Sri. B.R Madhusudhan Rao

1 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

`1IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGES COURT

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MALKAJGIRI.

PRESENT: B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At Malkajgiri.

TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF APRIL, 2024.

APPEAL SUIT No. 415 of 2015

Between:-

1. Sathi Adi Reddy, S/o. S. Sathi Reddy

2. T. Narayana Sharma, S/o. Laxmaiah

3. Guduru Mahesh Goud, S/o. C. Pentaiah (Applicant No.1 & 2 amended as per order in

IA No.856/2021 dt. 10.10.2022) ...Appellants/Def.No. 1, 4 & 5

AND

1. Amara Laxminarasaiah (Died per LR’s) …Respondent/Plaintiff

2. N. Rishikesh

3. Ravindra Gopala...Respondents/Def.No. 2 & 3

4. Amara Pramila

5. B. Krishnaveni

6. Amara Srinivas

7. D. Radhika ...Respondents/Plaintiff No.2 to 5

(Respondents No.4 to 7 are the legal heirs of respondent No.1 being added as per Order in IA No.855/2021 dt.10.10.2022)

Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dt.31.08.2015 in

O.S.No. 131 of 2013 passed by Addl.Junior Civil Judge, at Malkajgiri, Ranga

Reddy District.

in

O.S. No. 131 of 2013

Between:

1. Amara Laxminarasaiah …Plaintiff

AND

1. Sathi Adi Reddy

2. N. Rishikesh

3. Ravindra Gopala

4. Narayana Sharma

5. Guduru Mahesh Goud ...Defendants

2 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

This Appeal came up before me on 03.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.S.Prakash Reddy, Counsel for the Appellants and of Sri S.Seetharama Sharma, Counsel for the Respondents No.4 to 7 and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

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

1. This Appeal is preferred by the Appellants/defendants No.1, 4 & 5 aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dt.31.08.2015 passed in O.S. No. 131 of 2013 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.

The grounds of appeal are as under :

2.a.The trial Court failed to see that appellant No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from 1979 when the first Vendor divided the land into plots and sold to one Laxmi through Sale Deed

No.105/1983, in turn said Laxmi has sold the property to appellant No.1 through

AGPA with Possession vide Doc.No.2187/2010 moreover the appellant No.1 document is much prior to the sale deed of plaintiff’s and his vendors. Trial court ought to have seen that Ex.A1 is not supported by any document and failed to establish the title of the plaintiff and his vendors.

2.b.Ex.A4 is only the preliminary decree, no final decree is passed moreover the said decree is not a contesting decree, the decree does not confer any title to the plaintiff's vendor. Ex.A6 and A7 are created for the purpose of the case, and the said receipts are not having any stamp or seal of the Mallikarjuna Nagar

Welfare Association hence these documents cannot be looked into. Respondent

No.1/plaintiff has not filed any document to show that his vendors are the owners of the land in Sy.No.146, PW2 and PW3 are the interested witnesses

3 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

hence their evidence cannot be believed and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by Addl.Junior Civil Judge, at

Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District in OS No.131/2013 dt.31.08.2015.

3.Appellant counsel has filed synopsis after submitting oral arguments.

4.Heard both sides, perused the record.

5.For the sake of convenience the parties will be hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit.

6.Now the points for consideration are:

1.Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by Addl.Junior Civil

Judge, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District in OS No. 131/2013

dt.31.08.2015 suffers from any illegality or irregularity. If so?

2.To what relief?

POINT NO.1 :

7.The suit of the plaintiff in nutshell is that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having purchased the same through registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.7232/2003 dated 30.08.2003, as the defendants have interfered in his possession suit came to be filed and defendants No.1, 4 and 5 have contested the suit. PW1 to PW3 are examined on behalf of plaintiff, Ex.A1 to A10 are marked and defendant No.1 is examined as

DW1, Ex.B1 to B8 are marked on his side.

8.a. Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deed dt. 30.08.2003 vide Doc.No.

7232/2003 executed by Ghanapuram Shanker Reddy and 12 others by their GPA

Holders G. Anji Reddy and G. Krishna Reddy in favour of Sri Amara Laxminarsaiah

4 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

(plaintiff herein), the schedule of property is plot No.13, area 206 Sq.Yards in

Sy.No.146 Part, situated at Nagaram Village & Grampanchayat, Keesara Mandal,

Sub-Dist: Shameerpet, bounded by North: Plot No.14; South: Plot No.12; East:

Neighbours Land; West: 30’ wide road. Ex.A2 is the pahani dt. 14.04.2013 in respect of Sy.No.146/రు, the name of the pattedar is shown as Balakrishna Reddy and he is also shown in possessor column who is the father of Vendors No.1, 2, 5, 8 of the plaintiff; Ex.A3 is the Encumbrance Certificate dt. 15.04.2013 from 05.01.1995 to 30.09.2007; Ex.A4 is the preliminary decree in OS No. 79 of 1993

dt. 06.10.1994 wherein the plaintiffs are G. Yadi Reddy, G.Mahipal Reddy, G.

Gopal Reddy, G. Bhopal Reddy, G. Srinivas Reddy, G. Krishna Reddy, G. Dharma

Reddy and G.Venkat Reddy. G. Gopal Reddy and G. Bhopal Reddy are one of the

Vendors to Ex.A1 at Sl.No.3 & 4 and G. Srinivas Reddy, G.Krishna Reddy, G.

Dharma Reddy are Vendors No.9, 10 and 12 to Ex.A1, the defendants in OS

No.79/1993 are G. Shankar Reddy, G. Balreddy, G.Ramreddi, G.Subash Reddy, N.

Balrajreddy, Guduru Anjireddy and Guduru Krishnareddy. G. Balreddy is Vendor

No.2; G.Ramreddy is Vendor No.5; G.Subash Reddy is Vendor No.8 to Ex.A1.

Guduru Anjireddy and Guduru Krishnareddy are the GPA Holders of Vendors of

Ex.A1. OS No.79/1993 (Ex.A4) is suit for partition in respect of land in Sy.No.146 admeasuring Ac.11-15 gts; in Sy.No.147 admeasuirng Ac.09-31 gts; in Sy.No.148 admeasuring Ac.12-16 gts. As per Ex.A4 suit is decreed and the suit schedule property therein has to be partitioned into 45 equal shares, by allotting one such each share to each of the plaintiffs No.1 to 6 and each of defendants No.1, 2 and 4; 3 shares to plaintiffs No.7 & 8; 3 shares to defendant No.3; 15 shares to defendant No.5 and 15 shares to defendants No.6 & 7. It is to be noted here that

5 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

appellants counsel contended that final decree is not passed between the parties, in the absence thereof preliminary decree has not attained finality.

8.b. Ex.A5 is the Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dt.

08.03.2002 vide Doc.No.1221/2002 wherein the Vendors of Ex.A1 have given GPA to Guduru Anjireddy and Guduru Krishna Reddy, the schedule of property is

Sy.No.146 Part, area 3-33 gts, situated at Nagaram Village & Grampanchayat,

Keesara Mandal, Sub-Dist: Shameerpet, bounded by North: Plot No.142 & 143;

South: 100’ wide road & Sy.No.147 Part; East: Rampally Village Boundary; West:

Land in Sy.No.146 Part. Ex.A6 is the Receipts issued by Mallikarjuna Nagar

Welfare Association dt. 23.04.2006 which goes to show that Rs.1,000/- is received from the plaintiff in respect of Plot No.13 towards electrical/development charges, Ex.A7 is also the receipt dt. 23.11.2014 issued by Mallikarjuna Nagar

Welfare Association in respect of plot No.13. Ex.A8 is the application given by the plaintiff to Deputy Commissioner, Kapra Circle, GHMC dt.26.05.2015 seeking for certified copy of Voter ID No.CVG3002342 and CVG 3002323 of Medchal

Constituency and whether voter identification numbers belongs to V. Laxmi D/o.

Rajaiah, R/o. Plot No.149, Maruthinagar, Kushaiguda or not under RTI Act, Ex.A9 is the Intimation given by the Valuation Officer, Circle-1, Kapra, GHMC to the plaintiff wherein the report goes to show that there is no such plot in

Maruthinagar Colony (plot No.149) and Ex.A10 is the Voter Identity Card of

Prashant Kumar.

9. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1993-94 which goes to show that the total extent of land in Sy.No.146 is Ac.11-15 gts wherein there are

6 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

different pattedars and possessors. One of the possessor in Column 13 of Ex.B1 is Peddi Nageshwar Rao S/o. Narayana and Peddi Purnachander Rao, S/o.

Narayana each having Ac.0-20 gts of land as per registered Sale Deed bearing

Doc.No.6398/1979 dt. 29.10.1979 and the name of Munuganti Narsimha Chary

S/o. Laxmaiah is shown in an extent of Ac.1-13 gts which is acquired through registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.6399/1979 dt. 29.10.1979. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-95 which also shows the name of the above said persons in respect of their extent. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of sale deed bearing Doc.No.6398/1979 dt. 29.10.1979 which is executed by G.

Narsimha, Ch.Bixapathi, Peddi Narsimha, Ch.Rajamallaiah, Peddi Rajaiah, U.

Radhamani, B.Madusudhan Rao in favour of Peddi Nageshwar Rao, Peddi

Porunachander Rao and Peddi Raju, the land sold as per the above said sale deed is Ac.1-54 cents in Sy.No.146 Part. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of sale deed bearing Doc.No.6399/1989 dt. 29.10.1979 executed by G. Narsimha, Ch.Bixapathi,

P. Rajaiah, P. Narsimha, Ch.Rajamallaiah, Smt.Anne Rajamani, B.Madusudhan Rao in favour of Munuganti Narsimha Chary to an extent of Ac.1-32 cents in Sy.No.146

Part. Basing on Ex.B3, entries were made in the pahanies for the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 in respect of the extent of their properties. Ex.B5 is the certified copy of sale deed bearing Doc.No.105/1983 dt.17.01.1983 executed by Peddi

Nageshwar Rao, Peddi Purnachander Rao, Peddi Raju and Muniganti Narsimha

Chary in favour of Smt. V. Laxmi W/o. Jagadeshwar in respect of plot No.13 admeasuring 270 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.146 of Nagaram Village, bounded by North:

Plot No.14; South: Plot No.12; East: Neighbour’s land; West: 25’ wide road. Ex.B6 is the AGPA with Possession bearing Doc.No.2187/2010 dt. 16.06.2010 executed

7 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

by Smt. V.Laxmi W/o. V.Jagadeshwar Rao in favour of Sri Sathi Adi Reddy (defendant No.1 herein) in respect of plot No.13 in an area of 270 Sq.Yards in

Sy.No.146 with same boundaries. Ex.B7 is the Encumbrance certificate dt.

30.07.2013 for the period from 01.01.1983 to 19.06.1996 and Ex.B8 is the encumbrance certificate dt. 01.04.2014 for the period from 01.10.2007 to 29.03.2013 in respect of Plot No.13.

10.The evidence of PW1 is the replica of his entire plaint averments, in his cross examination he stated that he purchased the suit schedule property on 30.08.2023, he verified the pahani for the year 1995-96 prior to purchasing the same, as per Ex.A2 the names of the vendors are not shown as pattedars and possessors of the suit schedule property, his vendors names are shown in Ex.P4

Preliminary Decree, he do not know if the final decree was passed or not, he has not filed the panchanama proceedings under which the land in the suit survey number was allotted to his vendors in the partition suit, he has not filed any document to show the possession of AGPA Holder of his vendors over the land in

Sy.No.146 Part, he do not know if one Peddi Nageshwar Rao and others purchased the land in Sy.No.146 during 1983 through two sale deeds and since the date of purchase they are in possession of the same, defendants interfered with the possession of the suit schedule property on 13.04.12013 only, as per

Ex.B6 Agreement of Sale cum GPA the address of the Vendor Lakshmi is shown as

H.No. 12-1-1379/1, Shanthinagar, Secunderabad, it is true in Ex.A9 copy of intimation there is no mention that the voter identity card mentioned therein was issued in the name of one Prashanth Kumar, witness adds that he obtained

8 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

Ex.A10 after the information was given under Ex.A9, he do not know that for registration of a document only identity proof is required. It is true copy of PAN

Card of Vendor is annexed to Ex.B6 AGPA. PW1 has denied the suggestion that no final decree is passed in OS No. 79/1993 and the property was not partitioned by metes and bounds, he also denied the suggestion that the defendants did not interfere in the suit schedule propriety at any point of time, it is imaginary cause of action and that he has filed false suit against the defendants in order to grab their property and he is giving false evidence.

11. PW2 deposed that the plaintiff is his neighbour and that the plaintiff is the owner of Plot No.13, he has purchased the same through registered sale deed in the year 2003, he is the owner of plot No.12, constructed a house in the said plot since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interference, they are the members of Mallikarjuna Nagar Welfare Association and it was formed in the year 2003 vide Regd.No.2295/2003, situated in

Sy.No.146 Part. In his cross examination he stated that he has acquaintance with the plaintiff as he is his neighbour, he purchased the plot from one Dhanalakshmi and Anji Reddy, he has not filed his plot document, he is giving evidence at the request of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has filed the suit against the persons who are claiming the suit schedule property as their property but he do not know their names, he is not present at the time when they went to the suit schedule property. PW2 denied the suggestion that he is not the owner of plot No.12, at the instance of plaintiff he was giving false evidence and also denied the suggestion that to help the plaintiff he is giving evidence in the case.

9 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

12. PW3 deposed that the plaintiff is the owner of plot No.13 having purchase the same through registered sale deed dt. 30.08.2003, thereafter plaintiff approached him along with the documents then they both obtained legal opinion from N.Mukunda Reddy, Advocate, on his advise after verification of the documents he purchased the plot, on verification of the documents it is revealed that originally the joint family of G.Shankar Reddy and others are the original owners of Agricultural lands in Sy.No.146 admeasuring Ac.11-05 gts, in Sy.No.147 admeasuring Ac.9-31 gts and in Sy.No.148 admeasuring Ac.18-16 gts, situated at

Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, R.R.District, said lands were partitioned among them vide Partition Decree in OS No.79/1993 dt. 06.10.1994 on the file of

Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, at Medchal, R.R.District. G. Anjireddy and

G.Krishnareddy have purchased the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3-33 gts in Sy.No.146 part from the original pattedars through registered AGPA dt.

08.03.2002 vide registered Doc.No.1221/2002, therefore G.Anjireddy and

G.Krishnareddy divided the land in Sy.No.146 Part into plots by obtaining permission from Grampanchayat, Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal and subsequently, plaintiff has purchased the plot No.13 from G.Anjireddy and

G.Krishnareddy and that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

In his cross examination he stated that he know the plaintiff through his father who is his patient since 15 to 20 years, Advocate Mukunda Reddy gave oral opinion regarding the property, he do not know whether Advocate advised to give public notice in newspaper prior to purchase of the property, the total extent of land in Sy.No.146 is Ac.11-15 gts as per his knowledge, the boundaries of the suit property are West: 30 feet road; East: Neighbour’s land; North: Plot

10 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

No.14; South: Plot No.12, on 29.03.2013 and 13.04.2013 around 5 to 6 persons came and interfered with the possession of the plaintiff and he came to now about the said fact, he went along with the plaintiff and found the said persons at the suit schedule property, he advised the plaintiff to lodge a complaint with the police but he do not know whether the plaintiff has given a complaint or not.

PW3 further stated in his cross examination that he did not receive the summons from the court to give evidence in the case, he filed his affidavit at the request of the plaintiff. PW3 denied the suggestion that defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, he also denied the suggestion that plaintiff has filed false suit to grab the suit schedule property and that the defendants have not interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and the cause of action is created for filing the suit.

