given the suit schedule property towards his maintenance with an oral
agreement in 1996 by stating that all the members of joint family of that
Chinna Narayana Reddy have to enjoy the possession of suit schedule
property with limited rights during his life time and thereafter (after his
death) that property being the suit property is to be divided among his four
sons and his widow equally as per Hindu Succession Act of 1956.

4. I humbly submit that, Annavaram Mallikaujuna Reddy being

third son of Chinna Narayana Reddy and husband of me and father of the
plaintiffs 2&3 died during 1997 year by leaving his share of his property in
the suit schedule property as well as in other properties to his legal
representatives (us) who are plaintiffs 1 to 3. The father of the defendants 1
to 3, husband D-4 and my father-in-law and paternal grandfather of
plaintiffs 2 & 3 named Annavaram Chinna Narayana Reddy died about 10
months ago prior to the filing of this suit by leaving the suit schedule
property to his legal representatives who are plaintiffs and defendants. We
the plaintiffs and defendants are class 1 heirs of deceased Annavaram
Chinna Narayana Reddy and we, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled for 1/5th
share as the legal representatives being the wife and son and daughter of
deceased Mallikarjuna Reddy who is the third son of Annavaram Chinna
Narayana Reddy and the defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to get 4/5 th share i.e.
each 1/5th share in the suit schedule property. The previous head of the
family named Annavaram Chinna Narayana Reddy died intestate without
making any testament (gift deed or sale deed) in favour of his wife (D-4) or
we, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. There is no testament relating to
the suit schedule property in favour of anybody including we, the plaintiffs
and defendants or Annavaram Venkata Narayana Reddy.
 :: 3 ::

5. I humbly submit that, we, the plaintiffs and defendants are

jointly owning and enjoying the possession of suit schedule property from
the date of dearth of Annavaram Chinna Narayana Reddy. We gave legal
notice dated 09-12-2013 to the defendants 1 to 3 demanding the partition
of the suit property. The defendants 1 to 3 received that legal notice and
utterly failed either to give reply notice or to partition the suit schedule
property or to return the postal acknowledgements to the sender (Advocate
of plaintiff). Further we the plaintiffs personally requested the defendants
during first week of March 2014 to partition the suit property into 5 shares
and to give one such share to us. Then the defendants bluntly refused to
give any share to us in the suit property. Hence, we, the plaintiffs are forced
to file this partition suit for getting our 1/5th share in the suit schedule
property from the defendants.

6. I humbly submit suit schedule items 4 to 8 are ancestral

properties of us (plaintiffs) and defendants which are not divided previously
among us (plaintiffs) and the defendant’s upto now. The said items 4 to 8
are not self-acquired properties defendants. The defendants managed with
the revenue authorities for including the names of the defendants in all
revenue records for suit items 4 to 8 in order to play fraudulent game
against us (plaintiffs) for knocking away the property of us for making
wrongful gain by causing unlawful loss and injustice to us (plaintiffs). So the
items 4 to 8 are also to be divided into five shares and allot and deliver one
such share to us (plaintiffs).

7. I humbly submit that the defendants filed their written

statement with false allegations by stating that the suit property was divided
on 26-08-1996. The defendant made such false allegations in their written
statement by pleading that the suit property was divided on 26-08-1996.
There is no registered partitioned deed among us relating to suit schedule
properties since we did not partition the suit schedule properties upto now.
We the plaintiff and defendants are owning and enjoying the possession of
the suit schedule jointly but the defendants played fraud on us by getting
their names in the revenue records for suit items 4 to 8.

8. I humbly submit that suit property is being our ancestral

property and that we have submitted Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9 for proving our share
of property in the suit schedule property that we are entitled for 1/5th share
 :: 4 ::

in the suit property. The suit properties are not partitioned upto now even
on 26-08-1996 as alleged by the defendants.

9. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS MAY KINDLY BE

MARKED AS EXHIBITS A1 TO A9 ON OUR BEHALF:
1. Ex.A-1 is the Genealogy of Plaintiffs and defendants dated 23-04-2014
2. Ex.A-2 is the Certified Copy of Adangal for S.No.534/3 in the name of
Manager Venkata Narayana Reddy (D-1).
3. Ex.A-3 is the Certified Copy of Adangal for S.No.317/6 in the name of
Manager Venkata Narayana Reddy (D-1).
4. Ex.A-4 is the Office copy of the legal noticed dated 09-12-2013 issued on
behalf of the plaintiffs to the defendants 1 to 3.
5. Ex.A-5 are three postal receipts dated 10-12-2013 addressed to the
defendants 1 to 3.
6. Ex.A-6 is the certified copy 1-B Namuna dated 03-07-2017 issued in the
name of first defendant for suit item: 4 Acs:4-00.
7. Ex.A-7 is the certified copy 1-B Namuna dated 03-07-2017 issued in the
name of second defendant for suit item: 5 Acs:2-00 and other property.
8. Ex.A-8 is the certified copy 1-B Namuna dated 03-07-2017 issued in the
name of third defendant for suit item: 5 and other property.
9. Ex.A-9 is the certified copy of Adangal dated 03-07-2017 issued in the
name of defendants and others.
10. PRAYER:- Therefore we pray that the Honourable Court may be
pleased to pass a decree and judgment in our favour and against
the defendants by:
I) Granting preliminary decree in our favour for partition of the
suit schedule property into five shares and allot and deliver one such
separated share to us by considering good and bad qualities of the property.
ii) Grant mesne profits from the date of filing the suit and grant of
the costs of the suit and grant such other reliefs in the circumstances of the
case in the interests of justice.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me on this the 29Th day of

November, 2018 at Kadapa.

ADVOCATE
 IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADAPA
O.S No.154/2014

1) Annavaram Saraswatamma
2) Annavaram Raghunatha Reddy
3) Annavaram Yasaswani
… Plaintiffs
Vs.
1) Annavaram Venkata Narayana
Reddy
2) Annavaram Maheswara Reddy
3) Annavaram Viswanatha Reddy
4) Annavaram Pullamma
… Defendants

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF
AFFIDAVIT OF P.W.1 (FIRST
PLAINTIFF) FILED ON BEHALF OF
THE PLAINTIFFS UNDER ORDER
18 RULE 4 (1) OF C.P.C.

Filed by:

Sri. K. Venkata Reddy, B.Com., B.L.,

ADVOCATES FOR PLAINTIFF,
Kadapa.