Smt.B.Pushpalatha

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT.B.PUSHPALATHA

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DIST. AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 17 th day of April, 2019

O.S. No. 1412 of 2011

BETWEEN:-

Ch.Laxmi W/o. Ch.Murali, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Flat no. 205, Sri Vinayaka Towers, Near II Town Police Station, Ramgiri, Nalgonda. .…. Plaintiff AND

Chandha Sudershan S/o. Ch.Laxmaiah, Aged about 47yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no.6-6-16/A, Flat no. 16, Phase – II,

Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. ….. Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri.A. Venkat Reddy Advocate for the

Plaintiff and the Sri.C.Rajeshwar Reddy, Advocate for

Defendant and having stood over for consideration

till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to direct the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2)The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff has purchased commercial shop cum residential house bearing no. 6-6-16, western part, admeasuring 53.60sq.yds situated at Phase – II,

Vanasthalipuram, Sahebnagar, L.B.Nagar Municipality, R.R.District vide registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 8638 of 1995 dt. 12.07.1995 and since the date of purchase, she has been in possession of the said property. The defendant who is none other than the brother-in-law of plaintiff has also purchased commercial shop cum residential house bearing no. 6-6-16/A eastern part, admeasuring 53.60 sq.yds situated at

Phase – II, Vanasthalipuram, Sahebnagar, L.B.nagar Municipality,

R.R.District (hereinafter called as suit schedule property) through registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 8639 of 1995 dt. 12.07.1995 and does Kirana Business in the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the defendant offered to sell the semi finished first floor of his property with terrace rights and undivided share of land admeasuring 27sq.yds to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.1,69,000/- and plaintiff agreed for the same and purchased the same vide registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 5798 of 2004 dt. 08.04.2004. That after purchasing the suit schedule property, the plaintiff got mutated her name in revenue records, electricity department and water department and has been paying electricity bills and water bills regularly. As the defendant is a relative of plaintiff, the plaintiff permitted the defendant to continue his Kirana Shop business in the suit schedule property and the defendant has been paying reasonable amount for use and occupation of 27sq.yds of ground floor sold to the plaintiff. That when the plaintiff started construction in the first floor of the suit schedule property along with her own premises, on 14.11.2010, the defendant, his wife and son objected the plaintiff from using the staircase leading to the first floor of the suit premises.

When the plaintiff approached the defendant and enquired for their interference, the defendant informed that he wanted to re-convey the suit schedule property as the prices increased abnormally, for which the plaintiff refused. Since then the defendant and his men started harassing the plaintiff for re-conveyance of the suit premises in favour of defendant and prevented the plaintiff from going ahead with construction on the terrace of the suit schedule property. The defendant with an ulterior motive has filed a false suit in OS no. 683 of 2011 on the file of VII Addl.

Sr. Civil Judge, R.R.District L.B.Nagar. The plaintiff is put to heavy monetary loss due to unlawful interference of the defendant in construction on the terrace of the suit schedule property. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

3)Defendant filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint and admitted the ownership of plaintiff over House bearing no.6-6- 16, western part, admeasuring 53.60sq.yds situated at Phase – II,

Vanasthalipuram, Sahebnagar, L.B.nagar Municipality, R.R.District and his purchasing suit schedule property and denied other contents of plaint. The defendant contended that he raised pillars and completed construction with RCC roof on the Terrace of his ground floor to an extent of 432sft and he offered to sell his first floor to an extent of 432sft and the husband of plaintiff agreed to purchase the said first floor premises and both entered into an agreement of sale on 10.12.2003.

That thereafter as per the instructions of the plaintiff’s husband, the defendant executed a registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 5798 of 2004 dt. 08.04.2004 in favour of the plaintiff to an extent of 432sft and first floor. The husband of plaintiff got prepared the document by sighting undivided share of 27sq.yds and as the husband of plaintiff is none other than the brother of defendant, the defendant believed the husband of plaintiff and signed on the sale deed and taking advantage of the said sale deed, the plaintiff is trying to enter into second floor of terrace and disturb the peaceful possession of the defendant’s house,

Kirana shop, as such, the defendant has filed OS no. 683 of 2011 for cancellation of sale deed no. 5798 of 2004 against the petitioner on 15.04.2011. Thereafter the plaintiff agreed to return 21sq.yds to the defendant through registered sale deed with her own expenses on or

before 16.04.2011 and the plaintiff executed an agreement, thereafter,

the plaintiff failed to return 21sq.yds of land and filed the present case against the defendant and at last prayed to dismiss the suit.

4)Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner and title holder of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 5798 of 2004

dt. 08.04.2004 as averred in the plaint?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed in the plaint?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed in the plaint?

4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is counter blast to the suit of defendant i.e., OS no. 683 of 2011 on the file of this court?

5.Whether the plaintiff herself is trying to interfere in the property of the defendant?

6.To what other relief?

5)To prove her case, plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A13. In support of the contention of PW1, plaintiff examined her husband Murali as PW2. After closure of the evidence on the side of plaintiff, Defendant examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 during cross examination of PW1 and Ex.B2 and B3 on his behalf.

6)Heard both sides, perused the material placed on record.

Written arguments filed by the plaintiff.

7)ISSUES no.1 to 3: In order to prove the case plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked ExA1 to A13 and Ex.B1 is marked by defendants in the cross examination of PW1 and after closing the evidence on side of plaintiff defendantexamined himself as DW1 and marked ExB2 and B3 on his behalf.

8)As per the averments of the plaint and the chief affidavit of

PW1, is admitted fact that the defendant is the brother-in law of the plaintiff, it is stated by plaintiff that she purchased commercial shop-cum- house bearing no. 6-6-16 western part admeasuring 53.60sq.yds in survey no 201 situated at phase-II, Vanastalipuram, Sahebnagar, L. B.

Nagar municipality R.R.Dist through Ex.A1 registered sale deed bearing no.8638 of 1995 dt.12-07-1995 from her vendor Smt Yousuf Begum and since then plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment of the said property. Plaintiff further stated in the plaint as well as in the evidence affidavit that the defendant who is the brother of her husband also purchased commercial-shop-cum residential house bearing no. 6-6-16/A eastern part admeasuring 53.60 sq yard in survey no 201, situated at phase-II, Vanastalipuram, Sahebnagar, L.B. Nagar Municipality R.R.Dist through Ex.A2 registered sale deed bearing no. 8639 of 1995 dt.12-7- 1995 from same vendor Smt Yousuf Begum.

9)Both plaintiff and the defendant had no dispute regarding purchase of the commercial-cum residential house. It is also admitted by the defendant, both in the chief examination affidavit as well as in the cross examination that he offered to sell his portion i.e undivided share land which is part and parcel admeasuring 27 sq.yards or 22.57 sq.mtrs on eastern part commercial-shop-cum-flat of the house bearing no 6-6- 16/A on eastern part, ground floor and open terrace of first floor semi finished consisting plinth area of 432sft, in survey no 201, to plaintiff.

PW2 who is the husband and brother of the defendant has categorically admitted about the purchasing of the suit schedule property as in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Admittedly all the three witnesses examined have admitted about the sale and purchase of the suit schedule property.