13.The evidence of DW1 is the replica of his written statement, in his cross examination he stated that he is doing business of construction since 15 years, he purchased the suit schedule property from one Laxmi who was introduced to him by one Nageshwar Rao during 2010, he verified the link documents prior to purchasing the same, he do not know the total extent of land in the suit survey number (Sy.No.146), he do not know as to who were the original pattedars of the land in Sy.No.146 of Nagaram Village, it is true that pahani filed by him, the name of Anjireddy, Malla Reddy and Balakrishna Reddy are shown as pattedars of land in Sy.No.146, he has not issued any public notice by way of paper publication prior to purchasing the plot, as on the date of purchase of the plot by him his vendor by name Lakshmi was residing in plot No.12 in Sy.No.146 Part of Nagaram

11 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

Village, he has not filed the document to show that his vendor was the resident of plot No.12, he has not filed copy of layout mentioned in Ex.B5 sale deed and he has gone through the documents filed by the plaintiff. DW1 further stated in his cross examination that his vendor Laxmi was also present at the time of registration of AGPA in his favour, the signature appearing on Ex.B6 is the signature of Laxmi, he did not go to the registration office at the time of execution, he has not filed any document to show that Krishna is his Manager and he gave him a GPA to attend the registration proceedings on his behalf, he has gone through the contents of Ex.B6 AGPA, copy of Election Identity card of Laxmi was annexed to AGPA and in the said card Laxmi is shown as the resident of

Maruthi Nagar, Kushaiguda. DW1 further stated in his cross examination that the identity card number mentioned on the front side of the card and the copy of the back side of the card are different, it is true that election identity card of the

Prashant Kumar confronted to him is having the same card number as mentioned in the copy of identity card of Laxmi, he has visited the plot purchased by him on two occasions, his employees visit the plot occasionally and keep a vigil over it and there is no colony name for the place where the plot purchased by him is situated. DW1 has denied the suggestion that defendants No.2 to 6 are his men, he has purchased the plot through said persons and he also denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has purchased the plot under an approved layout and he is trying to grab the property of the plaintiff by interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. DW1 also denied the suggestion that he do not know the location of the plot allegedly purchased by him and he created a fabricated documents.

12 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

14. The evidence of PW3 is that G.Anjireddy and G.Krishnareddy divided the land in Sy.No.146 Part to an extent of Ac.3-33 gts of Nagaram Village, Keesara

Mandal, R.R.District after purchasing the same from the joint family members of

G.Shanker Reddy and others and 3.03 gts were converted into plots by obtaining permission from Grampanchayat, Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal in accordance with law and subsequently plaintiff has purchased the plot No.13 from

G.Anjireddy and G.Krishnareddy, no such plan is filed by the plaintiff to show that

G.Anjireddy and G.Krishnareddy have converted Ac.3-03 gts into plots. Ex.A4 is an important document which goes to show that which is a preliminary decree passed in OS No.79/1993 wherein the suit property therein has to be partitioned among G. Yadiraddy & others and G.Shanker Reddy & others. Plaintiff has not filed any document to show that preliminary decree (Ex.A4) is acted upon so that which the plaintiff and defendants in OS No.79/1993 have acquired how much of extent of land in each survey numbers i.e., in Sy.No.146, 147 and 148. The extent shown in Ex.A4 in respect of Sy.No.146 is Ac.11-15 gts but Ex.A5 AGPA shows that the Vendors are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-36 gts in Sy.No.146 Part. There is no explanation from the plaintiff how this Ac.3-36 gts is partitioned among G.Shanker Reddy and 7 others.

PW2 has stated that he is the owner of plot No.12 but he has not filed any document to substantiate his contention. The admissions made by the plaintiff/

PW1 in his cross examination that no final decree proceedings is initiated after

Ex.A4 is sufficient that property covered by Ex.A4 is not divided by metes and bounds.

13 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

15. Ex.B5 is the sale deed of DW1’s vendor which is dated 17.01.1983 which is much prior to Ex.A1 and Ex.A5. The entire case of the plaintiff rests on Ex.A4 to

A7 and A1. Pahanies filed by the defendants under Ex.B1 and B2 clearly goes to show that the vendors-vendors of DW1 names are reflected in Ex.B1 and B2 as per Ex.B3 and B4 sale deeds. DW1 has purchased the plot under Ex.B6 through

AGPA with possession on 16.06.2010.

16.In a suit for injunction simplicitor the plaintiff has to prove his possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff except filing Ex.A1, has not filed any document to show that the GPA Holders of Ex.A5 have obtained layout from

Grampanchayat, Nagaram Village and they converted the same into plots.

17.The conclusion of the trial court that the sale transaction of the plaintiff is of 2003 and the sale transaction of the defendants is of 2010 and wrongly came to a conclusion that the sale transaction of defendant No.1 is not completed and a suspicion is also crated as to genuinity of Agreement of Sale (Ex.B6). Ex.A6 and

A7 are not much helpful to the case of the plaintiff. When the evidence of PW3 is that GPA Holders of Ex.A5 have obtained permission from concerned department for converting the land into plots, no such document is filed to that effect to substantiate the same.

18.The observations made by the trial Court at para No.12 to 14 are not in accordance with law, the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession as on the date of filing the suit and also failed to prove that how Ac.3-03 gts is divided between the family members of G.Shanker Reddy in the absence of final decree proceedings, there is no record to show that preliminary decree is acted upon.

14 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

19. In view of the discussions above this Court feels that the Judgment and

Decree of the learned trial court in OS No.131/2013 dt. 31.08.2015 is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside, hence point No.1 is answered accordingly.

POINT NO. 2 :

20.In the result, appeal is allowed, Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Addl.Junior Civil Judge, at Malkajgiri in OS No.131 of 2013 dt. 31.08.2015 is hereby set-a-side, without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of April, 2024.

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Medchal- Malkajgiri District, At Malkajgiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

- Nil -

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Medchal- Malkajgiri District, At Malkajgiri.

15 of 14

A.S.No. 415 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MALKAJGIRI

PRESENT : B.R.Madhusudhan Rao

PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT

at MALKAJGIRI.

Dated this the 30th day of April, 2024

EP No. 32 OF 2018

Between:.

L.Masthan Reddy, S/o. Kasi Reddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o. 3057, MCC’B’ Block Davangiri,District Karnataka, Presently R/o. Flat .No. 302,III-Floor, Sai Tirumala Towers, St,No.2,Hyderabad. …Decree Holder

And

V.Lakshmi Akula W/o. S.D. Prasad Akula, Aged about 48 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-4-200/99/A &99B, Near High Tension road,Eswaripuri Colony, Under GHMC Kapra, Keesara Mandal, R.R.District. …Judgment Debtor/s

C LAIM : This Execution Petition is filed Under Rule 141(2) C.R.P. and Order XXI Rule 11 of CPC. This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. Sharad Sanghi, counsel for the Decree Holder and Sri. Police Venkat Reddy, counsel for the Judgment Debtor and upon perusing the material record, the court made the following:-

: DOCKET ORDER Dated 30 -04 -2024 ::

DHR, JDR and their Counsels on record are present. JDR Counsel has filed receipt stating that JDR has paid an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- to DHR vide receipt dated 30.04.2024 in addition to the DD bearing No. 207438 dated 29.04.2024. The receipt further goes to show that the amount Rs.2,10,000/- is taken by DHR towards full and final settlement in the EP.

In view of the settlement between the parties, receipt is taken on record. Office is hereby directed to return the DD No. 207438 dated 29.04.2024 for Rs.60,40,000/- to DHR under proper acknowledgment and identification.

Office is directed to return the original agreement of sale cum General power of attorney with possession dated 09.04.2008 dated vide doc. no. 969/2008, original sale deed dated 01.09.2006 vide doc.no. 7229/2006, original sale deed dated 28.09.1991 vide doc.no. 7399/1991 which is filed by DHR on 29.04.2024 to be returned to JDR on substituting with Xerox copies under proper acknowledgment and identification.

In view of the receipt filed by the Counsel for JDR FS is recorded and EP is closed accordingly.

(Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on 30th day of April,2024)

Prl. District & Sessions Judge

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT : B.R. Madhusudhan Rao

PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT

AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Dated this the 30th day of April, 2024

OS. No. 332 OF 2018

Between:

M/s. Switz International (P) Ltd., rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Omer Khan, S/o. Hameed Khan, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Manager, Office situated at: Suite 604, Balarama Building, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051. …Plaintiff

And

1. V.Naga Vara Prasad, S/o. V.Ramakotaiah, Aged 64 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o.1-10-28/A, 1st Floor, Street No.3, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Sri Chinthala Ramesh, S/o. Sri Ch. Bala Narasaiah, Age 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.7-10-18/1, Rampally Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana.

3. Dr. Kommineni Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Dr. K. Satyanarayana, Aged 67 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o 8-2-186, Kummariguda, Secunderabad, Telangana State. …Defendants

C LAIM : This suit is, filed U/o. VII, Rule 1 R/w. Sec.26 of C.P.C. Suit for Perpetual injunction. This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, counsel for the Plaintiff, defendants No.1 to 3 are set exparte and upon perusing the material record, the court made the following:-

:: DOCKET ORDER Dated 30 -04-2024 ::

Plaintiff called absent. No representation made on behalf of Plaintiff till 5.00 pm. Cost not paid. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence inspite of conditional order dated 11.03.2024 and failed to prosecute the suit.

In the result this suit is dismissed for default of the Plaintiff. No costs.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on 30th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-

PDJ

For Prl. District & Sessions Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MALKAJGIRI

PRESENT : B.R.Madhusudhan Rao

PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT

at MALKAJGIRI.

Dated this the 29th day of April, 2024

AS No. 40 OF 2019

Between:

1.Kishore Jawalkar, S/o. Sri.Subhash Jawalkar, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Software Engineer, 2.Smt.Kirthi Jawalkar, W/o. Sri Kishore Jawalkar, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Software Engineer,

Both permanent residents of H.No. 19-119/19/2, Venkatapuram, Kothabasthi, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District.

Rep.by their G.P.A. Holder, Kalpana Jawalkar, W/o. Sri.Subash Jawalkar, aged about 50 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.1-24-413/1(old no.24-84/34) Plot No.34, Sy.Nos.280 &281, Lothkunta, Indira Nagar, Anwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

…Appellants/Plaintiffs.

And

Rajesh Goud,S/o. Sri.Kumar Goud, aged about 39 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Laxmikala Mandir (Theatre),near Lothkunta, Alwal, R.R.District …Respondent

CLAIM: This appeal is filed under Order 41, Rule 1 of CPC against the

Judgement and Decree passed by the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri,

Ranga Reddy District, in O.S. No.318/2010, dated 25-07- 2016.

This appealis coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. D.Subramanyam Yadav, counsel for Appellant and K.Ravikanth, counsel for Respondent No.1 and B.Rathnakar, counsel for Respondent No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day , this court made the following:-

:: DOCKET ORDER Dated 24-04-2024 ::

(Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on 24th day of April, 2024)

Prl. District & Sessions Judge

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at

Malkajgiri

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MALKAJGIRI

PRESENT : V.Bala Bhaskar Rao

PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT

at MALKAJGIRI

Dated this the 30thday of April, 2024

EP No. 686 OF 2023

Between:. M/s. Shriram Finance Ltd Formarly known as Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Rep by its Authorized Officer Mr.Musku Madhukar, having its registered office at Mookambika Complex, III Floor, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore,Chennai-600 004. On of branch Office Situated at: D.No.12-13-1274, 2nd Floor, Maspack House, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-500017.

…Decree Holder

And

1.Gopi M S/o. Baddaiah M H No 3-14 Annojiguda, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy Dist Telangana-501506. 2.M Shankarm Deviji H.No. 4-42-673 Jagadhir Gutta K.V.RangaReddy Telangana India 500037. …Judgment Debtors CLAIM:This Execution Petition is filed Under Order XXI Rule 43 of CPC.

This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. Rajashekhar Reddy Jejala, counsel for the Decree Holder and upon perusing the material record, the court made the following:-

:: DOCKET ORDER Dated 30-04-2024 ::

DHR called absent. No representation made on behalf of DHR till 5.00 pm. Cost not paid. DHR remained absent on 11.03.2024 and 30.04.2024 and failed to prosecute the petition. In the result, this EP is dismissed for default of

Decree holder. No costs.

(Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on 30th day of April,2024)

Prl. District & Sessions Judge

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.