Sri. A. Venkateswara Rao

1 IA No.1053 of 2023 in OS No.5233 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE 

PRESENT: SRI A.VENKATESWARA RAO

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

IA No.1053 of 2023

 in 

OS No.5233 of 2021

BETWEEN:

Sri B. Srinivas Rao S/. late B. Purushotham Rao, Aged about: 60 Years, Occ: Business, C/o. Hotel Dwarka Paradise, D.No.6­1­1061/A & B/2, Lakdi Ka Pul, Hyderabad. …Petitioner/Plaintiff. AND

Sri B. Ganesh S/o. Late B. Purushothama Rao, Aged about: 62 Years, Occ: Business, C/o. Hotel Dwarka Paradise (G), D.No.6­1­1061/A & B/2, Lakdi Ka Pul, Hyderabad, T.S.…Respondent/Defendant. ­­­ This petition is coming before me on 01.10.2024 and also on 27.02.2025 in the presence of Sri Sukhraj, Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and of Mrs. Kalpana Ekbote, Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant, having heard the arguments of both the counsels, having perused the record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following:­ : O R D E R :

1.In this petition, which has been filed under Order 26 Rule 13

CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to appoint advocate­ commissioner to partition the suit schedule property in pursuance of 2 IA No.1053 of 2023 in OS No.5233 of 2021 the preliminary decree dated 19.12.2022 passed in the main suit, this court appointed advocate commissioner, who after executing the commission warrant, filed his Report on 3.4.2024. Theupon, the respondent/defendant filed Objections to the said Commissioner’s

Report. 

2. In the Objections, the respondent stated that the

Commissioner failed to measure the entire area as per the directions of this court. The respondent further stated that the lift is in the common area and the Commissioner failed to take measurement from the lift to the Reception Counter. He further submitted that the Commissioner also failed to take measurement of the lift area and also the room adjacent to the lift which is being used by both parties as Accounts Room. He also stated that the Commissioner also failed to measure the room under the staircase. According to the respondent, the total area is admeasuring 1465 square feet, but the Commissioner stated in his report that the suit property is admeasuring only 900.66 square feet. He stated that the division done by the advocate commissioner is erroneous. Along with the

Objections, the respondent filed a rough sketch plan.

3 IA No.1053 of 2023 in OS No.5233 of 2021

3. Since the respondent filed the above Objections, this court posted the matter for hearing the parties in regard to the Objections.

4.Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant also filed written submissions.

5.Now, the point for consideration is whether the Objections to the Commissioner Report which were put forth by the respondent/defendant are tenable and whether the Commissioner

Report can be accepted by this court?

6. POINT: Learned counsel for the respondent while reiterating the objections which they have taken in their Objections, submitted that the partition has to be done strictly in accordance with the terms of the partition deed. According to her, staircase and lift are the common areas and even though the respondent requested the advocate­commissioner to measure the staircase and lift, he did not do so. Therefore, she requested the court to direct the advocate commisioner to measure the common areas i.e., Lift and Staircase.

7.Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff stated that the advocate commissioner took the measurements in the presence of both parties and if at all the respondent wants the commissioner to 4 IA No.1053 of 2023 in OS No.5233 of 2021 take measurements of any particular area, nothing prevented the respondent from filing a memo to that effect before the advocate commissioner, but no such memo was filed. He, therefore, submitted that the respondent cannot now dispute the commissioner report. He further submitted that as per the partition deed, reception, lift area and staircase shall be treated as common property for 10 years. He further fairly stated that the Advocate­

Commissioner has measured only the Reception and Staircase but he did not measure the lift area as well as the Blue coloured area.

He, therefore, fairly stated that fresh direction has to be given to the advocate commissioner to take measurements of the above.

8.For better understanding of the rival contentions, it is necessary to state few facts which led to the filing of these petitions.

As could be culled out from the plaint in the main suit, petitioner/plaintiff filed the main suit against the respondent/defendant seeking partition of the suit property. The suit property in this case the Common Areas in the Ground Floor of the premises bearing No.6­1­1061/A and B/2 known as ‘Hotel

Dwaraka Paradise’, situated at Lakidi­ka­pool, Hyderabad. As per the plaint averments, there was a partition earlier between plaintiff 5 IA No.1053 of 2023 in OS No.5233 of 2021 & defendant, who are brothers, and their family members in respect of their family properties under a Registered Partition Deed vide

Document No.569/2005. Subsequently, the parties have also divided the properties in accordance with terms of the said partition deed. As per the said partition deed, plaintiff became owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 627.15 sq.yds and building with built up area of 23,921 sq.ft consisting of 34 rooms in first, second, third, fourth & fifth floors of the building “Hotel Dwaraka Paradise”.

Condition No.1 of the Partition Deed is relevant. As per condition

No.1, both parties agreed that the reception, lift, staircase and common area relating to schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ in the partition deed shall be treated as common property of both parties for a period of 10 years. After the completion of the 10 year period, plaintiff requested the defendant to partition the said reception, lift, staircase and common area relating to schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties of the partition deed, but the defendant did not respond. Then, the plaintiff addressed letters dated 21.02.2017 and 16.03.2018 to the defendant demanding partition of the common areas. The defendant gave reply but did not take up steps for partitioning the same.

Hence, the plaintiff filed above suit. 

6 IA No.1053 of 2023 in OS No.5233 of 2021

9.Defendant filed written statement, wherein he categorically admitted the averments of the plaint and also stated that he is willing for partition and stated that the partition should be done strictly in accordance with the partition deed by metes and bounds. 

10.On the basis of the above admissions by the defendant in his written statement, the plaintiff filed IA No.947 of 2022 under Order 12 Rule 6 (1) read with Section 151 CPC praying to pass decree basing on the admissions in the written statement. This Court by

Order dated 19.12.2022 allowed the said petition (IA No.947/2022) and consequently decreed the suit, thereby passing preliminary decree in the suit on the same day i.e., on 19.12.2022.

11.Subsequently, the petitioner/plaintiff filed IA No.1052/2023 under Oder 20 Rule 18 CPC praying to pass final decree. Along with the said petition, petitioner also filed the present petition i.e.,

IA No.1053/2023 under Order 26 Rule 13 CPC praying to appoint

advocate commissioner to partition the suit property by metes and bounds. This court, by Order dated 25.1.2024 appointed Sri

D.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Advocate as Commissioner. In its Order, this court directed the commissioner “to partition the suit schedule property into two parts namely 60% and 40% and allot 60% share to 7 IA No.1053 of 2023 in OS No.5233 of 2021 the petitioner/plaintiff and 40% share to the respondent/defendant in the suit schedule property as per the decree in the main suit.”

Thereafter, the advocate commissioner executed the commission warrant in the presence of both parties on 16.3.2024 and later filed the Commissioner Report along with Plan in this court on 3.4.2024.

12.Admittedly, partition of the properties had taken place between the parties in accordance with the Reg. Partition Deed

dated 569/2005. InClause No.1 of the Registered Partition Deed

(at page No.8), there was an understanding between the petitioner (referred to therein as ‘Third Part’) and respondent (referred to therein as ‘Second Part’) regarding the common areas. Clause No.1 is extracted hereunder: 

“1. It is agreed between the Second Part and Third Part that the Reception, Lift and Staircase and common area relating to Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ hereunder shall be treated as common property of the Second and Third Part for a period of Ten (10) years from the date of this Deed and after expiry of Ten (10) years, the Third Part is entitled to 60% of the common property and the Second Part is entitled for 40% of the common property.” (emphasis supplied)

13.Thus, as per the partition deed, the petitioner is entitled to 60% and respondent is entitled to 40% in the common property viz., Reception, Lift and Staircase. As already stated, both parties are willing to divide the common properties as per the said understanding in the Reg. Partition 8 IA No.1053 of 2023 in OS No.5233 of 2021

Deed and for that purpose Advocate­Commissioner was appointed. As per the commissioner report, the extent of the suit property (common areas) i.e., Reception, Lift and Staircase is 900.66 square feet. While so, the extent of the common areas as mentioned in the commission warrant is 1050 square feet. Thus, the extent of the common areas as per the measurements of the advocate commissioner is lesser than the extent as mentioned in the commission warrant. The Advocate­Commissioner divided the said extent of 900.66 square feet between the petitioner and respondent at the ratio of 60:40 and after thus dividing the common area, he made markings on the ground with paint to show the divisions. Now, according to the respondent, the advocate­commissioner did not measure the lift area. He stated that the measurement from lift to the reception counter as well as the measurements of the adjacent room (Accounts

Room) and the room under the staircase, are also taken by the advocate commissioner. Lift, adjacent room (Accounts Room) and the room under the staircase is obviously part and parcel of the common areas. If the areas covered by the lift, adjacent room (Accounts Room) and the room under the staircase are also measured, then the extent of the common areas may vary. The objection of the respondent to the effect that the advocate­ commissioner did not measure the lift area has also not been denied by 9 IA No.1053 of 2023 in OS No.5233 of 2021 the petitioner’s counsel. The respondent stated that the advocate­ commissioner measured only the reception and staircase. The petitioner’s counsel also fairly stated that lift area has to be measured by the advocate­ commissioner. In view of the said representation made by both parties, I am of the opinion that fresh measurements of the common area (suit property) has to be taken by advocate commissioner and for that purpose fresh commission warrant has to be issued for ascertaining the exact extent of the common area.

14.For the above reasons, I am of the view that the Objections raised by the respondent/defendant are sustainable. Point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, Sri D.Chandra Shekar Reddy, Advocate is re­ appointed as Commissioner to take measurements of the common area (consisting of the areas covered by Lift, Reception counter and staircase, as per Clause No.1 of the Reg. Partition Deed document

No.569/2005). The advocate­commissioner shall also take the measurements from lift to the reception counter, Room adjacent to the lift (Accounts Room) and the Room under the staircase separately. After taking the measurements and after arriving at the total extent of the common area (suit property), the same shall be 10 IA No.1053 of 2023 in OS No.5233 of 2021 divided into two parts in the ratio of 60% : 40% and shall allot 60% share to the petitioner/plaintiff and 40% share to the respondent/defendant. He shall also draw fresh markings in the suit property (common area) by clearly demarcating the share of each party separately. 

He shall execute the warrant in the presence of both parties. He shall also accept the work memos, if any, filed by the parties and shall execute the commission warrant accordingly.

The warrant shall be executed with the help of a licensed surveyor/civil engineer.

The commissioner’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/­ payable by both parties equally. The fees payable to the licensed surveyor/civil engineer shall also be born equally by both parties.

Call on 21.03.2025 for Commissioner’s Report. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and Pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th Day of February, 2025.

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

11 IA No.1053 of 2023 in OS No.5233 of 2021

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: NONE

FOR RESPONDENT: NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER: NIL

FOR RESPONDENT: NIL

 V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT:HYDERABAD

1 O.S.No. 4351 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT: SRI A. VENKATESWARA RAO,

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 4351 of 2022

BETWEEN:

Sri Pandikonda Janardhan S/o Sri Pandikonda Kashaiah, Age : 50 years, Occ : Maid Servant, R/o: Plot No.55­A, between Plot No.54 and 55, Sy.No.403/1, 120, 102/1,

Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiff.

And

1. Sri Endrakanti Srinu s/o Sri Endrakanti Ramachandrudu, Age about 45 years, Occ : Private Employee, R/o : H.No. 8­2­293/82/F/Plot No.A47, Road No.6, Beside FNCC in Gate, Film Nagar, Shaikpet, Hyderabad. Telangana State – 500 096.

2. All Concerned. ...Defendants.

This suit is coming on 19.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.H.Pannagasai, Advocate for the Plaintiff, Sri Kiran Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 remained exparte, having heard the counsel for plaintiff, having perused the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

1.The suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of property bearing Plot No.55/A consisting of a room and a 2 O.S.No. 4351 of 2022 bathroom between Plot No.54 and Plot No.55 admeasuring to an extent of 40 sq.yards in Sy.No’s. 403/1, 120/102/1 situated at Venkatagiri, Jubilee

Hills, Hyderabad ( “ Suit Schedule Property ”) and also for perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining the defendants, his agents, henchmen etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 

2.Plaint averments : Plaintiff is the peaceful possessor of the suit schedule property since last 30 years i.e., January 1992, till date in peaceful possession of the property without any hindrance whatsoever from whomsoever. It is submitted that in the month of January, 1992, the master of the Plaintiff, Sri N. Anoop Kumar, S/o. Sri Chandraiah Naidu, appointed the plaintiff and his wife as maid servants in his home and the plaintiff was taking care of the gardening work and other outdoor works and the wife of the plaintiff was entrusted with the household work. Since, then the plaintiff and his wife were staying in a room (out house) in the same premises beside their master's house. 

3. It is submitted that originally, the suit schedule property was given to the plaintiff as accommodation to stay therein permanently and serve their family at all times. The Plaintiff and his wife served his master and his family throughout their life and still the plaintiff and his wife are still 3 O.S.No. 4351 of 2022 continuing in the possession of the suit schedule property and working with them and serving them, for the past 30 years and since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with his family members for without any hindrance, interruption or objection by anyone from any corner whatsoever.

4.It is further submitted that the master of the Plaintiff has handed over the suit schedule property to an extent of 40 square yards which is adjacent to his property i.e., Plot No.55 and attached to the Sy. Nos 403/1,120,102/1 Plot No. 54 and Plot No. 55, which is under the possession of the plaintiff since the date of inception and handing over to the plaintiff in the month of January, 1992.

5.It is submitted that since past more than 30 years the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit schedule property and residing in the said property along with his family since acquiring the same from his boss/owner till date and no one raised any objection or interfered with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

6.It is submitted that the master of the plaintiff Mr. N. Anoop Kumar expired in the year 2018 and subsequently in the year 2020 his son Mr. N.

Ashwin Kumar also expired due to Corona. The Plaintiff further submits that after the demise of the plaintiff's master and his son, from few months 4 O.S.No. 4351 of 2022 the defendant No.1 herein without any right title or interest has been causing hindrance to the plaintiff and has been quarrelling with the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and has been falsely claiming right over the property without any documentary evidence or proof only to harass the plaintiff and to cause hindrance and harassing the plaintiff to grab the property.

7.It is submitted that the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years, and as per the principals of adverse possession, the plaintiff since January 1992, till date over the possession the plaintiff is claiming rights and title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. It is submitted that since the plaintiff have been in possession of the property without any hindrance in any manner whatsoever since last 30 years and also that none of them had come forward to claim the property since 1992 to till date, as such the plaintiff is entitled for and is claiming right and title over the property by way of adverse possession.

8. It is submitted that plaintiff has tried his best to settle the matter with the defendant No.1, but the defendant No.1 has been harassing the plaintiff and had been trying to illegally interfere and disposes the plaintiff from the property as such the plaintiff to safeguard his right and title has 5 O.S.No. 4351 of 2022 approached this Hon'ble Court and having no other alternative the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking Declaration to declare the plaintiff as the owner of the property and to grant perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. In support of his contention he relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M.Radheshyamlal Vs. V.Sandhya and another etc., [ Civil

Appeal Nos.4322­4324 of 2024 ].

9.After service of summons, Defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel, but failed to file written statement within the stipulated period of time, as such his right to file written statement is forfeited. Paper publication was issued calling for objections from All Concerned (defendant No.2) but nobody put forth any objections.

10.During trial of the suit, plaintiff himself examined as PW­1 and

Exs.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. Since defendants remained ex­parte, PW­1 was not cross­examined. No evidence was also adduced on behalf of the defendants, since they remained ex­parte. After conclusion of trial, plaintiff’s counsel submitted arguments and also filed citation. 

11.Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek declaration as sought for ?

6 O.S.No. 4351 of 2022

12. POINT :.To prove the averment that, the plaintiff is the peaceful possessor of the suit schedule property since last 30 years i.e., January 1992, till date in peaceful possession of the property without any hindrance whatsoever from whomsoever. The defendant No.1 without any right title or interest has been causing hindrance to the plaintiff and has been quarrelling with the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and has been falsely claiming right over the property without any documentary evidence or proof only to harass the plaintiff and to cause hindrance and harassing the plaintiff to grab the property. Plaintiff herein adduced oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiff himself got examined as PW­1. In his evidence he clearly stated that the he is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the suit schedule property for the last 30 years but the defendant No.1 who is no way concerned with the suit schedule property is trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession without any title or right.