10)However defendant admitted only part of the sale and denied the other part of the sale under Ex.A3. As per the averments of the defendant the husband of plaintiff has prepared the sale deed under

Ex.A3 and according to the said document the defendant has sold undivided share of land which is part and parcel of land admeasuring 27 sq.yds or 22.57 sq.mtrs on eastern part commercial-shop-cum-flat of the house bearing no 6-6-16/A eastern part, ground floor and open terrace of first floor semi finished plinth area 432 sft, in survey no 201, to plaintiff for a sale consideration 1,69,000/- under a registered document Ex.A3.

Basing on the Ex.A3, plaintiff has got mutated her name in the record of the municipal corporation of Hyderabad for assessment of the property.

11)It is the contention of the defendant that he was not intending to sell undivided share of land i.e land asmeasuring 27sq.yds and that the defendant was unaware of the fact about the contents of document under Ex.A3 which was prepared by the husband of the plaintiff as both the plaintiff and her husband PW2 are his brother and sister-in law respectively, and the defendant believing the plaintiff and her husband, signed on Ex.A3.

12)Admittedly both the plaintiff and defendant categorically stated that defendant filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed bearing document no. 5798 of 2004 dt.08-04-2004 vide OS no 683 of 2011 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, R,R Dist. On perusal of the record the said suit was dismissed for default dt. 30.10.2016. Further, no steps were taken by the defendant since the date of dismissal of said suit. Hence as on the date, Ex.A3 holds good in the eye of law wherein defendant has offered to sell the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has purchased said property after paying the total sale consideration to the defendant. Even as per defendant’s evidence also, it is established that the suit property was sold and the same was mutated in the name of the plaintiff. Basing on the document under Ex.A3, defendant alleged that the plaintiff has entered into an understanding under Oppanda

Patram dt.15-04-2011 before the elders. According to which, the plaintiff agreed to return 21sq.yards to the defendant out of 27 sq yards.

13)Both plaintiff and the defendant agreed about the execution of the Oppanda Patram dt.15-04-2011. Defendant further stated that plaintiff agreed to register the said document on her own costs. Plaintiff denied the same. PW2 who is the husband of plaintiff and the brother of defendant and a witness to Ex.B1, categorically admitted in the cross examination that it was agreed to return 21sq.yards to defendant.

14)As per Sec. 47 of Registration Act, a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made and not from the date of its registration. In the instant case, Ex.A3 is the registered document and it is in force as on the date of executing and unregistered agreement under Ex.B1. Even as per Sec. 17(g) of

Registration Act, agreement of sale of any immovable property valuing of Rs.100/- and upwards must be registered. It is admitted by PW1 and

PW2 and the defendant that they have merely entered into an agreement which is not registered for which PW2 is a witness.

Admittedly Ex.B1 was marked in the cross examination of PW1 by the commissioner. On perusal of the document, there is a deficit stamp duty. As per Sec. 35 of Indian Stamp Act, no instrument chargeable with stamp duty shall be admitted in the evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of the parties. In view of Sec. 35 of

Indian Stamp Act, though Ex.B1 is marked by Commissioner during the cross examination of PW1, is not admissible in evidence.

15)It is an admitted fact that both plaintiff and defendant have entered into an agreement of sale under Ex.A3 wherein the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property shown in Ex.A3.

It is also seen from the evidence and the defence taken by the defendant that there was a subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the reconveyance of 21sq.yds to the defendant out of 27sq.yds. Accordingly, as per the principle laid down if the subsequent document is registered and conveyed the possession of the suit schedule property, then in that case, the first agreement becomes voidable. As per Sec. 62 of the Indian Contract Act, if the parties to the contract, agrees to substitute a new contract for it or to resined or alter it the original contract need be performed. In the instant case, the original contract has already been performed but the subsequent Oppanda

Patram dt. 15.04.2011 does not reflect any reasons or grounds about the resined and also about the previous agreement under Ex.A3.

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that mere entering into an

Oppanda Patram i.e., an undertaking does not confer any right by vitiating the rights under Ex.A3. Even otherwise, the said document under Ex.B1 is not admissible as it is neither an agreement nor a substitute new contract, it is merely an undertaking wherein the plaintiff has agreed to register the same on her own costs. The non performance of the said undertaking does not declare Ex.A3 as void.

Therefore, the plea of the defendant about re-conveyance of 21sq.yds out of 27sq.yds cannot be taken into consideration basing on the undertaking under Ex.B1.

16)It is well settled principle that when dealing with transfer of immovable property that an immovable property shall be transferred only through a registered document where the value of the immovable property is more than Rs100/- admittedly defendant claims his title over the suit property through an undertaking. Admittedly there is no document in favour of defendant in respect of suit schedule property.

17)In the instant case though defendant pleaded that plaintiff has agreed to return 21sq yards as per the Oppanda Patram dt.15-04-2011, but failed to establish title of the defendant hence it can be safely concluded that registered document under ExA3 is valid and the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit property since the date of purchasing suit schedule property and is in peaceful possession and enoyment. Hence these issues are answered accordingly.

18)ISSUES NO. 4 to 6: In the instant case defendant pleaded that a case was filed vide OS no.683 of 11 on the file of VII

Senior Civil Judge, R.R Dist, seeking Cancellation of the document

no.5798 of 2004 dt 08-04-2004 under Ex A3 and mandatory injunction against plaintiff. On perusal of the record said suit was dismissed for default on 30.10.2016.

19)Admittedly both the defendant and the plaintiff did not choose to lead evidence in this regard. Defendant only pleaded about the filing of the suit against plaintiff. Therefore the pleadings with regard to filing of the suit cannot be considered. Plaintiff pleaded that the defendant has tried to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendant along with his wife and son obstructed from construction of first floor viz house no 6-6-16 and 6-6- 16/A, as a title holder of suit schedule property. Defendant denied the said allegation about obstructing plaintiff from constructing first floor.

PW2 who is the husband of plaintiff and brother of defendant admitted in the cross examination about the interruption of defendant while construction of first floor. In the instant case it is established that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property through ExA3 an registered document and the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit schedule property without any interference therefore the averment of defendant that the plaintiff herself interfering in the property of the defendant cannot accepted. These issues are answered accordingly.

20)In the result, suit is decreed without costs directing the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this judgment and the plaintiff is granted perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

Typed to dictation by steno - II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2019.

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : Ch. Laxmi DW1:Chandha Sudershan PW2 : Ch. Murali

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex. A1: Registered sale deed no. 8638 of 1995 dt. 12.07.1995 Ex. A2: Registered sale deed no. 8639 of 1995 dt. 12.07.1995 Ex. A3: Registered sale deed no. 5798 of 1995 dt. 08.04.2004 Ex. A4: Property Tax receipt dt. 21.05.2011 Ex. A5: Property Tax receipt dt. 21.05.2011 Ex. A6: Electricity bill dt. 07.06.2011 Ex. A7: Water Bill dt. 25.05.2011 Ex. A8: EC from 01.01.83 to 29.052011 Ex. A9: Proceedings of Building permission dt. 01.03.1999 Ex.A10: Building permission plan dt. 01.03.1999 Ex.A11: Rough sketch plan Ex.A12: Market Value Certificate dt. 30.06.2011 Ex.A13: Photographs with CD

FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1: Oppanda Patram dt. 15.04.2011 Ex.B2: Electricity bill with receipt Ex.B3: Photographs with CD

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

OS no. 1412 of 2011

17.04.2019

Notice affixed on notice board. Judgment

pronounced (Vide separate judgment)

In the result, suit is decreed without costs directing the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is granted perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

VII ASCJ

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SMT.B.PUSHPALATHA

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DIST. AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 17 th day of April, 2019

O.S. No. 1412 of 2011

BETWEEN:-

Ch.Laxmi W/o. Ch.Murali, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Flat no. 205, Sri Vinayaka Towers, Near II Town Police Station, Ramgiri, Nalgonda. .…. Plaintiff AND

Chandha Sudershan S/o. Ch.Laxmaiah, Aged about 47yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no.6-6-16/A, Flat no. 16, Phase – II,

Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. ….. Defendant

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to direct the defendant to deliver the vacant pos- session of the suit schedule property and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award the costs of the suit.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose at Vanasthalipuram, R.R.District on 14.11.2010 when the defendant obstructed the plaintiff and her husband to pursue their construction on the terrace of the first floor of the suit schedule property and the cause of action is subsisting and continuing.

Suit Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.__________/- and court fee of Rs._________/- is paid under sec. 29 and 26 (c) of of A.P Court fee and Suits Valu- ation Act, which is sufficient, and the same is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction.

Suit Presented on: 01.07.2011 Suit Numbered on: 04.07.2011 Suit decreed on : 17.04.2019

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence

of Sri.A. Venkat Reddy Advocate for the Plaintiff and the

Sri.C.Rajeshwar Reddy, Advocate for Defendant and having

stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth Order

as follows:

1) That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby decreed without costs.

2) That the defendant is directed to deliver the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of judgment.

3) That the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

4) That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 17th day of April, 2019

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs.

--------------------- -------------------

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that the piece and parcel of undivided share of land admeasuring 27sq.yds shop cum house bearing no. 6-6-16/A, Flat no. 16, eastern part, ground floor and open terrace of first floor semi finished plinth area 432sft in Phase – II of Vanasthalipuram Residential Complex in Sy.no. 201, situated at Sahebnagar Kalan Village, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, R.R.District and bounded as follows:

Boundaries of Ground Floor:

NORTH:3-00mts wide path way and 12’mts wide road SOUTH:3ft wide passage EAST:shop cum flat no. 17, WEST:Flat no. 16 west part

Boundaries of open terrace of first floor

NORTH:Open to sky SOUTH:Open to sky EAST:open to sky WEST:Open to sky Flat no. 16

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT.B. PUSHPALATHA

VII ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 16th Day of April, 2019

OS No.994 of 2007

BETWEEN:-

Vinay Agarwal, S/o. Vasudev, Aged about 52yrs, R/o. Flat no. 403, Sushil Residency, Hyderguda,

Hyderabad. …….....Plaintiff

AND

1. Modi Ventures, rep.by its partner Represented by its Partner, Sri. Sohan Modi, S/o. Satish Modi, Aged about 47yrs, Office at # 5-4-187/3, MG Road, Secunderabad – 500 003.

2. Vinod Yadlapati, S/o. Y.S.N.Sarma, Aged about 31yrs, R/o. 12-11-1371,

Bhovdanagar, Secunderabad – 500 061. ………... Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s.Shyam S.Agarwal, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri.C.Bal Gopal, Advocate for Defendant no.1, Defendant no.2 remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments and 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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants no.1 and 2 for specific performance of contract.

2.The brief averments of plaint are that the defendant is the owner and developer of Gulmohar Gardens apartments situated in Sy.nos. 93 to 95 at Mallapur, R.R.District and on noticing the advertisement the plaintiff approached the defendant and selected flat no. C-506 in Gulmohar Gardens, admeasuring 750sq.ft (hereinafter called as suit schedule property) with undivided share of land. After negotiations, the consideration was fixed at Rs. 5,99,250/- apart from Rs. 50,000/- towards charges for amenities, Rs.

2 5,000/- towards parking and Rs. 15,000/- towards electricity charges and plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under receipt no. 114 through cheque no. 819353 dt. 14.03.2006, drawn on M/s.HDFC Bank towards earnest money and part payment of consideration which was encashed by the defendant. The defendant informed that he would intimate the plaintiff about progress of construction of complex. The plaintiff has been waiting for the letter of the defendant informing the status and progress of the complex and about amounts to be paid by him, but did not receive any correspondence. But on 08.06.2006, the plaintiff received letter alleging that the agreement was only a provisional booking and despite repeated reminders the plaintiff has not come forward to execute a sale agreement and to make further payments. That when the plaintiff addressed a letter dt. 22.06.2006 stating that he has not received any reminders and intimations from the defendant, the defendant stated that they have issued said letter only to ascertain whether the plaintiff is interested in purchasing the suit schedule property. Thereafter the plaintiff has issued cheque no. 691785 dt. 11.07.2006 for

Rs.25,000/- drawn on M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd., Himayathnagar Branch towards further part payment and the same was acknowledged by the defendant. At the intimation of defendant about completion of construction, the plaintiff applied for housing loan with M/ s. ICICI Bank Ltd., and was sanctioned loan to a tune of Rs. 8,45,056/- vide sanction letter dt. 18.01.2007 and informed the defendant to come forward for execution of registration. But there was no response from the defendant and hence, on 19.02.2007, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant calling to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property. On receipt of said legal notice, the defendant got issued reply notice dt. 22.02.2007 stating that as per the terms of booking, the purchaser was required to execute an agreement within thirty days and failure of the same would result in cancellation of the alleged provisional booking. The plaintiff further submits that, he has not received any cancellation notice from the defendant at any point of time and the plaintiff has got issued rejoinder notice on 12.03.2007 denying receipt of cancellation notice and made it clear that the defendant cannot terminate the agreement unilaterally. The defendant got issued reply through advocate on 28.03.2007 3 taking the same stand which is false. The defendant having received money towards part payment of construction, is not ready to execute registered sale deed. The plaintiff further submits that he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,34,250/-, but the defendant is not ready to perform his part of contract. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

3.Defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff being fully aware of the terms and conditions for obtaining flat, approached the defendant for booking suit schedule property and had signed the booking form on 13.04.2006 which was a provisional booking and did not gain any rights in respect of the suit schedule property but issued cheque for the first payment on 14.04.2006. The booking form makes it clear that the booking form is only provisional and an agreement had to be executed and it is not a concluded contract. The booking form clearly stipulates the formalities to be completed in respect of the property including the schedule of property. The plaintiff cannot claim that he was ignorant as to the schedule payments and after initial payment of Rs. 10,000/- the plaintiff did not make any further payment until the letter addressed by the defendant. Even thereafter he has not complied with the requirements for completion of a valid contract, therefore, the defendant addressed a letter to the plaintiff canceling the agreement and informing him of this development. But the plaintiff had issued a letter containing false and baseless allegations. Thereafter, the correspondence between the parties is self revealing. The defendant further submits that the plaintiff cannot seek the equitable reliefs of specific performance as he has relied on false averments suppressing all facts and not performing his obligation under the contract and the plaintiff has approached this court with unclean hands. At last prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the defendant executed any sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

4

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6. Following points are not disputed:

1. There is no dispute with regard to payment of Rs.10,000/- by way of

Ex.A1 receipt no. 114.

2. There is no dispute with regard to the booking done by plaintiff with the defendant company in booking form on 13.04.2006.

3. There is no dispute that the plaintiff issued cheque for an amount of Rs.

25,000/- as in Ex.A4 towards booking of flat no. 506, C-Block.

4. There is no dispute that there was exchange of notices by both the parties.

7. It is well settled law that undisputed points need not be proved.

8.ISSUEs no.1 to 3: The counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued and submitted that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement with the defendant i.e., Modi

Ventures and that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He further submitted that he has also made part payment of Rs. 25,000/- vide Ex.A4 and

Rs.10,000/- vide receipt under Ex.A1 and prayed to allow the suit and direct the defendants to register the flat no. 506, C-Block i.e., suit schedule property.

9. On the other hand the counsel for defendant contended that there is no such contract between the plaintiff and defendants and that the amount paid by the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and A4 was only towards booking of the flat no. 506 for total consideration of Rs. 6,70,000/- and that as per the booking order the plaintiff is supposed to pay the remaining consideration as per the schedule fixed by the defendant which is written on the backside of the booking form. Since there is no valid contract between the plaintiff 5 and the defendant, the plaintiff cannot claim right and seeking for relief of specific performance.

10.On perusing the entire material along with the documents under Ex.A1 to A11, this court, upon considering the oral evidence and the authorities submitted by the defendant counsel, it goes to show that though the plaintiff has stated that he entered into an agreement with the defendant i.e., Modi Ventures and booked a flat no. 506 i.e., suit schedule property. Since it is not disputed that the plaintiff has agreed to purchased flat no. 506 from the defendant company and also paid Rs.10,000/- vide receipt under

Ex.A1. It is also not disputed as per the booking order.

11.It is further stated by PW1 that the defendants have issued a letter canceling the booking made by PW1 under Ex.A2 dt. 08.06.2006. Thereafter, the plaintiff has issued legal notice to the defendant company question regarding the cancellation of his booking. Wherein the defendant company has also given a reply letter stating that his booking was cancelled for not executing an agreement of sale within thirty days as per the terms of booking clause – 1 which resulted in the cancellation of provisional booking. It is also seen from the evidence of PW1 who has categorically admitted in his cross examination that he has not sent the booking form. Since the defendant did not ask him to sign and also did not made payments and also to make the payment as per the schedule of the booking. Further, PW1 has categorically admitted in the cross examination that he has not entered into sale agreement of the defendant but denied that he did not pay Rs. 25,000/- towards part of the sale consideration for booking of flat with the defendant company. The defendant no.1 examined the representative of the defendant company who was cross examined as DW1 has categorically stated that the plaintiff has submitted that the total consideration of flat no. 506 for sale consideration of

Rs. 5,99,250/-. Whereas, the actual sale consideration was Rs. 6,70,000/-. The DW1 has categorically submitted in his cross examination that the plaintiff did not agree or come forward to express his readiness to execute registered sale deed within 30 days as per the booking clause no.1, as such, the booking of plaintiff was cancelled.

6

12.Admittedly, as per the documents available on record, there is no document filed by the plaintiff showing that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant company towards sale of flat no. 506 i.e., suit schedule property. But the plaintiff has submitted in paragraph no. 13 of Ex.A5 that he has entered into an agreement of sale which cannot be considered in the absence of any such document before court.

Secondly, the plaintiff has contended that he has made part payment towards the sale consideration. As per the evidence of PW1 and DW1, it is evident that the plaintiff has entered into a booking of flat no. 506, Gulmohar Gardens and made payment under cheque and receipt Ex.A4 towards booking chages, but not part of the sale consideration.

13.Even as per the terms and conditions of the booking done by the defendant company it is seen that the schedule has to be followed while making remaining part of consideration. The plaintiff has made a provisional booking in form nos. 123 dt.

13.03.2006 and made payment of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-. Subsequently, the plaintiff failed to enter into an agreement within thirty days which resulted in the cancellation of the provisional booking as per Ex.A2 cancellation letter. Further, as per the terms of booking, the plaintiff is supposed to make payment for an amount of

Rs.50,000/- on or before 12.04.2006 and Rs. 2,03,333/- before 01.07.20056 and Rs.

2,03,333/- before 01.10.2006 and Rs. 2,00,334/- before 31.12.2006. But the plaintiff failed to establish. Therefore oral evidence as well as documentary evidence for making payment in accordance to the schedule. Except that the amount paid while booking.

14.It is further contended by PW1 that he has obtained bank loan and the canction letter was also issued by ICICI bank on 18.01.2007. It is pertinent to mention here that said sanction was subsequent to cancellation letter.

15.The counsel for the defendant has submitted a bunch of authorities as follows:

1. Vijay Bahadur And Champalal Vs. Surendra Kumar reported in AIR MP 117

2. Syed Dastagir Vs. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty reported in AIR 1999 SC 3029 7

3. Phuljhari Devi Vs. Mithai Lal and others reported in AIR 1971 Allahabad 494

4. Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P Gaikwad Vs. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 1462

16.According to said citations, it is opined that when the plaintiff aver and prove that he has performed or always ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him and expresses his readiness and willingness to perform the contract and agreed to its true contract has no right to seek relief of specific performance.

17.In the instant case, in the entire pleadings and the evidence PW1, nowhere specifically expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.

Further the provisions as per the Sec. 34 of Specific relief act shows no agreement between the parties and the plaintiff fails to establish his readiness and willingness to perform the contract the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of specific performance as a right.

18.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has not established the contract between him and defendant no.1 and this court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract. Issues no.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

19.ISSUE no.4: In view of the findings and discussion given in issues no.1 to 3, this court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.

20. In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to stenographer-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th

day of April 2019.

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Defendants: PW1: Vinay AgarvalDW1: D.Pavan Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Receipt issued by Defendant no.1 dt. 14.03.2006 Ex.A2: Letter addressed by defendant no.1 dt. 08.06.2006 Ex.A3: Reply letter addressed by the plaintiff Ex.A4: Copy of Cheque no. 691785 with endorsement of receipt Ex.A5: Loan Sanction letter Ex.A6: Office copy of legal notice Ex.A7: Reply letter of defendant no.1 Ex.A8: Office copy of rejoinder notice Ex.A9: Reply notice of defendant no.1 Ex.A10: Encumbrance Certificates (2nos) Ex.A11: Brochure of typical floor plan of the suit flat

RESPONDENTS:NIL

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

9

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

R.R.DIST. AT L.B.NAGAR; HYD.

