A. Radhika

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: Smt A.RADHIKA II Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

Thursday, the 17th day of April 2025

O.S. No.2083/2019

Between

Bandanadam Arogya Mary D/o Anthaiah (W/o Prasad) Aged about 42 years, Occ: Household R/o H.No.9-148/2, Kammaguda Village Nadergul Post, Balapur Mandal Ranga Reddy District … Plaintiff

And

Bandanadam Nirmala, W/o Joseph Aged about 56 years, Occ: Household R/o H.No.9-52, Kammaguda Village Nadergul Post, Balapur Mandal Ranga Reddy District … Defendant

This suit coming before me on 10.3.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.Harish, Counsel for plaintiff, and of Sri V.Srinivas, Counsel for defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to cancel the registered gift deed bearing document No.7606/2003 dated 30.6.2003 at

SRO Champapet, and also to cancel the gift deed No.5324/2008 dated 31.5.2008 at SRO, Ranga Reddy District East, as the defendant herein got -: 2 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 executed in her favour by using undue influence and also by misrepresentation, and costs of the suit

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

(i) The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing

No.84 admeasuring 413 square yards in Sy.No.84 situated at

Badangpet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal. The father of the plaintiff late Anthaiah during his lifetime purchased the same on the name of the plaintiff while she was 10 years old through registered sale deed bearing document No.11413/1986. The father of the plaintiff died on 30.5.1995 and the mother of the plaintiff died on 18.7.2002. On 3.10.2001, her marriage was solemnized with Prasad and she was conceived, during her pregnancy she was diagnosed with HIV and on 21.7.2002 she gave birth to a male child, who is born as mentally retorted person, besides being affected by HIV, her husband abandoned her and her child.

(ii) It is further averred that the father of the plaintiff and husband of the defendant viz., Joseph are real brothers and all of them residing in H.No.9-52 which is an ancestral property, and after death of the father of the plaintiff, the defendant and her husband acted as elders to the parental family to the plaintiff and they used to involve in the family affairs of the plaintiff and also family affairs of her parental family. In the year 2003, the defendant and her husband approached the plaintiff and represent that they wanted to avail loan to meet their family necessities and requested the plaintiff to act her as -: 3 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 guarantor by depositing the original sale deed No.11413/1986. The defendant and husband of the defendant took the plaintiff to the registration office and obtained her signatures on some papers under the belief that she signed as a guarantor to secure loan by defendant and her husband. Later, as the personal life of the plaintiff was under great emotional turmoil, after her marriage she did not approach the defendant and husband of the defendant to know whether the loan was cleared and redeemed. In the year 2008, the plaintiff requested the defendant and her husband to return her original sale deed bearing document No.11413/1986, then the defendant and her husband asked the plaintiff to come to registration office stating that to get back the above original sale deed. Upon that, the plaintiff went to the registration office and signed some papers as instructed by the defendant and her husband. Later, the plaintiff continuously asking the defendant and her husband to return the original sale deed, but they did not, and when her financial position became worst she started vigorously insisting them to return the document. Finally, on 10.8.2019, the plaintiff requested them to hand over the original sale deed, but the defendants refused to return the same and stated that plot No.84 belongs to the defendant and the plaintiff is not having any right over it. Then immediately, the plaintiff obtained the

Encumbrance Certificate of plot No.84 and she came to know about registration of gift deed bearing document No.7606/2003 dated 30.6.2003.

-: 4 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025

(iii) It is further averred that the defendant and her husband taking advantage of their close relationship using undue influence and misrepresenting got executed gift deed bearing No.7606/2003, 5324/2008. Hence, the suit.

3. On the other hand, after receipt of summons, the defendant filed her written statement by denying the material averments made in the plaint.

(i) The husband of this defendant namely, Joseph and father of the plaintiff named Anthaiah were own brothers and Anthaiah has two daughters and one son. The said Anthaiah died on 30.5.1995 and mother of the plaintiff Elchamma died on 18.7.2002. The defendant and her husband performed the cremation and all last rites of the parents of the plaintiff. The marriage of the plaintiff with prasad was solemnized on 3.10.2001 by the defendant and her husband with her own funds, and plaintiff conceived, during her pregnancy she was diagnosed HIV, and on 21.7.2002 she gave birth to a son, who is born as mentally retorted person besides being effected by HIV and entire medical and other expenses were born by the defendant and her husband. The defendant and her husband performed the marriage of plaintiff’s sister, Benedamma, and her brother

Marri Raju with their own funds, and the said Marri Raju also died on 5.12.2016 and the funeral and other customs were performed by defendant and her husband.

(ii) It is further contended that as the defendant and her husband rendered services to the plaintiff’s family, and performed marriages of -: 5 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 plaintiff, her sister and brother by investing huge amounts, the plaintiff with love and effection on defendant and her well-wisher Gaddam Padma

Reddy voluntarily came to SRO Champapet on 30.6.2003 and executed a registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.7606/2003 dated 30.6.2003 in respect of open land admeasuring 200 square yards out of 413 square yards in plot No.84 West Part in Sy.No.84 situated at Badangpet

Village, Saroornagar Mandal.

(iii) It is further averred that the defendant and her husband incurred huge expenses for the medical treatment of the plaintiff and her son, and took care of the welfare of the entire family of Anthaiah. On 31.5.2008, the plaintiff with love and effection on the defendant executed a registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.5324/2008 in favour of the defendant in respect of open land admeasuring 110 square yards in plot

No.84 East part. The plaintiff with love and effection executed the above two registered gift deeds and gifted the aforementioned properties to the defendant in the presence of attestors, and Gaddam Padma Reddy is one of the attestors for both registered gift deeds and one S.Raja is another attestor to the 2nd gift deed.

(iv) It is further averred that at the time of execution of the above two gift deeds informed the plaintiff that she executing the gift deeds in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff clearly admitted before the Sub-Registrar, she was executing the gift deeds voluntarily in favour of the defendant, and the plaintiff has very much knowledge about the execution of -: 6 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 aforementioned gift deeds in favour of the defendant. It is further averred that the plaintiff with a dishonest intention to extract money from the defendant filed the present suit after a lapse of 15 years with false and baseless allegations, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of the gift deed bearing document No.7606/2003 dated 30.6.2003?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of the gift deed

bearing document No.5324/2008 dated 31.5.2008. If so, to what

relief?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself was examined as

PW-1 and her sister was examined as PW-2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6.

On behalf of the defendants, the defendant herself was examined as

DW-1 and two more witnesses were examined as DW-2 and DW-3 and got marked Ex.B1 to B3.

6. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff, learned counsel for the defendant No.1 filed written arguments.

7. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 by filing chief affidavit and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. In support of her case, she relied on Ex.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is a certified copy of gift settlement deed bearing document No.7606/2003 dated 13.6.2003 executed by Bandanadam Arogya Mary (plaintiff herein) in -: 7 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 favour of Bandanadam Nirmala (defendant herein) in respect of plot No.84 western part, admeasuring 200 square yards in Sy.No.84 of Badangpet village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.A2 is a certified copy of gift settlement deed bearing document No.5324/2008 dated 31.5.2008 executed by Bandanadam Arogya Mary (plaintiff herein) in favour of Bandanadam Nirmala (defendant herein) in respect of plot No.84 eastern part, admeasuring 110 square yards in Sy.No.84 of Badangpet village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.A3 is a certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.11413/1986 dated 11.9.1986 executed by Rallagudem Ram Reddy and 3 others through their

GPA holder Rallagudem Ram Reddy in favour of Bandanadam Arogyamary (plaintiff herein). Ex.A4 is a market value certificate. Ex.A5 is photographs. Ex.A6 is photostat copy of certificate for person with disability dated 29.10.2012 along with ID card issued by the Medical Board of Area Hospital, Vanasthalipuram. Ex.A7 is the death certificate of

Bandanadham Elizabeth dated 18.7.2002.

8. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff also examined

PW-2, who is the sister of the plaintiff, and she stated that the marriage of the plaintiff with Prasad was solemnized on 3.10.2001 and the said marriage was performed by their mother and their maternal uncle also helped in performing the marriage, and defendants never performed marriage of the plaintiff. During the cross-examination of PW-2, nothing could be elicited in favour of the defendant. However, since there is no pleading with regard to performance of the marriage of PW-1 by her -: 8 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 mother and her paternal uncle and the amount of evidence of PW-2 without there being any pleading cannot be looked into.

9. During the cross-examination of PW-1, she stated that Ex.B1 bears her signature, and Ex.A1 executed by her in the year 2003 in respect of part of the suit schedule property. Ex.A2 also bears her signature, and she stated that she does not know in which office she signed Ex.A1 and A2.

She denied the suggestion that she execute Ex.A1 and A2 in the presence of witnesses. She further admitted that her photographs and thumb impressions taken at the Sub-Registrar Office, she and witness also signed, but she added that on the pretext of loan she signed. She denied the suggestion that G.Padma Reddy and S.Raja are known to her and signed as witnesses to the gift deeds. She denied the suggestion that in consideration of love and effection she executed Ex.A1 and A2 in favour of the defendant. She denied the suggestion that she delivered the possession of the suit schedule property under Ex.A1 and A2.

10. On the other hand, the defendant herself examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 and Ex.A3 are one and the same. Ex.B2 and

Ex.A1 are one and the same. Ex.B3 and A2 are one and the same. During her evidence, she reiterated the averments made in the written statement.

In support of the case of the defendant, the defendant examined two more witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3. DW-2 is the one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.A1/B2 and Ex.A2/B3.

-: 9 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025

11. During the cross-examination of DW-1, she stated that she has no photographs to show their presence in the marriage of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and her son regularly visit the government hospital for their treatment. She does not know where the plaintiff and her son are being treated, but the defendant used to give medicines to them. She admitted that the contents of Ex.B2 and B3 do not disclose the amount spent on the family members of the plaintiff and therefore got executed the said two documents. She denied the suggestion that on the pretext of obtaining loan, asked the plaintiff to act as guarantor handing over the exhibit B1 and made her sign and affixed thumb impression on some papers at the registration office.

12. DW-2, who is one of the attesting witnesses to two gift deeds/Ex.A1 and A2/B2 and B3, who stated that he is the childhood friend of the husband of the defendant and father of the plaintiff and closely acquainted with their families. In view of close association with their family, the plaintiff asked him to be present at the time of execution of gift deeds

dated 30.6.2003 and 31.5.2008, the plaintiff executed above two gift

settlement deeds towards love and effection in favour of the defendant.

The plaintiff developed such love and effection towards the defendant and her husband in view of the substantial amounts spent by them for the upbringing of plaintiff, her sister and brother, and performed their marriages. The defendant and her husband also spent money for the medical needs and expenditure of the plaintiff’s son. During his cross- examination, he stated that the defendant and her husband spent -: 10 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 according to their financial status, and they did not inform him about the amount spent by them, and he does not know in which hospital the plaintiff and her son was treated. He further stated that it is not stated in both the gift deeds that the plaintiff executed in lieu of the substantial amounts spent by the defendant in upbringing the plaintiff, her sister and brother and also in performing the marriage of the plaintiff and her sister. He denied the suggestion that himself and defendant got executed Ex.A1 in the name of the defendant on the pretext of security towards a loan and further denied the suggestion that the defendant and himself took the plaintiff to the registration office under the pretext that her signatures are required to get back the sale deed bearing document No.11413/1986.

13. DW-3, who is said to be nephew of father of plaintiff and husband of the defendant stated that the defendant and her husband had performed the marriages of the plaintiff and her sister by incurring necessary expenditure, and they also incurred expenditure on the deaths of parents of the plaintiff and her brother from their pocket, he is always been a well- wisher of their family, and he has seen love and effection towards the plaintiff, out of love and effection the plaintiff transferred the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant, as the defendant and her husband spent money for the expenses of the plaintiff and her family members.

Though he was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff nothing could be elicited in favour of the plaintiff, and he denied all the material suggestions.

-: 11 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025

14. The case of the plaintiff is that she did not execute gift deeds under

Ex.A1 and A2 in favour of the defendant, the defendant under the guise of availing loan and impressed her to act as guarantor by depositing the title deed. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff out of love and effection as the defendants taken care of herself and her child and incurred medical expenses of plaintiff and her child, she herself executed Ex.A1/B2 and

A2/B3 in her favour in the presence of DW-2. The disputed/questioned documents are Ex.A1/B2 and A2/B3 are registered gift deeds. The contents of Ex.A1/B2 and A2/B3 reveals that the plaintiff gifted the plaint schedule property under Ex.A1/B2 and A2/B3 to the defendant. However, the plaintiff pleaded that, Ex.A1/B2 and A2/B3 are fabricated documents under the guise of undue influence and misrepresentation by the defendant obtained Ex.A1/B2 and A2/B3. Consequently, the same is liable to be cancelled. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the burden of proof of fact lies on the person who asserts the same. Further, the

Hon’ble Apex Court in its Judgment Premsingh Vs. Birbal reported in AIR

2006 SC 3608 and Bellachi Vs. Shamim Mohammed reported in AIR 2019 SC 72 held that “there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, primafacie would be valid in law. The onus of proof thus would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption”. In view of the Section 101 of the Indian Evidence

Act, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that, Ex.A1/B2 and

A2/B3 are obtained by playing fraud, misrepresentation and undue -: 12 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 influence by the defendant and she is in fiduciary relationship with the defendant and her husband.

15. On perusal of pleadings and evidence on record the undisputed facts are—

(i) The husband of the defendant and the father of the plaintiff are real brothers and father of the plaintiff viz., Anthaiah had purchased the suit schedule property in the name of the plaintiff when the plaintiff was minor, and later the parents of the plaintiff had died.

(ii) The marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with one Prasad on 3.10.2001 and during the pregnancy, the plaintiff was diagnosed with incurable chronic disease HIV. The plaintiff gave birth to a son who is mentally retarded by birth.

(iii) After the death of the father of the plaintiff, the defendant and her husband used to involve in the family affairs of the plaintiff being elders of the family.

16. Since the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the cancellation of gift deed on the ground that the deed of gift has been brought in existence by undue influence and misrepresentation, the question for consideration under respective submissions is whether deed of gift was executed in circumstances which render the deed of gift invalid as suffering from undue influence and misrepresentation, and as per the case of the plaintiff the suit has been filed for declaration that deed of gifts dated 30.6.2003 and 31.5.2008 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant is illegal inoperative and void on the ground that said gift deeds under Ex.A1 and

A2 has been brought existence by undue influence and misrepresentation.

In order to consider in a suit for cancellation of registered gift deed on the -: 13 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 ground of undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, it is just and necessary to see what the essential ingredients are to plead and proof and how the plaintiff who seeks such relief, has to proceed with his case and when the defendant is required to be called upon to show that the contract or gift was not inducted by undue influence.

Section 16 of Indian Contract Act defined undue influence— [16.“Undue influence” defined.—(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another— (a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or (b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress. (3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).

On perusal of Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, it defines undue influence, its ingredients as well as its applicability i.e., condition when and -: 14 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 where it applies and when onus shifts on defendants to show that gift deed did not suffer some undue influence. Hence, Section 16(1) of the Indian

Contract Act clearly speaks about elements of undue influence i.e., for cancellation of the deed on the ground undue influence two things are required to be considered and proved.

(1) Whether fiduciary relation exists between the donor and donee, such that the donee is in a position to dominate the will of the doner and (2) Has the donee used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the donee.

As per subsection(2) of Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will where he stands in a fiduciary relation to another or where he enters into a transaction with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness or mental or bodily distress and proof being furnished either by evidence or by presumption that a person is in a position to dominate the will. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove the above two ingredients of the section 16 by acceptable evidence and when evidence adduced is acceptable, appears to be unconscionable, the burden of proof shall be on the defendant, who is in a position to dominate the will of donour, to prove that deed does not suffer from undue influence. The plaintiff as well as the defendant relied on the Judgment of Subhas

Chandra Dad Murhib Vs. Ganga Prasad Das Murhib & Ors AIR 1967

SC pp. 878 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held hereunder—

Under s. 16 (1) of the Indian Contract Act a contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position -: 15 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. This shows that the court trying a case of undue influence must consider two things to start with, namely, (1) are the relations between the donor and the donee such that the donee is in a position to dominate the will of the donor and (2) has the donee used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the donor'? Sub-section (2) of the section is illustrative as to when a person is to considered to be in a position to dominate the will of another. These are inter alia (a) where the donee holds a real or apparent authority over the donor or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the donor or (b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress. Sub-section (3) of the section throws the burden of proving that a contract was not induced by undue influence on the person benefiting by it when two factors are found against him, namely that he is in a position to dominate the will of another and the transaction appears on the face of it or on the evidence adduced to be unconscionable. The three stages for consideration of a case of undue influence were expounded in the case of Ragunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad and others(1) in the following words :- "In the first place the relations between the parties to each other must be such that one is in a position to dominate the will of the other. Once that position is substantiated the second stage has been reached-namely, the issue whether the contract has been induced by undue influence. Upon the determination of this issue a third point emerges, which is that of the onus probandi. If the transaction appears to be unconscionable, then the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence is to lie upon the person who was in, I position to dominate the will of the other. Error is almost sure to arise if the order of these propositions be changed. The unconscionableness of the bargain is not the first thing to be considered. The first thing to be considered is the relations of these parties. Were they such as to put one in a position to dominate the will of the other?"

In Ladli Prasad Jaiswal vs Karnal Distillery Co., Ltd., & Ors on 1963 AIR 1279 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a transaction -: 16 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 may be vitiated on account of undue influence where the relations between the parties are such that one of them is in a position to dominate the will of the other and he uses his position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. It is manifest that both the conditions have ordinarily to be established by the person seeking to avoid the transaction : he has to prove that the other party to a transaction was in a position to dominate his will and that the other party had obtained an unfair advantage by using that position. Clause (2) lays down a special presumption that a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other or where he enters into a transaction with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness or mental or bodily distress. Where it is proved that a person is in a position to dominate the will of another (such proof being furnished either by evidence or by the presumption arising under sub- section (2) and he enters into a transaction with that other person, which on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, appears to be unconscionable the burden of proving that the transaction was not induced by undue influence lies upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. But sub-section (3) has manifestly a limited application : the presumption will only arise if it is established by evidence that the party who had obtained the benefit of a transaction was in a position to dominate the will of the other and that the transaction is shown to be unconscionable.

-: 17 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025

If either of these two conditions is not fulfilled the presumption of undue influence will not arise and burden will not shift.

17. Challenging the deed of gift on the ground of undue influence, misrepresentation, the fact constituting the undue influence and misrepresentation must be specifically pleaded in full particular detail about the undue influence i.e., nature of manner of influence, circumstances under which original plaintiff had fiduciary relationship with defendant and general allegations are not sufficient for challenging the deed on the ground of fraud and undue influence, misrepresentation and heavy onus lies on plaintiff to plead and proof.

18. Hence, from the above legal position it emerges that in order to decide the case this court must consider two things (1) whether the relationship between donour and doneee such that the donee is in a position to dominate the will of the donor (2) whether the donee used the position to obtain an unfair delay.

19. In Bishundeo Narain And Another vs Seogeni Rai And

Jagernath 1951 AIR 280 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Order

VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically provides that the party pleading or relying on undue influence must properly plead the precise nature of the influence exercised on the donor, the manner of use or influence by the done and the unfair advantage obtained by the done with particular act in sufficient details. Only general allegation shall not suffice and if the particulars stated in the pleading are not sufficient and specific, -: 18 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 the Court should before proceeding with the trial must insist upon the plaintiff to provide the particulars. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in it’s judgment that a vague or general plea can never serve this purpose; the party pleading must therefore be required to plead the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence, and the unfair advantage obtained by the other. This rule has been evolved with a view to narrow the issue and protects the party charged with improper conduct from being taken by surprise. A plea of undue influence must, to serve that dual purpose, be precise and all necessary particulars in support of the plea must be embodied in the pleading if the particulars stated in the pleading are not sufficient and specific the Court should, before proceeding with the trial of the suit, insist upon the particulars, which give adequate notice to the other side of the case intended to be set up.

20. Hence, the ingredients of the undue influence having been specified in law and legal position has been established that the particulars of the undue influence must be specifically pleaded in the plaint. Now it has to be seen whether the plaintiff has pleaded the full particulars to make out a case for setting aside or cancel the gift deeds on the ground of undue influence and misrepresentation.

21. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that the plaintiff merely alleges that a fraud is played in obtaining the gift deed without any material particulars. The fact that the first gift deed was executed on 30.6.2003 and after lapse of two years Ex.A2 (gift deed) was -: 19 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 executed for the remaining property of the suit schedule property, which shows that no such fraud was played. In order to establish fraud, the plaintiff has to be pleaded all material particulars, but the plaintiff failed to plead any material particulars regarding the fraud. To support this contention, the learned counsel for the defendant relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in para 7.2 of (2022) 2 SCC 473, wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that as per the settled proposition of law mere

mentioning and using the word “fraud/fraudulent” is not sufficient to satisfy the test of “fraud”. As per the settled proposition of law such a pleading/using the word “fraud/fraudulent” without any material particulars would not tantamount to pleading of “fraud”.

22. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that the plaintiff never pleaded that the possession of the property was not delivered to the donee. In the absence of any such pleading, the contents of the written documents in Ex.A1 and A2 i.e., gift deeds are binding. As oral evidence is to be excluded against documentary evidence in terms of

Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, both the gift deeds stipulates that the possession of the property was delivered as the deeds themselves disclose and established the delivery of possession and the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish such recitals and terms of the gift deed are not correct.

-: 20 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025

To support this contention, he relied on the following Judgments—

1. In Illoth Valappil Ambunhi Vs. Kunhambu Karanavan (2020) 18 SCC 317 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when a gift deed itself records delivery of possession to donee, which is strong evidence of transfer of possession, a presumption of acceptance would arise, in absence of overt repudiation of the gift, by and/or on behalf of donee. The burden of proving, that said recital was not correct, lies on party who asserted so.

2. In Daulat singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) 3 SCC 459. In

Illoth Valappil Ambunhi wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the execution of gift deed registered and attested in accordance with Section 123 TPA, and acceptance of such gift make gift of immovable property complete. Thereafter, donor is divested of the title or interest being gifted, and donee becomes owner of the gifted property, estate or interest.

23. Further, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that no consequential relief of either perpetual injunction or recovery of possession is sought by the plaintiffs. In the absence of any such consequential reliefs, the above suit is not maintainable. To strengthen this contention, he relied on the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in Union of India Vs. Ibrahim

Uddin and Another (2012) 8 SCC 148, wherein it held that the suit seeking declaration of title of ownership of property, without seeking possession, when plaintiff not in possession, held, not maintainable.

24. Per contra the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the main contention is that the exhibits A1 and A2 (gift deeds) contains recitals about delivery of possession of suit schedule properties of plaintiff, and the plaintiff is not seeking any relief of recovery of possession, and there is -: 21 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of document and fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents thereof. The plaintiff’s defense is nonest factum. The defence of nonest factum is available only where the mistake was to the very nature or character as to the transaction. To this reply to argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ningawwa Vs.

Bairappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar & others 1968 SC Online SC-206.

(i) Further argued that if any contract or other transaction induced or tainted by fraud is not void but only voidable at the option of person defrauded and until it is avoided, the transaction is valid. This would be a voidable transaction, but position will be different, if the fraud or misrepresentation related to the character of the document.

(ii) Further, argued that the claim of the plaintiff in the suit is that the defendant and her husband took her to the registration office at the time of execution of Ex.A1 stating that her signatures are required as a guarantor while availing the loan, to that effect the plaintiff was taken to the registration office, and at the time of execution of Ex.A2, the plaintiff was informed that she needs to sign on some papers to get hack the original sale deed No.11413/1986 (Ex.A3). Therefore, the plaintiff’s case is that she never intended to execute any gift deeds, and she was under impression that she stood as guarantor and signed on the papers at the instance of defendant and her husband to avail loan by depositing original sale deed (A3). In the year 2008 the plaintiff signatures were obtained by the defendant and her husband stated that same are required to get back sale deed (Ex.A3). Therefore, the plaintiff has taken defense of non-est factum.

-: 22 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025

25. He further argued that in para No.4 of the plaint, it is pleaded that plaintiff is in fiduciary relationship with her junior paternal uncle and his wife (defendant) went to the registration office and there the plaintiff was made to sign on some papers on the belief that she signed as a guarantor to the loan availed by the defendant and her husband; in para No.3 of the plaint, it is averred that after the death of father of plaintiff in the year 1995, the defendant and her husband are acted as elders to the plaintiff family and used to involve in family affairs of plaintiff and also in the family affairs of her paternal family. The above said pleadings show the compliance Order VI Rule 4 of CPC. To support this contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex

Court—

1. In Prathima Choudary Vs. Kalpana Mukerjee and another

(2014) 4 SCC 196 relying on Krishna Mohan Kul Vs. Pratirima Maity

in para No.46 as follows—

When fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is alleged by a party in a suit, normally the burden is on him to prove such fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation. But when a person is in a fiduciary relationship with another and the later is in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the absence of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is upon the person in a dominating position, and he has to prove that there was a fair play in the transaction and that the apparent is real, in other words, that the transaction is genuine and Bonafide. In such a case, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is thrown upon the dominant party, that is to say, the party who is in a position of active confidence. A person standing in a fiduciary relationship to another has a duty to protect the interest given to his care and the court watches with jealous all transactions between such -: 23 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 persons so that the protector may not use his influence or the confidence to jis advantage. When the party complaining shows such relation, the law presumes everything against the transaction and the onus is cast against the person holding the position of confidence or trust to show that then transaction is perfectly fair and reasonable, that no advantage has been taken of his position.

2. In Keshav & Another Vs. Gian Chand & another (2021) 18

SCC-128 held in para No.10— as what facts and circumstances have to be established to prove the execution of document depends on the pleas put forward. Ordinarily, no one expected to sign or execute a document without knowing its contents, but if it is pleaded that the party executing the document did not know the contents thereon, then it may, in certain circumstances, be necessary for the party seeking to prove the document to place material before the court to satisfy it that the party who executed the document had knowledge of its contents. Considering that very origin of the gift deed was disputed by executant during her life time, the lower courts were right in weighing the evidence of the gift deed on the touchstone of its validity first, rather than its form and content. It is further held in para No. 12 as "Where a person obtains any benefit from another, the court would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to gift, the burden of proving that he exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining the document". ===== Equally, one who bargains in the matter of advantage with a person who places confidence in him is bound to show that proper and reasonable use has been made of that confidence. The burden of establishing perfect fairness, adequacy and equity cast upon the person in whom the confidence has been reposed. Therefore in cases of fiduciary relationships when validity of the transaction is in question it is relevant to see whether person conferring the benefit on the other had competent and independent advice.

26. For consideration of submissions made by both the counsels on record and citations, it is to be seen to the pleadings in the plaint of the -: 24 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 plaintiff, it has to be seen whether the plaintiff pleaded the ingredients of the undue influence for setting aside and cancelled the gift deeds under

Ex.A1 and A2. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that when she was minor the suit schedule property was purchased by her father in her name, later he died on 30.5.1995 and her mother died on 18.7.2002 and the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with one Prasad on 3.10.2001 and she conceived, during the pregnancy she was diagnosed with HIV and gave birth to a son on 21.7.2002 who is born as mentally retorted person being effected by HIV by birth and her husband abandoned them when their son was three-month-old. It is also pleaded that the father of the plaintiff and husband of the defendant, namely, Joseph are real brothers and residing in a same house which is ancestral property and in one portion the family of the plaintiff and in another portion family of the defendant is residing.

After the death of the father of the plaintiff in the year 1995, junior paternal uncle and defendant being elders of the family used to look after in the family affairs.

27. It is also pleaded in the plaint that in the year 2003, junior paternal uncle and his wife/defendant represented that they want to avail loan for their family necessities and requested her to act as guarantor by depositing original sale deed bearing document No.11413/1986 and on that pretext they took the plaintiff to the registration office and obtained plaintiff signature saying to avail the loan. Believing the words, the plaintiff signed as a guarantor to secure the loan by the defendant and her husband. Later, as the personal life of the plaintiff was under great turmoil after her -: 25 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 marriage, and her mother also died and was emotionally attached to the defendant and her husband, and she did not make any efforts to know whether the loan was repaid. Further, it is pleaded that in the year 2008, she requested the defendant to return the original sale deed since her financial position was precarious, but the defendant and her husband took plaintiff again to registration office under the pretext that she has to sign on some papers to get back the original sale deed bearing document

No.11413/1986. As such the plaintiff went to the registration office and signed on some papers as instructed by the defendant and her husband.

Later, the plaintiff started demanding the defendant and her husband to return the original sale deed, but the defendant dodged it on one or another pretext. But the plaintiff persistently asked them to return the said document as her financial position has become bad to worse. Finally, on 10.8.2019, the plaintiff insisted the defendant and her husband to return the original sale deed, but the defendant and her husband claimed that the entire suit schedule property belongs to them.

28. As per the settled principle of law, the plaintiff has to plead full particulars detail about the undue influence i.e., nature of manner of influence, circumstances under which original plaintiff had fiduciary relationship with defendant and the plaintiff also to be pleaded that the defendant by looking after the family of the plaintiff got the confidence and trust of the plaintiff and even dominated the will of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has to be plead precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence and the unfair advantage obtained by the -: 26 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 other. In the present case, though it is pleaded by the plaintiff that being in fiduciary relationship with her junior paternal uncle and his wife/defendant went to the registration office and when was made to sign on some papers as a guarantor to secure loan by the defendant, but it is not the case of the plaintiff that she does not know the contents of the said deed and she signed on the deed without knowing the contents of the deed read over, and deed of gift was signed under a trust through under pretext of signing as a guarantor for availing loan by the defendant. Moreover, during her cross-examination, she categorically admitted that she signed on Ex.A1/B2 and A2/B3 and put her thumb impressions thereon. Though it is pleaded by the plaintiff that the plaintiff impressed the defendant to execute a deed of guaranty to avail loan and on giving guaranty a deed of gift was got executed, but it is not the case of the plaintiff that without reading over the contents or making her understand the contents of the deed and the plaintiff signed under belief and trust under an impression that she is signing a deed of guaranty. Thus, there is a lack of pleading for fraud and misrepresentation in addition to the undue influence and hence after going through the pleadings, this court finds that the there is no sufficient pleadings in the plaint to make out a case containing the necessary ingredients of Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act. Though it is pleaded that the plaintiff in a fiduciary relationship with the defendant signed as a guarantor under the pretext of availing of the loan. However, there is no sufficient pleading to make out a case of fiduciary relationship and the defendant was in a position to dominate the will of the -: 27 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 plaintiff/donour. On going through the pleadings, it is apparent that the plaintiff has not made out a case for undue influence, and deed being unconscionable. Further, DW-2 who is the attestor to Ex.A1 and A2 are categorically deposed that in their presence Ex.A1 and A2 are executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant out of love and effection the sub- registrar has read over and explained the contents of Ex.A1 and A2 to the plaintiff. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this court finds that there is no sufficient pleading making out a case for challenging the gift deeds under Ex.A1 and A2 on the ground of undue influence within the four corners of the law and for setting aside on the ground of undue influence and there is no evidence to show that there was fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and there is also no sufficient evidence in detail and come to the conclusion that there was a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, and the defendant dominated the will of the plaintiff, and the gift deed was unconscionable.

29. Having regard to the facts that the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint are not sufficient to include the ingredients for cancelling the gift deeds on the ground of undue influence and the plaintiff have been failed to establish by cogent evidence.

30. Though during the cross-examination of DW-1, he categorically admitted that the plaintiff and her son regularly visit to Government hospital for their treatment, and she does not know where the plaintiff and her son were being treated, neither herself nor her husband never look -: 28 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 after for treatment where they were being treated, and she has not filed any prescription or report to show that she has purchased the medicine to the plaintiff and her son. Ex.B2 and B3 are not disclosing the amount was spent on the family members of the plaintiff, and therefore, got executed the said two documents. Since it is a suit for setting aside and cancellation of the registered gift deed, the burden heavily cast upon the plaintiff to establish Ex.A1 and A2/Ex.B2 and B3 were obtained by the defendants by playing undue influence and misrepresentation. Once the plaintiff discharged the burden to proving the same by way of specific pleading and cogent evidence then only the onus shifts on the defendant to prove that she is not in a position to dominate the plaintiff. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is not aware of contents of Ex.A1 and A2 (gift deeds) until the plaintiff discovering the fraud, leading to filing of the present suit, so that the defendant cannot depend upon the recitals of Ex.A1 and A2 that the suit schedule properties are delivered to the defendant. But, in this regard, there is no pleading and evidence to support the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff. Moreover, there is no specific pleading and evidence adduced by the plaintiff to show that there was a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, and the deed of gift found to be unconscionable and also there is no evidence to show that the defendant dominated the will of the plaintiff and got executed Ex.A1 and A2 from the plaintiff.

31. In view of the discussion above paragraphs held supra, the plaintiff has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act -: 29 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025 and by the settled principle of law, the plaintiff cannot rely on the weaknesses of the defendant. Hence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has proved her case.

Issue No.3

To what relief?

32. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Corrected and

Pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of April 2025.

Sd/-

II Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff PW-1: Bandanadam Arogya Mary PW-2: Narahari Joseph Benardhamma

For Defendants DW-1: Bandanadam Nirmala DW-2: Gaddam Padma Reddy DW-3: Kata Dhanraj

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff Ex.A1: Certified copy of gift settlement deed bearing document No.7606/2003 dated 13.6.2003. Ex.A2: Certified copy of gift settlement deed bearing document No.5324/2008 dated 31.5.2008. Ex.A3: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.11413/1986 dated 11.9.1986. Ex.A4: Market value certificate. Ex.A5: Photographs -: 30 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge O.S. No.2083/2019 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 17th April 2025

Ex.A6: Photostat copy of certificate for person with disability dated 29.10.2012 along with ID card issued by the Medical Board of Area Hospital, Vanasthalipuram. Ex.A7: Death certificate of Bandanadham Elizabeth dated 18.7.2002.

For Defendants Ex.B1: Sale deed bearing document No.11413/1986 dated 11.9.1986. Ex.B2: Gift settlement deed bearing document No.7606/2003 dated 30.6.2003. Ex.B3: Gift settlement deed bearing document No.5324/2008 dated 31.5.2008.

Sd/-

II Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: Smt A.RADHIKA II Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

Friday, this the 24th day of November 2023

O.S. No.2048/2008

Between

1. Abhish Kumar, S/o M.C.Jain Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.78 & 79, Mithila Nagar Banjara Hilla, Road No.12 Hyderabad

2. Mrs. Namita, W/o Abhish Kumar Aged about 36 years, Occ: Doctor R/o H.No.78 & 79, Mithila Nagar Banjara Hilla, Road No.12 Hyderabad

3. D.Vidyasagar, S/o D.Seshagiri Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business R/o Road No.46 Jubilee Hills Hyderabad … Plaintiffs

And

1. Vaditya Sreeramulu Naik, S/o Seethamma Aged about 32 years, Occ: Advocate R/o Plot No.108 Prajay Avenue, Phase-I Amberpet, Hyderabad.

2. Ishrath Parveen, D/o Md.Jahangir Moinuddin Aged about 33 years, Occ: Household R/o 16-1-24/B/C/16 Farha Colony, Saidabad Hyderabad.

3. Tasneem Fatima, D/o Shareefuddin Ahmed Aged about 28 years, Occ: Household R/o 19-3-1089/A/51 Jahanuma, Madina Colony Faluknama, Hyderabad. … Defendants

This suit coming before me on 20.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vivek Jain, Counsel for Plaintiffs and of Sri Suresh Shiv

Sagar, Counsel for Defendants, upon perusal of the record and the -: 2 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 against the defendants

No.1 to 3 and their agents claiming through them for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule “A” property i.e., land admeasuring

Ac.3-18 guntas in Sy.No.11 of Sayeedaguda Village, Shamshabad

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (herein after would be referred as suit “suit schedule ‘A’ property”); land admeasuring Ac.6-00 guntas in

Sy.No.10 of Sayeedaguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District (herein after would be referred as suit “suit schedule ‘B’ property”) and land admeasuring Ac.3-02 guntas in Sy.No.10 of

Sayeedaguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (herein after would be referred as suit “suit schedule ‘C’ property”) and for costs.

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

The plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of land admeasuring Ac.6-18 guntas in Sy.No.11 of Sayeedaguda

Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and he purchased the same from K.Pramod under registered sale deed bearing No.7972 of 2005 dated 17.6.2005. Later, the plaintiff No.1 has sold land to an extent Ac.3-00 guntas under three registered sale deeds to third parties and balance land of Ac.3-18 guntas is in his possession and which is fully described as suit schedule “A” property. The plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.6-00 guntas in

Sy.No.10 of Sayeedaguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, she purchased the same from Smt Emilia through registered -: 3 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 sale deed bearing No.7397 of 2005 dated 17.6.2005. The plaintiff No.3 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.3-02 guntas in Sy.No.10 of Sayeedaguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, he purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing No.9412 of 2005 dated 30.06.2005 from Pannalal

Singhvee. Since the date of purchase the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 have been in possession and enjoying the suit schedule “A” to “C” properties respectively. The names of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 were mutated into the revenue records as the owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties, pattadar passbooks and title deeds have been issued to them. After such mutation by the revenue authorities and their names were also recorded as pattadars and possessors in the Pahanies and the same is reflected in the Pahanies.

3. It is further averred that originally one Narasimha, S/o Ramulu was the original owner and pattadar and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.10 land admeasuring Ac.9-22 guntas and Sy.No.11 land admeasuring Ac.9-03 guntas situated at Sayeedaguda Village,

Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said Narasimha sold the entire land in Sy.No.10 admeasuring Ac.9-22 guntas to Gurram Anantha

Reddy under sale deed dated 23.10.1986. In turn, the said Anantha

Reddy sold land to Smt Emilia under registered sale deed bearing

No.403 of 1997 dated 21.4.1997. In turn, Smt Emilia sold the entire land to P.Raja Brijendra Prasad under sale deed dated 9.12.1999. But subsequently the same was cancelled under registered deed of cancellation dated 7.2.2001. It is further averred that on 17.6.2005 Smt

Emilia sold suit schedule “B” property to the plaintiff No.2 under registered sale deed bearing No.7397 of 2005 dated 17.6.2005, in the said sale deed P.Raja Brijendra Prasad signed as a consenting party. The -: 4 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

Emilia also sold suit schedule “C” property to K.P.Singhvee under a sale deed bearing No.7398 of 2005 dated 17.6.2005, for which P.Raja

Bijendra Prasad singed as consenting party. In turn, K.P.Singhvee sold out the suit schedule “C” property to the plaintiff No.3 under registered sale deed bearing No.9412 of 2005 dated 30.6.2005. It is further averred that Narasimha who is the owner of lands in Sy.No.11 sold entire extent of his land admeasuring Ac.9-03 guntas to G.Mohan Reddy under sale deed bearing No.5498 of 1986 dated 24.10.1986. In turn,

G.Mohan Reddy and others sold the said land to K.Pramod Kumar under sale deed bearing No.404 of 1997 dated 21.4.1997. In turn, he sold the entire land to Emella Prasad under sale deed dated 9.12.1999. Later, the same was cancelled under registered deed of cancellation dated 7.2.2001. Subsequently, K.Pramod Kumar sold out the land to an extent

Ac.6-18 guntas out of Ac.9-03 guntas in Sy.No.11 to the plaintiff No.1 under registered sale deed dated 17.6.2005, in the said sale deed

P.Emellia Prasad signed as a consenting party.

4. It is further averred that one Ayesha Razak had filed a suit in O.S.

No.680/1998 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ranga

Reddy District against the vendor of the plaintiffs i.e., Smt K.Emellia and

K.Pramod Kumar seeking declaration and injunction and also against the government in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.16-00 guntas in

Sy.No.24/19, 24/20, 24/21 and 24/23 of Sayeedaguda Village of

Shamshabad Mandal. During the pendency of said suit both the parties agreed to get the land surveyed to resolve the dispute. The land was surveyed and as per the survey report it was found that the property claimed by Smt Ayesha Razak was in fact land in Sy.No.10 and 11 of

Sayeedaguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal and no land in

Sy.No.24/19, 24/20, 24/21 and 24/23 as claimed by Smt Ayesha Razak.

-: 5 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

Subsequently, a compromise petition was filed by Smt Ayesha Razak and vendors of the plaintiff on 3.12.2001, said Ayesha Razak admitted that the suit schedule property in O.S. No.680/1998 was in fact the land in Sy.No.10 and 11 and she admitted the ownership of vendors of the plaintiff over the same and she withdrawn the suit. After withdrawing the suit, she filed a petition in I.A. No.782 of 2002 in O.S. No.680/1998 stating that the suit was compromised on her behalf through her GPA holder without her authority and against her interest. The said application was dismissed on 27.4.2002. Then, Smt Ayesha Razak preferred C.R.P. No.2171 of 2002 against the orders passed in I.A.

No.782/2002 dated 27.4.2002 and obtained interim injunction. Later, she filed an affidavit dated 18.7.2005 and memo of withdrawal and sought dismissal of C.R.P. No.2171 of 2002. The Hon’ble High Court by order dated 10.8.2005 dismiss the CRP in view of the memo filed by

Smt Ayesha Razak. She also admitted and acknowledge that the vendors of the plaintiff have sold the land admeasuring Ac.18-00 guntas to the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and K.P.Singhvee under separate sale deeds wherein she has signed as a witness. It was also stated by her that land in Sy.No.10 and 11 does not fall in Sy.No.24/19, 24/20, 24/21 and 24/23 and that is distinct and separate property and she further stated that survey was conducted by the MRO, Shamshabad and Panchanama was prepared and she was satisfied that the properties of the plaintiffs fall in Sy.No.10 and 11 and she has no claim over the same.

5. It is further averred that the respondents/defendants without having any manner of right or title or possession over the plaint schedule properties are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs under the guise of fictitious sale deed dated 8.8.2006.

On 15.9.2008 and on 24.9.2008 the defendants threatened the -: 6 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 watchman of the plaintiff and attempted to remove common fencing around the suit schedule “A” to “C” properties. It is further averred that the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants submitted objections on 15.7.2009 before the Tahsildar of Shamshabad Mandal claiming to the absolute owners of Sy.No.24/19, 24/20, 24/21 and 24/23 admeasuring

Ac.15-00 guntas of Sayeedaguda Village on the strength of sale deed

dated 8.8.2006 alleging that they purchased the same from Smt Ayesha

Razak. The alleged sale deed 8.8.2006 is created in fact by the date of alleged sale deed dated 8.8.2006 the vendor of the defendants (Ayesha

Razak) was not having any interest in the above schedule properties, as such the sale deed is null and void and nonest in the eye of law, as there is no property available on the ground as claimed by the defendants. It is further averred that, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District in proceedings dated 11.12.1998 confirmed that the land in Sy.No.10 and 11 are not adjacent to Sy.No.24 and are far away. The defendants without having any right, interfering and trying the dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit.

6. The defendants No.1 to 3 filed their common written statement by denying the material averments made in the plaint, the averments of which, in brief, are: -

The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are not the owners and possessors of suit schedule “A” to “C” properties. As on the date of alienation of the suit schedule “A” to “C” properties in favour of the plaintiffs their vendors are neither absolute owners nor in physical possession of the suit land to convey the properties in favour of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3. They also denied title of the vendors of the vendors of the plaintiff. It is further averred that originally one Ayesha Razak has the land in Sy.No.24/19, 24/20, 24/21, 24/22 and total admeasuring Ac.17-00 guntas. In turn, -: 7 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 she sold out an extent of Ac.0-36 guntas of land in favour of Navaru

Lakshmamma. The vendors of these defendants, namely, Vikar Sulthana

Begum and Bilquis Sulthana jointly purchased the said lands along with house admeasuring Ac.15-00 guntas on 2.5.1998. Subsequently, their vendors have paid the entire sale consideration and said Ayesha Razak delivered the vacant and physical possession of the land to the vendors of the defendants on 27.7.1998. Since the date of purchase the vendors of the defendants have been enjoying the same without any interruption. The defendants have purchased the land admeasuring

Ac.15-00 guntas from their vendors through registered sale deed dated 8.8.2006 and subsequently they sold jointly an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.24/1 to M/s S.V.K.Projects, represented by its partners under registered sale deed dated 22.11.2007. Since then, their purchasers are in peaceful possession of the land to an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas and remaining Ac.10-00 guntas land are in their peaceful possession and enjoyment.

7. It is further averred that the plaintiffs on the basis of fraudulent documents trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of these defendants and they also trying to survey the land without their consent claiming that the land in Sy.No.10 and 11 of

Sayeedaguda Village. The lands as claimed by the plaintiffs are in

Sy.No.24/19, 24/20, 24/21, 24/23 but not in Sy.No.10 and 11 and the said fact was observed by the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District while allowing the injunction petition filed by the vendors of these defendants in I.A. No.2210/1998 in O.S. No.680/1998.

8. The defendants admitted the filing of suit by Ayesha Razak i.e.,

O.S. No.680/1998 against the vendors of the plaintiff for declaration and

-: 8 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 injunction and also obtained interim injunction. They pleaded ignorance that they do not know the said suit was compromised between the parties on 3.12.2001 to the effect that Smt Ayesha Razak admitted the schedule property in O.S. No.680/1998 was in fact in Sy.No.10 and 11 and she also admitted the ownership of vendors of the plaintiff. The defendants also pleaded ignorance of filing of C.R.P. No.2171/2002 by

Ayesha Razak and also withdrawn of said C.R.P. by her and had signed as witness in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and vendor of the plaintiff No.3. The defendants admitted filing of an objection petition dated 15.9.2008 for the survey of the lands, since the plaintiffs are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of these defendants.

9. It is further averred that during the pendency of O.S. No.680/1998 the Station House Officer, Rajendra Nagar filed a requisition before the

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chevella Division by issuing FIR No.14/1999

dated 18.1.1999 and passed an order on 27.1.1999 for the attachment

of the land bearing Sy.No.24/19, 24/20, 24/26 and 24/23 which belongs to Smt Ayesha Razak. The said Smt Ayesha Razak filed Criminal Petition 1386 of 1999 before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashing the proceedings of the order of the RDO and said petition was allowed on 18.9.1999. The plaintiffs without cause of action and without having any title and possession to grab the land of the defendants filed this suit and there is no prima facie to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and they are not entitled for the equitable relief and pray the court to dismiss the suit.

10. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial.

-: 9 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that they are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

11. During the trial, the plaintiff examined PW-1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A35 on behalf of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendants did not adduce the evidence either oral or documentary.

12. Heard the Learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendants. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also filed written arguments.

Issue No.1 and 2

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule property and that they are entitled for

perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

13. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff

No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule “A” property and plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule “B” property and plaintiff No.3 is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule "C” property and they purchased the same from their vendors through registered sale deeds under Ex.A12,

A5 and A7. Subsequently, the names of the plaintiffs were mutated into revenue records, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the plaintiff No.1 to 3 in respect of suit schedule “A” to “C” properties under Ex.A19 to A27. Since then, the date of purchase the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoying the same. The vendor of the defendants, namely, Ayesha Razak filed a suit against the vendors of the plaintiffs vide O.S. No.680/1998 against the vendors of the plaintiffs, government, seeking declaration and injunction in respect of lands -: 10 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 admeasuring Ac.16-00 guntas in Sy.No.24/19, 24/20, 24/21, 24/23 of

Sayeedaguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal and the vendors of the plaintiff contested the suit that land claimed by Ayesha Razak is in fact their land is situated in Sy.No.10 and 11. Later, said suit was compromised between the parties and said Ayesha Razak admitted the title and ownership of the vendors of the plaintiffs under Ex.A13 and she withdrawn her claim over the suit schedule property. Subsequently, she filed an I.A. No.782/2022 in O.S. No.680/1998 challenging the compromise petition but the same was dismissed by the Principal Senior

Civil Judge’s Court by order dated 27.4.2002 under Ex.A14. Aggrieved

by the same she preferred C.R.P. No.2171/2002 against the orders passed in the above I.A. and later she withdrawn the same.

14. It is further contended that the defendants without having any right or title over the suit schedule properties they are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. The documents filed under Ex.A1 to A35 coupled with the evidence of PW-1 establishes the case of the plaintiff and prayed the court to decree the suit.

15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiffs without having any title and possession over the property they filed this suit and there is no cause of action for filing of the suit. It is further averred that since the plaintiff has already sold out the properties in favour of third parties under Ex.A32 to A35, the cause of action does not survive and on that ground itself suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the plaintiff No.3 is not entered into the witness box. Hence the suit shall be dismissed against the plaintiff No.3 and no GPA has given to PW-1 to give evidence -: 11 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 on behalf of plaintiff No.3. As such the evidence of PW-1 to the extent of claim of plaintiff No.3 cannot be considered and PW-1 failed to give exact boundaries of the suit lands. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed.

ISSUE No.1

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule property and that they are entitled for

perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

16. The plaintiffs are seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, etc., from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule “A” to “C” properties. The parties seeking injunction must plead and establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute and the opposite party has tried to interfere with his such possession and enjoyment.

17. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 himself examined as PW-1 by filing his chief affidavit and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. It is the evidence of PW-1 that he is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule “A” property having purchased the same from his vendor through registered sale deed under

Ex.A12. Plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule “B” property having purchased the same from her vendors through registered sale deed under Ex.A5. Plaintiff No.3 is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule “C” property having purchased the same from his vendors through registered sale deed under Ex.A7. The names of the plaintiffs were mutated in revenue records and revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of plaintiffs under Ex.A19 to A26 in respect of suit schedule “A” to “C” properties. The defendants without having any manner of right or title -: 12 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 over the suit schedule property under guise of sale deed dated 8.8.2006 interfering and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. On 24.9.2008 the defendants threatened the watchman of the plaintiff and attempted to remove the common fencing around suit schedule “A” to “C” properties. It is also specific case and evidence of PW-1 that one

Ayesha Razak had filed a suit in O.S. No.680/1998 on the file of Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the vendors of the

plaintiff seeking declaration and injunction against them and

Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of her alleged land admeasuring Ac.16-00 guntas in Sy.No.24/19, 24/20, 24/21 and 24/23 of Sayeedaguda Village and obtained injunction order. In that suit the vendors of the plaintiffs contest the suit by claiming that the lands claimed by the Ayesha Razak belongs to them and situated in Sy.No.10 and 11 admeasuring Ac.18-25 guntas. After conducting detailed survey, as per survey report both the parties to the suit were compromised and obtained compromise decree, wherein said Ayesha Razak admitted the ownership and possession of the vendors of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and which was situated in Sy.No.10 and 11 and her lands are situated in Sy.No.24/19, 24/20, 24/21 and 24/22 and she withdrawn her claim over the suit schedule property. Later, she filed a petition in I.A. No.782/2022 and challenged the compromise and it was dismissed by order dated 27.4.2002 then said Ayesha Razak preferred

C.R.P. No.2171/2002 and challenged the order of dismissal in I.A.

No.782/2002 dated 27.4.2002. But subsequently, she withdrawn the same and the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said C.R.P. as withdrawn. It is also evidence of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 purchased the suit schedule properties from their vendors through registered sale deeds for which said Ayesha Razak signed as a witness.

-: 13 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

18. In support of their claim they relied on Ex.A1 to A35. EX.A1 to A3 are sale deeds dated 23.10.1986, 21.04.1997 and 09.12.1999. EX.A4 is the cancellation deed, dated 07.02.2001. EX.A5 to A10 are the sale deeds dated 17.06.2005, 17.06.2005, 30.06.2005, 24.10.1986, 21.04.1997, 09.12.1999. EX.A11 is the cancellation deed, dated 07.02.2001. EX.A12 is the certified copy of sale deed, dated 17.06.2005. EX.A13 is the compromise petition in O.S. No.680/1998.

EX.A14 is the decree in I.A. No.782/2002 in O.S. No.680/1998. EX.A15 is the affidavit dated 17.06.2005. EX.A16 is the Memo of withdrawal petition in C.R.P. No.2171/2002. EX.A17 is the order in C.R.P.

No.2171/2002. EX.A18 is the sale deed dated 08.08.2006. EX.A19 is the

Pattadar Passbook. EX.A20 is the title deed. EX.A21 is the proceedings of MRO, Shamshabad Mandal dated 23.01.2006. EX.A22 is the Pattadar

Passbook. EX.A23 is the Title Deed. EX.A24 is the proceedings of MRO,

Shamshabad Mandal dated 06.02.2006. EX.A25 is the Pattadar

Passbook. EX.A26 is the title deed. EX.A27 is the Pahani for the year 2006-2007. EX.A28 is the Agreement of sale cum GPA, dated 30.10.2002. EX.A29 is the Memo issued by Inspector Survey and Land records, dated 16.03.2009. Ex.A30 is the true copy of rough Sketch.

EX.A31 is Tonch Map. Ex.A32 is the C.C. of registered sale deed bearing

No.17432/2018 dated 22.12.2018. Ex.A33 is the C.C. of registered sale deed bearing No.1370/2019 dated 22.12.2018. Ex.A34 is the C.C. of registered sale deed bearing No.7981/2006 dated 03.03.2006. Ex.A35 is the C.C. of registered sale deed bearing No.16088/2018 dated 18.12.2018.

19. Since the defendants are disputing the existence and availability of the suit schedule land within the boundaries given, it is for the plaintiffs to prove that the suit schedule property and its identity.

-: 14 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

20. In order to prove the case, the plaintiffs relied upon Ex.A1 to A35.

Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deed pertaining to the original owner, by name, Narasimha, S/o Ramulu. As seen from the recitals of

Ex.A1 it goes to show that Narasimha, S/o Ramulu purchased an extent of Ac.9-22 guntas in Sy.No.10 and an extent of Ac.9-03 guntas situated in Sy.No.11, it goes to show that Narasimha sold out the entire land in

Sy.No.10 Ac.9-22 guntas to G.Anantha Reddy. Ex.A2 is a registered sale deed dated 21.4.1997 which goes to show that purchase of the land in

Sy.No.10 admeasuring Ac.9-22 guntas by Smt Emeelia (vendor of the plaintiffs) from G.Anantha Reddy. Ex.A3 is the sale deed dated 9.12.1999 executed by the Emeelia in favour of Raja Binjender Prasad and subsequently it was cancelled by way of registered deed of cancellation under Ex.A4. Ex.A4 is the original registered deed of cancellation dated 7.2.2001. Ex.A12 is the registered sale deed dated 17.6.2005 it goes to shows that the plaintiff No.1 purchased the schedule “A” property from K.Pramod through GPA holder A.V.Jagan

Mohan Reddy and in the original sale deed E.Emelia Prasad signed as consenting party as well as attesting party to the said documents,

Ayesha Razak is also signed as witness to the said document. Ex.A5 is a certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 17.6.2005, which goes to show that plaintiff No.2 had purchased schedule “B” property from

Smt Emeelia through her AGPA holder A.V.Jagan Mohan Reddy out of total extent Ac.9-22 guntas. In the said sale deed P.Raja, Brijender

Prasad signed as consenting party and Ayesha Razak signed as one of the witnesses. Ex.A7 is the registered sale deed dated 30.6.2005, it goes to show that the plaintiff No.3 purchased the suit schedule “C” property from Panala Singhvee. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 17.6.2005 executed by Smt Emeelia and Rajender Prasad in favour of -: 15 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

Panala Singhvee which is the link document of suit schedule “C” property. In order to establish the flow of title and ownership of the plaintiff No.1 in respect of suit schedule “A” property the plaintiff No.1 relied on Ex.A8 to A11. Ex.A8 is a registered sale deed dated 24.10.1946 executed by Narasimha in favour of G.Mohan Reddy in respect of land in Sy.No.11 admeasuring Ac.9-03 guntas. Ex.A9 is a registered sale deed dated 21.4.1997, it goes to show that G.Mohan Reddy and

Smt P.Vineetha jointly sold the above-said property to K.Pramod Kumar (vendor of the plaintiff No.1). Ex.A10 registered sale deed dated 9.12.1999 which goes to show that K.Pramod sold the property in favour of Emeelia Prasad. Ex.A11 is a deed of registered cancellation dated 7.12.2001 it shows that cancellation of Ex.A10 sale deed dated 9.12.1999. In order to establish the prima facie possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff No.1 over suit schedule “A” property, the plaintiffs relied on Ex.A19 to A21. Ex.A19 is the pattadar passbook issued in the name of the plaintiff No.1 by the revenue authorities in respect of suit land. Ex.A20 is the title deed issued in the name of the plaintiff No.1 in respect of suit schedule “A” property. Ex.A21 is the mutation proceedings issued by the MRO in the name of the plaintiff

No.1 in respect of suit schedule “A” property. Therefore, the documents under Ex.A1 to A4, A8 to A12, A19, A21 and A28 are showing the flow of title and ownership of the vendors of the plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.1 and also possession of the plaintiff No.1 over the suit schedule “A” property.

21. In order to prove the title and possession of the plaintiff No.2, the plaintiffs relied on Ex.A1 to A5, A22, A23 and A24. Ex.A5 is the registered sale deed which goes to show that purchase of suit schedule “B” property by the plaintiff No.2. Ex.A22 is the pattadar passbook -: 16 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 issued in favour of the plaintiff No.2 and Ex.P23 is the title deed issued in the name of the plaintiff No.2 by revenue authorities in respect of suit schedule “B” property. Ex.A24 is the mutation proceedings issued by the

Tahsildar in respect of suit schedule “B” property in favour of the plaintiff

No.2, which goes to show that the plaintiff No.2 is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule “B” property.

22. In order to establish the ownership and possession of plaintiff No.3 in respect of schedule “C” property, the plaintiffs relied on Ex.A1 to A4,

A6, A7, A25 to A27. Ex.A7 is the registered sale deed which shows that purchase of suit schedule “C” property by the plaintiff No.3 from his vendor. Ex.A6 is the link document of the suit schedule “C” property.

Ex.A25 and A26 are the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in the name of plaintiff No.3 in respect of suit schedule “C” Property. Ex.A27 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2006-07 issued in the name of the plaintiff No.3 showing that he is the possessor over the suit schedule “C” property. As seen from the above documents relied upon plaintiff No.3 it shows that flow of title of plaintiff No.3, ownership and his possession over schedule “C” property. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documents under Ex.A1 to A12, A19 to A28 are showing that the plaintiffs’ ownership and possession over the suit schedule “A” to “C” property. It is the main contention of the defendants that no property is available on land as per Ex.A1 to A3 and the property claimed by the plaintiffs is belongs to defendants, the plaintiffs claiming injunction against the defendants in respect of Sy.No.10 and 11 of

Sayeedaguda Village, whereas the case of the defendants is that the land claimed by the plaintiffs are in 24/19, 24/20, 24/21 and 24/23 but not in the Sy.No.10 and 11.

-: 17 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

23. The plaintiffs in order to establish that the plaint schedule properties are situated in Sy.No.10 and 11 they relied on Ex.A1 to A12 and A19 to A28 which goes to show that the suit schedule “A” to “C” properties are situated in Sy.No.10 and 11. In this case it is also the case of the plaintiff is that the alleged sale deed dated 8.8.2006 relied by the defendants is created in fact by the date of alleged sale deed

dated 8.8.2006 by Smt Ayesha Razak was not having any interest in the

plaint schedule property and the alleged sale deed is null and void as there is no property available on the ground as claimed by the defendants. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District in proceedings

dated 11.12.1998 confirmed that the land in Sy.No.10 and 11 are not

adjacent to Sy.No.24 and are far away, the suit schedule properties are protected with common barbed wire fence after purchase of the same by the plaintiffs.

24. It is undisputed from the evidence of plaintiffs that Smt Ayesha

Razak filed a suit in O.S. No.680/1998 against the vendors of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction and obtained interim injunction, the vendors of the plaintiffs filed their written statement in the said suit claiming land in Sy.No.10 and 11 and during the pendency of the suit survey was conducted and basing on the surveyor report the suit was compromised between the parties on 3.12.2001 to the effect that Smt

Ayesh Razak i.e., vendor of the vendor of defendants admitted the schedule property in O.S. No.680/1998 was in fact in Sy.No.10 and 11.

In order to prove the same, the plaintiffs relied on Ex.A13 to A17.

Ex.A13 is the C.C. of the comprise petition said to be filed by Smt Ayesh

Razak. On perusal of Ex.A13 goes to show that the plaintiff/Ayesh Razak admits the suit schedule property is part and parcel of defendants No.1 and 2 (vendors of the plaintiff herein in the present suit) land bearing -: 18 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

Sy.No.10 and 11 and the plaintiff is nothing to do with it. The plaintiff further admits that the ownership and possession of the defendants over the land for which the plaintiff filed the above suit. It is also mentioned in the petition that after the survey the plaintiff got lands in

Sy.No.24/19, 24/20, 24/21, 24/23 nearby the suit schedule properties.

As such plaintiff has no claim over the suit schedule property. Ex.A14 is the C.C. of order in I.A. No.782/2002 in O.S. No.680/1998. Ex.A15 is the C.C. of affidavit of Smt Ayesha Razak filed before the Hon’ble High

Court and Ex.A16 is the C.C. of the memo of withdrawal filed by Smt

Ayesha Razak before the Hon’ble High Court in C.R.P. No.2171/2002.

As seen from Ex.A16 is the C.C. of memo of withdrawal stating that the dispute has been settled out of court and the suit schedule property under the above dispute has been sold to the plaintiff No.1/Abhish

Kumar and plaintiff No.2/Mrs. Namita herein and one K.Panaalal (i.e., vendor of plaintiff No.3) and the respondents 1 and 2 (vendors of the plaintiffs) have signed as vendors through their GPA and she has signed as a witness to the sale transaction. Ex.A17 relied upon the plaintiffs is the order in C.R.P. No.2171/2002 dated 9.8.2005. On perusal of Ex.A16 and A17 it clearly shows that Smt Ayesha Razak who said to be original owner of the defendant properties admitted the ownership and title of the vendors of the plaintiffs as well as the plaintiffs. Moreover, the dispute between the vendor of the plaintiffs and Smt Ayesha Razak became final as no appeal or revision is preferred against the C.R.P.

No.2171/2002 order and the Smt Ayesha Razak from whom the defendants are claiming title over the property herself admitted the title and ownership of the vendors of the plaintiff as well as the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and she admitted that the suit schedule properties are situated in Sy.No.10 and 11 but not in Sy.No.24/19, -: 19 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 24/20, 24/21 and she is no way connected with Sy.No.10 and 11.

Therefore, the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs have no land in Sy.No.10 and 11 cannot be considered and moreover no evidence adduced by the defendants to show that their land is situated in Sy.No.10 and 11.

25. In order to establish the plaint schedule properties are situated in

Sy.No.10 and 11 and also establish that a survey was done in respect of the disputed property the plaintiffs relied on Ex.A29 to A31. Ex.A29 is C.C. of memo issued by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records on the application filed by one A.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy pertaining to

Sy.No.10 and 11 of Sayeedaguda Village. Ex.A30 and 31 are the true copy of rough sketch and tonch plan which shows that the Sy.No.10 and 11 are situated far away from Sy.No.24 and also as seen from the village map filed by the plaintiffs it is also showing that Sy.No.10 and 11 are situated far away from Sy.No.24. Therefore, by virtue of Ex.A29 to A31 the plaintiffs are established that survey was conducted and lands situated in Sy.No.10 and 11 are different from the lands situated in Sy.No.24. Moreover, the defendants did not produce any evidence to show that suit schedule properties are part of their land in Sy.No.24.

Therefore, the plaintiffs established their possession over the suit schedule properties and same were situated in Sy.No.10 and 11.

26. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that as on the date of execution of Ex.A12 Jagan Mohan

Reddy was not the AGPA of K.Pramod and said AGPA was cancelled by

K.Pramod and Emelia prior to the execution of Ex.A12, as such the plaintiff No.1 is not the owner of the suit schedule “A” property. During the cross-examination of the plaintiff No.1, the plaintiff No.1 denied the -: 20 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 suggestions given by the learned counsel for the defendant about the cancellation of AGPA of Jagan Mohan Reddy by his vendors. Therefore, it is for the defendants to prove that AGPA was cancelled but the defendants did not adduce any evidence to show that the AGPA executed in favour of Jagan Mohan Reddy by K.Pramod and Emelia was cancelled.

Therefore, mere giving suggestions that AGPA was not in existence cannot be considered and moreover Ex.A28 which is a registered AGPA executed by K.Pramod and Emelia in favour of Jagan Mohan Reddy and admittedly it was not challenged and not yet cancelled. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that Ex.A12 is not valid cannot be considered as Smt Ayesha Razak admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs

No.1 and 2 by way of filing of memo before the Hon’ble High Court under

Ex.A17.

27. The Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiff No.3 did not enter the witness box to give his evidence and no

General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the plaintiff No.1 to give evidence on behalf of plaintiff No.3. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff No.3 is to be dismissed.

28. It is no doubt true that plaintiff No.3 did not enter the witness box.

Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1, and he narrated the case of the plaintiff No.3 during his evidence and documents also marked.

Admittedly, in the present case the plaintiff No.1 to 3 filed a suit against the defendants for the same cause of action, the plaintiff No.1 has stated the purchase of the suit schedule “C” property by the plaintiff No.3 and possession of the plaintiff No.3 over the suit schedule property and cause of action and alleged interference made by the defendants.

Admittedly, the defendants did not deny the documents filed by plaintiff -: 21 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

No.3 and which are already marked through the PW-1 and moreover the plaintiff No.1 is acquainted with the facts of the case and deposed on behalf of the plaintiff No.3. Therefore, mere non-appearance of plaintiff

No.3 into the witness would not affect the case of the plaintiffs.

29. It is the contention of the learned counsel of the plaintiffs is that the defendants are failed to prove title and possession of their vendors.

Therefore, the defendants will not acquire any title and possession and in support of his contention he relied on—

The plaintiffs relied on the following Judgments: -

1. Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “If the property is vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such cases the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such situation where the title is clear and simple the court may venture a decision on the issue of title so as to decide the question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction”.

2. EUREKA BUILDERS AND OTHERS Vs. GULABCHAND reported in (2018) 8 SCC 67 in para No.35 & 36, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that It is settled principle of law that a person can only transfer to other persons a right, title or interest in any tangible property which he is possessed of to transfer it for consideration or otherwise. In other words whatever interest a person is possessed of in any tangible property, he can -: 22 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 transfer only that interest to the other person and no other interest which he himself does not possession in the tangible property.

So once it is proved that on the date of transfer of any tangible property, the seller of the property did not have any subsisting right, title or interest over it, then the buyer of such property would not get any right, title and interest in the property purchased by him for consideration or otherwise. Such transfer would be an illegal and void transfer.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the defendants did not enter into the witness box to prove their case and it is settled law that pleadings without evidence has no consequences and adverse inference shall draw that the case set up by the defendant is wrong.

3. IQBAL BASITH AND OTHERS Vs. N.SUBBALAKSHMI AND

OTHERS reported in (2021) 2 SCC 718 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that adverse presumption against defendant held, can be drawn if he does not present himself for cross examination and refuses to enter witness box in order to refute allegations made against him or to support his pleading in his written statement.

30. Since it is a suit based on an immovable property, it is for the plaintiff to establish his possession and alleged interference over the suit schedule property by the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff should not take advantage of lacunas in the case of the defendants. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that adverse inference shall be drawn against the defendants is not considered.

31. It is a specific contention of the Learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff No.1 has already sold out the properties to the third parties, the cause of action does not survive and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

-: 23 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

32. During the cross-examination of PW-1, he has admitted that he has no piece of land in suit schedule “A” property and plaintiff No.2 is having AC.3-00 guntas of land in her possession over the suit schedule “B” property.

33. However, as per the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs there was interference by the defendants into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs by the date of filing of the suit. It is also established by the plaintiffs by adducing the evidence. Admittedly, the counsel for defendant did not put any suggestion about the cause of action by denying the same. Since, the plaintiffs could be able to prove their possession and interference, which are required for passing of decree are established.

34. Now, it can be seen that the subsequent alienation of properties by plaintiff No.1 and 2 would disentitle them? In this regard, the answer is “no”. The reason is interest has been transferred to subsequent purchasers, this cannot be taken an advantage by the defendants who has failed to establish their interest over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the interest on property is passed on to the subsequent purchasers by virtue of Ex.A32 to A35. Therefore, in view of above circumstances without any hesitation this court would say that there is no impleadment to grant the decree. When the plaintiffs established their possession as on the date of filing of suit and interference caused by the defendants.

To what relief?

35. As per the discussions made in the foregoing paras and findings given by this court on issue No.1 and 2, the plaintiffs are entitled for the -: 24 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023 relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for against the defendants No.1 to 3.

36. In the result, the suit is decreed, however without costs, in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants No.1 to 3 by granting perpetual injunction and restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule “A” to “C” properties.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of November

2023.

Sd/- A.RADHIKA

II Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff PW-1: Abhish Kumar

For Defendants NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff EX.A1: Sale deed dated 23.10.1986.

EX.A2: Sale Deed, dated 21.04.1997.

EX.A3: Sale Deed, dated 09.12.1999.

EX.A4: Cancellation Deed, dated 07.02.2001.

EX.A5: Sale Deed, dated 17.06.2005.

EX.A6: Sale Deed, dated 17.06.2005.

EX.A7: Sale Deed, dated 30.06.2005.

EX.A8: Sale Deed, dated 24.10.1986.

EX.A9: Sale Deed, dated 21.04.1997.

EX.A10: Sale Deed, dated 09.12.1999.

EX.A11: Cancellation Deed, dated 07.02.2001.

EX.A12: Certified copy of Sale Deed, dated 17.06.2005.

-: 25 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.2048/2008 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 24th November 2023

EX.A13: Compromise petition in O.S. No.680/1998.

EX.A14: Decree in I.A. No.782/2002 in O.S. No.680/1998.

EX.A15: Affidavit dated 17.06.2005.

EX.A16: Memo of withdrawal petition in C.R.P. No.2171/2002.

EX.A17: Order in C.R.P. No.2171/2002.

EX.A18: Sale Deed dated 08.08.2006.

EX.A19: Pattadar Passbook

EX.A20: Title Deed.

EX.A21: Proceeding of MRO, Shamshabad dated 23.01.2006.

EX.A22: Pattadar Passbook

EX.A23: Title Deed.

EX.A24: Proceeding of MRO, Shamshabad dated 06.02.2006.

EX.A25: Pattadar Passbook

EX.A26: Title Deed.

EX.A27: Pahani for the year 2006-2007.

EX.A28: Agreement of sale cum GPA, dated 30.10.2002.

EX.A29: Memo issued by Inspector Survey and Land records, dated 16.03.2009.

Ex.A30: True copy of rough Sketch

EX.A31: Tonch Map

Ex.A32: C.C. of registered sale deed bearing No.17432/2018 dated 22.12.2018.

Ex.A33: C.C. of registered sale deed bearing No.1370/2019 dated 22.12.2018.

Ex.A34: C.C. of registered sale deed bearing No.7981/2006 dated 03.03.2006.

Ex.A35: C.C. of registered sale deed bearing No.16088/2018 dated 18.12.2018.

For defendants NONE

Sd/- A.RADHIKA

II Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

1

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present: Smt A.RADHIKA

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar FAC Additional Assistant Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar

Tuesday, the 28th day of October, 2025

S.C. No.279 of 2022

(P.R.C.No.195/2021 of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar connected to Cr.No.573 of 2021 of Narsingi Police Station)

Name of the ComplainantState represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Narsingi Police Station Cyberabad Commissionerate

Name(s) of the accusedA1: Kovvali Manoj Sai Koti Shyam S/o Venkateshwarlu, Age: 27 years, Occ: Site Engineer, Caste: OC Kapu, R/o Moderon PG Hostel, Near Karachi Bakery, Gowli Doddi, Sherilingampally Mandal, R.R.District.

A2:Mohammad Kaleem Pasha S/o Kareemulla, Age: 33 years, Occ: Safety Incharge, R/o SVS Colony Labour Camp, Jayabheri RMC Plant, Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal. A3: Gade Shiva Reddy S/o Krishna Reddy, Age: 33 years, Occ: Accountant, R/o SVS Colony Labour Camp, Jayabheri RMC Plant, Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal.

Charge(s)Under section 306 IPC

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty 2

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused No1. to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC, accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences, the bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall be in force for six months, so as to bind him to be present before Appellate Court, if any appeal preferred from this Judgment under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The interim custody of unmarked property i.e., Item No.1/Mobile phone shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal period.

Prosecution Conducted bySmt G. Sujana Reddy

Additional Public Prosecutor

Grade-II

Name of the defence counselM/s P. Chanchuramaiah Counsel for the accused No.1 M. Surender Kumar Counsel for the accused No. 2 & 3

This case coming before me on 06-10-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and

M/s P. Chanchuramaiah Counsel for the accused No.1, M. Surender

Kumar Counsel for the Accused No.2 & 3, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsingi Police Station, has filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 573 of 2021 against the accused No.1 to 3 for 3

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025 the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, with the following allegations:-

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: -

(i)The brief facts of the case is LW1 is the defacto complainant/

Circumstantial Witness. LW2 to LW6 are Circumstantial Witnesses.

The deceased Anuradha is the native of Srikakulam district, she worked as cook in SVS labour camp, Puppalguda Village, Gandipet

Mandal. The accused A1 Manoj worked as Site Engineer, A2

Khaleem Basha worked as Safety Incharge and A3 Siva Reddy worked as Accountant in SVS labour camp. Deceased Anuradha is single women, long ago she was separated from her husband.

Later she was migrated to Hyderabad for her livelihood and was working as cook in SVS labour camp. While the deceased and

Accused No. 1 to 3 were working in construction site, Accused No.1 used to move closely with the deceased and they become familiar and both and had sexual intercourse with consent of each other, due to which the deceased got pregnancy. One day deceased went to her native place, where the LW3 (brother of deceased) and his wife have observed the deceased Anuradha and noticed that she was likely to be pregnant, they taken her to hospital for check up 4

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025 and tested that she was 7 months pregnant. Upon which he asked her sister regarding pregnancy, she told that she got pregnancy because of Accused No.1 Manoj who is site engineer in SVS labour camp, after conceiving pregnancy by the deceased A1 along with

A2 and A3 used to humiliate her saying go somewhere and don’t work here and leave labour camp. Due to their continuous harassment, gestures and humiliation the deceased vexed on her life and committed suicide by consuming poison on 29.05.2021 in her room at labour camp.

(ii)On 30.05.2021 at about 15:30 hrs, LW1 lodged a complaint with the police. Based on his complaint, PW12, the Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.573/2021 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and took up the investigation.

(iii)During the course of investigation, PW12 examined LW1 and recorded his statement in Part-II CD. He visited the scene of offence located at asbestos sheet room, SVS labour Camp,

Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, R.R District secured the presence of PW4 and PW5, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, drafted rough sketch. During the panchanama PW12 5

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025 with assistance of clues team PW9 and LW15 seized the material objects i.e., 1 Redmi Cell Phone, 2. Letter containing phone numbers and 3. Multivitamin tablets from crime scene. Later the dead body was shifted to OGH Mortuary, Hyderabad for preservation to conduct PME. On the next day i.e., PW12 visited

OGH Mortuary Hyderabad, he secured the presence of the PW6,

PW7 and LW11 and conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, PW11 (Medical Officer) conducted the autopsy on the deceased's body. PW12 examined and recorded the statements of PW1, LW2 and LW4 in Part-II CD. After conducting autopsy the dead body was handed over to the family members to perform final rites.

(iv)Later, PW12 collected PME report of the deceased from PW11.

While investigation is in progress on 23.09.2021 the PW1/Brother of deceased came to Police station Narsingi and appeared before

PW12 and stated that due to humiliation, unwanted gestures at work place and harassment by A1 to A3 her sister Anuradha had committed suicide by consuming unknown poison. Upon which 6

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

PW12 had re-examined the PW1 and incorporated the same in

Part-II CD.

(v)Basing on the statement of PW1 and circumstances the section of law has been altered from U/s 174 Cr.P.C to Section 306 IPC and submitted the section alternation memo to the court for kind perusal. Further PW12 recorded the statement of Pws. 2 & 3 incorporated the same in Part-II CD. While investigation was in progress, on 29-09-2021 at 1900 hours on credible information the deputed staff party apprehended the accused person A1, PW12 secured the presence of mediators LW11 and PW10 and on interrogation accused confessed his guilt in commission of offence, as such recorded his detailed confession statement. In pursuance of confession statement of accused the PW12 seized

One cell IQOO blue colour from the possession of accused under cover of confession seizure panchanama. PW12 arrested the A1 and sent the accused No.1 to court for Judicial remand. While investigation is under progress the accused persons by Name A2 and A3 approached the Hon’ble Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Court and obtained bail vide Crl.MP No. 4464/2021. Upon completion of 7

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025 the investigation and after collecting the necessary documents,

PW12 filed a charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.The Learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy

District at Rajendranagar took the cognizance for the offence under section 306 IPC against the accused No.1 to 3. After following the admissible procedure, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Ranga Reddy District along with case record. The Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar had taken cognizance for the said offence and numbered the case as

S.C.No.279/2022 and made over the case to Principal Senior Judge,

L.B.Nagar court for disposal according to law.

4.It is a matter of record that this case was transferred from the

Court of the Principal Senior Judge, L.B. Nagar, to this Court pursuant to jurisdiction reallocation following the establishment of the newly constituted Court.

5.Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the material on record, this court examined the accused No.1 to 3 under section 228 Cr.P.C. and framed the charges for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC, 8

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025 read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which, they pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 on its behalf. Prosecution filed report for LW1 and

LW2 stating that their whereabouts are not known in view of circumstances evidence of LW1 and LW2 are closed. The learned APPO has given up the evidence of LW4, LW11 and LW15, hence their evidence is closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution witnesses.

The accused denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

8.Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Learned

Defence Counsels and perused the record.

9. Now the points for determination are: -

1. Whether the death of deceased is a suicide one?

2. Whether accused had abetted the deceased to commit suicide?

9

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

3. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT

10.It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that the accused

No.1 moved closely with deceased and they become familiar with each other and both had sexual intercourse with consent of each other due to which deceased got conceived. Thereafter, Accused No.1 along with

Accused No. 2 and 3 started humiliating the deceased with their words, due to which the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison which caused her death. Hence accused No. 1 to 3 has committed an offence punishable under section 306 IPC.

11.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW-1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P15.

In relation to the witnesses, PW-1 is the complainant and brother  of the deceased. PW-2 and 3 who are co-workers of deceased. Pws.

4 and 5 are panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama.

Pws. 6 and 7 are panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, Pws. 8 and 10 are panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama. PW9 is the police constable, clues team who assisted 10

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025 the investigation officer. PW11 is the medical officer who conducted dead body of the deceased, PW12 is the Sub Inspector of Police who issued FIR.

In relation to the exhibits, Ex.P1 and P2 are 161 Cr.P.C statements  of Pws. 2 and 3. Ex.P3 and P4 are signature of Pws. 4 and 5 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P5 is signature of PW6 on inquest report. Ex.P6is Inquest Report. Ex.P7 is signature of PW8 on confession-cum-seizure statement of A1 to A3. Ex.P8 is signature of PW10 on confession-cum-seizure statements. Ex.P9 is

PME Report. Ex.P10 is Final Opinion report. Ex.P11 is report.

Ex.P12 is FIR. Ex.P13 is scene of observation cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P14 is inquest panchanama. Ex.P15 is confession cum seizure panchanama of accused No.1.

12.Heard both sides.

13.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APPO) submitted that the accused No.1 and 3 harassed the deceased, and due to the unbearable harassment by the accused No.1 to 3, the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide. As such, the learned APPO prayed that the Court convict the accused.

11

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

14.On the other hand, the learned defence counsels for the accused

No. 1 to 3 submitted that, there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and there is no evidence to show that there was a relationship between accused No.1 and deceased and no test was conducted to identify the DNA of the fetus and no neighbours were examined and the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to show that the accused abetted or instigated the deceased to commit the offence. Therefore, the accused No. 1 to 3 has not committed the alleged offence, and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused no. 1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed that the Court extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused No.

1 to 3 and acquit him.

15.Now, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused based on the evidence available on record.

EVIDENCE ON RECORD

16.PW1, the complainant and brother of the deceased, on whose report the criminal law was set into motion, stated in his evidence that the deceased worked as a cook at SVS Labour Camp, Hyderabad, from 12

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025 2019 to 2021. A1 was the Civil Engineer, A2 was the Site Incharge, and A3 was the Accountant at the same camp. On 25.05.2021, she came to his house at Srikakulam and stayed for a week. His wife suspected pregnancy, they took the deceased for a medical check-up, and the doctor confirmed she was seven months pregnant. On questioning the same, she revealed that A1 had sexual intercourse with her while working at the camp. He called A1, A1 said he could not come due to the

Covid pandemic but would meet her in Hyderabad. She went to

Hyderabad on 11.05.2021, where A1 threatened her to leave the camp.

A2 and A3 also pressured her to resign. When he called A1 on 29.05.2021 requesting not to humiliate her, he threatened to kill him and insisted the deceased should leave the camp. On 30.05.2021, A3 informed him that his sister had committed suicide by consuming poison. She committed suicide as she was humiliated by A1 to A3 and distressed over her pregnancy by A1. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

During his cross examination he admitted that prior to six to seven months to the date of alleged incident the accused was shifted to another company. He denied that since the company has paid any compensation he gave statement four months late from the date of alleged incident.

13

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

17.Pws. 2 and 3 who are circumstantial witnesses categorically stated with one voice that deceased used to work as a cook. They do not know the facts of the case and how the deceased died and the cause of her death. They also stated that they were never examined by police. They turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

18.Pws.4 and 5 who are panch witnesses for scene of offence categorically stated with one voice that they do not know the facts of the case, police never conducted any panchanama in their presence and police obtained their signatures on white papers. Ex.P3 and P4 are their signatures. They turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

19.PW6 who is panch witness for inquest panchanama deposed that deceased, accused No.1 to 3 and LW1 were his colleagues. Police called him to Osmania General Hospital and asked him to act as panch witness.

There he found a dead body of the deceased but he did not observe any injuries over the dead body. Police obtained his signature on panchanama but he did not read the contents therein. Ex.P5 is his signature on inquest panchanama. He turned hostile to the version of prosecution.

14

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

20.PW7 who is another panch witness for inquest panchanama deposed that police called to Osmania Hospital and asked him to act as

Panch witness. Police conducted inquest panchanama in his presence.

Ex.P6 is inquest report.

21.Pws. 8 and 10 who are panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused categorically deposed that police obtained their signatures. According to them, police never conducted any panchanama and nothing was seized and no one confessed guilt in their presence.

Ex.P7 and P8 are their signatures on confession cum seizure panchanama.

22.PW9 is the then Police Constable, Clues Team, Madhapur deposed that their office received oral requisition from police station Narsingi about the suspicious death at SVS Labour Camp. Immediately, he along with LW15 rushed to the scene of offence and collected one protein powder bottle,three sheets of Medicines like calcium, Zinc and other medicines, one blue colour mobile phone and one paper containing some mobile numbers, in the presence of panchas and handed over the same to the investigation officer. They photographed and video-graphed the scene.

15

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

23.PW11 is the Assistant Professor who conducted autopsy over the dead body, deposed that on 31-05-2021, she received requisition from the SHO, Narsingi PS at 11:30 am in Cr.No. 573/2021 to conduct PME on

A. Anuradha, aged about 40 years. She commenced the autopsy at 11:35 am on the same day and concluded at 12:35 pm body, identified by HC

No. 2789 of Narsingi PS. On examination she found no ante mortem injuries on the body. The body was in the state of decomposition with all the visceral organs congested and softened. Brain is soft and collapsible into a grayish pulpy mass. About 10ml light brown viscous fluid with pungent odour present in the stomach with mucosa congested and softened. Uterus is distended with the male fetus and placenta attach to the fundus of the uterus. The approximate time of death was 2 to 3 days prior to autopsy. She preserved the viscera and sent to TSFSL. On receipt of FSL report she gave her final opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased was due to unknown poison. Ex.P9 is PME and Ex.P10 is final opinion.

24.PW12 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Narsingi deposed about the role of his investigation i.e., he received of report from Accused

No.2 under Ex.P11, registered a case and issued FIR under Ex.P12. He 16

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of Pws. 4 and 5, conducted the scene of offence pachanama with the assistance of clues team and seized Redmi

Mobile phone, letter containing phone numbers and multi vitamin tablets. He visited OGH Mortuary, conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Pws. 6 and 7 and LW11 under Ex.P14, conducted autopsy over the dead body and handed over the dead body to the relatives after completion of PME. He further recorded the statements of

Lws.2 to 4, collected PME and FSL report from PW11, PW1 came to police station and stated about the harassment of accused No.1 to 3 towards the deceased which lead the deceased to commit suicide by consuming poison. He re-examined PW1 and basing on the statement of PW1 he filed section alteration memo. On 29-09-2021, the deputed staff apprehended the accused No.1 and produced before him, secured the presence of Pws. 8 and 10 and recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama and seized one Cell phone from the possession of accused

No.1. After completion of panchanama, accused No.1 was sent to judicial custody. Accused No.2 and 3 obtained bail from the court of Sessions.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed after collecting necessary documents and depositing the case property.

17

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

POINT No.1

1. Whether the death of deceased is a suicide one?

25.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record to prove the offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the death of the deceased was suicidal, and it was committed in consequences of the abetment by the accused No.1 to 3.

26.The prosecution, in order to prove that the death of the deceased was suicidal, has relied upon the Inquest Report (Ex.P6) and the Post-

Mortem Examination Report (Ex.P9). To comply with the statutory provisions under Section 174 Cr.P.C., PW12 conducted the inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased to ascertain the apparent cause of death. As per Ex.P6 and P9, the cause of death is noted as “unknown Poison”. By virtue of Exs.P6 and P9 by examining PW-1 to

PW-12 coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.P6 and P9, the prosecution has been able to establish that the death of the deceased was suicidal in nature, which is also not disputed by the defence.

Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

18

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

Point No.2 and 3

2. Whether accused had abetted the deceased commit suicide?

3. Whether the prosecution establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

Before embarking upon the facts of the case, it would be desirable

to refer Section 306 IPC and Section 107 IPC which read as under: -

Section 306: Abetment of suicide

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine

Section 107: Abetment of a thing

A person abets the doing of a thing, who

Firstly—Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1—A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

19

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—

27.The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are the (i) the abetment (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

28.In the present case, the prosecution alleges that the accused were responsible for the death of the deceased, accused No.1 had sexual intercourse with the deceased and as a result the deceased got pregnant and the accused No.1 to 3 humiliated her and not allowed her to perform her duties, as such the deceased vexed with the attitude of the accused

No1. to 3 and committed suicide by consuming unknown poison. To prove the same the prosecution examined PW1 to 12. It is the evidence of PW1 who is complainant and brother of deceased has stated that the accused No.1 had sexual intercourse with the deceased and made her pregnant. Later, he refused to marry her and accused No.2 and 3 also 20

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025 harassed her, as such she committed suicide. But except the evidence of

PW1 none of the prosecution witness stated against the accused No.1 to

3. Moreover, the prosecution agency has not taken any steps to send the fetus of the deceased for comparison and analysis of the DNA of the accused to show that accused No.1 is responsible for the pregnancy of the deceased and there is no evidence placed by the prosecution to show that the accused No.1 to 3 are held responsible for the death of the deceased and because of the acts of accused No.1 to 3, the deceased left with no other option except committing suicide.

29.It is the contention of the Learned counsel for the defence that accused never abetted her to commit suicide and there is no intention on the part of the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC against the accused, In support of his contention, he relied on the following citations: -

Nipun Aneja and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 1 ALT

(Crl.) 113 SC – In the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 03-10-

2024.

Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh – Criminal

Appeal No.221 of 2025 (Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.11868 of

21

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

2023) – In the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Criminal Appellate

Jurisdiction

Chilikuri Mariyadas and others Vs. State of A.P., (2025) 3 ALT

(Crl.) 241 (A.P.) – In the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Amaravati.

30.For better adjudication of the case, this court intends to rely on the

Judgments.

Ude Singh & Ors. V. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301, where

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held:

16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the

Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there by such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

22

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025 16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mensrea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking not of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.

23

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

In S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another (2010) 12

SCC 1906 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed: -

25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mensrea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

31.In view of the above settled principles of law to convict the accused under section 306 IPC the prosecution must establish clear mensrea/intention on the part of the accused to commit offence and it also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. But in the case on hand, there is no sufficient evidence to show that the accused as clear mensrea on his part and his acts towards the deceased which led the deceased to commit suicide.

32.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, infirmities and shortcomings in the prosecution case, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in the commission of 24

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025 the offence. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. Therefore, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove this case against the accused beyond a shadow of doubt.

33.In the result, the accused No1. to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC, accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences, the bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall be in force for six months, so as to bind him to be present before Appellate Court, if any appeal preferred from this Judgment under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The interim custody of unmarked property i.e., Item No.1/Mobile phone shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28 th day of October, 2025.

Sd/-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar FAC Additional Assistant Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar 25

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution

PW-1:Alupana Kodanda Rami Reddy PW-2:Mohd. Moulana PW-3:G. Santosh PW-4:P. Chandra Shekhar PW-5:G. Koteshwar Rao PW-6:J. Kosaraju PW-7:Datla Sanjay Varma PW-8:K. Ramesh PW-9:M. Narsing Rao, Police Constable PW-10: K. Yadaiah PW-11:Dr. M. Sugatha, Assistant Professor PW-12:G. Ramulu, Sub-Inspector of Police

For Defence

NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1:161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2. Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3. Ex.P3:Signature of PW4 on Scene of Offence panchanama. Ex.P4:Signature of PW5 on Scene of Offence panchanama. Ex.P5:Signature of PW6 on Inquest Report. Ex.P6:Inquest Report. Ex.P7:Signature of PW8 on Confession-Cum-Seizure Statement of A1 to A3. Ex.P8:Signature of PW10 on Confession-Cum-Seizure Statement. Ex.P9:PME Report. Ex.P10:Final Opinion Report. Ex.P11:Report.

26

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

Ex.P12:FIR Ex.P13:Scene of observation-Cum-Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P14:Inquest Panchanama. Ex.P15:Confession-Cum-Seizure Panchanama of A1.

For Defence

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Sd/-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar FAC Additional Assistant Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar 27

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present: Smt A.RADHIKA

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar FAC Additional Assistant Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar

Tuesday, the 28th day of October, 2025

S.C. No.279 of 2022

(P.R.C.No.195/2021 of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar connected to Cr.No.573 of 2021 of Narsingi Police Station)

Name of the ComplainantState represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Narsingi police station Cyberabad Commissionerate Name(s) of the accusedA1: Kovvali Manoj Sai Koti Shyam S/o Venkateshwarlu, Age: 27 years, Occ: Site Engineer, Caste: OC Kapu, R/o Moderon PG Hostel, Near Karachi Bakery, Gowli Doddi, Sherilingampally Mandal, R.R.District.

A2:Mohammad Kaleem Pasha S/o Kareemulla, Age: 33 years, Occ: Safety Incharge, R/o SVS Colony Labour Camp, Jayabheri RMC Plant, Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal.

A3: Gade Shiva Reddy S/o Krishna Reddy, Age: 33 years, Occ: Accountant, R/o SVS Colony Labour Camp, Jayabheri RMC Plant, Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal.

28

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.279 of 2022

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar28th October, 2025

DATES OF

Offence:29-05-2021 Complaint:30-05-2021 Apprehension of Accused:A1 was arrested on 29-09-2021 Release on bail:Accused No. 1 was released on 16-10-2021 Accused No.2 and 3 were granted bail on 25- 10-2021 Committal:30-03-2022 Commencement of Trial:12-11-2024 Close of Trial:29-09-2025 Sentence or Order:28-10-2025 REASONS FOR THE DELAY: NO DELAY

Sd/-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar FAC Additional Assistant Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar

1

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present: Smt A.RADHIKA

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar

Wednesday, the 08th day of April, 2026

S.C. No.228 of 2024

(P.R.C.No.198/2021 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar connected to Cr.No.194 of 2021 of Mailardevpally Police Station)

Name of the ComplainantState represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Mailardevpally Police Station Cyberabad Commissionerate

Name(s) of the accusedShaik Ashraf, S/o Shaik Khaja Pasha, Age: 20 years, Occ: Phone Repair Business, Religion: Indian Muslim, R/o H.No.9-1-44, Near HanumanTemple,Laxmiguda, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District

Charge(s)Under section 306 IPC

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty

Sentence or Order In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC, accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences, the bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months, so as to bind him to be present before Appellate Court, if any appeal preferred from this Judgment under 2

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property i.e., item No.1 (one Chunni) shall be destroyed and mobile phone Jio Key pad mobile phone and item No.2(Nokia Black Colour Keypad Mobile phone) shall be given to its owner on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal period.

Prosecution Conducted bySmt G. Sujana Reddy

Additional Public Prosecutor

Grade-II

Name of the defence counselM/s P. Raju Babu, Counsel for the accused

This case coming before me on 06-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and

M/s P. Raju Babu, Counsel for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mailardevpally Police Station, has filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 194 of 2021 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, with the following allegations:-

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: -

(i)The brief facts of the case is the deceased/Kum. Leeja, along with her family, had migrated to Hyderabad about 30 years ago in search of livelihood and had been residing in a rented house at Laxmiguda 3

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 village by doing labour work. The accused/Shaik Ashraf is a resident of same locality. The accused got acquainted with the deceased and they had were in love for the past three years and were studying at

Narayana Junior College, Shamshabad. Due to inter-religious differences, her family opposed the relationship, after which the deceased distanced herself from the accused. After being rejected, inspite of the disinterest of the deceased, the accused continued to stalk and harass the deceased, and threatened to circulate her private photos on social media. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased got vexed with her life and decided to end it. Accordingly, on 08.03.2021, afternoon hours in the absence of her family members, she committed suicide by hanging herself with a chunni. She was later shifted to OGH, where she was declared dead.

(ii)On 08-03-2021 at about 22:00 hrs, PW1 lodged a complaint with the police. Based on his complaint, PW8/the Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.194/2021 under Section 306 IPC and took up the investigation.

(iii)During the course of the investigation, PW8 examined PW1 and recorded his detailed statement in Part-II CD. Later, he visited the scene of offence situated at H.No.9-1-62, Laxmiguda, Mailardevpally, inspeced the scene minutely and secured the presence of two 4

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 mediators i.e., LW5 and PW4, conducted the scene of observation offence panchanama, drew up rough sketch and seized one chunni and Jio Keypad mobile phone from the scene of offence under cover of panchanama. Later, LW8 visited Mortuary, OGH, secured the presence of the LW7 and PW5 and conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. After completion of the inquest, the dead body was subjected to autopsy. Later, the LW11/Medical Officer conducted the autopsy on the deceased's body and issued PME report by opining the cause of death due to hanging. After conducting autopsy, the dead body of deceased was handed over to the family members to perform the final rites. PW8 examined and recorded the statements of PW2, LW3, PW3 in Part-II CD. Thereafter,

LW8 obtained CDRs of accused and deceased mobile numbers i.e., 8466900620 and 7569553450 and observed frequent incoming and outgoing calls between them prior to the incident.

(iv)While the investigation is in progress, on 09-03-2021, accused was apprehended. On interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed his guilt in commission of offence and while the accused was in a mood to confess his guilt, PW8 secured the presence of two mediators i.e.,

Pws. 6 and 7 and recorded confession statement of accused. In pursuance of confession made by the accused, PW8 seized one Nokia 5

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026

Black Colour Keypad mobile phone from the possession of accused under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama. After completion of confession statement, PW8 effected the arrest of accused and sent the accused to court for Judicial remand. Upon completion of the investigation and after collecting the necessary documents, PW8 filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.The Learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- XII Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar took the cognizance for the offence under section 306 IPC against the accused. After following the admissible procedure, the case was committed to the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions, Ranga Reddy District along with case record. The Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar had taken cognizance for the said offence and numbered the case as S.C.No.228 of 2024 and made over the case to VII Senior Judge, L.B.Nagar court for disposal according to law and later the case was pending in the court of III

Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar court.

4.It is a matter of record that this case was transferred from the Court of the III Additional Senior Judge, L.B. Nagar, to this Court pursuant to 6

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 jurisdiction reallocation following the establishment of the newly constituted

Court.

5.Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the material on record, this court examined the accused under section 228 Cr.P.C. and framed the charges for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 8 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P10 on its behalf. The learned APPO has given up the evidence of

Lws. 3, 5, 7 and 11. Hence, evidence of Lws. 3, 5, 7 and 11 is closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

8.Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Learned

Defence Counsel and perused the record.

9. Now the points for determination are: -

1. Whether the death of deceased is a suicide one?

2. Whether accused had abetted the deceased to commit suicide?

7

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026

3. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT

10.It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that the deceased was in a relationship with the accused for three years. Due to inter-religious differences, her parents opposed their relationship due to which she distanced herself. The accused allegedly continued to stalk and harass her, and threatened to circulate her private photos. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased got vexed with her life, decided to end her life.

Accordingly, on 08.03.2021, she committed suicide by hanging with a chunni in her house. Hence accused has committed an offence punishable under section 306 IPC.

11.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW-1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P9.

In relation to the witnesses, PW-1 is the complainant and elder  brother of the deceased. PW2 is the father of the deceased. PW3 is brother of the deceased. PW4 is panch witness for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. PW5 is the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama. Pws. 6 and 7 are panch witnesses for confession cum 8

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 seizure panchanama of accused. PW9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who issued FIR.

In relation to the exhibits, Ex.P1 is Report. Ex.P2 is Signature of PW4  on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P3 is signature of

PW5 on inquest report. Exs.P4 and P5 are signatures of Pws. 6 and 7 on confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. Ex.P6 is FIR.

Ex.P7 is scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P8 is Inquest report. Ex.P9 is PME report. Ex.P10 is confession cum seizure panchanama.

With regards to material objects, no property is marked. 

12.Heard both sides.

13.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APPO) submitted that despite of repeated disinterest of the deceased, the accused continuously stalked and harassed the deceased, and threatened to circulate her private photos on social media. Due to the mental harassment by the accused, the deceased unable to bear the distress, committed suicide by hanging. As such, the learned APPO prayed that the Court convict the accused.

14.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel for the accused submitted that, there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and there is no evidence to show that there was a relationship between accused and deceased and no neighbours were examined and the 9

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to show that due to the acts of the accused, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, the accused has not committed the alleged offence, and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed that the Court extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquit him.

15.Now, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused based on the evidence available on record.

EVIDENCE ON RECORD

16.PW1, the complainant and elder brother of the deceased, on whose report the criminal law was set into motion, stated in his evidence that deceased was her younger sister. Accused is his neighbour and he know the accused since his childhood. He along with his wife resides separately in an adjacent house of his parents and his other family members are working in different places as private employees and deceased used to work as sales girl in a Cloth shop. He along with Lws. 2 to 4 leave the house at around 09:00 AM and come back in the evening and deceased used to leave the house at 09:30AM to her work. Prior to 1 year from the date of alleged incident, the accused used to follow and harass the deceased under the 10

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 guise of love. But the deceased having no interest, informed the same to the family members about the love proposal and harassment of accused to accept his love. Then, he informed the same to the brother of accused and requested him to instruct the accused not to harass the deceased under the guise of love and the same was assured by him. But the accused continued his love proposals and threatened the deceased to accept his love. On 08-03- 2021, he and his family members left the home to their works. In the afternoon hours, his father came home earlier and saw the doors were opened. Immediately, he rushed inside the house and noticed the deceased was hanged to a ceiling of the house with chunni. Upon hearing he hues and cries, his wife came to the scene and informed him over phone.

Immediately, he came to home and noticed 123 missed calls and 8 received calls in the mobile of deceased. He further stated that his sister committed suicide due to unbearable harassment by the accused under the guise of love. He lodged report before police. During his cross examination he totally denied the version of prosecution.

17.PW2 who is father of the deceased, stated in his evidence that deceased was her daughter. Accused is his neighbour and he know the accused since his childhood. His elder son along with his wife resides separately adjacent to their house and his other family members are 11

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 working in different places as private employees and deceased used to work in beauty parlour, Katedan. He along with PW1, Lws.3 and 4 leave the house at around 09:00 AM and come back in the evening and deceased used to leave the house at 09:30AM to her work. Prior to 1 year from the date of alleged incident, the accused used to follow and harass the deceased under the guise of love. But the deceased having no interest, informed the same to the family members about the love proposal and harassment of accused to accept his love. Then, PW1 informed the same to the brother of accused and requested him to instruct the accused not to harass the deceased under the guise of love and the same was assured by him. But the accused continued his love proposals and threatened the deceased to accept his love. On 08-03- 2021, himself and his other family members left the home to their works. In the afternoon hours, he came home earlier and saw the doors were opened.

Immediately, he rushed inside the house and noticed the deceased was hanged to a ceiling of the house with chunni. Upon hearing his hues and cries, his daughter in law came to the scene and informed PW1 over phone.

Immediately, PW1 came to home and noticed 123 missed calls and 8 received calls in the mobile of deceased. He further stated that his daughter committed suicide due to unbearable harassment by the accused under the guise of love. During his cross examination he totally denied the version of prosecution.

12

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026

18.PW3 who is brother of the deceased, stated in his evidence that Pws.

1 and 2 are his elder brother and father and LW3 is his mother. Deceased was his sister. Accused is his neighbour and he know him. On 08-03-2021, when he went to his work, he received call from his brother and immediately he rushed to home and saw his sister died by hanging. PW1 saw the mobile of his sister and noticed 123 missed calls and 8 received calls from the accused phone number. PW1 informed the brother of accused and requested him to instruct the accused not to harass the deceased under the guise of love and the same was assured by him. On the way to the work place of deceased, accused continuously followed and harassed her under the guise of love. Unable to bear the harassment of the accused, his sister committed suicide. Police examined and recorded his statement. During his cross-examination, he totally denied the version of prosecution.

19.PW4 who is panch witness for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama stated that he know LW5 and on 09-03-2021 at about 08:00

AM, police called him to the scene of offence and asked to act as panch witness. He along with LW5 visited the scene of offence. Police conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew up rough sketch and seized one saree and jio mobile phone in their presence and he signed on the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama.

13

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026

20.PW5 who is panch witness for inquest panchanama stated that in the year 2021, police called him to police station and obtained his signatures on written papers. He does not know the contents therein. He turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

21.Pws. 6 and 7 who are panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused categorically stated with one voice that they went to police station on their personal work and there police obtained their signatures on blank papers. They does not know the contents of panchanama. Police never conducted any panchanama and nothing was seized in their presence. They turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

22.PW8 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mailardevpally deposed about the role of his investigation i.e., he received of report from PW1 basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.194/2021 and issued FIR under Ex.P6 and took up investigation. He examined and recorded the statement of PW1, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of LW5 and PW4, conducted the scene of offence pachanama and drew up rough sketch and collected one chunni and Jio Keypad mobile phone from the scene under cover of panchanama. Later, he visited Osmania General

Hospital, examined and recorded the statements of Lws. 2 to 4. Thereafter, he secured the presence of LW7 and PW5, held inquest over the dead body 14

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 of the deceased and later the dead body was subjected for PME. The Medical

Officer/LW11 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME report under Ex.P8 in which it is opined that cause of death is due to hanging. On 09-03-2021, on credible information he apprehended the accused and brought to police station and on interrogation the accused confessed his guilt in commission of offence. Immediately, he secured the presence of Pws. 6 and 7 and recorded the confession panchanama of accused and seized one Nokia Black Colour Keypad mobile under cover of panchanama under Ex.P9. After completion of confession panchanama, he effected the arrest of accused and accused was sent to judicial custody.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed after collecting necessary documents and depositing the case property.

POINT No.1

1. Whether the death of deceased is a suicide one?

23.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record to prove the offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the death of the deceased was suicidal, and it was committed in consequences of the abetment by the accused.

15

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026

24.The prosecution, in order to prove that the death of the deceased was suicidal, has relied upon the Inquest Report (Ex.P8)and the Post-Mortem

Examination Report (Ex.P9). To comply with the statutory provisions under

Section 174 Cr.P.C., PW8 conducted the inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased to ascertain the apparent cause of death. As per Ex.P8 and P9, the cause of death is noted as “Hanging”. By virtue of Exs.P8 and P9 by examining PW-1 to PW-8 coupled with the documentary evidence under

Ex.P8 and P9, the prosecution has been able to establish that the death of the deceased was suicidal in nature, which is also not disputed by the defence. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

Point No.2 and 3

2. Whether accused had abetted the deceased commit suicide?

3. Whether the prosecution establish the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

Before embarking upon the facts of the case, it would be desirable to

refer Section 306 IPC and Section 107 IPC which read as under: -

Section 306: Abetment of suicide

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine

Section 107: Abetment of a thing

A person abets the doing of a thing, who 16

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026

Firstly—Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1—A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

25.The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are the

(i) the abetment (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

26.In the present case, the prosecution alleges that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased, accused and deceased were in love and due to the inter-religion, the parents of the deceased opposed their relationship and due to distance made by the deceased, accused unable to bear the rejection, the accused followed the deceased. Despite of disinterest of the deceased, the accused stalked her phone and threatened to circulate 17

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 her photos in social media. Due to the unbearable harassment committed by the accused the deceased vexed with the attitude of the accused and committed suicide by Hanging with a chunni. To prove the same the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 8. It is the evidence of PW1 who is complainant and elder brother of deceased, totally supported the version of prosecution in his chief examination but later during his cross examination he totally denied the version of prosecution and went to an extent that at the instance of police he signed on the report. He even went to an extent of accused is no way concerned with the present case. PW2 who is father of the deceased and PW3 who is brother of the deceased, totally supported the version of prosecution in their chief examination but later during their cross examination they totally denied the version of prosecution and went to an extent that at the instance of police they have given their chief examination.

They even went to an extent of accused is no way concerned with the present case. Hence, evidence of Pws. 1 to 3 is not reliable and they are not trustworthy. PW4 who is panch witness for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama stated about his role. PW5 who is panch witness for inquest panchanama did not support the case of the prosecution and he totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, though he was cross examined by learned APPO nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution except marking of his signature. Pws. 6 and 7 who are panch witnesses for 18

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 confession cum seizure panchanama of accused, did not support the case of the prosecution and they totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, though they were cross examined by learned APPO nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution except marking of their signatures.

27.Except the investigation officer, none of the prosecution witnesses has stated single word against the accused. Though, the Investigating

Officer deposed about the investigation process, but Pws.1 to 3 who are family members of deceased supported in their chief examination and later they totally denied the facts in their cross examination. The evidence of Pws.

1 to 3 is not reliable and they are not trustworthy. In the absence of cogent evidence it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused in the absence of corroborative evidence the Investigating Officer evidence is alone is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and no evidence is placed by the prosecution to show that the accused is held responsible for the death of the deceased and because of the acts of accused, the deceased left with no other option except committing suicide.

28.For the reasons best known to the prosecution, though Pws.1 to 3 supported the version of prosecution in their chief examination, but they totally denied his version in their cross examination. It clearly establishes 19

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026 that, though Pws.1 to 3 in his evidence revealed the facts of the case but within a lapse of period, Pws. 1 to 3 changed their version in their cross examination. It clearly proves that the change of version from chief examination to cross examination shows that Pws.1 to 3 are not trustworthy.

Therefore, in view of the above discussion, infirmities and shortcomings in the prosecution case, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to complicate the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. Therefore, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove this case against the accused beyond a shadow of doubt.

29.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC, accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences, the bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months, so as to bind him to be present before Appellate

Court, if any appeal preferred from this Judgment under section 437(A) of

Cr.P.C. The unmarked property i.e., item No.1 (one Chunni) shall be destroyed and mobile phone Jio Key pad mobile phone and item No.2(Nokia 20

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026

Black Colour Keypad Mobile phone) shall be given to its owner on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 08 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution

PW-1:Mithun Jina PW-2:Parameshwar Jina PW-3:Raja Jina PW-4:Manne Shiva Kumar PW-5:Dharamoni Vignesh PW-6:Kundarapu Chiranjeevi PW-7:Kalkar Ravikumar PW-8:Ch. Gopa Raju, Sub-Inspector of Police

For Defence

NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1:Report.

21

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026

Ex.P2:Signature of PW4 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P3:Signature of PW5 on inquest report. Ex.P4:Signature of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. Ex.P5: Signatures of PW7 on confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. Ex.P6:FIR. Ex.P7:Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P8:Inquest report. Ex.P9:PME report. Ex.P10:Confession cum seizure panchanama.

For Defence

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar 22

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,SC.No.228 of 2024

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar08th April, 2026

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present: Smt A.RADHIKA

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar

Wednesday, the 08th day of April, 2026

S.C. No.228 of 2024

(P.R.C.No.198/2021 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar connected to Cr.No.194 of 2021 of Mailardevpally Police Station)

Name of the ComplainantState represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Mailardevpally Police Station Cyberabad Commissionerate Name(s) of the accusedShaik Ashraf, S/o Shaik Khaja Pasha, Age: 20 years, Occ: Phone Repair Business, Religion: Indian Muslim, R/o H.No.9-1-44, Near Hanuman Temple, Laxmiguda, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District

DATES OF

Offence:08-03-2021 Complaint:08-03-2021 Apprehension of Accused:Accused was arrested on 09-03-2021 Release on bail:Accused was released on 12-05-2021 Committal:30-01-2024 Commencement of Trial:24-10-2025 Close of Trial:02-04-2026 Sentence or Order:08-04-2026 REASONS FOR THE DELAY: NO DELAY

Sd/-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar

II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: Smt A.RADHIKA II Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

Monday, this the 12th day of December 2023

O.S. No.1570/2014

Between

Smt M.Deepa, W/o M.Keshavulu D/o T.Deena Bandu, Aged about 36 years Occ: Household R/o H.No.12-4-113/2 Pragathi Nagar, Moosapet Hyderabad. … Plaintiff

And

1. Smt A.Vasundara Raju (LR of late Madan Raj) W/o Madan Raj, Aged about 41 years Occ: Household R/o Plot No.38/F, Chandra Nagar Colony Rasoolpura, Begumpet Secunderabad

2. Smt Vasundara Raju, W/o Madan Raj Aged about 41 years, Occ: Household R/o Plot No.38/F, Chandra Nagar Colony Rasoolpura, Begumpet Secunderabad (2nd defendant is added against name of 1st defendant as per order in I.A. No.626/2022 dated 13.10.2022) … Defendants

This suit coming before me on 4.12.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.B.B.Krishna Mohan, Counsel for Plaintiff and of

Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, Counsel for Defendants, upon perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen, servants or any other person claiming through -: 2 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023 defendants etc., from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., open land admeasuring

Ac.2-00 guntas equivalent to 242 square yards in Sy.No.361 situated at

Panduranga Nagar Colony, Attapur Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District (herein after would be referred as suit “suit schedule property”) and for costs.

2. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows: -

The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and having acquired the same under registered settlement deed vide document No.4197/2012 dated 3.7.2012 from her father Tirumala Deena Bandhu. Originally Tirumala Deena Bandhu and his elder brother Tirumala Desh Bhakti were the joint owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.1-32 guntas in Sy.No.361. They have jointly sold an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in favour of B.Manohar.

subsequently, father of the plaintiff and his brother have got oral partition of the remaining land to an extent of Ac.0.12 guntas into two equal shares, the father of the plaintiff has got Ac.0.06 guntas in the above said land. Thereafter, the father of the plaintiff has gifted the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff by way of registered gift deed.

Since the date of execution of gift deed, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoying the suit schedule property. But the defendants without having any manner of right, title, interest over the said property have tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. On 22.9.20214 and 6.10.2014 the defendants interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and tried to dispossess her from the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

-: 3 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023

3. The defendants filed their written statement by denying the material averments made in the plaint, the averments of which, in brief, are: -

Defendants are the absolute owners and possessors of the plot

No.72 in Sy.No.360 admeasuring 170 square yards situated at Attapur

Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal and Municipality of Ranga Reddy District bounded by North: Plot No.71, South: Plot No.119, East: 20’ wide road,

West: Neightbours land having purchased from Gummakonda

Madhushudann Reddy rep. by his AGPA holder Syed Nazar Ali under registered sale deed 5727/2008 dated 10.9.2008 and since then they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Originally,

T.Desh Bhakti and T.Deena Bandhu were the owners and pattadars of the agriculture land to an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.No.360 situated at Attapur Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. They along with their legal heirs of then tenant Late M.Bal Raj Goud entered into the registered

AGPA with Gummadi Madhusudhan Reddy, the said AGPA holder sold the said land vide registered sale deed document No.6447/2003 dated 30.8.2003 in favour of Gummakonda Subash Reddy and Gummakonda

Madhusudhan Reddy and by virtue of the same they became absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.1-20 guntas in

Sy.No.360 situated at Attapur Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. Subash

Reddy died intestate leaving behind his wife G.Indira and his son

Madhusudhan Reddy, his wife Indira executed a gift settlement deed in respect of her share of Ac.0-30 guntas in Sy.No.360 vide document

No.8514 of 2005 dated 16.8.2005 in favour of her son G.Madhusudhan

Reddy, as such G.Madhusudhan Reddy who is the vendor of the defendants became the absolute owner of land to an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.No.360. He divided the said land into house site plots. The -: 4 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023 defendants purchased the plot No.72 admeasuring 170 square yards.

The plaintiff without their being any right over the defendant’s plot, with an intention to grab the defendants property situated in Sy.No.360 and created a story by virtue of gift settlement deed partition in Sy.No.360 filed this false suit.

4. It is further averred that the alleged suit schedule property and property of these defendants are entirely different and distinct, situated in separate survey numbers, the plaintiff filed this suit by showing wrong boundaries, as per the mention of boundaries of the suit schedule property, the northern boundary was shown as open land of

Smt. T.Shilpa is none other than the sister of the plaintiff. But whereas the property of the Defendants i.e., Plot No.72 in sy.No.360 is having

Northern boundary with the property i.e., house of Vinod Kumar Jangid but not as vacant open land. Similarly, the southern boundary of suit schedule property was mentioned as part of land in Sy.No.361, but the

Defendants Plot No.72 is having southern boundary of house of Rakesh

Prakash Shukla i.e., part of Plot No.119. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the property of the Defendants and the alleged property of the plaintiff is different and distant and nothing to do with each other.

Under these circumstances, these Defendants submit that the plaintiff has no prima facie case and balance of convenience in her favour and she is not entitled for any relief and prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the date of filing the suit?

-: 5 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for against the defendants No.1 and 2?

3. To what relief?

6. During the trial, the plaintiff examined PW-1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A9 on behalf of the plaintiff. They got examined Advocate

Commissioner as CW-1 and marked Ex.C1 to C6 through him. On the other hand, defendant No.1 is examined as DW-1 and one more witness as DW-2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6 on behalf of the defendants.

7. Heard the Learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the written arguments filed by them.

Issue No.1 and 2

1. Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the date of

filing the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual

injunction as prayed for against the defendants No.1 and

2?

8. Since the issue Nos.1 and 2 are common to avoid repetition, it can be decided jointly.

9. The case of the plaintiff is that originally her father, namely,

T.Deena Bandhu and his elder brother Tirumala Desh Bhakti had land to an extent of Ac.1-32 guntas in Sy.No.361 situated at Attapur Village,

Rajendra Nagar Mandal by way of inheritance. They sold an extent of

Ac.1-20 guntas to B.Manohar, there remained an extent of Ac.0-12 guntas and they orally partitioned among themselves, the father of the plaintiff got Ac.0-06 guntas towards his share, out of which the father of the plaintiff gifted the suit schedule property i.e., to an extent of -: 6 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023

Ac.0-02 guntas to the plaintiff through registered gift settlement deed bearing No.4197 of 2012, she became the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land and has been enjoying the same but the defendants without having any manner of right on 22.9.2014 and 6.10.2014 interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land and tried to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff in her evidence as PW-1 as reiterated her case and filed Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is certified copy of gift deed to show that she is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and Ex.A2 to A5 are the certified copies of the Pahanies for the Phasli 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423 respectively to show that Desha Bhakti Deena Bandhu had the land in Sy.No.361 to an extent of Ac.1-32 guntas. Ex.A6 is the Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.A7 and A8 are photographs with C.D. Ex.A9 is the registered sale deed bearing

No.5043/2012 dated 30.7.2012 (sale deed of DW-2 marked through

DW-2 during the cross-examination).

10. On careful scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, it appears that the defendants are not claiming any right and interest over any piece of land in Sy.No.361. They are also not disputing the fact that

T.Deena Bandhu and T.Desh Bhakti had land to an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.No.360. But according to them said Deena Bandhu and

Desh Bhakti along with their LRs sold away total extent of Ac.1-20 guntas through AGPA to Gummakonda Madhusudhan Reddy and in turn,

G.Madhusudhan Reddy had become the absolute owner of said land in

Sy.No.360, he converted entire land in Sy.No.360 to an extent of

Ac.1-20 guntas as house plots to different persons and defendants herein purchased the plot No.72 from G.Madhusudhan Reddy through his GPA holder. But the plaintiffs by giving wrong description, wrong boundaries have field the suit with false allegations to knock away their -: 7 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023 lands in Sy.No.360. The properties of the plaintiff and the properties of the defendants are totally different and distinct.

11. The defendant No.2, in her evidence as DW-1, has reiterated their case. They filed Ex.B1 to B6. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA document No.3202/2000 dated 26.7.2000.

Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed document

No.6447/2003 dated 30.8.2003. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA document No.3232/2007 dated 14.3.2007.

Ex.B4 is the certified copy of registered sale deed document

No.5727/2008 dated 10.9.2008. Ex.B5 is the certified copy of registered sale deed document No.11943/2021 dated 13.12.2021. Ex.B6 is the

Encumbrance Certificate. It shows the flow of title of the vendors of the defendant and defendants in respect of the defendants’ land.

12. It is submitted by the Learned counsel for the defendant that the land which is existence to an extent 214 square yards in physically belongs to this defendant by examining DW-2 whose H.No.4-7- 154/3/119 of Rakesh Prakash Sukla (DW-2) as per Advocate

Commissioner Report. It is further submitted that the documents and oral evidence has proven the fact that the existing land is falling in

Sy.No.360 and the said existing land is purely belongs to the defendant and as per the boundaries existing over the existing land physically it is not belonging to the plaintiff, her land with some other boundaries not with the existing boundaries. That the land of the plaintiffs which is shown as suit schedule property are different to that of existing land in physical and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.

13. The Learned counsel for the defendant relied on the Judgments of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande Vs. Balkrishna

-: 8 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023

Rambharose Gupta and Another wherein held that In a suit filed under

Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, permanent injunction can be granted only to a person who is in actual possession of the property.

The burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove that he was in actual and physical possession of the property on the date of suit.

14. He also relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana in Silver Jublee Club Vs. State of Telangana 2018

LawSuit(Hyd) 405 wherein held that the plaintiff has to prove in a suit for declaration of title the plaintiff has to prove its title and possession to the property and also actual identification of the property on the ground.

15. Since the defendants are disputing the existence and availability of suit schedule land within boundaries given, it is for the plaintiff to prove the same. According to the plaintiff, after selling Ac.1-20 guntas out of Ac.1-32 guntas in Sy.No.361 to B.Manohar, the father of the plaintiff and his elder brother had Ac.0-12 guntas and they got orally partitioned among them, in that oral partition father of the plaintiff got

Ac.0-06 guntas in Sy.No.361 and he gifted the land to an extent of

Ac.0-02 guntas to the plaintiff through registered gift deed under Ex.A1.

During her cross-examination, PW-1 has stated the boundaries of the suit land is East: 20’ road, West: Forest Department Office North and south: Neighbours. She stated that she does not know the name of the southern boundary name of the neighbour. She further stated that she did not file survey report to show that her claim with that of defendant property is covered in Sy.No.361 but not by in Sy.No.360. She denied the suggestion put to her that suit schedule property belongs to defendant and same was situated in Sy.No.360 but not in Sy.No.361.

-: 9 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023

She stated that defendants property is situated in Sy.No.360 and her property is in Sy.No.361. She admitted that as per Ex.A1 recital the source of acquisition of property by her father is not mentioned.

16. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that as per the Advocate Commissioner report the suit schedule property is situated within the boundaries shown in the plaint and as per Ex.C5/Advocate

Commissioner-cum-Proceeding Report which disclosed that Mandal

Surveyor measuring the suit schedule property as per the copy of village map and location sketch and suit schedule property comes under

Sy.No.361, as per copy of village map and Advocate Commissioner

Report it is established that suit schedule property is situated in

Sy.No.361 and he identified the suit schedule property within the boundaries given. To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to notice the facts as to how Ex.C5/Advocate Commissioner Report. The plaintiff filed a petition being I.A. No.1270/2017 for appointment of an Advocate

Commissioner for the purpose of the demarcation of the suit schedule properties with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor for resolving the dispute involving the present suit. This court vide order dated 23.1.2019 passed in I.A. No.1270/2017 allowed the said petition and appointed

Sri R.Bhagat, Advocate as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and get it surveyed, demarcate with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, shall prepare a rough sketch showing a local and physical feature of property. The said Advocate Commissioner filed his report before the court on 18.2.2022. No objections were filed by the plaintiff and counsel for defendant filed objections and requested the court to receive the objections and this court received the objections filed by the defendant and closed the I.A. The said Advocate

Commissioner examined as CW-1 and marked the report filed by him as -: 10 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023

Ex.C1 to C5. Ex.C1 is warrant issued by this court. Ex.C2 is letter addressed to the Tahsildar to fix the date and time for inspection. Ex.C3 is the work memo filed by the counsel for defendant. Ex.C4 is

Panchanama. Ex.C5 is report and Ex.C6 are the photographs.

The relevant portion in Ex.C5 is reads as under: -

3. It is submitted that thereafter I got issued notice to both Plaintiff and Defendant on record counsels and fixed the date for recording of advocate commissioner proceedings. Here enclosing handwriting copy of Notice, Dated: 05-02-2022.

4. It is submitted that I conducted Panchanama in the presence of

Mandal Surveyor and Plaintiff and Their counsel and Defendant and their counsel conducted Panchana Here am filling handwriting Panchanama with their signatures.

5. It is submitted that the counsel for defendant has given WORK

MEMO and same copy served to plaintiff for counsel. Here am filling

Work Memo.

6. The Mandal Surveyor came along with 1) Copy of Village Map and

Location Stech of Sy. No. 366 at Attapur village, Rajendranagar mandal,

R.R. District to an extent of Ac38-05 GTS. Here am filling both copies.

(Handwriting report translated into typing)

I, R.Bhagath and the Manda! Survey By name: GANESH and plaintiff and defendant and their respective counsels present at suit schedule property.

The Mandal surveyor came along with copy of village map and

Location Sketch pertaining of Sy.No.360 and 361 which approved by

Govt.

The defendant counsel given WORK MEMO.

The Mandal surveyor measured the suit schedule property as per copy of village map and location sketch and the suit schedule property comes under Sy. No.361 is per copy of village map -: 11 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023

The Mandal surveyor measured the suit schedule property with help tape.

The suit schedule property boundaries along with photographs taken by me:

WEST: Forest department office and attached gate.

NORTH: H.NO. 4-7-154/3/17 OF Sri Krishna Kunji

EAST: 22.3” Wide Road

SOUTH: H.NO. 4-7-154/3/119 of Rakesh Prakash Sukla.

The suit schedule property Physical possession and boundaries of property captured and here am filing photographs of suit schedule property.

As on 05-02-2022 the suit schedule property open plot of Extent of 214.6 Sq. Yards.

The Mandal surveyor physically measured the suit property but in the village map cannot identified the suit property.

The Mandal surveyor if need detailed picture or measured of suit schedule property shall measure with DGPS (Differential Global

Positioning System) because surveyor normally measured by hand GPS and it’s not authenticated and objection by the counsel for defendant and survey number and adjacent survey number covered the structure to measured property and survey to accuracy preferred by DGPS.

17. During his cross-examination, he stated that he identified the boundaries of the suit schedule property with the help of surveyor, the mandal surveyor helped him in locating the Sy.No.361 of Attapur Village.

He admitted that except providing the photostat copy of the village map the mandal surveyor did not assist with any official records. He admitted that in his report it is clearly mentioned that the suit schedule property shall be measured with DGPS because generally the GPS is not an authenticated survey. Thus, obvious that the Mandal Surveyor provided the village map, as per the village map the surveyor measure the suit schedule property with the help of tape and the Advocate Commissioner -: 12 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023 had noted the boundaries of suit schedule property, photographs were also taken. But without measuring the both the survey numbers i.e.,

Sy.No.360 and 361 it is not possible to hold that the disputed site is marking given and it is in Sy.No.361. Further, as seen from Ex.A1 the boundaries of the suit schedule property are North: Open land of Smt

Shilpa, South: Part of Sy.No.361, East: 20’ wide road, West: Compound wall of forest department whereas as per the Commissioner Report the boundaries are West: Forest department office and attached gate,

North: H.No.4-7-154/3/17 of Sri Krishna Kunji, East: 22.3” wide road,

South: H.No.4-7-154/3/119 of Rakesh Prakash Sukla.

18. The plaintiff during her cross-examination said that she does not know to which side her sister land is situate and she does not know the name of southern boundary neighbour. Further, as seen from Ex.A2 to

A5 the father of the plaintiff name is recorded as pattadar to an extent of Ac.1-32 guntas in Sy.No.361 and as per the case of the plaintiff the land is agriculture land, whereas in possession column it is showing that houses which is contrary to the case of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 to A6 are showing the total extent of land is Ac.1-32 guntas but which are not helpful to give the boundaries of the suit schedule property. Hence,

Ex.A2 to A6 are no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove the boundaries of the suit schedule property. So, even if it is believed, based on Ex.C5, for a moment that the disputed land is available at the marking given and the same is in Sy.No.361 the same cannot be held to be of the plaintiffs only because the Ex.A2 to A6 which are showing that names of the Deshabhakti Deena Bandhu and Venkatachari are the pattadars and in possession column it is shown as houses to an extent of Ac.0-36 guntas and Ac.0-36 guntas each. Therefore, it cannot be held -: 13 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023 that the plaintiff is only the owner of the land and it may even belong to the above named Venkatachari and houses.

19. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff admittedly the defendants did not have any land in Sy.No.361 and they did not produce any evidence to show that the suit schedule land is a part of their land in Sy.No.360 and therefore whatever the land identified by the Advocate Commissioner with the help of mandal surveyor in

Ex.C5 can be said to be suit schedule land and that it belongs to the plaintiff.

20. The Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the Judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhaga Vs Shoba 2006 Law Suit (SC)

518=2006(5) SCC 466 held that a property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description is well established. Here the attempt had been to identify the suit property with reference to such boundaries. Even if there was any discrepancy, normally, the boundaries should prevail. There was no occasion to spin a theory that it was necessary in this suit to survey all the adjacent lands to find out whether an encroachment was made in the land belonging to the plaintiff. In this situation, we aer satisfied that the judgment and decree of the High

Court calls for interference. We are also satisfied that the lower appellate court was justified in affirming the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff on the pleadings and the evidence in the case.

21. But the facts and circumstances of the present case are different from the above judgment.

22. It is well settled principle of law that the description of the immovable property given in the plaint is not sufficient to identify the -: 14 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023 same. Ordre VII Rule-3 of the Civil Procedure Code postulates that where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain at description of the property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey.

23. The description of the immovable suit property given in the plaint is not sufficient to identify the same. Order 7 Rule 3 CPC postulates that where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identity it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers.

24. It is a settled position of law that if the suit property is the whole of the land in the sale deeds, mere filing of sale deeds to which it appertains would be sufficient for its identification. But then, where the suit is in respect of a portion of a land, further particulars are necessary for its proper identification. No effective decree can be passed by the court in respect of suit schedule property the description of which, as given in the plaint, is not sufficient for its identification.

25. It is true that the defendants did not produce any evidence to show that the suit schedule land is a part of their land in Sy.No.360 but as per the evidence of DW-2 and as per the Advocate Commissioner

Report the house of the DW-2 is situated on the southern boundary of suit schedule property and it was located in plot No.119 in Sy.No.360.

Further, it is well settled law that in a suit for a immovable property, the plaintiff must succeed only on the strength of his case and evidence.

But, not on weakness of the defendant. As noticed above, the plaintiff failed to file village map to show that the Sy.No.360 and 361 are situated -: 15 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023 in different places, also failed to file the topographical map and layout map of the Sy.No.360 and 361 as the Pahanies filed by the plaintiff is showing the possession column as houses. Non-filing of topographical map and layout, village map creates doubt on the plaintiff’s case.

Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to file a topographical map, layout map and village map to show that existence of the suit schedule land within the boundaries given and moreover during the cross-examination, the plaintiff unable to give the exact boundaries. Having so failed, they cannot harp upon the weakness of the defendant to contend that since the defendant failed to prove that suit schedule property is a part of their land in Sy.No.360, it shall be taken that suit schedule land is available within the boundaries given the same belong to them.

26. For the reasons recorded above it is not possible to hold that the suit schedule land is in existence with a description and within the boundaries given. This issue is, therefore, answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

To what relief?

27. In view of my findings of the above issues, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the equitable relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Hence the issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

28. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of December

2023.

Sd/-

II Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District -: 16 :- II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court O.S. No.1570/2014 Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 12th December 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff PW-1: Smt M.Deepa

For Defendants DW-1: Vasundhara Raj DW-2: Rakesh Prasad Shukla

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff Ex.A1: C.C. of registered gift settlement deed vide document No.4197/2012 dated 3.7.2012. Ex.A2: C.C. of Pahanies for the year 1420 Fasli dated 25.9.2014. Ex.A3: C.C. of Pahanies for the year 1421 Fasli dated 25.9.2014. Ex.A4: C.C. of Pahanies for the year 1422 Fasli dated 25.9.2014. Ex.A5: C.C. of Pahanies for the year 1423 Fasli dated 25.9.2014. Ex.A6: Certified copy of encumbrance certificate from 1.5.1995 to 24.9.2014. Ex.A7: Photographs (two in number). Ex.A8: C.D.1 Ex.A9: Registered sale deed bearing No.5043/2012 dated 30.7.2012

For defendants Ex.B1: C.C. of registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA document No.3202/2000 dated 26.7.2000. Ex.B2: C.C. of registered sale deed document No.6447/2003 dated 30.8.2003. Ex.B3: C.C. of registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA document No.3232/2000 dated 14.3.2007. Ex.B4: C.C. of registered sale deed document No.5727/2008 dated 10.9.2008. Ex.B5: C.C. of registered sale deed document No.11943/2021

dated 13.12.2021.

Ex.B6: Encumbrance certificate from 1.5.1995 to 11.9.2022 dated 12.9.2022.

Advocate Commissioner Ex.C1: Commissioner Warrant issued by court in I.A. No.1270/2017 in O.S. No.1570/2014 dated 23.1.2019. Ex.C2: Letter addressed to the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District dated 17.12.2021. Ex.C3: Work memo filed by the defendants before the Advocate Commissioner dated 5.2.2022. Ex.C4: Panchanama dated 5.2.2022. Ex.C5: Advocate Commissioner Proceedings. Ex.C6: Photographs.

Sd/-

II Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District