13.The plaintiff has tried his best to settle the matter with the defendant No.1, but the defendant No.1 has been harassing the plaintiff and had been trying to illegally interfere and disposes the plaintiff from the property as such the plaintiff to safeguard his right and title has approached this Hon'ble Court and having no other alternative the 7 O.S.No. 4351 of 2022 plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking Declaration to declare the plaintiff as the owner of the property and to grant perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property

14.Ex.A6 is the certified copy of registered gift settlement deed

Doc.No.1380/1988 dated 23­07­1988 executed by N.Chandraiah Naidu in faovur of N.Anoop Kumar which clearly shows that the master of the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of gift settlement and after his expiry in the year 2018 and his son in the year 2020 the plaintiff is living in the suit schedule property without interruption from any corner. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and Ex.A7 are the Electricity

Bill dated 02­06­2022 , Voter ID card, Aadhar Card of plaintiff, House hold card, HP Gas bills ( Nos.9 )and Ex.A7 is the Encumbrance Certificate which clearly shows that the suit schedule property stands in the name of master of the plaintiff. The above documents also shows that plaintiff is living in the suit schedule property with out any interruption from any corner. 

15.The above documents namely Exs.A1 to Ex.A7 produced by plaintiffs would clearly show that the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years, and as per the 8 O.S.No. 4351 of 2022

principals of adverse possession, the plaintiff since January 1992, till date

over the possession the plaintiff is claiming rights and title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession without any hindrance in any manner whatsoever since last 30 years and also that none of them had come forward to claim the property since 1992 to till date, as such the plaintiff is entitled for claiming right and title over the property by way of adverse possession. Point is answered accordingly.

16.In the result, suit is decreed with cost as prayed for by declaring the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The suit is also decreed by granting Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, his agents, henchmen etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 

T yped to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of February, 2025.

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

9 O.S.No. 4351 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW­1: Pandikonda Janardhan.None

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Electricity bill dated 02­06­2022 issued in the name of N.Anup Kumar.

Ex.A2: Voter ID of plaintiff.

Ex.A3: Aadhar Card of plaintiff.

Ex.A4: Household card issued in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.A5: HP Gas bills ( Nos.9 ).

Ex.A6: CC of Reg. Gift settlement deed Doc.No.1380/1988 dated 23­07­1988.

Ex.A7: is the Encumbrance Certificate.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:

NIL

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT N. MANJULA,

III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2022.

OS.No.4404 OF 2021

Between:

1. Smt. Shiva Kala, W/o.Late Kasala Yadgiri, Aged about : 72 years, Occupation : Household, R/o.H.No.14-6-184, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad.

2. Kalvakunta Deepika Rani, W/o.K.Susil Kumar, D/o.Late Kasala Yadgiri, Aged about : 48 years, Occupation : Housewife, R/o.Flat No.402, Shiva Ganga Apartment, Laxmi Nagar, Beside GHMC Park, Rajendra Nagar, R.R.District.

3. Satish, S/o.Late Kasala Yadgiri, Aged about : 41 years, Occupation : Pvt. Service, R/o.H.No.14-6-184, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad.

4. Santosh Kasala, S/o.Late Kasala Yadgiri, Aged about : 40 years, Occupation : Pvt. Service, R/o.H.No.14-6-184, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad.

5. K.Kavitha, W/o.Sunil Gunthaplli, D/o.Late Kasala Yadgiri, Aged about : 39 years, Occupation : Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-4-313, Joshiwadi, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiffs

A N D

1. The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Office,

2 O.S.No.4404 of 2021

Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad.

2. All concerned …Defen- dants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Dinesh Jaiswal, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants No.1 and 2 called absent and set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered following : -

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for declaration to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of Late Kalasa Yadgiri.

2. That the plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Late Kalasa Yad- giri and the plaintiff No.2 is the eldest daughter and the plain- tiffs 3 and 4 are the sons and the plaintiff No.5 is the youngest daughter of Late Kasala Yadgiri. That Late Kasala Yadgiri, S/ o.Late Kasala Laxmaiah expired on 30.10.2014 and the place of residence as mentioned in the death certificate is H.No.14-6- 184, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad by leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only surviving legal heirs. After the death of Late Kasala

Yadgiri, the plaintiffs have obtained the death certificates and approached the defendants office on number of times and re-

3 O.S.No.4404 of 2021

quested to issue legal heir certificate as they require the same, but the defendants office used to postpone the same on one pretext or the other and finally on the plaintiff No.4 ap- proached the defendant No.1 office on 26.10.2021 and orally requested that they require legal heir certificate, upon which the defendants orally stated that the legal heirs certificate will be issued by the Government servants, hence directed the plaintiffs to approach appropriate civil Court for obtaining the legal heirs certificate, as such the plaintiffs herein have filed this present suit to declare them as the legal heirs of deceased

Kate Kasala Yadgiri only for the purpose of legal status only.

3.It is further submitted that to show the legal status of the plaintiffs that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and no other legal heirs except the above mentioned plaintiffs and as such the documents evidencing the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased filed herein. The deceased was the

Head member of the family and the family members of the de- ceased were depended on the benefits of the deceased only, hence to enjoy all the benefits as per law, it is required to de-

4 O.S.No.4404 of 2021

clare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of Late Kasala Yadgiri for the purpose of legal status. Hence, the plaintiff are constrained to file the present suit for declaration of legal heirs. Hence this suit.

4.Summons were served on defendants 1 and 2. Coun- sel for the plaintiff filed memo alongwith proof of publication for defendant No.2 ie., “All Concerned” None were appeared.

No objections were received. Hence defendant No.2 is set ex- parte. Summons were served on the defendant No.1 i.e., Man- dal Revenue Officer, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad. Service held to be sufficient. No representation for defendant No.1.

Hence the defendant No.1 was set exparte.

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff No.3 exam- ined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. Ex.A1 is the original aadhar card of plaintiff No.1, Ex.A2 is the is the original aadhar card of plaintiff No.2, Ex.A3 is the original aad- har card of plaintiff No.3, Ex.A4 is the original aadhar card of plaintiff No.4, Ex.A5 is the original aadhar card of plaintiff

No.5, Ex.A6 is the original death certificate of Late Kasala Yad-

5 O.S.No.4404 of 2021

giri, Ex.A7 is the original household of Lat Kasala Yadgiri, Ex.A8 is the original Board of Secondary Education Certificate of

Plaintiff No.2, Ex.A9 is the original Board of Secondary Educa- tion Certificate of Plaintiff No.3, Ex.A10 is the original Board of

Secondary Education Certificate of Plaintiff No.4, Ex.A11 is the original Board of Secondary Education Certificate of Plaintiff

No.5.

6.Heard learned counsel for plaintiffs and perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point for determination :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

8.POINT :

The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Late Kalasa Yadgiri and the plaintiff No.2 is the el- dest daughter and the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the sons and the plaintiff No.5 is the youngest daughter of Late Kasala Yadgiri

6 O.S.No.4404 of 2021

and the present suit is filed to declare them as surviving legal heirs of the deceased Late Kalasa Yadgiri.

9.After the death of Late Kasala Yadgiri, they have ob- tained the death certificates and approached the defendants office on number of times and requested to issue legal heir cer- tificate as they require the same, but the defendants office used to postpone the same on one pretext or the other and fi- nally the plaintiff No.4 approached the defendant No.1 office on 26.10.2021 and orally requested that they required legal heir certificates upon which the defendants orally stated that the legal heirs certificates will be issued only to the Govern- ment Servants, hence directed us to approach appropriate civil

Court, as such they have filed the present suit to declare them as the legal heirs of deceased Late Kasala Yadagiri only for the purpose of legal status only.

10.In order to substantiate the claim of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.3 examined himself as P.W.1 and filed his chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief by reiterating the con- tents in the plaint. In order to substantiate his contentions, he

7 O.S.No.4404 of 2021

is relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A11 documents.

Ex.A1 is the original aadhar card of plaintiff No.1, Ex.A2 is the is the original aadhar card of plaintiff No.2, Ex.A3 is the original aadhar card of plaintiff No.3, Ex.A4 is the original aadhar card of plaintiff No.4, Ex.A5 is the original aadhar card of plaintiff

No.5, Ex.A6 is the original death certificate of Late Kasala Yad- giri, Ex.A7 is the original household card of Late Kasala Yadgiri,

Ex.A8 is the original Board of Secondary Education Certificate of Plaintiff No.2, Ex.A9 is the original Board of Secondary Edu- cation Certificate of Plaintiff No.3, Ex.A10 is the original Board of Secondary Education Certificate of Plaintiff No.4, Ex.A11 is the original Board of Secondary Education Certificate of Plain- tiff No.5.

11.On perusal of the Exs.A1 to A5 are the original aad- har card of plaintiffs 1 to 5 showing their relationship with the deceased Late Kasala Yadgiri. Ex.A8 to A11 are the original

Board of Secondary Education Certificates of plaintiffs 2 to 5 wherein they shows that they are the children of Late Kasala

Yadgiri.

8 O.S.No.4404 of 2021

12.The evidence of the P.W.1 coupled with the docu- ments under Exs.A1 to A5 and A8 to A11 are clearly estab- lishes that the plaintiff No.1, i.e., Shiva Kala is the wife of Late

Kasala Yadgiri, that the plaintiff No.2 by name Deepika Rani is the daughter of Late Kasala Yadgiri, plaintiff No.3 by name

Satish is the son of Late Kasala Yadgiri, plaintiff No.4 by name

Santosh Kasala is the son of Late Kasala Yadgiri, plaintiff No.5 by name K.Kavitha is the youngest daughter of Late Kasala

Yadgiri.

13.On the other hand, the defendants failed to contest the matter, so an adverse inference can be drawn out against the defendants for not contesting the matter. Moreover, this court did not receive any objections from the public with re- gard to the claim of the plaintiffs. There is no rebuttal evi- dence against the claim of the plaintiffs. Hence the claim of the plaintiffs are successfully proved.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring the plaintiffs 1 to 5 as the legal heirs of Late Kasala Yadgiri, S/

9 O.S.No.4404 of 2021

o.Late Kasala Laxmaiah for legal status only. There is no order as to cost.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of May, 2022.

sd/-

III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: PW1 : Satish Kasala,

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff s :

Ex.A1Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.1

Ex.A2Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.2

Ex.A3Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.3

Ex.A4Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.4

Ex.A5Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.5

Ex.A6Original death certificate of Late Kasala Yadgiri

Ex.A7Original household card of Late Kasala Yadgiri

Ex.A8Original Board of Secondary Education Certificate of plaintiff No.2

Ex.A9Original Board of Secondary Education Certificate of plaintiff No.3

ExA10Original Board of Secondary Education Certificate of plaintiff No.4

Ex.A11Original Board of Secondary Education Certificate of plaintiff No.5

sd/-

III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

Page No.1 EP.No.1004/2023

IN THE COURT OF V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :

HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT: SRI A. VENKATESWARA RAO,

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

E.P.No. 1004 of 2023

IN

OS.No. 2496 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Pallineni Kishore S/o P.Venkatesh, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Flat No.502, Sri Balaji Residency, Gayatri Nagar, Srinivas Colony (East), Ameerpet, Hyderabad. …Decree holder.

AND

1. Eswaravaka Venkata Krishna Reddy S/o Venkataiah Eswaravaka, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o : Flat No.503, Sai Bhargavi Residency­Swetha Apartments, H.No.7­1­619/A/22, Srinivasa Nagar Colony East, Gayatri Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,Telangana­038. Also at D.No.7­2­619/A/10, Flat No.201, Naina Apartments, Srinivasa Nagar Colony East, Gayatri Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State – 500 038.

2. Mr.Surya B.Viriyala@Viriyala Sree Surya, S/o Sri Venkat Rao, Aged about 54 years, Occ : Business, R/o:H.No.12­5­102/1a, Sardar Patel Nagar, Bharath Nagar Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. ...Judgment debtors. (Jdr No.2 is formal party. No relief is Sought against Jdr No.2)

Page No.2 EP.No.1004/2023

This EP is coming on 04.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Rambabu, counsel for the Decree holder and of Sri

G.L.Narsimha, Counsel for the Judgment debtor No.1, upon hearing both the counsels, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1. This Execution Petition is filed by the decree holder under Order 21

Rule 37 and 38 of CPC, Order 21 Rule 43 CPC, Order 21 Rule 54 CPC and

Order 21 Rule 64 CPC for realization of the decretal amount of

Rs.7,84,600/­.

2. Decree holder stated in the affidavit which is filed in the E.P. that he filed the suit vide OS.No.2496/2020 for eviction and arrears of rent against the judgment debtors. Prior to the filing of the suit, the judgment debtor No.1 filed suit for injunction vide OS.No.1053/2020 against the judgment debtor No.2. The Judgment debtor No.1 also filed another suit for injunction against the decree holder vide OS.No.1269/2020. This court by common judgment dated 24­03­2022 rendered in all the above three suits, dismissed the injunction suits namely OS.No.1053/2020 and

OS.No.1269/2020 and decreed the eviction suit vide OS.No.2496/2020 

Page No.3 EP.No.1004/2023 directing the judgment debtor No.1 to vacate the suit property within one month and to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.2,62,000/­ to the decree holder within one month.

3. It is submitted that subsequently since the Judgment debtor No.1 did not vacate the premises and also refused to pay the rent to the decree holder, the decree holder filed EP.No.473/2022 under Order 21 Rule 36

CPC and this court issued delivery warrant on 14­07­2022. Subsequently, the said delivery warrant was executed and the said EP was terminated on 01­08­2022. But, it is averred that, judgment debtor No.1 did not pay the arrears of rent, as directed by this court. Hence, the decree holder filed the present EP.

4. It is submitted that the arrears of rent as ordered by this court for the period from March, 2020 to October, 2020 is Rs.2,62,000/­. The rent for the subsequent period from November, 2020 to June, 2022 comes to

Rs.5,00,000/­ and the suit costs is calculated at Rs.22,600/­. In total, the judgment debtor No.1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,84,600/­ to the decree holder. It is submitted that the judgment debtor No.1 is presently residing in the address mentioned in the cause title. Judgment debtor No.1 is also 

Page No.4 EP.No.1004/2023 the owner of the EP schedule immovable properties. Hence, the decree holder requested this court to issue warrant against the judgment debtor

No.1 under the aforementioned provision.

5. Counter has been filed by the judgment debtor No.1, wherein he denied each and every averment made by the decree holder. Judgment debtor No.1 stated that after this court passed the decree in

OS.No.2496/2020, he preferred appeal vide ASSR No. 13564/2024 and

the same is posted for hearing on 20­09­2024. It is submitted that when the appeal is pending, it is not proper to proceed with the execution proceedings. Therefore, the EP is not maintainable. It is further stated that the property at Nellore is the joint family property and the judgment debtor No.1 is not having individual rights and there is also dispute between the joint family members since last three years in respect of the said property and it may lead to filing of suit. Therefore, the judgment debtor No.1 requested to dismiss the EP.

6. During the course of enquriy, learned counsel for the decree holder advanced arguments. On behalf of the judgment debtor No.1 no body submitted arguments. Hence the arguments of the judgment debtor No.1 was treated as heard.

Page No.5 EP.No.1004/2023

7. Now the point for consideration is whether the attachment warrant sought for by the decree holder can be issued against the judgment debtor No.1?

8. POINT : From a perusal of the certified copy of the common judgment

dated 24­03­2022 rendered by this court in OS.No.1053/2020,

OS.No.1269/2020 and OS.No. 2496/2020, it is clear that this court

disposed off all those suits on merits. As could be seen from the result portion of the judgment, it is clear that this court dismissed the injunction suits and partly decreed the eviction suit (OS.No.2496/2020). Under the said judgment said decree, the judgment debtor No.1 was directed to vacate the suit premises within one month. Further, as per clause 3 of the decree, the judgment debtor No.1 was also directed to pay a sum of

Rs.2,62,000/­ being arrears of rent and maintenance charges for the period from March, 2020 to October, 2020 to the plaintiff within one month from today. It appears from record that subsequently the decree holder filed EP.No.473/2022 and obtained delivery warrant and the said delivery warrant was also executed. As a result, the plaintiff was able to obtain the possession of the EP schedule property from the judgment debtor No.1. 

Page No.6 EP.No.1004/2023

9. Insofar as the second relief with respect to the arrears of rent is concerned, as already stated, this court directed the judgment debtor No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,62,000/­ being arrears of rent and maintenance charges for the period from March, 2020 to October, 2020, together with suit costs to the decree holder. Thus, the decree holder is now entitled to seek enforcement of the said portion of the decree also in regard to the arrears of rent and costs. Since the decree is silent with respect to the future rents from November 2022 onwards, in my opinion, the decree holder is not entitled to file the present EP seeking the arrears of rents from November, 2022 onwards till the date of filing of the EP. In other words, the decree holder is entitled to seek enforcement of the decreetal order only insofar as it directed the judgment debtor No.1 to pay

Rs.2,62,000/­ to the decree holder. Since the judgment debtor No.1 failed to pay the said amount of Rs.2,62,000/­ towards arrears of rent for the period from March, 2020 to October, 2020 as well as the suit costs, I am of the opinion that the decree holder is entitled to seek enforcement of the decree to that extent.

10. Now, according to the learned counsel for the judgment debtor

No.1, since he preferred appeal challenging the common judgment passed 

Page No.7 EP.No.1004/2023 by this court, the EP is not maintainable. But, it is settled law that mere pendency of appeal does not prevent the executing court from proceeding further in the EP. Unless the proceedings in the EP are stayed by the

Hon’ble appellate court, the executing court is bound to proceed with the

EP. In the instant case, admittedly, no stay was granted by the appellate court as on today. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the decree holder is entitled to maintain the present EP and this court is bound to pass appropriate order in the EP. I, therefore, see no force in this contention which is raised on behalf of the judgment debtor No.1.

11. The next contention of the judgment debtor No.1 is that the EP schedule immovable property is the joint family property and that he has no individual rights over the suit property and therefore no warrant can be issued against the suit property. But, except raising the said oral contention that EP schedule immovable property is a joint family property, the judgment debtor No.1 did not produce any scrap of paper in this court to prove the said contention. Therefore, this contention also must be rejected.

12. For the above reasons, this court is of the opinion that the decree holder is entitled to seek the relief as sought for in the present EP. Point is answered accordingly.

Page No.8 EP.No.1004/2023

13. In the result, Issue attachment warrant against the Judgment debtor

No.1 in respect of EP schedule movables as well as immovable properties on payment of process.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th Day of February,

2025.

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR DECREE HOLDER : NONE

FOR JUDGMENT DEBTOR No.1: NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR DECREE HOLDER : NIL

FOR JUDGMENT DEBTOR No.1 : NIL

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

Page No. 1 O.S.No. 991 Of 2023

IN THE COURT OF V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :

HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT: SRI A. VENKATESWARA RAO,

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

O.S.No. 991 of 2023

BETWEEN:

Mr. D. Venkateswara Rao, S/o: D. Rambux Aged: 60, Occupation. Retd. IAS officer, R/o Flat No.101, Lakshmi's Pride Apartments, Siva Nagar, Hyderguda, Attapur, P.V Expressway, Pillar No. 155, Rajendra Nagar, Hydrerabad­48,

Telangana State.....Plaintiff

AND

1. M/S. Greenland Beverages, Rep by Mr. Dwaram Madhava Reddy, R/o Dhulipalas Uma Nilayam, Plot No­ F43, Door No.7­1­F­43, 1st floor, Panchavatı Colony, Manikonda, R.R District, Hyderabad­89. And Having their registered office at H.No 7­34/W/24, Flat No­2A, White Water Apartment, Raidurga, Gachibowlı, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad­32,

2. M/S. Greenland Beverages, Rep by. Smt. B. Venkata Ratnam R/o Door No. 26­34­9/A, 9th Line at Agraharam, Guntur 

District, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh­522 003. ...Defendants.

This suit is coming on 17.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Dr.Sireesh Anumula, Counsel for the Plaintiff and

Defendants No.1 and 2 remained ex­parte; upon hearing the counsel, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

Page No. 2 O.S.No. 991 Of 2023

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,00,023/­ with future interest @12% per annum from the date which was agreed by the defendant and future interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of its realization. 

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows: Defendants are a

Beverages Company which is represented by Mr. Dwaram Madhava Reddy and Smt. B. Venkata Ratnam. And are engaged into the distribution of alcoholic beverages in the Government Corporation depots. It is submitted that both the Plaintiff's Sons and the Defendants have entered into a

Principal Promoters Agreement For Six(6) Depots of Telangana State. The

Said Agreement was made and executed on 27th June 2019.

3. It is submitted that the Defendants have requested the Plaintiff to lend them a sum of Rs 18,00,000/­(Eighteen Lakhs Only) as a loan for interest @12% per annum, and Defendant has promised to return the amount at the earliest. It is submitted that as the Plaintiff and the

Defendants were closely acquainted as the Defendants and the Plaintiff's

Sons were doing business together, basing upon that trust, Plaintiff has decided to lend Defendant the sum of Rs.18,00,000/­(Eighteen Lakhs

Only) for interest @12% per annum.

Page No. 3 O.S.No. 991 Of 2023

4. It is further submitted that on 26­07­2019 Plaintiff transferred an amount of Rs.18,00,023/­(Eighteen Lakhs twenty­three rupees only/­) from his State Bank of India Savings account, Account No. 20129310837 through RTGS UTR No. SBIN41920789940700000000000, to Defendant's account. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has requested the Defendants to pay back the loan with the interest after a year. But the Defendants have vehemently ignored Plaintiff's requests.

5. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has reminded and requested

Defendants multiple times to repay the entire amount of 18,00,023/­along with 12% interest which was promised by the Defendants. But the

Defendants have disregarded the request of the Plaintiff. It is further submitted as the Defendants were not responding Plaintiff sent a Legal

Notice on 05­07­2022, in which he asked the Defendants to repay the entire amount with 12% interest. It is submitted that as the Defendants are not responding nor paying the remaining amount the Plaintiff is left with no other alternative efficacious remedy and is constrained to file this suit for recovery of money. In those circumstances, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

6.Record shows that the suit summons of defendant No.1 was returned unserved with an endorsement as unclaimed. Service held

Page No. 4 O.S.No. 991 Of 2023 sufficient upon the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 failed to enter his appearance, he was set exparte. Defendant No.2 is avoiding to receive summons as such this court ordered paper publication, no representation for defendant No.2, therefore he was set exparte.

7.During trial of the suit, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Since the defendants remained ex­parte, PW­1 was not cross examined and no evidence was also adduced by defendants.

After conclusion of trial, plaintiff’s counsel submitted his arguments.

Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is

entitled to seek decree in respect of the suit amount ?

POINT :

8.The suit is filed for recovery of money by the plaintiff on the basis of loan amount transaction between the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff’s case is that defendants are a Beverages Company which is represented by Mr. Dwaram Madhava Reddy and Smt. B. Venkata

Ratnam. And are engaged into the distribution of alcoholic beverages in the Government Corporation depots. It is submitted that both the

Plaintiff's Sons and the Defendants have entered into a Principal

Promoters Agreement For Six(6) Depots of Telangana State. The Said

Agreement was made and executed on 27th June 2019.

Page No. 5 O.S.No. 991 Of 2023

9. It is submitted that the Defendants have requested the Plaintiff to lend them a sum of Rs 18,00,000/­(Eighteen Lakhs Only) as a loan for interest @12% per annum, and Defendant has promised to return the amount at the earliest. It is submitted that as the Plaintiff and the

Defendants were closely acquainted as the Defendants and the Plaintiff's

Sons were doing business together, basing upon that trust, Plaintiff has decided to lend Defendant the sum of Rs.18,00,000/­(Eighteen Lakhs

Only) for interest @12% per annum.

10. It is further submitted that on 26­07­2019 Plaintiff transferred an amount of Rs.18,00,023/­(Eighteen Lakhs twenty­three rupees only/­) from his State Bank of India Savings account, Account No. 20129310837 through RTGS UTR No. SBIN41920789940700000000000, to Defendant's account. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has requested the Defendants to pay back the loan with the interest after a year. But the Defendants have vehemently ignored Plaintiff's requests.

11. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has reminded and requested

Defendants multiple times to repay the entire amount of 18,00,023/­along with 12% interest which was promised by the Defendants. But the

Defendants have disregarded the request of the Plaintiff. It is further submitted as the Defendants were not responding Plaintiff sent a Legal

Page No. 6 O.S.No. 991 Of 2023

Notice on 05­07­2022, in which he asked the Defendants to repay the entire amount with 12% interest. It is submitted that as the Defendants are not responding nor paying the remaining amount the Plaintiff is left with no other alternative efficacious remedy and is constrained to file this suit for recovery of money. In those circumstances, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

12.The plaintiff himself examined in this court as PW­1. PW­1 in his evidence clearly reiterated the above facts. In support of the said oral evidence of PW­1, the plaintiff produced some more documents i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is the bank statement which clearly shows that the defendants are due an outstanding amount i.e., suit amount. Ex.A2 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 05­07­2022 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants which clearly shows that inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff to the defendants, but they failed to pay the suit amount, as such plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 legal notice through registered post vide Ex.A4 postal receipts dated 05­07­2022. Ex.A3 returned postal covers dated 14­07­2022 which clearly shows that the legal notice Ex.A2 was returned unserved and there was no response from the defendants. Ex.A5 is the CC of the deed of principal promoters

Page No. 7 O.S.No. 991 Of 2023 agreement for depots of Telangana State dated 27­06­2019. The documents which are filed on behalf of the plaintiff referred to supra, especially Ex.A1 bank statement, therefore clearly supports the case of the plaintiff. Since the defendants did not choose to contest the suit, the above oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff remained unrebutted. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled for a decree for the suit amount. Point is answered accordingly.

13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.18,00,023/­ to the plaintiff together with interest@12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree and future interest @6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of its realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th Day of February, 2025.

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW­1 : D.Venkateswara Rao. None

Page No. 8 O.S.No. 991 Of 2023

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 Bank statement for the month of July, 2019 dated 22­07­2022.

Ex.A2 Office copy of the legal notice dated 05­07­2022.

Ex.A3 Returned postal covers (Nos.2) dated 14­07­2022.

Ex.A4 Postal receipts (Nos.3) dated 05­07­2022.

Ex.A5 CC of the deed of principal Promotors Agreement for depots of 

Telangana State dated 27­06­2019.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:

 NIL

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD