* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO + A.S.No.69 OF 2020 % 02-05-2025 # Chandrakani Sampoornamma & others ….Appellants/plaintiffs Vs.

$ Bhumaraju Yedukondala Raju & another …. Respondents/Defendants ! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri M.V.

Hanumantha Rao.

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma,

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (2008) 15 SCC 673

2. (2006) 4 SCC 658

3. (1960) 2 SCR 253 4. (2007) 5 ALT 510 5. (2003) 8 SCC 752 6. (2022) 9 SCC 516 7. (1997) 2 SCC 485 8. (1970) 3 SCC 350 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

+ A.S.No.69 OF 2020 Between:

# Chandrakani Sampoornamma & others ….Appellants/Plaintiffs Vs.

$ Bhumaraju Yedukondala Raju & another …. Respondents/Defendants JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 02.05.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes __________________ P. SAM KOSHY,J _____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO A.S.No.69 OF 2020 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao) Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The present appeal is under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C. assailing the judgment and decree, dated 31.07.2019 in O.S. No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (PoA) Act- cum-VII Additional District Judge at Khammam. The said suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs herein against the defendants seeking the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property by cancelling the registered sale deed bearing document No.8094/2005 dt.26.05.2004/ dt.08.09.2005 executed by late Satyanarayana in favour of defendant No.1 and registered sale deed bearing No.9743/2005 dt.27.03.2004/dt.29.11.2005 executed by late Satyanarayana in favour of defendant No.2, at Sub-Registrar Office, Khammam obtained the same by the defendants from late Satyanarayana under undue influence, coercion and fraud, and the same was dismissed.

3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of Chandrakani Satyanarayana and he expired on 03.11.2005 intestate leaving behind plaintiffs 1 to 4 as his legal heirs and successors to his estate. The father of late Ch. Satyanarayana by name, Ch. Nagaiah was the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.04-09 gts., situated at Khammam and the said property was got by the said Ch. Nagaiah through the proceedings under Section 38-E of the A.P.Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

4(i) Since the date of death of Chandrakani Nagaiah, who is the great-grandfather of plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and father of late Satyanarayana, was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Nagaiah was having four sons, namely, Chandrakani Ramulu, Chandrakani Yeladri, Chandrakani China Yaladri @ Yerraiah and Chandrakani Mallaiah; among them, Chandrakani Ramulu and Chandrakani China Yaladri @ Yerraiah, and Chandrakani Mallaiah were no more. The father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and husband of plaintiff No.1 was the son of Chandrakani Yaladri, who is second son of Chandrakani Nagaiah. Chandrakani Satyanarayana got General Power of Attorney from Chandrakani Ramulu and his sons and sons of Chanmdrakani China Yaladri @ Yerraiah for the sale of the property got by them in oral partition.

4(ii) In the oral partit