Smt A Nirmala

1 O.S.No.732 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: SMT. A.NIRMALA

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC: XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

DATED THIS THE 4 th DAY OF MAY, 2023

O.S. No.732 OF 2020

Between:

1. Adnan Mahmood, S/o late Baquar Mahmood, aged 65 years, Occ: Advocate,

R/o 143-A, Prenderghast Road,

Secunderabad – 500003

2. Nabhan Adnan Mahmood,

S/o Adnan Mahmood, aged 26 years,

Occ: Advocate, R/o 143-A,

Prenerghast Road,

Secunderabad...Plaintiffs

AND

1. The Secunderabad Club, represented by its Secretary, having its office at Club Road,

Picket, Secunderabad 2 O.S.No.732 of 2020

2. The Managing Committee,

Secunderabad Club, represented by its

President, having its office at Club Road

Picket, Secunderabad. ...Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Ram Chander Goud, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri M.Papa Reddy, Advocate for Defendants, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed seeking for declaration and mandatory injunction.

2.The facts set out in the plaint are:

That the plaintiff No.1 is a permanent member of defendant club since 1976 and the plaintiff No.2 had been a dependent member of the

Defendant Club from the time he was born i.e. from 5.8.1994. That the

Secunderbad Club is a voluntary association of likeminded persons (hereinafter referred to as “Club”). That the objects of the club are social activities, including sports and recreation. It is submitted that the 3 O.S.No.732 of 2020 membership of the Club is open to all permanent residents of Grater

Hyderabad Secunderabad Area above the age of 25 years who are considered acceptable in general society and the membership consists of the following categories:

A.Voting Members:

a) Honorary Members – as applicable – No limit

b) Permanent members

I) General Category- Limited to 1600 members

II) Children Category – No limit

B. Non-Voting Members:

a) Mess/RSI Members – Limited to 1100 members

b) Temporary Members

I) Long Term Temporary (LTT) – Limited to 350

II) Short Term Temporary (STT) – No limit

c) Corporate members – Limited to 250 4 O.S.No.732 of 2020

d) Associate Members (Widow/Widower of Permanent member – (Limited to one declared spouse), including existing lady members (Widow

Category) – As applicable.

By the committee, in accordance with form -A prescribed for the purpose.

e) Dependent Members (Junior & Senior) – (limited to three, even when both parents are permanent or associate members)

f) Affiliated members.

C) Existing other Non-Voting Member Categories:

a) Lady member

b) Associate member Lady (AML)

3. That the plaintiffs submitted that the father of the plaintiff No.1 namely Baquar Mahmood, was a permanent member of the defendant club since 1957 till his demise in August, 2007, his membership member being B-21. That after demise of the father of the plaintiff No.1, the mother of the plaintiff No.1, namely Aleemunissa Begum, became a member of the defendant club and is now an Honorary Member of the

Defendant Club, her membership number being LMB-21. That the father 5 O.S.No.732 of 2020 of the plaintiff No.1 had three children a) Adnan Mahmood, Memership No.

A-133, b) Nausheen Baghadadi, nee Mahmood, Membership No. AML-052,

c) Imran Mahmood, Membership No. I-23. That the plaintiff No.1 had been using the defendant club from the time he was two years old and the other siblings of the plaintiffs had been using the facilities of the club since the time they were born.

4.Plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiff No.1 was elected as a

Permanent member of the Club in 1976 on his attaining the age of 21 years (as per the rules then existing). That the plaintiff No.1 had been blessed by a daughter and four sons who have been enjoying the facilities of the Defendant club from the time of their birth detailed as a) Zeeshan

Adnan Mahmood, b) Farhan Adnan Mahmood, c) Fatima Adnan Mahmood,

d) Nabhan Adnan Mahmood and e) Aman Adnan Mahmood. That the three children of plaintiff No.1 namely Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, Farhan Adnan

Mahmood and Fatima Adnan Mahmood have already become permanent members under the Permanent Members Children Category (III (i)(A). That the amendment restricting the club membership in respect of the children of permanent members to three which was passed on 31.7.2013 does not 6 O.S.No.732 of 2020 apply to such of those permanent members who have been elected as such prior to 31.7.2013.

5.Plaintiffs submitted that the amendment to the rule relating to the children of Permanent Members Category which was purported to have been passed by the General Body on 31.7.2013, restricting the permanent membership to the children of permanent members to three would only be prospective in nature. That it is categorically and unequivocally stated that the said amendment is prospective in nature as clearly elucidated in the Rules of the Club. That the said Rule is extracted below for ready reference: XXXI. Repeal of existing rules and validity of Acts done under them: All rules shall come into force from the date they are passed by the

General Body. That the amendment restricting the number of children to three for permanent membership under the members sons category is prospective in nature and will only apply to such of those permanent members who have been elected after 31.7.2013. That the plaintiff No.2, would be entitle to the membership of the defendant club, he being eligible as such as per the Rules of the club (subject to ballot), since he was already a dependent member prior to the amendment to Rule V(3) and continued as a dependent member even after the Rule was amended which amply proves that the amendment did not apply to the existing 7 O.S.No.732 of 2020 members and their dependent children (irrespective of the number of children).

6.Plaintiffs further submitted that the fact of the amendment not being applicable to members who have been elected prior to 31.7.2013 is further bolstered from the fact that the plaintiff No.2, who was a deponent member from the time of his birth i.e. 5.8.1994 , continued as such even after the amendment dated 31.7.2013 as a junior dependent member in the members son below 16 years category.

7.Plaintiffs further submitted that the plaintiff No.2 continued as a junior dependent member under 16 years to 21 years on his attaining the age of 16 years on 5.8.2010 and has been paying the subscription for dependent membership continuously every month. That on the plaintiff

No.2 attaining the age of 21 years, he continued as a senior dependent member (21 years to 25 years) till he attained the age of 25 years on 5.8.2019 and paid the subscription for the senior dependent membership continuously. That the plaintiff No.2 has paid the club subscription under

Sub rule, XV2 (a)(ii) continuously from the attainment of 16 years of age to the attainment of 25 years of age.That the plaintiff No.2 even prior 8 O.S.No.732 of 2020 to his attaining the age of 25 years, addressed a letter to the defendant

No.1 for issuing an application in respect of the plaintiff No.2 for permanent membership (under the children of permanent members category) on 27.6.2019. That the said letter was duly received by the defendants. That the defendants issued an application for permanent membership (members children) vide Application Serial No. 448, dated 29.6.2019. That the duly filled application was submitted by the plaintiff

No.2 on 2.7.2018 and the same was acknowledged by the defendant on 2.7.2019.

8.Plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiff No.2 has fulfilled all the requirements for grant of a permanent memership of the club. That there is absolutely no hindrance or bar from the Club considering his application as per the Rules of the club. That the application of the plaintiff No.2 has been kept in abeyance by the defendants for a clarification as regards the prospective nature/interpretation of Rule V(3). That the 2013 Amendment to Rule V(3) being prospective in nature should apply only to those members who become permanent members subsequent to 31.7.2013 and their dependent children. That the plaintiff No.2, as a dependent member 9 O.S.No.732 of 2020 (Junior and Senior Dependent Member) had duly complied with the Rules that govern the dependent membership and is therefore eligible for grant of permanent membership as per the Rules of the Club. That the defendant club had been procrastinating in the matter of considering the application of the plaintiff NO.2, dated 2.7.2019 for grant of permanent membership without any justifiable cause or reason. That the plaintiffs addressed an email to the defendant club on 18.5.2020 requesting the defendant club to immediately consider the application of plaintiff No.2 for the grant of permanent membership. That the defendant has neither replied to the said email nor complied with the same.

9.Plaintiffs further submitted that on the plaintiff No.2 attaining the age of 25 years on 5.8.2019, he was allowed to continue the facilities of the defendant club, which had granted him Short Term Temporary

Membership. That the plaintiff No.2 is availing the facilities of the Club presently as a Short Term Temporary Memership even to this day. That the Mahmood family who have been members for three generations, regard the membership to the club as a great privilege and hold it in the highest esteem. That since the defendant is procrastinating in the matter 10 O.S.No.732 of 2020 of granting permanent membership to the plaintiff No.2 under the members sons category, the plaintiffs are left with no option to file the present suit. Hence this suit.

10.Written statement filed by defendant No.1 contending that the present suit filed seeking the relief of Declaration and Mandatory injunction is not maintainable in law or on facts of the case. Defendant admitted that the plaintiff No.1 is a permanent member of the defendant club since 1976 and that the plaintiff No.2 has been dependent member of the Defendant club. Defendant admitted that it is voluntary association of likeminded persons, governed under its own bye-laws and rules as framed. Defendant further admitted that the membership of the club is open to members of General Public who are permanent residents of twin cities and the members are divided in different categories as mentioned in the rules and that the father of the plaintiff No.1 late Sri Baquar Mahmood was the permanent member of the Defendant No.1 club since 1957 till his demise in August, 2007. That the mother of plaintiff No.1 became member of defendant No.1 club and she is a honorary member of the

Club. Defendant contended that as per the club records, it is true that the 11 O.S.No.732 of 2020 plaintiff No.1 has been blessed with 5 children, a daughter and four sons and that the three of the children of plaintiff No.1 i.e. Zeeshan Adnan

Mahmood, Farhan Adnan Mahmood, Fathima Adnan Mahmood have already become permanent members of the defendant No.1 club. That an amendment was made by the general body to the existing rules of the

Club, restricting the club membership in respect of children of permanent members to only three children. That the said amendment became applicable from 31.7.2013 and the assertions of the plaintiffs that such rule would not apply to such of those permanent members who have become permanent members prior to 31.7.2013 is incorrect. That though it is true that the said amendment is prospective such interpretation sought to be made by the plaintiffs is not available in law. That the amended club rule V(3) unequivocally states that upto three children from the declared spouse of a permanent member can become a permanent member (children category) and does not state that it will apply to such of those permanent members who have been elected prior to 31.7.2013.

That the Prospective criteria under Club rule XXXI applies to the restriction on number of children getting membership under this category, subject to meeting qualitative requirements as enumerated in the said rule. That this implies that over and above three children of a permanent member 12 O.S.No.732 of 2020 who have been given membership, any additional child will not be eligible to become a member under this category with effect from 31.7.2013.

11.Defendants further contended that the plaintiff No.2 was registered as a Junior Dependent Member on his attaining the age of 16 years, as per

Club rules and continued to enjoy the memebrship even after 31.7.2013 though of being the 4th child though the same should have ceased as epr the amended rule. That the facts stated about collection and submission of application in respect of the plaintiff No.2 for Permanent Membership

Category is correct, however the allegations of procrastination by the

Defendant club without justifiable cause or reason and failure to exercise powers vested in it, under club Rule XXIII is baseless. Defendants further contended that due to Lockdown restrictions, regular business meetings of the club were not being undertaken. However, consequent to receipt of mail, dated 25.11.2020 from Mr. Adnan Mahmood, the candidature of his son was discussed in the Management Committee (MC) Meeting held on 21.11.2020 (pt. 4.1) and on 6.1.2021 (Pt F); extracts of the minutes are attached as Annexure 1 and 2 respectively for ready reference. That in view of the doubt triggered by the interpretation regarding prospective 13 O.S.No.732 of 2020 nature of the Club Rule V(3) by Mr. Adnan Mahmood in his mail, it was decided to take up the matter, in then, forthcoming AGM on 31.1.2021.

that the Management Committee came to this decision after due deliberations. That the consideration for better clarity and in the interest of natural justice, it was decided that the rule may have to be amended in an AGM/EGM as per the majority opinion of members, as mandated vide

Club Rule XXIX. Defendants further contended that the matter was projected in the AGM held on 31.1.2021 by the Club President Mr. Gautam

Bhopal during his presentation of the Annual report to the August General

Body. That the same could not be considered as a proposal in the General body because the attendance was meagre due to COVID apprehensions by the majority of members and as recommended by many members, all proposals including Amendments of Rules were postponed to be considered in the next AGM in July, 2021. That decisions of deliberations by the Management Committee was apprised to Mr Adnan Mahmood verbally, with a request to wait for the outcome of advise to the

Management Committee, from the Rules Sub Committee and the

Appellate Body for Members constituted under Club Rule XXIV, comprising of experienced Past Presidents of the Club, on the interpretation of the

Rule V(3) and the clarification / Amendment to the said Rule in the Annual 14 O.S.No.732 of 2020

General Meeting. That in fact it would have been appropriate that the plaintiffs await decision of the general body in this respect instead of seeking orders from the Hon’ble court. Defendant admitted that the plaintiff No.2 has been availing the facilities of the club as short Term member pending decision of the general body concerning his permanent membership as mentioned above.

12.Defendants further contended that the amended rule as it exist does not permit interpretation as sought to be done by the plaintiffs and the power to consider the request of the plaintiffs, even otherwise vests in the general body of the club. That keeping in view as on date, the plaintiff is not entitled relief of declaration of mandatory injunction as sought for.

13.Adoption memo filed by defendant No.2 adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1.

15 O.S.No.732 of 2020

14.Thereafter, both parties and both counsels present and filed Joint

Memo of Compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC as the matter is compromised between the parties outside the court.

15. Terms of compromise petition is hereby recorded:

i.That the plaintiffs and the defendants agree that the rule V(3) of the

Rules of the Defendant Club are prospective in nature, as clearly enunciated under Rule XXXI of the club rules, as extracted below:

“XXXI. Repeal of existing rules and validity of Acts done under them:

All rules shall come into force from the date they are passed by the

General Body” ii.That the said rule was passed on 31.7.2013 and would therfore apply only to those permanent members who have been elected after 31.7.2013 and not to plaintiff No.1 as the plaintiff No.1 elected permanent member of the defendant club in the year 1976.

iii. That the defendants agree that the plaintiff No.2 would be entitled to the membership of the defendant club, he being eligible as per the

Rules of the Club (subject to ballot) since he had complied with the rules 16 O.S.No.732 of 2020 which were applicable to the dependent members and as his application for permanent membership was filed within the time stipulated as per the

Rules of the club.

iv. That the same would also apply to all such dependent members who are eligible as per the rules of the club and whose father had been elected as a permanent member prior to 31.7.2013.

v. That the parties agree that since the plaintiff No.2 has fulfilled all the requirements for the grant of a permanent membership of the club as per its rules there is absolutely no hindrance or bar for the defendants to consider the application of the plaintiff No.2 as per the rules of the club.

vi. That the suit be decreed in terms therof.

16.In the light of above mentioned terms of compromise voluntarily entered between the parties, the above terms of compromise are recorded. Both parties should follow terms of compromise.

17 O.S.No.732 of 2020

17.In the result, the suit is decreed according to the terms of compromise.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 4th day of May, 2023.)

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC: XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiffs : For Defendants:

--None----None--

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Plaintiffs :

--Nil--

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC: XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

1 O.S.No.733 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: SMT. A.NIRMALA

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC: XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

DATED THIS THE 4 th DAY OF MAY, 2023

O.S. No.733 OF 2020

Between:

1. Adnan Mahmood, S/o late Baquar Mahmood, aged 65 years, Occ: Advocate,

R/o 143-A, Prenderghast Road,

Secunderabad – 500003

2. Aman Adnan Mahmood,

S/o Adnan Mahmood, aged 25 years,

Occ: Advocate, R/o 143-A,

Prenerghast Road,

Secunderabad...Plaintiffs

AND

1. The Secunderabad Club, represented by its Secretary, having its office at Club Road,

Picket, Secunderabad 2 O.S.No.733 of 2020

2. The Managing Committee,

Secunderabad Club, represented by its

President, having its office at Club Road

Picket, Secunderabad. ...Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Ram Chander Goud, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri M.Papa Reddy, Advocate for Defendants, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed seeking for declaration and mandatory injunction.

2.The facts set out in the plaint are:

That the plaintiff No.1 is a permanent member of defendant club since 1976 and the plaintiff No.2 had been a dependent member of the

Defendant Club from the time he was born i.e. from 19.8.1995. That the

Secunderbad Club is a voluntary association of likeminded persons (hereinafter referred to as “Club”). That the objects of the club are social activities, including sports and recreation. It is submitted that the 3 O.S.No.733 of 2020 membership of the Club is open to all permanent residents of Grater

Hyderabad Secunderabad Area above the age of 25 years who are considered acceptable in general society and the membership consists of the following categories:

A.Voting Members:

a) Honorary Members – as applicable – No limit

b) Permanent members

I) General Category- Limited to 1600 members

II) Children Category – No limit

B. Non-Voting Members:

a) Mess/RSI Members – Limited to 1100 members

b) Temporary Members

I) Long Term Temporary (LTT) – Limited to 350

II) Short Term Temporary (STT) – No limit

c) Corporate members – Limited to 250 4 O.S.No.733 of 2020

d) Associate Members (Widow/Widower of Permanent member – (Limited to one declared spouse), including existing lady members (Widow

Category) – As applicable.

By the committee, in accordance with form -A prescribed for the purpose.

e) Dependent Members (Junior & Senior) – (limited to three, even when both parents are permanent or associate members)

f) Affiliated members.

C) Existing other Non-Voting Member Categories:

a) Lady member

b) Associate member Lady (AML)

3. That the plaintiffs submitted that the father of the plaintiff No.1 namely Baquar Mahmood, was a permanent member of the defendant club since 1957 till his demise in August, 2007, his membership member being B-21. That after demise of the father of the plaintiff No.1, the mother of the plaintiff No.1, namely Aleemunissa Begum, became a member of the defendant club and is now an Honorary Member of the

Defendant Club, her membership number being LMB-21. That the father 5 O.S.No.733 of 2020 of the plaintiff No.1 had three children a) Adnan Mahmood, Memership No.

A-133, b) Nausheen Baghadadi, nee Mahmood, Membership No. AML-052,

c) Imran Mahmood, Membership No. I-23. That the plaintiff No.1 had been using the defendant club from the time he was two years old and the other siblings of the plaintiffs had been using the facilities of the club since the time they were born.

4.Plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiff No.1 was elected as a

Permanent member of the Club in 1976 on his attaining the age of 21 years (as per the rules then existing). That the plaintiff No.1 had been blessed by a daughter and four sons who have been enjoying the facilities of the Defendant club from the time of their birth, detailed as a) Zeeshan

Adnan Mahmood, b) Farhan Adnan Mahmood, c) Fatima Adnan Mahmood,

d) Nabhan Adnan Mahmood and e) Aman Adnan Mahmood. That the three children of plaintiff No.1 namely Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, Farhan

Adnan Mahmood and Fatima Adnan Mahmood have already become permanent members under the Permanent Members Children Category (III

(i)(A). That the amendment restricting the club membership in respect of the children of permanent members to three which was passed on 6 O.S.No.733 of 2020 31.7.2013 does not apply to such of those permanent members who have been elected as such prior to 31.7.2013.

5.Plaintiffs submitted that the amendment to the rule relating to the children of Permanent Members Category which was purported to have been passed by the General Body on 31.7.2013, restricting the permanent membership to the children of permanent members to three would only be prospective in nature. That it is categorically and unequivocally stated that the said amendment is prospective in nature as clearly elucidated in the Rules of the Club. That the said Rule is extracted below for ready reference: XXXI. Repeal of existing rules and validity of Acts done under them: All rules shall come into force from the date they are passed by the

General Body. That the amendment restricting the number of children to three for permanent membership under the members sons category is prospective in nature and will only apply to such of those permanent members who have been elected after 31.7.2013. That the plaintiff No.2, would be entitle to the membership of the defendant club, he being eligible as such as per the Rules of the club (subject to ballot), since he was already a dependent member prior to the amendment to Rule V(3) 7 O.S.No.733 of 2020 and continued as a dependent member even after the Rule was amended which amply proves that the amendment did not apply to the existing members and their dependent children (irrespective of the number of children).

6.Plaintiffs further submitted that the fact of the amendment not being applicable to members who have been elected prior to 31.7.2013 is further bolstered from the fact that the plaintiff No.2, who was a deponent member from the time of his birth i.e. 5.8.1994 , continued as such even after the amendment dated 31.7.2013 as a junior dependent member in the members son below 16 years category.

7.Plaintiffs further submitted that the plaintiff No.2 continued as a junior dependent member under 16 years to 21 years on his attaining the age of 16 years on 19.8.2011 and has been paying the subscription for dependent membership continuously every month. That on the plaintiff

No.2 attaining the age of 21 years, he continued as a senior dependent member (21 years to 25 years) till he attained the age of 25 years on 19.8.2020 and paid the subscription for the senior dependent membership continuously. That the plaintiff No.2 has paid the club subscription under 8 O.S.No.733 of 2020

Sub rule, XV2 (a)(ii) continuously from the attainment of 16 years of age to the attainment of 25 years of age. That the plaintiff No.2 even prior to his attaining the age of 25 years, addressed a letter to the defendant No.1 for issuing an application in respect of the plaintiff No.2 for permanent membership (under the children of permanent members category) on 17.11.2020. That the said letter was duly received by the defendants.

That the defendants issued an application for permanent membership (members children) vide Application Serial No. 448, dated 23.11.2020

That the duly filled application was submitted by the plaintiff No.2 on 23.11.2020 and the same was acknowledged by the defendant on 23.11.2020.

8.Plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiff No.2 has fulfilled all the requirements for grant of a permanent memership of the club. That there is absolutely no hindrance or bar from the Club considering his application as per the Rules of the club. That the application of the plaintiff No.2 has been kept in abeyance by the defendants for a clarification as regards the prospective nature/interpretation of Rule V(3). That the 2013 Amendment to Rule V(3) being prospective in nature should apply only to those 9 O.S.No.733 of 2020 members who become permanent members subsequent to 31.7.2013 and their dependent children. That the plaintiff No.2, as a dependent member (Junior and Senior Dependent Member) had duly complied with the Rules that govern the dependent membership and is therefore eligible for grant of permanent membership as per the Rules of the Club. That the defendant club had been procrastinating in the matter of considering the application of the plaintiff No.2, dated 23.11.2020 for grant of permanent membership without any justifiable cause or reason. That the plaintiffs addressed an email to the defendant club on 25.11.2020 requesting the defendant club to immediately consider the application of plaintiff No.2 for the grant of permanent membership. That the defendant has neither replied to the said email nor complied with the same.

9.Plaintiffs further submitted that on the plaintiff No.2 attaining the age of 25 years on 19.8.2020, he was allowed to continue the facilities of the defendant club, which had granted him Short Term Temporary

Membership. That the plaintiff No.2 is availing the facilities of the Club presently as a Short Term Temporary Memership even to this day. That the Mahmood family who have been members for three generations, 10 O.S.No.733 of 2020 regard the membership to the club as a great privilege and hold it in the highest esteem. That since the defendant is procrastinating in the matter of granting permanent membership to the plaintiff No.2 under the members sons category, the plaintiffs are left with no option to file the present suit. Hence this suit.

10.Written statement filed by defendant No.1 contending that the present suit filed seeking the relief of Declaration and Mandatory injunction is not maintainable in law or on facts of the case. Defendant admitted that the plaintiff No.1 is a permanent member of the defendant club since 1976 and that the plaintiff No.2 has been dependent member of the Defendant club. Defendant admitted that it is voluntary association of likeminded persons, governed under its own bye-laws and rules as framed. Defendant further admitted that the membership of the club is open to members of General Public who are permanent residents of twin cities and the members are divided in different categories as mentioned in the rules and that the father of the plaintiff No.1 late Sri Baquar Mahmood was the permanent member of the Defendant No.1 club since 1957 till his demise in August, 2007. That the mother of plaintiff No.1 became 11 O.S.No.733 of 2020 member of defendant No.1 club and she is a honorary member of the

Club. Defendant contended that as per the club records, it is true that the plaintiff No.1 has been blessed with 5 children, a daughter and four sons and that the three of the children of plaintiff No.1 i.e. Zeeshan Adnan

Mahmood, Farhan Adnan Mahmood, Fathima Adnan Mahmood have already become permanent members of the defendant No.1 club. That an amendment was made by the general body to the existing rules of the

Club, restricting the club membership in respect of children of permanent members to only three children. That the said amendment became applicable from 31.7.2013 and the assertions of the plaintiffs that such rule would not apply to such of those permanent members who have become permanent members prior to 31.7.2013 is incorrect. That though it is true that the said amendment is prospective such interpretation sought to be made by the plaintiffs is not available in law. That the amended club rule V(3) unequivocally states that upto three children from the declared spouse of a permanent member can become a permanent member (children category) and does not state that it will apply to such of those permanent members who have been elected prior to 31.7.2013.

That the Prospective criteria under Club rule XXXI applies to the restriction on number of children getting membership under this category, subject to 12 O.S.No.733 of 2020 meeting qualitative requirements as enumerated in the said rule. That this implies that over and above three children of a permanent member who have been given membership, any additional child will not be eligible to become a member under this category with effect from 31.7.2013.

11.Defendants further contended that the plaintiff No.2 was registered as a Junior Dependent Member on his attaining the age of 16 years, as per

Club rules and continued to enjoy the memebrship even after 31.7.2013 though of being the 4th child though the same should have ceased as epr the amended rule. That the facts stated about collection and submission of application in respect of the plaintiff No.2 for Permanent Membership

Category is correct, however the allegations of procrastination by the

Defendant club without justifiable cause or reason and failure to exercise powers vested in it, under club Rule XXIII is baseless. Defendants further contended that due to Lockdown restrictions, regular business meetings of the club were not being undertaken. However, consequent to receipt of mail, dated 25.11.2020 from Mr. Adnan Mahmood, the candidature of his son was discussed in the Management Committee (MC) Meeting held on 21.11.2020 (pt. 4.1) and on 6.1.2021 (Pt F); extracts of the minutes are 13 O.S.No.733 of 2020 attached as Annexure 1 and 2 respectively for ready reference. That in view of the doubt triggered by the interpretation regarding prospective nature of the Club Rule V(3) by Mr. Adnan Mahmood in his mail, it was decided to take up the matter, in then, forthcoming AGM on 31.1.2021.

that the Management Committee came to this decision after due deliberations. That the consideration for better clarity and in the interest of natural justice, it was decided that the rule may have to be amended in an AGM/EGM as per the majority opinion of members, as mandated vide

Club Rule XXIX. Defendants further contended that the matter was projected in the AGM held on 31.1.2021 by the Club President Mr. Gautam

Bhopal during his presentation of the Annual report to the August General

Body. That the same could not be considered as a proposal in the General body because the attendance was meagre due to COVID apprehensions by the majority of members and as recommended by many members, all proposals including Amendments of Rules were postponed to be considered in the next AGM in July, 2021. That decisions of deliberations by the Management Committee was apprised to Mr Adnan Mahmood verbally, with a request to wait for the outcome of advise to the

Management Committee, from the Rules Sub Committee and the

Appellate Body for Members constituted under Club Rule XXIV, comprising 14 O.S.No.733 of 2020 of experienced Past Presidents of the Club, on the interpretation of the

Rule V(3) and the clarification / Amendment to the said Rule in the Annual

General Meeting. That in fact it would have been appropriate that the plaintiffs await decision of the general body in this respect instead of seeking orders from the Hon’ble court. Defendant admitted that the plaintiff No.2 has been availing the facilities of the club as short Term member pending decision of the general body concerning his permanent membership as mentioned above.

12.Defendants further contended that the amended rule as it exist does not permit interpretation as sought to be done by the plaintiffs and the power to consider the request of the plaintiffs, even otherwise vests in the general body of the club. That keeping in view as on date, the plaintiff is not entitled relief of declaration of mandatory injunction as sought for.

13.Adoption memo filed by defendant No.2 adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1.

15 O.S.No.733 of 2020

14.Thereafter, both parties and both counsels present and filed Joint

Memo of Compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC as the matter is compromised between the parties outside the court.

15. Terms of compromise petition is hereby recorded:

i.That the plaintiffs and the defendants agree that the rule V(3) of the

Rules of the Defendant Club are prospective in nature, as clearly enunciated under Rule XXXI of the club rules, as extracted below:

“XXXI. Repeal of existing rules and validity of Acts done under them:

All rules shall come into force from the date they are passed by the

General Body” ii.That the said rule was passed on 31.7.2013 and would therefore apply only to those permanent members who have been elected after 31.7.2013 and not to plaintiff No.1 as the plaintiff No.1 elected permanent member of the defendant club in the year 1976.

iii. That the defendants agree that the plaintiff No.2 would be entitled to the membership of the defendant club, he being eligible as per the

Rules of the Club (subject to ballot) since he had complied with the rules 16 O.S.No.733 of 2020 which were applicable to the dependent members and as his application for permanent membership was filed within the time stipulated as per the

Rules of the club.

iv. That the same would also apply to all such dependent members who are eligible as per the rules of the club and whose father had been elected as a permanent member prior to 31.7.2013.

v. That the parties agree that since the plaintiff No.2 has fulfilled all the requirements for the grant of a permanent membership of the club as per its rules there is absolutely no hindrance or bar for the defendants to consider the application of the plaintiff No.2 as per the rules of the club.

vi. That the suit be decreed in terms thereof.

16.In the light of above mentioned terms of compromise voluntarily entered between the parties, the above terms of compromise are recorded. Both parties should follow terms of compromise.

17 O.S.No.733 of 2020

17.In the result, the suit is decreed according to the terms of compromise.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 4th day of May, 2023.)

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC: XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiffs : For Defendants:

--None----None--

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Plaintiffs :

--Nil--

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC: XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

1 C.C.No. 520 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:: SMT A.NIRMALA IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATED THIS THE 21 st DAY OF APRIL, 2025

C.C.No. 520 of 2017

Between:

The State through The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Narayanaguda Hyderabad. … Complainant

AND A1 Bipin Jain S/o – Sunil Jain Aged – 52 Years, Occ: Business R/o – Flat No. 201, Sajid Majestic Apartments Hyderguda, Hyderabad N/o – 14/388,Sangampet, Cuddapah, A.P. … Accused

A2 Ankush (Absconding)

A3 Rupesh Kumar Agarwal (Case against A3 is quashed vide orders in Crl.P.No. 9327/2022 of the Hon’ble High Court, Hyd.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M/s Vishal Kedia, the learned Counsel for Accused No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following .

J U D G M E N T

1The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against A1 and A3 in Cr.No. 400/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406 of Indian Penal Code ( in short “IPC”) against A1 and for the offence under Sec. 411 IPC against A3 showing A2 as absconding.

2 C.C.No. 520 of 2017

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

That Prior to 26-11-2016 at Sanghi Jewellers Private Limited, Sadana

Building, Hyderguda, Hyderabad A1 gained goodwill and trust with LW1/Rakesh

Kumar, General Manager of Sanghi Jewellers Private Limited, and received the following Gold/Diamond Ornaments on credit basis in the first week of

October, 2016. 1) Chudi (4) Wg. 124.540 Grams 2) Necklace – Wg. 321.924

Grams 3) Necklace Tops Wg. 9.628 Grams 4) Long Necklace (4) Wg. 321. 334

Grams 5) N-Top Long (4) Wg. 61.358 Grams 6) Necklace (3) Wg. 226.620

Grams 7) N-Tops (3) Wg.44.054 Grams 8) Necklace Long (2) Wg. 127. 024

Grams 9) Necklace Tops Long Wg. 7.856 Grams 10) Maha Rani Necklace (2)

Wg. 202.594 Grams 11) Maha Rani Necklace Tops (2) Wg. 30. 404 Grams 12)

Braclets (3) Wg. 83. 488 Grams 13) Chudi (6) Wg. 135.830 Grams 14) SH-

Locket (6) Wg. 58.998 Grams 15) SH-Tops (6) Wg. 43.636 Grams 16)

Necklace (2) Wg. 52. 384 Grams 17) N-Tops (2) Wg. 12. 154 Grams Total

Gross Weight 1775.120 Grams all Worth Rs. 55,24,472/- and issued Two

Cheques No.000451 for Rs. 28,03,822/- Dt: 7-10-2016 and No. 000452 for Rs.

27,20,650/- Dt: 8-10-2016. When the above two Cheques were presented for encashment , the same were dishonoured for Insufficient Funds. That the above ornaments were melted by A2 and gave 1420 Grams ingot to A1. Out of 1429 Grams ingot A1 handedover 800 Grams to A2 I to sell the same in market and return the amount and A2 sold the same to various Gold shop owners . A1 sold 600 Grams ingot to A3 and also gave 20 Grams to A3 for safe custody. A3 also received 600 Grams of gold ingot from A1 and sold in the 3 C.C.No. 520 of 2017 market and spent the amount lavishly. That A1 was doing business of Diamond

Studs and Gold Jewellers styled as KARMA JEWELLERS, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and incurred loss and became debtor to a tune of Rs. Three Crores, in-order to get free from debts A1 received gold ornaments from various gold merchants on credit basis with ill intention to cheat, deceive and skip the payment in

Hyderabad and Secunderabad and that A1 thereby committed offence punishable under Sec. 406, 420 of IPC and A3 thereby committed offence punishable under Sec. 411 of IPC.

3. Basing on the report LW15/P.Venkateshwarlu, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 400/2016 under Sec. 406, 420 IPC. He examined and recorded the statement of LW1, collected 1) Certified copies of

Bills/Invoices Dt: 5-11-2016 2) Authorization letter to deal on behalf of the company with regards to all matters 3) Letter issued by LW1 promising to produce all original documents/Invoices at the time of trial/evidence 4) Cheque return memo of cheques and 5) General Ledger from 1-4-2026 to 29010-2016 of Sri Karma Jewellers (A1 shop), he visited scene of offence at Sanghi

Jewellers Private Limited, Hyderguda, Hyderabad and recorded the statements of LW2 to 4, obtained certified copies of Account statement of A./c No.

10187983945 of Sanghi Jewellers from 1-8-2016 to 30-11-2016 through LW5

Gopi Branch Manager of SBI , examined him and recorded his statement. He also obtained Account statement of A/c No. 12287630000486 including details of Cheque No. 000451 and -000452 of Shri karma Jewels through LW6 Pritam 4 C.C.No. 520 of 2017

Mehta, Manager of HDFC Bank Panjagutta, Hyderabad and above cheques were returned for INSUFFICIENT FUNDS. On 14-12-2016 A1 was arrested , recorded his confessional statement , A1 confessed to have committed this offence and other case in Hyderabad and Secunderabad. LW11 seized 20

Grams ingot from the possession of A1 under cover of seizure panchanama and produced A1 before Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Later

A1 was taken to police custody. LW15/P.Venkateshwarlu, Sub Inspector of Police regularized A1 on P.T.Warrant and produced him before this court. Later A1 was taken to police custody. He addressed letters to Branch manager, HDFC

Bank, Panjagutta , Hyderabad and got freezed the accounts . On 24-12-2016

A3 was arrested by CCS, DD, Hyderabad in Cr.No.224/2016 under Sec. 406, 420, 506 and 120B IPC and regularized A3 in this case on 3-1-2017 . A2

Ankush is absconding since from the date of report . After completion of investigation he filed the chargesheet against A1 for the offence under Sec.

406, 420 IPC And for the offence under Sec. 411 IPC against A3, showing A2 as absconding.

4. This court took cognizance for the offence under Sec. 420, 406, 411

IPC against A1 and A3 . The Hon’ble High Court in Crl.Petition No. 9327/2022 quashed the proceedings against A3 and A3 was acquitted.

5. On appearance of A1, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5 C.C.No. 520 of 2017

6. A1 was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The substance of charge for offence under Sec. 420, 406 IPC was framed, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In this case PW1 and 2 are examined and Ex.P.1 to 11 and Ex.C1 are marked in support to the case of the prosecution.

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. he denied the incriminating material evidence found in the testimonies of PW1 and 2 and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9. Heard arguments of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Defence

Counsel.

10.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 for the offence under Sec. 420, 406 IPC , beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

11.In this case prosecution examined PW1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 11 and Ex.C1.

6 C.C.No. 520 of 2017 12 PW1 Investigating Officer has testified that On 26.11.2016 at 16.00 hours he received complaint from LW1 basing on the contents of the complaint he registered the case in Cr.No.400/2016 u/Sec. 406,420 of IPC and issued

First Information Report Ex.P1, he examined and recorded the statement of

LW1, collected the bills and invoices vide: Ex.P2 and authorization letter to deal on behalf of the company vide:Ex.P3 and cheque returned memo’s certified copy vide:Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, and visited the scene of offence and recorded the statement of LW2 to LW4, collected the statements from LW5 of accused vide:Ex.P7 of Sanghi Jewellers and also statement of HDFC Bank of

Sri Karma Jewellers vide:Ex.P8, recorded the statement of LW5 and LW6 ,

Accused was arrested by Charminar Police, he arrested A1 on PT Warrant and took accused into police custody in which accused A1 confessed that he handed over 1775.120 grams of gold to A2 and A2 melted the gold and found 1420 grams of gold and A1 handed over the 800 grams gold to A2 in order to sell it in the market. A1 also confessed that A1 gave 600 grams gold to A3 and also other 20 grams gold was given to A3 and the same 20 grams gold was seized by Charminar Police under cover of panchanama confession cum seizure in the presence of two panchas Irfan and wajid. A2 sold the some part of gold and handed over Rs.4,00,000/- sale amount to A1 . A1 also confessed that accused of you inturn purchased 120 grams gold Jewellery with that

Rs.4,00,000/- and sold the same to Mangathraya Jewellers, Hi-Tech City,

Hyderabad for which Mangathraya Jewellers paid the amount to A1 account through RTGS to HDFC Bank Account of A1 vide:Ex.P8 and recorded the 7 C.C.No. 520 of 2017 panchanama in the presence of mediators vide:Ex.P9confession panchanama , he addressed a letter to HDFC Bank, Punjagutta for freezing the

Account bearing No.12287630000486 vide: Ex.P10 accordingly he received replied vide:Ex.P11 that they had already marked debit freeze. He reproduced the accused before Hon’ble Court after completion of police custody. Latter on he arrested A3 and recorded confessional statement in the presence LW9 and

LW10.PW1 further deposed that he addressed letters to HDFC Bank Panjagutta for information regarding freezing of amount in A/c No.12287630000486 and bank gave reply Dt: 21-3-2024, he added Sec 411 IPC and after completion of investigation he filed chargesheet showing A2 as absconding.

13 PW2 Assistant General Manager SBI Hyderabad has testified that during 2016 he received requisition from Sub Inspector of Police,

Narayanaguda to provide statement of A/c No. 10187983945 of Sanghi

Jewellers from 1-8-2016 to 30-11-2016 and he provided the above said statement extracted from the System.

14Unfortunately except LW15/PW1 and LW5/PW2, no material witnesses are examined by the prosecution. PW1 is the Investigating officer and PW2 is the retired Bank Employee who provided the statement of account No.

10187983945 of Sanghi Jewellers from 1-8-2016 to 30-11-2016.

8 C.C.No. 520 of 2017 15This case is about Cheating, Criminal breach of Trust and receiving the property dishonestly. A1 cheated the LW1 under gold business transaction for weighing 1775.120 grams from LW1/Rakesh Kumar, General Manager of

Sanghi Jewellers Private Limited, Sadana Building, Hyderguda, Hyderabad .

After purchasing gold ornaments from LW1 , A1 who is running Sri Karma

Jewellers gave cheques to LW1 which were dishonoured and A2 and A3 received the gold ornaments from A1 as they dishonestly received the gold ornaments from A1.

16As prosecution failed to examine main witnesses or material witnesses, the evidence left on record cannot prove the case of the prosecution against

A1 beyond all reasonable doubts, as PW1 is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case in formal way and circumstantial witness. PW2 Bank employee stated that he provided the Account statement only and he did not reiterated the contents of the account. In the above circumstances A1 is entitled for acquittal as prosecution has literally failed to prove the charges against the A1 for the offence under Sec. 420, 406 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

17In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the off enceunder Sec.

406, 420 of IPCand accordingly he is acquitted under Sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time as per Sec. 437 of Cr.P.C. The unmarked 20 Grams Gold Ingot deposited vide PI No. 95/2017 Dt: 3-6-2017 9 C.C.No. 520 of 2017 shall be returned to the Owner of the property, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade I,corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21 st day of April, 2025 .

IX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED: FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 : P.Venkateshwarlu PW2 : Y.Surya Narayana

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 First Information Report Ex.P2 Bills and Invoices Ex.P.3 Authorization letter to deal on behalf of company Ex.P.4 Certified copy of Cheque return memo Ex.P5 Certified copy of Cheque return memo Ex.P6 Letter from LW1 Ex.P7 Account Statement of Sanghi Jewellers Ex.P8 Account statement of Sri Karma Jewellers Ex.P9 Confession Panchanama Ex.P10 Letter to HDFC Bank for freezing account No. 12287630000486 . Ex.P.11 Reply Letter

FOR DEFENCE:

NiL

Ex.C1 Reply from bank to the Letters of IO, Narayanaguda

Dt:21-3-2024

10 C.C.No. 520 of 2017

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

IX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

11 C.C.No. 520 of 2017 12 C.C.No. 520 of 2017

1C.C.No. 1449 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:: SMT A.NIRMALA IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATED THIS THE 17 th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

C.C.No. 1449 of 2025

Between:

The State through The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chikkadpally Hyderabad. … Complainant

AND

A1 Kurma Raju S/o – Narsaiah Aged – 30 Years, Occ: Labour Work R/o – Dormitories at Secunderabad N/o – Ablapur(V), Papannapet (M), Medak District

A2 Chakali Bal Raju S/o – Hanmaiah Aged – 36 Years, Occ: Labour Work R/o – Dormitories at Secunderabad N/o – H.No. 3-40, Elkaguda (V), Chadergudem(M), RR District … A1 & A2

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Kum Niharika Goud Vangala, Advocate, Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following .

J U D G M E N T

1The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 in Cr.No. 363/2024 for the offence punishable under

Section 303(2) BNS against A1 and A2 .

2 C.C.No. 1449 of 2025

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

That A1 and A2 are regular offenders involved in several theft cases of different

Police stations and recently arrested by Police Narayanaguda and released from jail in

October and again on 9-11-2024 around 2000 hours A1 and A2 committeed theft of auto bearing No. TS13U 6114 (rental) parked by LW1/Prem infront of Sri Sai Bar,

Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and kept the auto at an isolated place at RTC Bus Bhavan at

RTC X Roads for later disposal and that A1 and A2 thereby committed offence under

Section 379 of IPC .

3. Basing on the report LW11/L.Mounika, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 363/2024 under Sec. 303(2) BNS.`She examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited scene of offence, recorded CDF and drafted rough sketch in the presence of mediators. On 20-112024 around 0830 hours accused were apprehended, on interrogation accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and several other offences of different Police stations. She effected the arrest of A1 and A2 and produced them before the court for judicial custody, After completion of investigation he filed the chargesheet against A1 and A2 for the offence under Sec.

303(2) BNS.

4. This court took cognizance for the offence under Sec. 303(2) BNS against A1 and A2.

5. On production of A1 and A2 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3 C.C.No. 1449 of 2025

6. A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The charge for offence under Sec. 303(2) BNS was framed, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In this case PW1 to 6 are examined and Ex.P.1 to 7 are marked in support to the case of the prosecution.

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1, A2 are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating material evidence found in the testimonies of

PW1 to 6 and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9. Heard arguments of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Defence

Counsel.

10.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence under Sec. 303(2) BNS, beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

11.In this case prosecution examined PW1 to 6 , got marked Ex.P.1 to 7. The evidence of LW5, LW7 to 10 are given up by Learned A.P.P. as they assisted the

Investigating Officer.

12PW1 Complainant has testified that on 9-11-2024 around 9.00 to 9.30 his hired/rental auto bearing No. TS13UA 6114 whose Owner is Gajindhar was missing 4 C.C.No. 1449 of 2025 and he searched for it but could not find , hence he lodged Ex.P.1 to Police. Later he received case property from the court.

13PW2 Owner of auto has testified that on 9-11-2024 he gave his auto bearing

No. TS13UA 6114 to PW1 on hire basis and the same was committed theft by unknown persons and later police have shown accused in Police Station. PW1 lodged

Ex.P.1 complaint.

14PW3 Panch witness for Observation Panchanama and Rough Sketch testfied that on 9-11-2024 at 7.00 p.m. Police Chikkadpally called him to Act as Panch witness and Police conducted Observation Panchanama and Rough Sketch in his presence and obtained his signatures Ex.P.2 and P.3 on CDF and Rough Sketch.

15PW4 Panch witness for Observation Panchanama and Rough Sketch testified that Police Chikkadpally called him to Act as Panch witness and Police conducted

Observation Panchanama and Rough Sketch at Sai Bar and Restaurant in his presence and obtained his signatures Ex.P.4 and P.5 on CDF and Rough Sketch.

16PW5 Panch witness for confession Panchanama of accused has testfied that

Police Chikkadpally called him to Act as Panch witness for confession Panchanama , and police conducted confession panchanama of A1 and A2 and accused confessed that they comitted theft of auto under condition of alcoholic and Ex.P.6 is his signature on confession panchanama .

17PW6 Sub Inspector of Police has testfied that on 12-11-2024 at 1100 hours she received complaint from PW1, basing on the contents of the complaint, she registered 5 C.C.No. 1449 of 2025 case in Crime No. 363/2024 under Sec. 303(2)BNS IPC and issued FIR , she examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 , visited scene of offence, conducted

Scene of offence Panchanama. On 20-11-2024 LW7 to 10 apprehended accused and she conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and sent accused to judicial custody and accused are also involved in several theft cases and after completion of investigation she filed chargsheet.

18On perusing the material on record PW1 is the Victim who lost his hired auto bearing No. TS13UA 6114, in this regard he has lodged report on 12-11-2024 which is tallied with record i.e. complaint and auto number also tallied with record. Further,

PW2 is examined by the prosecution and he is the owner of the vehicle, he clearly stated that his auto bearing No. TS13UA 6114 was given to PW1 on hire basis was stolen by A1 and A2 and his statement is tallied with the record.

19Further Police have drafted Rough Sketch in the persence of PW3 and 4 and they deposed in favour of prosecution case, scene observation panchanama is tallied with record and statements and evidence of PW3 and PW4 that Police conducted scene observation panchanama and Rough sketch at Sri Sai bar, thus the contents and rough sketch of CDF is believing by this court.

20Further prosecution has examined confession panchanama witness i.e. PW5 who deposed that A1 and A2 confessed before him, hence his statement is believing by this court, though there is minor controversy in his statement. PW6 who is

Investigating Officer has deposed that he has investigated in this case which accurately corroborated with the evidence of PW1 to 5. Furthermore, PW6 stated that

A1 and A2 are habitual offenders involved in several similar crimes.

6 C.C.No. 1449 of 2025 21In view of the evidence adduced by prosecution and above held discussion by this court this court is placing reliance on prosecution evidence that evidence of PW1 to 6 is consistent and relevant and corroborated to believe that A1 and A2 have committed theft of auto bearing No. TS13UA 6114 and they are liable to be punished, accordingly A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 303(2) of BNS and accordingly convicted under Sec. 271(2) BNSS.

22Therefore, prosecution has proved the case against A1 and A2 for the offence under Sec 303(2) BNS beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, A1 and A2 are convicted under Sec. 271 (2) of BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025 .

IX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

23Heard the A1 with regard to the quantum of sentence. The Accused No.1 submitted that he has small children and he is responsible for their care and welfare and prayed this court to take lenient view in respect of passing sentence but in view of the severity of the offence, he is not entitled to get any lenient view under the provisions of P.O Act.

24Accused No.2 Submitted that he has small children and he is responsible for their care and welfare and prayed this court to take lenient view in respect of passing sentence but in view of the severity of the offence, he is not entitled to get any lenient view under the provisions of P.O Act.

7 C.C.No. 1449 of 2025 25In the result, the A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence under Sec. 303(2)

BNS and accordingly they are convicted under Sec. 271(2) of BNSS.

26After hearing the A1 and A2 with regard to the quantum of sentence and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, A1 and A2 are convicted under

Sec. 271(2) of BNSS for the offence under section 303(2) BNS. The A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR each for the offence under Sec. 303(2) BNS. The remand period i.e. from 20-11-2024 to till date i.e. Four Months 28 days already undergone by A1 and A2, if any, shall be set of under

Sec. 468 of BNSS and they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for another 217 days from today. The A1 and A2 are informed about their right to appeal before the Hon’ble

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad against the judgment passed by this court and also they

are informed about their right to take free legal aid in preferring to appeal and free copy of judgment is furnished to them. The unmarked Auto bearing No. TS13UA 6114 already returned to PW2 Vide Crl.M.P.No. 593/2024 Dt: 10-2-2025 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025 .

IX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 : A.Prem PW2 : Gajindhar PW3 : Balaji PW4 : S.Kamal PW5 : M.A.Kaleem PW6 : L.Mounika

FOR DEFENCE: NIL 8 C.C.No. 1449 of 2025

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Complaint/Report Ex.P2: Signature of PW3 on CDF Ex.P3: Signature of PW3 on Rough Sketch Ex.P4: Signature of PW4 on CDF Ex.P5: Signature of PW4 on Rough Sketch Ex.P.6: Signature of PW5 on Confession panchanama Ex.P.7: Confession cum Seizure Panchanama

FOR DEFENCE:

NiL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

IX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

9 C.C.No. 1449 of 2025 10 C.C.No. 1449 of 2025

// 1 //

O.S. No.399 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: SMT. A.NIRMALA

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

City Civil Court,Secunderabad.

DATED THIS THE 30 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

O.S.No. 399 OF 2024

Between:

1.Sri. Radheshyam Katara, S/o Ladharam Katara, Aged about 69 Years, Occ: Business, R/o 19/1, Sardar Patel Road, Paigha Housing Colony, Behind Anand Theatre, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500003.

2.Sri Kishore Kumar Katara, S/o Ladharam Katara, Aged about 66 Years, Occ: Business, R/o 19/1, Sardar Patel Road, Paigha Housing Colony, Behind Anand Theatre, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500003.

3.Sri.Raj L Katara Alias Rajkumar Katara, S/o Ladharam Katara Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Doctor, R/o 19/1, Sardar Patel Road, Paigha Housing Colony, Behind Anand Theatre, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500003. Now residing at 135, Larsens LN Stroundsburg PA 18360, USA.

(Represented by his Special Power of Attorney Holder Sri. Radheshyam Katara, the plaintiff No.1 herein) // 2 //

O.S. No.399 of 2024

4.Smt. Veena Bajaj, W/o Late Bajaj Daulatram & D/o Ladharam Katara, Aged about 71 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o 42, 8th East Main Road, Katpadi, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore, Tamil Nadu (Represented by her Special Power of Attorney Holder Sri.Kishore Kumar Katara, the plaintiff No.2 herein)

5.Smt. Neelam Dharampal Shroff, W/o Dharampal Shroff & D/o Ladharam Katara, Aged about 70 Years, Occ: Doctor, R/o 32-B, Usha Sadan, 4th floor, Next to Colaba Post Office, Colaba, Mumbai – 400005.

6.Smt. Chandini J Parwani, W/o Late Jairam & D/o Ladharam Katara, Aged about 59 Years, Occ: House Wife, C-303 Kalaniketan Apartments Manikeshwari Road, Kilpauk, Chennai Tamil Nadu – 600010. … Plaintiffs

AND

1. The Tahsildar, Secunderabad Mandal, Near Paradise Bus Stop, Metro Building, Paradise, Secunderabad.

2.All concerned … Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M.S.Thirunathan, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Defendants set exparte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:- // 3 //

O.S. No.399 of 2024

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking the relief of declaration to declare the plaintiffs 1 to 6 are the only legal heirs, legal representatives and successors of the deceased, Late Sri Ladharam Katara, S/o Late

Tikamda Katara.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

It is the submission of plaintiff that the plaintiffs 1 to 6 are the children of late Sri Ladharam Katara and late Smt. Kanta Devi

Katara. It is further submitted that plaintiffs mother Smt. Kanta

Devi Katara died long bank 06.09.2017 leaving behind Mr. Ladhram

Katara and the plaintiffs as her only surviving legal heirs. Plaintiffs further submit that their father Sri Ladharam Katara also died intestate on 05.11.2021 due to ill health leaving behind the above named plaintiffs as his only surviving legal heirs representatives and successors to succeed and inherit. Except plaintiffs 1 to 6 there are no other legal heirs of the deceased person Late Sri Ladharam

Katara. It is further submitted that as it si just and necessary for the plaintiff to obtain a legal heir certificate for a legal status and for domestic purposes, as such plaintiffs after the death of Sri

Ladharam Katara, they have approached various departments, for // 4 //

O.S. No.399 of 2024

which the concern authorities have directed the plaintiffs to obtain a legal heir certificate from concern authorities. Accordingly the plaintiff being the legal heirs have approached the defendant No.1 for issuance of legal heir certificate, who refused to take the application stating that they have no powers to issue the legal heir certificate to a Non-Government Service person, and directed the plaintiffs to approach a competent court of law, hence the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit before this court for declaration to declare themselves as only legal heirs representatives and successors of Late Sri Ladharam Kataram, who died intestate on 05.11.2021. It is further submitted that apart from the above plaintiffs there are no other legal heirs of deceased late Sri

Ladharam Katara. Therefore be pleased to declare that the plaintiff

Nos.1 to 5 are the only legal heir and legal representative of Late

Sri Ladharam Kataram for maintaining legal status and for domestic purposes.

3.Summons served on Defendant No.1, publication filed against defendant No.2, they called absent, no representation. Hence, Defendants 1 & 2 set exparte.

// 5 //

O.S. No.399 of 2024

4.To prove the case of Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1 got examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiffs.

6. Now, the points for determination are:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of legal heirs as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

7.POINT No.1 :

The brief narrative of the Plaint is that, the plaintiffs 1 to 6 are the children of Late Sri Ladharam Katara and Late Smt.Kanta Devi Katara who died on 06.09.2017 & 05.11.2021, except plaintiffs 1 to 6 there are no other legal heirs of the deceased person Late Sri Ladharam Katara.

Further the plaintiffs approached the defendant No.1 for issuance of legal heir certificate who refused the same and directed the plaintiffs to approach a competent court of law, therefore plaintiffs approached this court to declare the plaintiffs 1 to 6 are the only legal heirs and legal representative of Late Sri Ladharam Katara for maintaining legal status and for domestic purposes.

// 6 //

O.S. No.399 of 2024

8.To strengthen the case of plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1 got examined as

PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 i.e., Ex.A1 is Original death certificate of Late Ladharam Katara dated 5-11-2021, Ex.A2 is

Original death certificate of Late Kanta Devi Katara dated 06.09.2017,

Ex.A3 is Original Election ID Card of the plaintiffs father Late Ladharam

Katara, dated 07.11.2011, Ex.A4 is Original Election ID card of the plaintiffs mother Late Kanta Devi Katara dated 14-07-2011, Ex.A5 is

Original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.1 Radheshaym Katara, Ex.A6 is

Original Aadhar card of Plaintiff No. 2 Kishore Kumar Katara, dated 18-07- 2011, Ex.A7 is Original Ration card of the Plaintiff No. 3 Raj L Katara alias

Rajkumar Katara, dated 17-11-2011, Ex.A8 is Original Electricity bill, showing the residential Proof, Ex.A9 is Original of the special power of attorney of plaintiff No.3 Raj L Katara alias Rajkumar Katara, Ex.A10 is

Original Special Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.4 Veena Bajaj, Ex.A11is

Family photograph of the plaintiffs along with CD, Ex.A12 is

Original Aadhar card of plaintiff no.3 Sri. Raj Kumar Katara Dated 17-11-2011, Ex.A13 is Original PAN card of Plaintiff No. 4 Smt. Veena

Bajaj, Ex.A14 is Original PAN card of plaintiff No. 5 Smt. Neelam

Dharampal Shroff and Ex.A15 is Original PAN card of plaintiff No.6

Smt.Chandini J Parwani showing her father’s name Late Ladharam

Katara.

// 7 //

O.S. No.399 of 2024

9.On perusing the exhibits, Ex.A1 is death certificate of Late

Ladharam Katara issued by Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Ministry of

Defence, Government of India which is establishing the death of

Ladharam Katara S/o Late Tikamdas Katara who died on 05.11.2021,

Ex.A2 is death Certificate of Late Kanta Devi Katara which is establishing the death of deceased Kanta Devi Katara who died on 06.09.2017 and also establishing that Kanta Devi Katara is wife of Ladharam Katara,

Ex.A5 is Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.1 which is establishing that plaintiff

No.1 is son of deceased Ladharam Katara, Ex.A6 is Aadhar Card of

Plaintiff No.2 which is establishing that plaintiff No.2 is son of deceased

Ladharam Katara, Ex.A7 is Ration Card which is establishing that Plaintiff

No.3 is son of Deceased Ladharam Katara and Kanta Devi, Ex.A13 is PAN

Card of plaintiff No.4 which is establishing that plaintiff No.4 is daughter of Ladharam Katara, Ex.A14 is PAN Card of plaintiff No.5 which is not establishing the relationship with Ladharam Katara and in this document it is reflecting the name as Ladharam Tikamdas Katara, hence this court not relied on this document. Ex.A15 is PAN card of plaintiff No.6 which is establishing that plaintiff No.6 is daughter of Ladharam Katara.

10.In view of oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiffs, this court hold that Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are sons of deceased Late Sri

Ladharam Katara S/o Late Tikamdas Katara and Plaintiff No.4 & 6 are // 8 //

O.S. No.399 of 2024

daughters of deceased Late Sri Ladharam Katara S/o Late Tikamdas

Katara and due to lack of documentary evidence this court cannot declare

Plaintiff No.5 as legal heir of deceased Late Sri Ladharam Katara S/o

Late Tikamdas Katara. The declaration is only to the extent of legal status of plaintiff. Accordingly, this point is answered.

11.The above evidence is not rebutted by defendants, hence it remained unchallanged and this court passed this judgment basing on the exparte evidence adduced by plaintiff.

12. POINT No. 2:-

In the result, the suit is partly decreed without costs in favour of the Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 & 6 declaring them as legal heirs of the deceased

Late Sri Ladharam Katara S/o Late Tikamdas Katara . Declaration is only for legal status, but not for any other purpose.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 30 th day of September, 2024.)

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

// 9 //

O.S. No.399 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS : FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : Radheshyam Katara --None--

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS :

Ex.A1 : Original death certificate of Late Ladharam Katara dated 5- 11-2021. Ex.A2 : Original death certificate of Late Kanta Devi Katara dated 06.09.2017.

Ex.A3 : Original Election ID Card of the plaintiffs father Late Ladharam Katara, dated 07.11.2011.

Ex.A4 : Original Election ID card of the plaintiffs mother Late Kanta Devi Katara dated 14-07-2011.

Ex.A5 : Original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.1 Radheshaym Katara.

Ex.A6 : Original Aadhar card of Plaintiff No. 2 Kishore Kumar Katara, dated 18-07-2011.

Ex.A7 : Original Ration card of the Plaintiff No. 3 Raj L Katara alias

Rajkumar Katara, dated 17-11-2011.

Ex.A8 : Original Electricity bill, showing the residential Proof.

Ex.A9 : Original of the special power of attorney of plaintiff No.3 Raj L Katara alias Rajkumar Katara.

Ex.A10: Original Special Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.4 Veena Bajaj.

Ex.A11: Family photograph of the plaintiffs along with CD.

// 10 //

O.S. No.399 of 2024

Ex.A12 : Original Aadhar card of plaintiff no.3 Sri. Raj Kumar Katara

Dated 17-11-2011.

Ex.A13 : Original PAN card of Plaintiff No. 4 Smt. Veena Bajaj

Ex.A14 : Original PAN card of plaintiff No. 5 Smt. Neelam Dharampal Shroff.

Ex.A15 : Original PAN card of plaintiff No. 6 Smt. Chandini J Parwani

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

--Nil--

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.