PRESENT: SMT.B. PUSHPALATHA

VII ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 16th Day of April, 2019

OS No.994 of 2007

BETWEEN:- Vinay Agarwal, S/o. Vasudev, Aged about 52yrs, R/o. Flat no. 403, Sushil Residency, Hyderguda,

Hyderabad. …….....Plaintiff

AND

1. Modi Ventures, rep.by its partner Represented by its Partner, Sri. Sohan Modi, S/o. Satish Modi, Aged about 47yrs, Office at # 5-4-187/3, MG Road, Secunderabad – 500 003.

2. Vinod Yadlapati, S/o. Y.S.N.Sarma, Aged about 31yrs, R/o. 12-11-1371,

Bhovdanagar, Secunderabad – 500 061. ………... Defendants

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plain- tiff and against the defendants, to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and consequentially to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and to grant costs of the suit.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose at Mallapur, R.R.district on 19.02.2007 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants calling them, to execute reg- istered sale deed and on 22.02.2007 when the defendant replied with false allegations and on 12.03.2007 when the plaintiff got issued rejoinder notice making the legal posi- tion clear to the defendant that he has to perform his part of contract and on 28.03.2007 when the defendant got issued reply notice refusing to execute the registered sale deed and the cause of action is subsisting and continuing.

Suit Valuation: The suit market value of suit property is Rs.__________/- and half of it is Rs.____________/- and court fee of Rs._________/- is paid under sec. 26(c) under Article 1 (b) and (c) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient.

Suit Presented on: 24.04.2007 Suit Numbered on: 24.04.2007 Suit Decreed on : 16.04.2019 10

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

M/s.Shyam S.Agarwal, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri.C.Bal

Gopal, Advocate for Defendant no.1, Defendant no.2 remained

exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court doth Order and decree as follows:

1) That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is dismissed with out costs.

2) That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 16th day of April, 2019

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs.

--------------------- -------------------

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that the Flat no. C-506 on fifth floor in “Gulmohar Gardens” apartment, forming part of land in Sy.nos. 93 and 95, situatled at Mallapur, R.R.District, admeasuring 750sq.yds together with proportionate undivided share of land and bounded by:

NORTH:6ft wide corridor SOUTH:Open to sky EAST:Corridor and open to sky WEST :Flat no. 507

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

11

1 SC 154 of 2016

VII ASCJ RR DT

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD

Present: B. PUSHPALATHA

VII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge

Rangareddy District

Dated this the 12th day April, 2019

SESSIONS CASE NO. 154 of 2016

Name of the The State of T.S. through Inspector of Police, P.S. Complainant Saroornagar

Name of the A1Bathu Ravi S/o. Late Namaiah, Aged about Accused31yrs, Occ: Unemployee, R/o. H.no. 11-15-25, Jinkala Bavi Colony, Road no. 4, Saroornagar, R.R.District N/o. Rakshapuram Colony, Uppuguda, Hyderabad.

A2Netha Sudha Rani W/o. Late Raju, Aged about 34yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee, r/o.H.no. 11-15-25, Jinkala Bavi Colony, Road no.4, Saroornagar, R.R.District N/o. Anthaiahpally Vg, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.

A3Penta Venkat Reddy S/o. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 4-5-461, Sahara Estates, Mansoorabad, L.B.nagar, N/o. Plot no. 236, Pasumamula Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.district. Charge U/Sec. U/s. 370, 370A (2) IPC, 3, 4, 5 PIT Act

Crime No.561/2015

Plea of the accused Not Guilty

Finding of the Court Not guilty

Sentence or OrderAccused/A1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/s. 370, 370A (2) IPC, 3, 4, 5 PITA Act Prosecution conducted Addl. Public Prosecutor by

Defence conducted bySri P.Srinath, Advocate for Accused

This case was committed by the then XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

L.B.Nagar, vide PRC 23/2015

This case come before me on 08.04.2019 for final hearing in the presence of 2 SC 154 of 2016

VII ASCJ RR DT

the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Srinath, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is the case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Saroornagar against the accused no.1 to 3 for the offences U/s. 370, 370A (2) IPC, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of

Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.08.2015, on receipt of credible information with regard to running brothel house at premises of H.no.11-15-25, Road no.4-A, Jinkalabavi Colony, Saroornagar, R.R.District, the K.Sunil, Detective Inspector of Police,PS Saroornagar, obtained search proceedings from ACP, L.B.Nagar and proceeded to the said place along with LW2 A.Narender, HC 427, LW3 K.Yadaiah, PC 1468, LW4 B.Kullayamma, WPC 6975 and LW5 Sriramulu and mediators LW6

P.Hamanth Rao and LW7 B.Venkata Narsaiah and there they found one male, tow female seated in the hall and one male and one female in bed room. Accordingly, LW1 caused enquiry and conducted scene of offence panchanama and recorded the detailed confessional statements of A1 to A3 and seized net cash of Rs. 1,340/- from the possession of A1 and one Samsung mobile from the possession of A2 and also seized one Samsung Galaxy E5 Mobile phone and Ford Fiesta Car bearing no. AP29

AG 3789 from the possession of A3 in the presence of mediators. The investigating officer also seized three mobiles from the possession of victims and seized one

Kamasuthra condom packet containing one condom from the presismes. The investigating officer took A1 to A3 and victims along with seized property to police station. Basing on the said report, LW1, LW8 S.Lingaiah, Inspector of Police, PS

Saroornagar registered a case in Cr.no. 561 of 2015 u/sec. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of PIT Actand

Sec. 370(ii) of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW8 3 SC 154 of 2016

VII ASCJ RR DT

examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and affected the arrest of A1 to

A3 and produced them before the court for judicial custody and sent victims to rescue home. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offence u/sec. 3,4, 5 and 7 of PIT Act, Sec. 370(a) and against

A2 for the offence u/sec. 4 and 5 of PIT Act.

3.This case was committed by XI Metropolitan Magistrate for A1 to A3 vide

PRC 23 of 2-15. It was made over to this court. On hearing the accused/A1 to A3 the court framed the charges against accused no.1 to 3 for the offences under Section 370, 370A (2) IPC, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused no.1 to 3 to which they denied. As such matter was posted for trial.

4. At the time of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P3 and MO1 to MO4 which are Ex.P1 is search warrant, Ex.P2 is scene of offence confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is First Information Report, M.O.1

Ford Fiesta Car, M.O.2 4nos of Cell phones, M.O.3 FD bearing no. 653055 for Rs.

1,340/-, M.O.4 condoms.

5. After closure of trial, the accused were examined U/s 313 (b)Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to the accused. They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence. Hence matter was posted for arguments.

6.On closure of trial, arguments of both sides heard .

7.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

4 SC 154 of 2016

VII ASCJ RR DT

8.In orde to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec. 370-A(2) of PC and Sec. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of PIT Act,t he prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and

Ex.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 to M.O.4 were marked.

9.The case of the prosecution is that on receiving credible information from some unknown persons about running of brothel house at H.no. -15-25, Road no.4-A,

Jinkalabavi Colony, Saroornagar, R.R.District. Believing the said information, PW2 rushed to the scene of offence after obtaining permission from his higher officials and proceeded along with PW1, LW3, PW6 and conducted raid.

10.Though the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW6 who accompanied PW2 to the scene of offnece have categorically reiterated the evidence of PW2. As per the evidence of PW2, he has simply stated that upon receiving the credible information, he went to the scene of offence and conducted raid where he found one male and a female in the hall and also found one male and a female in the bed room and on enquiry, A1 and A2 have admitted that about five years back, while they were doing a private job at Saroornagar, they have come in contact with each other and had an illegal relationship which continued they lead conjugal life. A2 who is working as receptionist in private consultancy has hatched a plan with A1 and they took a house on rent at Jinkalabavi Colony and running a brothel house by collecting an amount of

Rs.1,000/- from each customer and giving half of the amount to the victims.

11.Admittedly, the prosecution did nto examine any of the victims to substantiate the contention of the official witnesses i.e., Pw1 and PW6.

12.PW2 has stated that they have sent the victims to Prajwala Rescue Home, but did not choose to either record their statements or produce them before the court to 5 SC 154 of 2016

VII ASCJ RR DT

substantiate the contention upon which the present case is initiated. Admittedly, PW3 who is the owner of the house where the brothel activity is run has categorically stated that she stay at Malkajgiri and she gave house on rent to one B.Ravi who has vacated the house when she came to know about running of prostitution in her premises and she refused to identify the accused on the ground of lapse of time. All the oficial witnesses have categorically stated that though panchanama was conducted, no rough sketch was drafted in the panchanama and the panch witnesses PW4 and

PW5, have not supported the case of prosecution. They admitted in the cross examination about the seizure of the material onjects i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.4 in their presence.

13. PW7 who is the investigating officer and who filed charge sheet stated that upon receiving the panchanama, prepared by PW2, he verified whether the investigation is done in proper lines and filed charge sheet without even conducting preliminary enquiry. PW6 Woman Police Constable who accompanied PW2 also reiterated the contents of the evidence of PW6. In the instant case, though the prosecution has initiated the investigation in Cr.no. 561 of 2015 but no evidence was produced to establish. Further though PW2 has stated that he received credible information but failed to examine the informant. Even otherwise, the entire investiation conducted by PW2 and PW7 does not establish the offence u/sec. 370-A(2) of IPC and Sec. 3, 4,5 and 7 of PIT Act. PW3 who is the owner of the H.no. 11-15-25, Road no.4-A, Jinkalabavi Colony, Saroornagar, R.R.District though stated in her chief examination that her tenant by name B.Ravi has vacated. But the prosecution didn ot collect any relevant document to show that the said B.Ravi who is A1 herein is still continuing to stay in the said house and running brothel home. Therefore, basing upon the above discussion I find that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused 6 SC 154 of 2016

VII ASCJ RR DT

for the offences u/sec. 370-A(2) of IPC and Sec. 3, 4 5, and 7 of PIT Act. The point is answered accordingly.

14. In the result, the accused no.1 to 3 are acquitted under section 235(1) of

Cr.P.C for the offences under section 370, 370A (2) IPC, 3, 4, 5 of Prevention of

Immoral Traffic Act. M.O.1 and one item Samsung Galaxy E5 mobile phone marked as M.O. 2 which were already given in interim custody shall become absolute after expirty of appeal time. The remaining three mobile phones marked under M.O.2, shall be returned to the concerned persons from whom they have been seized under cover of panchanama after expiry of appeal time on their application before concerned court.

M.O.3 cash deposited under FDRs shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time. M.O.4 condoms shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open

Court on this the 12th day of April, 2019

VII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution : For Defence

PW1: A.Narender -None- PW2: K.Sunil PW3: Laxmipathi PW4: P.Hanumanth Rao PW5: Venkata Narsaiah PW6: B. Kullaiamma PW7: S.Lingaiah

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Search warrant Ex.P2: Scene of offence confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3: First Information Report

For Defence : Nil 7 SC 154 of 2016

VII ASCJ RR DT

Material objects Marked

FOR PROSECUTION:

M.O.1: Ford Fiesta Car M.O.2: 4nos of Cell phones M.O.3: FD bearing no. 653055 for Rs. 1,340/- M.O.4: Condoms

VII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District 8 SC 154 of 2016

VII ASCJ RR DT

A1 to A3 present. Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.

In the result, the accused no.1 to 3 are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offences under section 370, 370A (2) IPC, 3, 4, 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. M.O.1 and one item Samsung Galaxy E5 mobile phone marked as M.O. 2 which were already given in interim custody shall become absolute after expirty of appeal time. The remaining three mobile phones marked under M.O.2, shall be returned to the concerned persons from whom they have been seized under cover of panchanama after expiry of appeal time on their application before concerned court. M.O.3 cash deposited under FDRs shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time. M.O.4 condoms shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time.

VII AASJ

1 OS 253 of 2019

VII ASCJ RR DT.

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. B.PUSHPALATHA

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 15th Day of April, 2019

O.S. No. 253 of 2019

BETWEEN:-

1. Samarthi @ Begari Jangaiah, S/o. Late B.Jangaiah, Aged about 67yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.h.no. 1-102, Telukhurdhu Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Samarthi @ Begari Rama Chandraiah, S/o.Late Begari Pentaiah, Aged about 52yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.2-17/3, Telukhurdhu Village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District. … Plaintiffs

AND

1. Begari Gopal, S/o.Late Begari Jangaiah, Aged about 55yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Begari Laxmamma, W/o. Late Begari Yadaiah, Aged about 46yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Begari Raju S/o. Late Begari Yadaiah, Aged about 28yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

4. Begari Jangaiah, S/o. Late Begari Yadaiah, Aged about 26yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

5. Begari Mallamma, W/o.Late Begari Sathaiah, Aged about 58yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

6. Begari Suresh, S/o. Late Begari Sathaiah, Aged about 33yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

7. Begari Naresh, S/o.Late Begari Sathaiah, Aged about 28yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

All the above are R/o. Tulekhurdh village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District.

8. Tahasildar, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District.

9. All Concerned. ….Defendants.

2 OS 253 of 2019

VII ASCJ RR DT.

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s.K.Amarnath Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendants No. 1 to 8 was set exparte and defendant No. 9 All concerned and upon hearing the arguments and 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

1.This is a suit filed by plaintiffs to declare them and defendants no.1 to 7 as legal heirs of deceased Begari Lasuma.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that Late Begari Lasuma was protected tenant of lands in Sy.no. 426 total admeasuring Ac.40-00gts of land situated at Thulekurdh village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District (hereinafter called as suit schedule property) and said Begari Lasuma died leaving behind his son

Begari Ramaiah as his legal heir and successor and said Begari Ramaiah died leaving behind his two sons by name Begari Pentaiah and Begari Jangaiah. That on 20.09.2002 said Pentaiah died leaving behind plaintiff no.2 and on 30.12.2008

Sathaiah died leaving behind defendants no. 5 to 7 as his legal heirs. The second son of Ramaiah i.e., Jangaiah died leaving behind plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 and Yadaiah as his legal heirs and successors and said Yadaiah died leaving behind defendants no. 2 to 4 as his legal heirs and successors and hence the defendants no.1 to 7 and plaintiffs are surviving legal heirs of late

Begari Lasuma. That the tenancy records pertaining to the suit schedule property stands in the name of Late Begari Lasuma. That when the plaintiffs approached defendant no. 8 with a representation under Sec. 40 of AP (TA)

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, to grant succession in favour of plaintiffs and other family members being legal heirs of Late Begari Lasuma in respect of suit schedule property. But the defendant no.8 issued memo vide proceedings no. A/807/2015 dt. 12.01.2017 requesting to furnish legal heir certificate of original protected tenant Begari Lasuma from competent civil court.

Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file this suit to declare them and 3 OS 253 of 2019

VII ASCJ RR DT.

defendants no. 1 to 7 as legal heirs of Late Begari Lasuma.

3.Inspite of receipt of suit summons, Defendants no.1 to 8 failed to appear before this court and hence they were set exparte by this court on 25.03.2019. Publication is made in Telugu Newspaper inviting objections from the general public and no objections were received from the public. Hence the suit was posted for plaintiff's evidence.

4.To prove their case, plaintiff no.2 examined himself as PW1 and in the evidence of PW1, Ex.A1 to A6 are marked. In support of the contention of

Plaintiff no.1, one Balarama native of Tulekhurd village is examined as PW2.

5.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the material placed on record.

6.Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 7 are entitled to be declared as legal heirs of the deceased Late Begari Lasuma prayed for?”

7.POINT:To substantiate their contention, plaintiff no.2 examined himself as PW1 and he reiterated the contents of plaint and also got marked Ex.

A1 to A6. In support of his contention, the plaintiff no.2 examined one

A.Balarama as PW2. In support of their contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on Syed Abdul Majeed Vs. Joint Collector – II reported in 2006

Lawsuit (AP) 567 and B.Bal Reddy Vs. Teegala Narayana Reddy and others reported in 2016 Lawsuit (SC) 780.

8.As per Sec. 40 of AP (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act 1950, the plaintiff is entitled to inherit the land as successor of protected tenancy and the said tenancy shall continue unless it is terminated or concluded by due process of law. Under Sec.40 of the Act, protected tenancy is heritable. Secondly, when the plaintiffs urged the defendant no.8 to conclude summary enquiry and issue succession certificate, who inturn has issued a letter under Ex.A2 directing the 4 OS 253 of 2019

VII ASCJ RR DT.

plaintiff to approach the court of law and get the certificate in accordance with the law though sec. 32 and 98 of the Act confers power on the Tahasildar to restore possession to the tenant.

9. On perusing the documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, Ex. A5 and

Ex.A6 are disclosing that the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are sons of Late Jangaiah and

Pentaiah who are none other than grand sons of Late Begari Lasuma Ex.A1 is disclosing the name of Late Begari Lasuma as Protected tenant of suit schedule property.

10. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 was not rebutted by any one, hence it can safely held that all the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 7 are the legal heirs of deceased Begari Lasuma. The point is answered accordingly.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, by declaring that the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and defendants no.1 to 7 are legal heirs of deceased Begari

Lasuma with regard to suit schedule property.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15 th Day of April, 2019

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1: Rama Chandraiah- N I L - PW2: Balarama

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex. A1 : CC of extract of the protected tenancy register pertaining to Telukhurd Village Ex. A2 : Memo issued by Tahasildar, Yacharam Mandal Ex. A3 : Original Death Certificate of Sathaiah Ex. A4 : Original Death Certificate of Yadaiah Ex. A5 : Aadhar Card of Plaintiff no.1 Ex. A6 : Aadhar Card of Plaintiff no.2 FOR DEFENDANTS: - NIL -

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

5 OS 253 of 2019

VII ASCJ RR DT.

6 OS 253 of 2019

VII ASCJ RR DT.

OS no. 986 of 2018

16.04.2019

Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, by declaring that the plaintiffs no.1 to 3 are legal heirs of deceased A.V.S.H.Govinda Rao with regard to suit schedule property.

VII ASCJ

7 OS 253 of 2019

VII ASCJ RR DT.

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. B.PUSHPALATHA

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 15th Day of April, 2019

O.S. No. 253 of 2019

BETWEEN:-

1. Samarthi @ Begari Jangaiah, S/o. Late B.Jangaiah, Aged about 67yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.h.no. 1-102, Telukhurdhu Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Samarthi @ Begari Rama Chandraiah, S/o.Late Begari Pentaiah, Aged about 52yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.2-17/3, Telukhurdhu Village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District. … Plaintiffs

AND

1. Begari Gopal, S/o.Late Begari Jangaiah, Aged about 55yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Begari Laxmamma, W/o. Late Begari Yadaiah, Aged about 46yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Begari Raju S/o. Late Begari Yadaiah, Aged about 28yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

4. Begari Jangaiah, S/o. Late Begari Yadaiah, Aged about 26yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

5. Begari Mallamma, W/o.Late Begari Sathaiah, Aged about 58yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

6. Begari Suresh, S/o. Late Begari Sathaiah, Aged about 33yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

7. Begari Naresh, S/o.Late Begari Sathaiah, Aged about 28yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

All the above are R/o. Tulekhurdh village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District.

8. Tahasildar, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District.

9. All Concerned. ….Defendants.

8 OS 253 of 2019

VII ASCJ RR DT.

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs, to declare plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and defendants no.1 to 7 as legal heirs of deceased Late Begari Lasuma to succeed the suit schedule property of de- ceased and to grant costs of the suit.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose at Yacharam Mandal, R.R.district when Late Begari Lasuma died intestate and when the name of Late Begari La- suma is subsisting as a protected tenant in respect of suit schedule property in- spite of death of Late begari Lasuma and on 12.01.2017 when the defendantn o. 8 refused to issue legal heir certificate and the cause of action is subsisting and continuing.

Suit Valuation: The suit market value of suit property is Rs.__________/- and half of it is Rs.____________/- and court fee of Rs._________/- is paid under sec. 24(b) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient.

Suit Presented on: 27.12.2018 Suit Numbered on: 04.02.2019 Suit Decreed on : 15.04.2019

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of M/s. K.Amarnath Reddy, Advocate for the

plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 8 remained exparte and

defendant no.9 All concerned and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court doth Order and decree

as follows:

1) That the suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is hereby decreed declaring the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and defendants no. 1 to 7 as legal heirs of deceased Late Begari Lasuma with regard to suit schedule property.

2) That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 15th day of April, 2019

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

(Amount Rs.)(Amount Rs.)

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs. Exparte

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs. -

--------------------- -------------------

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

9 OS 253 of 2019

VII ASCJ RR DT.

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that the possessory rights existing over the agricultural lands in Sy.no. 426 total admeasuring Ac.40-00gts, situated at Thulekurdhu village, Yacharam mandal, R.R.District.

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. B.PUSHPALATHA

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 16th Day of April, 2019

O.S. No. 852 of 2012

BETWEEN:- B. Kalyan S/o. Late B.Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 30yrs, Presently residing at Colorado, USA, represented by its GPA Praveen Bandlamudi S/o.Late B.Nageshwar Rao, R/o. F-4, Telecom Officers, BSNL Quarters, Road no. 92, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 033. … Plaintiff

AND

N.Laxman Rao S/o. N.Krishna Rao Occ: Tax Consultant, Aged about 50yrs, R/o.Flat no. 5 (B-203), Divyashaksthi Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. OR R/o. H.no. 12-5-123, (old no. 5-123), S.V.Sai Srinivas Residency, Moosapet, Hyderabad. ….Defendant

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.K.Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. C.Srinivas, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments and 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

1.This is a suit filed by plaintiff against the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property and hand over the physical possession to the plaintiff and to award mesne profits @ Rs.15,000/- per month from 02.02.212 till the date of vacating the suit schedule property.

2.The brief averments of plaint are that the plaintiff is the lawful owner and possessor of Flat no. 505, 5th floor bearing H.no. 12-5-123 (Old No. 5-123) at

SV Sai Srinivas Residency, Moosapet (hereinafter called as suit schedule property) and in the month of March 2011, the suit schedule property was orally leased out to the defendant by plaintiff to run contingency office on a monthly rent of Rs. 11,000/- per month. The plaintiff though agreed to deposit three months rent, failed to deposit till date. Further, as per the oral agreement, the defendant is required to pay rent of Rs.11,000/- on or before 7th of the succeeding month.

That the defendant instead of paying the rent regularly and depositing three months advance, has taken a lame excuse that the plaintiff wanted to enhance the rent from Rs.11,000/- to Rs.15,000/- and as such, he was forced to file suit for injunction vide OS no. 157 of 2011 on the file of Jr. Civil Judge, R.R.District at

Kukatpally and temporary injunction was granted vide IA no. 355 of 2011 and also filed an application seeking deposit of rents from May 2011 onwards and the said applications are pending. That on 01.12.2011 the plaintiff issued notice terminating the tenancy and to handover the physical possession of the suit schedule property. But the defendant failed to do so. Hence the suit.

3.Defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and admitted the oral lease agreement and enhancement of rent amount and further contended that in view of the threats of eviction by the plaintiff, the defendant is constrained to file OS no. 157 of 2011 on the file of Jr. Civil Judge,

Miyapur and the plaintiff issued legal notice dt. 01.12.2011 to the defendant and since the said case is pending the defendant could not immediately deposit the rents and he being a law abiding citizen has recently paid an amount of Rs.

1,98,000/- towards arrears of rent vide cheque no. 823341 dt. 05.11.2012 drawn on State Bank of India, Erragadda Branch. The defendant further contended that there is no cause of action for filing the present case and at last prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction/ejectment of the defendant/tenant from the suit premises as prayed in the plaint?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mesne profits of Rs. 15,000/- as prayed for in the plaint?

3. To what relief?

5.To prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and in the evidence of PW1, Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. After closure of the evidence on the side of plaintiff, Defendant examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to

B3.

6.Heard both sides, perused the material placed on record.

7.ISSUEs no.1 to 4: To substantiate their contention, the plaintiff himself as PW1 and in the evidence of PW1, Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. The plaintiff reiterated the contents of plaint and he was cross examined by the counsel for defendant at length. After closure of the evidence on the side of plaintiff, defendant examined himself as DW1 and he reiterated the contents of his written statement and also got marked Ex.B1 to B3 and he was also cross examined by the counsel for plaintiff at length.

8.After closure of the evidence on both sides, this court heard the arguments of plaintiff and as the counsel for defendant failed to advance their arguments inspite of availing opportunity, this court treated the arguments on the side of defendant as heard and posted the suit for judgment. At that stage, a petition was filed to reopen the evidence on the side of defendant and said petition was dismissed and posted the suit finally, at that stage, both parties have entered into compromise and filed memo of compromise and also filed terms of compromise before this court.

9.Since no objections received and compromise terms were filed before this court, it goes to show that the defendant has agreed to vacate the suit schedule property by 30.40.2020 by duly paying the arrears of rent payable as on the date of vacating the suit schedule property. Hence it can be safely held that the plaintiff are entitled for eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property.

The issues are answered accordingly.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property as per the compromise and to comply the terms and conditions of compromise.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th Day of April, 2019

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1: Praveen DW1: N.Lakshman Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex. A1 : Office copy of legal notice dt. 01.12.2011 Ex. A2 : GPA dt. 03.06.2011 executed by plaintiff Ex. A3 : Original postal receipt dt. 02.12.2011 Ex. A4 : Original postal acknowledgment dt. 04.01.2012

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: Bank Statement Ex.B2: Notice issued by GHMC Ex.B3: Property tax demand notice

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Judgment Pronounced vide separate judgment in the open court. In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property as per the compromise and to comply the terms and conditions of compromise.

VII ASCJ

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. B.PUSHPALATHA

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 16th Day of April, 2019

O.S. No. 852 of 2012

BETWEEN:- B. Kalyan S/o. Late B.Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 30yrs, Presently residing at Colorado, USA, represented by its GPA Praveen Bandlamudi S/o.Late B.Nageshwar Rao, R/o. F-4, Telecom Officers, BSNL Quarters, Road no. 92, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 033. … Plaintiff

AND

N.Laxman Rao S/o. N.Krishna Rao Occ: Tax Consultant, Aged about 50yrs, R/o.Flat no. 5 (B-203), Divyashaksthi Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. OR R/o. H.no. 12-5-123, (old no. 5-123), S.V.Sai Srinivas Residency, Moosapet, Hyderabad. ….Defendant

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, to direct the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property and to award mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month from 02.02.2012 till the date of eviction and to grant costs of the suit.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose at Moosapet, R.R.District in the month of March 2011 when the defendant has taken possession of the suit schedule property on leas and in the month of April 2011 when the defendant failed to pay the monthly rent and committed default in payment of rents and on 01.12.2011 when the plaintiff issued notice terminating the tenancy and the cause of action is subsisting and continuing.

Suit Valuation: The suit market value of suit property is Rs.__________/- and half of it is Rs.____________/- and court fee of Rs._________/- is paid under sec. 40(c) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient.

Suit Presented on: 02.02.2012 Suit Numbered on: 02.06.2012 Suit Decreed on : 16.04.2012

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri.K.Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff

and Sri. C.Srinivas, Advocate for defendant and having

stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth

Order and decree as follows:

1) That the suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is hereby decreed without costs.

2) That the defendant is directed to vacate the suit schedule property as per the terms of compromise

3) That the defendant is directed to comply the terms of compromise

4) That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 16th day of April, 2019

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

(Amount Rs.)(Amount Rs.)

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs. -

--------------------- -------------------

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that part and parcel of the flat bearing no. 505, 5th floor, 1450sqft House no. 12-5-123 (old no. 5-123) at SV Sai Srinivasa Residency, Moosapeta, Hyderabad and bounded by:

NORTH:Open to sky SOUTH:Open to sky EAST:Open to sky WEST:Flat no. 504

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT