Sri. B.Tirupathi

TSMM000155542022

Presented on : 04-07-2022 Registered on : 04-07-2022 Decided on : 31-03-2026 Duration : 3 years, 8 months, 27 days

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE – CUM – ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT JUDGE,

MEDCHAL–MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT: Sri B.Thirupathi, I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge-cum- Addl. Family Court Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist. at Kushaiguda

Dated this the 31ST day of March, 2026

Appeal Suit No.200 of 2022 (Old Appeal Suit No.379 of 2015) Between:

Botcha Srinivasa Rao, S/o. B. Durga Rao. Aged about 40 Years Occ: Private Employee, R/o H.No.3-3-56/10, Opp: Noma Function Hall, Mallapur, Ranga Reddy District.

... APPELLANT / THIRTY PARTY

AND

1. K.Veeresh @ Ereshwar S/o. Late Rangaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o.H.No.36 Balaji Garden Extension Sukrampalem, G.N.Mill, M.T.P. Road, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu.

2.Akula Rejeshwari @ Maheshwari W/o. Santosh, aged about 39 years, Occ:House Wife, R/o.3-74, Marripally, Nagole, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

3. Kethi Ramesh, S/o. Late K.Rangaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ:Carpenter, R/o. H.No.2-3-603/49/92, Ward No.2, Patel Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

4. Smt. Akula Jayasurya, W/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 26 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No.4-6-89, Hayathnagar Village and Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District.

5. Smt. Gangi Lavanya, W/o. Swaminathan, Aged about 35 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.3-5-50, Ward No.6, Mallapur Village, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

... RESPONDENTS / DEFENDANTS

ON APPEAL AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

15/07/2009 ON THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, L.B.NAGAR

OS.NO.1121 Of 2008

BETWEEN:

1. K.Veeresh @ Ereshwar, S/o. Late Rangaiah, Aged about 53 years,Occ: Govt.Employee, R/o. H.No.36 Balaji Garden Extension Sukrampalem, G.N.Mill, M.T.P. Road, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu.

2. Akula Rejeshwari @ Maheshwari, W/o. Santosh, Aged about : 39 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.3-74, Marripally, Nagole, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

... PLAINTIFFS

AND 3.Kethi Ramesh, S/o. Late K.Rangaiah, Aged about 48 years,Occ:Carpenter, R/o. H.No.2-3-603/49/92, Ward No.2, Patel Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

4. Smt. Akula Jayasurya, W/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 26 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No.4-6-89, Hayathnagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Smt. Gangi Lavanya, W/o. Swaminathan, Aged about 35 years, Occ:House Wife, R/o.3-5-50, Ward No.6, Mallapur Village, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

... DEFENDANTS

This Appeal Suit is coming before me on 12.03.2026 for final hearing and disposal, in the presence of Sri P. Srinivas Rao, Counsel for the Appellant/Third party and Sri K.J. Pavan Kumar, Counsel for the Respondents / Plaintiffs and the Respondents/Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 were exparte and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, Judgment of Trial Court and material record of the case and arguments of the above counsels having stood over for consideration till this date the court made the following: - : J U D G M E N T :

1. 1. This is an appeal preferred under Order XLI, Rule 1

Sec.96 of the Civil Procedure Code by the appellant, who is the third party to the suit before the trial Court thereby assailing the judgment decree dated 15.07.2009 in OS.No.1121 Of 2008 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, where under, the suit filed by the

Appellants/Third party was dismissed without costs.

2.For the sake of convenience and for the better understanding the facts, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed in OS No.1121 of 2008 before the learned Trial Court i.e., ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendants’ and appellant herein.

3.The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is succinctly stated as follows:

(i) The plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 are the sons, plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 are the daughter of late K.

Rangaiah, and the defendant No.3 is the collusive party with the defendant No.1, who created false document to knock away the entire suit schedule property. They got another sister by name D.

Punyavathi wife of B. Shiva Kumar and she executed a release deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 30.08.2011 their father late K.

Rangaiah, purchased the suit schedule property i.e., house No.3- 3-56/10, Southern part in plot no.16, in survey no. 82/1/AA, admeasuring 105 Sq. Yards out of total land 205 Sq. Yards situated at Block no.3 old Mallapur, under GHMC, Kapra Circle,

Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from one Chandu Bai in the year 1987 for a sale consideration of R.8,200/- since then he had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also got mutated his name in the municipal records and also obtained permission from Kapra Municipality for making construction in the suit schedule property and raised structures with two rooms but could not proceed with construction of all rooms due to finance problem. The mother of the plaintiffs pre- deceased the father of the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiff is also expired in October, 1994 by leaving the plaintiff, Defendant

Nos.1 and 2 and their other sister D.Punyavathi, as his legal heirs to succeed all his properties. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and other sister D.Punyavathi succeeded the suit schedule property and they got equal rights in the schedule property. The plaintiff No.1 being eldest in their family performed the marriage of plaintiff No.2 by spending his money and also by taking assistance of the husband of the D.Punyavathi namely B. Shiva Kumar, who has given 5 tulas of gold and hand- loan of Rs.3,000/- to meet the marriage expenses of plaintiff No.2.

The plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 jointly executed a document

dated 10.11.1994 in favour of D. Shiva Kumar, the husband of

D.Punyavathi, the eldest sister of the plaintiffs and defendant

Nos.1 and 2, agreeing to repay the 5 tulas of gold and loan of

Rs.3,000/- They also agreed to share remaining sale proceed equally into five shares. Since D.Punyavathi has executed a released deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 by transferring her share, later the plaintiff was living away from Hyderabad as he was working at Coimbatore, but taking advantage of the same, the defendant No.1 colluded with the defendant No.3 brought the sale deed into existence, which is an invalid sham document and that sale is not binding on them in respect of suit schedule property, as he has no right or possession has been conveyed to defendant

No.3. Basically, the suit schedule property is an ancestral property acquired by the father of the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 and after his death plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and 2 and other sister D.Punyavathi succeeded the same. But, M. Geetha, who is executed of the sale deed had no right and possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of execution of the sale deed dated 13.09.2007 and in the said sale deed, it is mentioned that the sale consideration is Rs.4,66,000/- the defendant No.1 has executed on ‘Oppandam Patram’ by admitting entire sale consideration of Rs.9,70,000/- and the defendant No.1 in hurry manner created a false sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 in active collusion with the defendant No.3, but the same is not binding with the plaintiff. As the suit schedule property is a joint property of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 defendant No.1 and 2 and their sister D.Punyavathi. The suit schedule property is not the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 as he has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.3 without informing to the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for partition of the suit schedule property.

4.On receipt of summons, defendant No.1 to 3 though appeared before the trial Court, but they did not file their written statement and that they remained set exparte.

5.During course of trial, before the trial Court, the plaintiff No.1 is examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A3.

6.After hearing the plaintiffs and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, the learned trial court decreed the suit by allowing his 1/5th share each to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit schedule property.

7.Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, who is third party to the suit proceedings, preferred the appeal suit on the following grounds.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL :

i) The decree and judgment of the trial court in decreeing the suit is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

ii) The Trial court ought to have seen that neither plaintiffs nor defendant No.1 and 2 have not filed any piece of paper or documents to establish their title and possession over the suit schedule property and suit is liable to be dismissed.

iii) The Trial court ought to have seen that the documents filed by the plaintiffs are pertaining to different property i.e. Plot

No.106, in Sy.No.82/2, admeasuring 205 Sq. Yards, whereas Suit

Schedule Property is Plot No.16, in Sy.No.82/1, as such the plaintiffs are totally misrepresented the facts and played fraud on the court in order to obtain the decree and judgment.

iv) The Trial court ought to have seen that the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties i.e,.

the elder sister of the plaintiffs namely D.Punyavathi and Smt.

Geetha, who was the original owner of the property and sold the same to defendant No.3, were not made as parties to the suit proceedings.

v) The Trial court ought to have seen that whether there is any document on record to show that the plaintiffs are the owners of the said schedule property and whether the plaintiffs have established any prima-facie case. In the absence of any such document and the defendants were set exparte, the Trial court ought to have seen that it was collusive suit filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants in order to grab the schedule property, as such, the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit in limini.

vi) The Trial court grossly failed to appreciate the fact that the defendant has not produced any piece of evidence in order to prove his version.

8. The learned counsel for the defendants /respondents, while supporting the impugned the judgment and decree, contended that the trial Court rightly decreed the suit by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record in right perspective, and rightly decreed the suit and hence prayed to decreed the appeal filed by the appellant/Third party.

9.Heard counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants, the following points would emerge for consideration.

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

2. Whether the impugned Judgment and decree in

OS.No.1131 of

2008 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar Ranga Reddy District suffers from any infirmity or irregularity or calls for any interference by this Court?

3. To what relief?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

10.To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff

No.1 is himself examined as PW1 by filing affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and reiterated the avements made in the plaint. It is the testimony of the PW1 that the plaintiff No.1 and

Defendant No.1 are the sons, plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 are the daughter of late K. Rangaiah, and the defendant No.3 is the collusive party with the defendant No.1, who created a false document to knock away the entire suit schedule property. They have another sister by name Punyavathi wife of B. Shiva Kumar, and she executed a release deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 30.08.2011. Their father late K. Rangiaha, purchased the suit schedule property i.e., house No.3-3-56/10, Southern part in plot no.16, in survey no. 82/1/AA, admeasuring 105 Sq. Yards out of total land 205 Sq. Yards situated at Block no.3 old Mallapur, under GHMC, Kapra Circle, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from one Chandu Bai in the year 1987 for a sale consideration of

R.8,200/- since then he had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also got mutated his name in the municipal records, and also obtained permission from

Kapra Municipality for making construction in the suit schedule property and raised structures with two rooms but could not proceed with construction of all rooms due to finance problem.

The mother of the plaintiffs pre-deceased the father of the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs is also expired on 18 October by leaving the plaintiffs, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their sister

D.Punyavathi as his legal heirs to succeed all his properties.

Accordingly, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their sister D.Punyavathi succeeded the suit schedule property and they got equal rights in the schedule property. The plaintiff No.1 being eldest in their family performed the marriage of plaintiff No.2 by spending his money and also by taking assistance of the husband of the D.Punyavathi namely B. Shiva

Kumar, who has given 5 tulas of gold and hand-loan of Rs.3,000/- to meet the hand-loan expenses of plaintiff No.2. Late the plaintiff

No.1 and defendant No.1 jointly executed a document dated 10.11.1994 in favour of B. Shiva Kumar, agreeing to repay the 5 tulas of gold and loan of Rs.3,000/- They also agreed to share remaining sale proceed equally into five shares. Since

D.Punyavathi has executed a released deed in favour of plaintiff

No.1 but transferring her sale later the plaintiff was leaving away from Hyderabad as he was working at Coimbatore but taking advantage of the same, the defendant No.1 colluded with the defendant No.3 brought the sale deed into existence which is a invalid sham document and that sale is not binding on them in respect of suit schedule property as he has no right or possession has been conveyed in defendant No.3, but basically, the suit schedule property is an ancestral property acquired by the father of the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 and after his death plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and 2 and other sister

D.Punyavathi succeeded the same. But M. Geetha, who is executed of the sale deed has no right and possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of execution of the sale deed

dated 13.09.2007. In the said sale deed, it is mentioned that the

sale consideration is Rs.4,66,000/-, later the defendant No.1 has executed on ‘Oppandam Patram’ by admitting entire sale consideration of Rs.9,70,000/-, but the defendant No.1 in hurry manner created a false sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 in active collusion with the defendant No.3, but the same is not binding with the plaintiff, as the suit schedule property is a joint property of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 defendant No.1 and 2 and their sister D.Punyavathi. The suit schedule property is not the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 and he has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.3 without informing to the plaintiff.

11.In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, they relied upon Ex.A1 to A3. As per Ex.A1 which is the certified Copy of

Registered release deed would show that D. Punyavathi, who is the sister of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and 2 relinquished her ½ 2nd (half share) joint right and title over the suit schedule property in favour of Veeresh plaintiff No.1. As per

Ex.A2 which is the Tax payment receipt and notice would show that K. Rangaiah the suit schedule house standing in the name K.

Rangaiah who is the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and

2. Ex.A3 is certified copy of sale deed dated 13.07.2009 would show that one M. Geetha and K. Ramesh i.e., the defendant No.1 sold away the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant

No.3.

12.On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that the Appellant is the owner and peaceful possessor of the house

No.3-3-56/10, Southern part in plot no.16, in survey no.82/1/AA, admeasuring 105 Sq. Yards out of total land 205 Sq. Yards situated at Block no.3 old Mallapur, under GHMC, Kapra Circle,

Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the same was purchased from Gangi Lavanya W/o. Swaminathan, through Registered Sale

Deed vide document No.3116 of 2010 dated 01.12. 2010, for valuable sale consideration, since then he is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property, Smt. M.Geetha, who was the original Pattedar and possessor, has sold the present property to Gangi Lavanya through Registered Sale Deed vide document No.10934 of 2007 dated 13.09.2007.

(i) The respondent No.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed the above suit against the respondent No.3 to 5/defendants for partition stating that the suit schedule property was purchased by their father Late

K. Rangaiah, after his demise, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 & 2 succeeded to the said property as legal heirs. But, that after filing the suit, the summons were served on the defendants and made appearance through advocates, however, the defendants have not filed any written statement, as such, the Hon'ble Court was decreed the suit ex-parte. It appears that the plaintiffs and defendants colluded with each other with an ill intention to grab the suit schedule property under the guise of court decree.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs have filed the said application for final decree and the same is pending, but recently some people came to the property of the Appellant and trying to take measurements.

Immediately, the appellant took objection, however, they informed about the pending proceedings between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Immediately on enquiry, he came to know about the present proceedings.

(ii) On preliminary enquiry, the appellant came to know that the plaintiffs in collusion with the defendants got filed the above said proceedings by fabricating the documents in order to grab the appellant property behind his back. The appellant purchased the property from the original Gangi Lavanya i.e., defendant No.3 in the year 2010 and the defendant No.3 further represented that she has entered an agreement of sale with the Defendant no. 1, as such, the Defendant No.1 has joined as co-vendor to the appellant's sale deed. At the time execution of appellant sale deed, neither the Defendant no.1 nor Defendant No.3 informed to the appellant about the pending proceedings. The appellant is the bonafide purchaser and purchased the property by paying valuable sale consideration to his vendor. Either the plaintiffs or the defendants are no way connected with the appellant property and they have got no right, title, interest whatsoever in nature. The present proceedings are nothing but collusive basing on forged and fabricated documents and the decree in O.S.No.1121/2008

dated 15-07-2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court is nullity in

nature and liable to be quashed.

(iii) As per the contention of the plaintiff that their K.

Rangaiah, purchased the schedule property from one Chandu Bai, through Agreement of Sale and after his demise, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 2 succeeded to the property as legal heirs.

However, the plaintiffs have not filed any piece of paper or documents in support of their claim that their father has purchased the said property. It can be seen from the record that the plaintiffs have filed only 4 documents i.e. 1) Released deed

dated 30-08-2007, 2) property tax demand notice for the month of

June 2000, 3) Sale deed dated 13-09-2007 and Market value certificate dated 26.05. 2008. The first document i.e., release deed executed by elder sister of the plaintiffs namely D. Punyavathi in favour of the defendant No.1 pertaining to different property but not the suit schedule property as such this document is no way connected to the suit schedule property. The Second document is also pertaining to property of the first document as such this document also is no way connected to the suit schedule property.

The third document is pertaining to vendor of this Appellant.

Therefore, none of the documents are neither relevant nor establishing that their father purchased the said property, as such suit is liable to be dismissed.

13.Having considering the rival contention, it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs/respondent No.1 and 2 have not produced any sale deed to show that their father K. Rangaiah, purchased the suit schedule land from one Chandu Bai, wife of

Late Narsimha Rao in the year 1987. Even the plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the father of the plaintiffs/respondent No.1 and 2 accorded permission for municipal authority for making construction two rooms. On one hand, the plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property was purchased by the deceased father Chandu Bai in the year 1987.

But on the other hand, it is also contended that originally the suit schedule property is their ancestral property acquired from their ancestors. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have not proceed any documentary evidence, to show that the father of the plaintiff K.

Rangaiah has acquired the suit schedule property from their ancestors. Moreover, according to the plaintiff one D. Punyavathi is also the sister of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and 2.

Admittedly, the said D.Punyavathi, who is the sister of plaintiffs

No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and 2 is not made as party to the suit.

14.On the other hand, it is matter of record that appellant has filed in IA.No.96 of 2026, to receive the documents such as 1.Certified copy of Register sale deed no.2870/2010 on 08-11- 2010, 2.Certified copy of Register sale deed no.10937/2007 on 13- 09-2007, 3.Original copy of Encroachment certificate (2007 to 2013), 4.Original Market Value Certificate on 24-10-2013, 5)

Original Electricity Bill on 06-10-2013, 6) Original Payment receipt (Electricity Bill), 7.Original Property Tax demand notice on 22-10-2013, 8.Photo of Appellant, 8.Original Tax payment bill on 31-03-2013, 9.Photo copy of Passbook, 10.Certified copy of

Release deed on 30-08-2017, 11.Certified copy of Property Tax

Demand Notice on 10-06-2000, 12.Certified copy of Decree copy of

OS No.1121 of 2008 on 15-07-2009, 13.Certified copy of

Judgment copy of OS No.1121 of 2008 dated 15-07-2009, 14.Certified copy of Plaint OS No.1121 of 2008 on 13-06-2008, 15.Certified copy of Plaint OS No.1121 of 2008 on 13-06-2008, as

additional evidence in order to prove the case of the appellant. It is

also matter of record that the said IA.No.96 of 2026 is allowed by receiving the said documents as additional evidence.

15.As per the contention of the appellant that he is the owner and possessor of the house No.3-3-56/10, Southern part in plot no.16, in survey no. 82/1/AA, admeasuring 105 Sq. Yards out of total land 205 Sq. Yards situated at Block no.3 old

Mallapur, which is the suit schedule land having purchased from

G. Lavanya i.e., defendant No.3/respondent No.5 herein and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said property which is the part of the suit schedule property. It is also further contention of the appellant that one M.

Geetha, who is the original patter of the suit schedule land sold the suit schedule property to Gangi Lavanya i.e. defendant

No.3/respondent No.5 though the registered sale deed dated 13.09.2007, but the suit schedule property is not belonging to the father of the plaintiff either by way of purchase or acquiring from their ancestors.

16.Since the IA.No.96 of 2006 is Allowed by receiving the documents as the additional evidence in support of the contention of the appellant to establish that the suit schedule property is not belonging to the father of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant

No.1 and 2 and originally suit land belongs to M. Geetha, who was the original pattedhar and she sold the suit land through registered sale deed to defendant No.3 who in-turn sold the part of the suit land admeasuring 100 square yards out of 105 square yards to the appellant, as such this Court feels it is just and necessary to give opportunity to the appellants/respondents to lead evidence with regarding genuineness of the document which relied by the appellant. Moreover, the appellant, who is the third party to the suit proceeding had no opportunity to content the suit as such this Court also feels that it is just and necessary to give opportunity to the appellant to adduce their evidence and also to cross examine the witness of the plaintiff with regarding to the documents relied by the plaintiff under Exs.A1 to A3. Now the dispute between the plaintiff with regard to the suit schedule property is being claimed by the plaintiff and appellant, as to whether the suit schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant no.1 and 2 acquired from their father or the suit schedule property belongs to the appellant purchased from defendant No.3, who purchased from its original

Pattedhar namely M. Geetha, and that therefore, to adjudicate the above dispute it requires full fledged trial and that both parties should be given opportunity to adduce their evidence by challenging the documents relied by the parties. Therefore, this

Court feels that the matter shall be remanded back to trial court by permitting the appellant to implead as defendant by permitting him to file written statement and adduce their evidence for better adjudication of the case afresh. Hence the points are answered accordingly.

Point No.3:

To what relief?

17.In the result, In the result, appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2009 passed by the I Addl.

Senior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and the matter is

remanded back to the trial Court (Now Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda by permitting the appellant to implead as defendant No.5 by filing written statement and adducing their evidence and accordingly, the trial is directed to dispose off the matter afresh expeditiously as per the law.

Typed to my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2026.

Sd/-

I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge-cum- Addl. Family Court Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist. at Kushaiguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- NIL –

Sd/-

I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge-cum- Addl. Family Court Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist. at Kushaiguda Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSMM000155522022

Presented on : 04-07-2022 Registered on : 04-07-2022 Decided on : 31-03-2026 Duration : 3 years, 8 months, 27 days

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE – CUM – ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT JUDGE,

MEDCHAL–MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT: Sri B.Thirupathi, I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge-cum- Addl. Family Court Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist. at Kushaiguda

Dated this the 31ST day of March, 2026

Appeal Suit No.192 of 2022 (Old Appeal Suit No.385 of 2015) Between:

S. Srinivas Rao S/o. S. Mohan Rao, Aged about 35 Years Occ: Private Employee, R/o H.No.3-3-56/16, Opp: Noma Function Hall, Mallapur, Ranga Reddy District.

... APPELLANT / THIRD PARTY

AND

1. K.Veeresh @ Ereshwar S/o. Late Rangaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o.H.No.36 Balaji Garden Extension Sukrampalem, G.N.Mill, M.T.P. Road, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu.

2.Akula Rejeshwari @ Maheshwari, W/o. Santosh, aged about 39 years, Occ:House Wife, R/o.3-74, Marripally, Nagole, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 3.Kethi Ramesh, S/o. Late K.Rangaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ:Carpenter, R/o. H.No.2-3-603/49/92, Ward No.2, Patel Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

4. Smt. Akula Jayasurya, W/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 26 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No.4-6-89, Hayathnagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Smt. Gangi Lavanya, W/o. Swaminathan, Aged about 35 years,Occ: House Wife, R/o.3-5-50, Ward No.6, Mallapur Village, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

... RESPONDENTS / DEFENDANTS

ON APPEAL AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

15.07.2009 ON THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, L.B.NAGAR

OS.NO.1121 Of 2008

BETWEEN:

1. K.Veeresh @ Ereshwar, S/o. Late Rangaiah Aged about 53 years,Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No.36 Balaji Garden Extension Sukrampalem, G.N.Mill, M.T.P. Road, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu.

2. Akula Rejeshwari @ Maheshwari, W/o. Santosh, Aged about : 39years, Occ: House wife, R/o.3-74, Marripally, Nagole, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

... PLAINTIFF

AND 3.Kethi Ramesh, S/o. Late K.Rangaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ:Carpenter, R/o. H.No.2-3-603/49/92, Ward No.2, Patel Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

4. Smt. Akula Jayasurya W/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 26 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No.4-6-89, Hayathnagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Smt. Gangi Lavanya, W/o. Swaminathan, Aged about 35 years, Occ:House Wife, R/o.3-5-50, Ward No.6, Mallapur Village, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

... DEFENDANT

This Appeal Suit is coming before me on 12.03.2026 for final hearing and disposal, in the presence of Sri P. Srinivas Rao, Counsel for the Appellant/Third party and Sri K.J. Pavan Kumar, Counsel for the Respondents / Plaintiffs and the Respondents/Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 were exparte and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, Judgment of Trial Court and material record of the case and arguments of the above counsels having stood over for consideration till this date the court made the following: - : J U D G M E N T :

1.This is an appeal preferred under Order XLI, Rule 1

Sec.96 of the Civil Procedure Code by the appellant, who is the third party to the suit before the trial Court thereby assailing the judgment decree dated 15.07.2009 in OS.No.1121 Of 2008 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, where under, the suit filed by the

Appellants/Third party was dismissed without costs.

2. For the sake of convenience and for the better understanding the facts, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed in OS

No.1121 of 2008 before the learned Trial Court i.e., ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendants’ and appellant herein.

3. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is succinctly stated as follows:

(i) The plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 are the sons, plaintiff

No.2 and defendant No.2 are the daughter of late K. Rangaiah, and the defendant No.3 is the collusive party with the defendant No.1, who created false document to knock away the entire suit schedule property. They got another sister by name D. Punyavathi wife of B. Shiva Kumar and she executed a release deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 30.08.2011 their father late K. Rangaiah, purchased the suit schedule property i.e., house No.3-3-56/10,

Northern part in plot no.16, in survey no. 82/1/AA, admeasuring 205 Sq. Yards, situated at Block No.3 old Mallapur, under GHMC,

Kapra Circle, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from one

Chandu Bai in the year 1987 for a sale consideration of R.8,200/- since then he had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also got mutated his name in the municipal records and also obtained permission from Kapra

Municipality for making construction in the suit schedule property and raised structures with two rooms but could not proceed with construction of all rooms due to finance problem.

The mother of the plaintiffs pre-deceased the father of the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiff is also expired in October, 1994 by leaving the plaintiff, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their other sister D.Punyavathi, as his legal heirs to succeed all his properties. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and other sister D.Punyavathi succeeded the suit schedule property and they got equal rights in the schedule property. The plaintiff No.1 being eldest in their family performed the marriage of plaintiff No.2 by spending his money and also by taking assistance of the husband of the D.Punyavathi namely B. Shiva

Kumar, who has given 5 tulas of gold and hand-loan of Rs.3,000/- to meet the marriage expenses of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 jointly executed a document dated 10.11.1994 in favour of D. Shiva Kumar, the husband of D.Punyavathi, the eldest sister of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2, agreeing to repay the 5 tulas of gold and loan of Rs.3,000/- They also agreed to share remaining sale proceed equally into five shares.

Since D.Punyavathi has executed a released deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 by transferring her share, later the plaintiff was living away from Hyderabad as he was working at Coimbatore, but taking advantage of the same, the defendant No.1 colluded with the defendant No.3 brought the sale deed into existence, which is an invalid sham document and that sale is not binding on them in respect of suit schedule property, as he has no right or possession has been conveyed to defendant No.3. Basically, the suit schedule property is an ancestral property acquired by the father of the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 and after his death plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and 2 and other sister D.Punyavathi succeeded the same. But, M. Geetha, who is executed of the sale deed had no right and possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of execution of the sale deed dated 13.09.2007 and in the said sale deed, it is mentioned that the sale consideration is

Rs.4,66,000/- the defendant No.1 has executed on ‘Oppandam

Patram’ by admitting entire sale consideration of Rs.9,70,000/- and the defendant No.1 in hurry manner created a false sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 in active collusion with the defendant

No.3, but the same is not binding with the plaintiff. As the suit schedule property is a joint property of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 defendant No.1 and 2 and their sister D.Punyavathi. The suit schedule property is not the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 as he has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.3 without informing to the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for partition of the suit schedule property.

4. On receipt of summons, defendant No.1 to 3 though appeared

before the trial Court, but they did not file their written statement

and that they remained set exparte.

5. During course of trial, before the trial Court, the plaintiff No.1 is examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A3.

6. After hearing the plaintiffs and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, the learned trial court decreed the suit by allowing his 1/5th share each to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit schedule property.

7. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree passed by the

Trial Court, who is third party to the suit proceedings, preferred the appeal suit on the following grounds.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL :

i) The decree and judgment of the trial court in decreeing the suit is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

ii) The Trial court ought to have seen that neither plaintiffs nor defendant No.1 and 2 have not filed any piece of paper or documents to establish their title and possession over the suit schedule property and suit is liable to be dismissed.

iii) The Trial court ought to have seen that the documents filed by the plaintiffs are pertaining to different property i.e. Plot No.106, in Sy.No.82/2, admeasuring 205 Sq.

Yards, whereas Suit Schedule Property is Plot No.16, in

Sy.No.82/1, as such the plaintiffs are totally misrepresented the facts and played fraud on the court in order to obtain the decree and judgment.

iv) The Trial court ought to have seen that the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties i.e,. the elder sister of the plaintiffs namely D.Punyavathi and Smt. Geetha, who was the original owner of the property and sold the same to defendant No.3, were not made as parties to the suit proceedings.

v) The Trial court ought to have seen that whether there is any document on record to show that the plaintiffs are the owners of the said schedule property and whether the plaintiffs have established any prima-facie case. In the absence of any such document and the defendants were set exparte, the Trial court ought to have seen that it was collusive suit filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants in order to grab the schedule property, as such, the Trial

Court ought to have dismissed the suit in limini.

vi) The Trial court grossly failed to appreciate the fact that the defendant has not produced any piece of evidence in order to prove his version.

The learned counsel for the defendants /respondents, while supporting the impugned the judgment and decree, contended that the trial Court rightly decreed the suit by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record in right perspective, and rightly decreed the suit and hence prayed to decreed the appeal filed by the appellant/Third party.

8. Heard counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants, the following points would emerge for consideration.

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

2. whether the impugned Judgment and decree in OS.No.1131 of 2008 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar Ranga Reddy District suffers from any infirmity or irregularity or calls for any interference by this Court?

3. To what relief?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

9. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 is himself examined as PW1 by filing affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and reiterated the avements made in the plaint. It is the testimony of the PW1 that the plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 are the sons, plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 are the daughter of late K. Rangaiah, and the defendant No.3 is the collusive party with the defendant No.1, who created a false document to knock away the entire suit schedule property. They have another sister by name Punyavathi wife of B. Shiva Kumar, and she executed a release deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 30.08.2011.

Their father late K. Rangiaha, purchased the suit schedule property i.e., house No.3-3-56/10, Northern part in plot no.16, in survey no. 82/1/AA, admeasuring 205 Sq. Yards, situated at

Block no.3 old Mallapur, under GHMC, Kapra Circle, Uppal

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from one Chandu Bai in the year 1987 for a sale consideration of R.8,200/- since then he had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also got mutated his name in the municipal records, and also obtained permission from Kapra Municipality for making construction in the suit schedule property and raised structures with two rooms but could not proceed with construction of all rooms due to finance problem. The mother of the plaintiffs pre- deceased the father of the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs is also expired on 18 October by leaving the plaintiffs, Defendant

Nos.1 and 2 and their sister D.Punyavathi as his legal heirs to succeed all his properties. Accordingly, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their sister D.Punyavathi succeeded the suit schedule property and they got equal rights in the schedule property. The plaintiff No.1 being eldest in their family performed the marriage of plaintiff No.2 by spending his money and also by taking assistance of the husband of the

D.Punyavathi namely B. Shiva Kumar, who has given 5 tulas of gold and hand-loan of Rs.3,000/- to meet the hand-loan expenses of plaintiff No.2. Late the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 jointly executed a document dated 10.11.1994 in favour of B. Shiva

Kumar, agreeing to repay the 5 tulas of gold and loan of

Rs.3,000/- They also agreed to share remaining sale proceed equally into five shares. Since D.Punyavathi has executed a released deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 but transferring her sale later the plaintiff was leaving away from Hyderabad as he was working at Coimbatore but taking advantage of the same, the defendant No.1 colluded with the defendant No.3 brought the sale deed into existence which is a invalid sham document and that sale is not binding on them in respect of suit schedule property as he has no right or possession has been conveyed in defendant

No.3, but basically, the suit schedule property is an ancestral property acquired by the father of the plaintiff No.1 and defendant

No.1 and after his death plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and 2 and other sister D.Punyavathi succeeded the same. But M.

Geetha, who is executed of the sale deed has no right and possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of execution of the sale deed dated 13.09.2007. In the said sale deed, it is mentioned that the sale consideration is Rs.4,66,000/-, later the defendant No.1 has executed on ‘Oppandam Patram’ by admitting entire sale consideration of Rs.9,70,000/-, but the defendant No.1 in hurry manner created a false sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 in active collusion with the defendant No.3, but the same is not binding with the plaintiff, as the suit schedule property is a joint property of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 defendant

No.1 and 2 and their sister D.Punyavathi. The suit schedule property is not the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 and he has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.3 without informing to the plaintiff.

10. In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, they relied upon

Ex.A1 to A3. As per Ex.A1 which is the certified Copy of Registered release deed would show that D. Punyavathi, who is the sister of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and 2 relinquished her ½ 2nd (half share) joint right and title over the suit schedule property in favour of Veeresh plaintiff No.1. As per Ex.A2 which is the Tax payment receipt and notice would show that K. Rangaiah the suit schedule house standing in the name K. Rangaiah who is the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and 2. Ex.A3 is certified copy of sale deed dated 13.07.2009 would show that one

M. Geetha and K. Ramesh i.e., the defendant No.1 sold away the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant

No.3.

11. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that the

Appellant is the owner and peaceful possessor of the house No.3- 3-56/16, Northern part in plot no.16, in survey no. 82/1/AA, admeasuring 100 Sq. Yards out of total land 205 Sq. Yards situated at Block no.3 old Mallapur, under GHMC, Kapra Circle,

Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the same was purchased from Gangi Lavanya W/o. Swaminathan, through Registered Sale

Deed vide document No.3116 of 2010 dated 01.12. 2010, for valuable sale consideration, since then he is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property, Smt. M.Geetha, who was the original Pattedar and possessor, has sold the present property to Gangi Lavanya through Registered Sale Deed vide document No.10934 of 2007 dated 13.09.2007.

(i) The respondent No.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed the above suit against the respondent No.3 to 5/defendants for partition stating that the suit schedule property was purchased by their father Late

K. Rangaiah, after his demise, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 & 2 succeeded to the said property as legal heirs. But, that after filing the suit, the summons were served on the defendants and made appearance through advocates, however, the defendants have not filed any written statement, as such, the Hon'ble Court was decreed the suit ex-parte. It appears that the plaintiffs and defendants colluded with each other with an ill intention to grab the suit schedule property under the guise of court decree.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs have filed the said application for final decree and the same is pending. But recently some people came to the property of the Appellant and trying to take measurements.

Immediately, the appellant took objection, however, they informed about the pending proceedings between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Immediately on enquiry, he came to know about the present proceedings.

(ii) On preliminary enquiry, the appellant came to know that the plaintiffs in collusion with the defendants got filed the above said proceedings by fabricating the documents in order to grab the appellant property behind his back. The appellant purchased the property from the original Gangi Lavanya i.e., defendant No.3 in the year 2010 and the defendant No.3 further represented that she has entered an agreement of sale with the Defendant no. 1, as such, the Defendant No.1 has joined as co-vendor to the appellant's sale deed. At the time execution of appellant sale deed, neither the Defendant no.1 nor Defendant No.3 informed to the appellant about the pending proceedings. The appellant is the bonafide purchaser and purchased the property by paying valuable sale consideration to his vendor. Either the plaintiffs or the defendants are no way connected with the appellant property and they have got no right, title, interest whatsoever in nature. The present proceedings are nothing but collusive basing on forged and fabricated documents and the decree in O.S.No.1121/2008

dated 15-07-2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court is nullity in

nature and liable to be quashed.

(iii) As per the contention of the plaintiff that their father

K. Rangaiah, purchased the schedule property from one Chandu

Bai, through Agreement of Sale and after his demise, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 2 succeeded to the property as legal heirs.

However, the plaintiffs have not filed any piece of paper or documents in support of their claim that their father has purchased the said property. It can be seen from the record that the plaintiffs have filed only 4 documents i.e. 1) Released deed

dated 30-08-2007, 2) property tax demand notice for the month of

June 2000, 3) Sale deed dated 13-09-2007 and Market value certificate dated 26.05. 2008. The release deed executed by elder sister of the plaintiffs namely D. Punyavathi in favour of the defendant No.1 pertaining to different property but not the suit schedule property as such the said release deed is no way connected to the suit schedule property. The Second document is also pertaining to property of the first document as such this document also is no way connected to the suit schedule property.

The third document is pertaining to vendor of this Appellant.

Therefore, none of the documents are neither relevant nor establishing that their father purchased the said property, as such suit is liable to be dismissed.

12. Having considering the rival contention, it is not in dispute thatthe plaintiffs/respondent No.1 and 2 have not produced any sale deed to show that their father K. Rangaiah, purchased the suit schedule land from one Chandu Bai, wife of Late Narsimha

Rao in the year 1987. Even the plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the father of the plaintiffs/respondent No.1 and 2 accorded permission for municipal authority for making construction two rooms. On one hand, the plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property was purchasedby the deceased father from Chandu Bai in the year 1987, but on the other hand, it is also contended that originally the suit schedule property is their ancestral property acquired from their ancestors. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have not proceed any documentary evidence, to show that the father of the plaintiff

K. Rangaiah has acquired the suit schedule property from their ancestors. Moreover, according to the plaintiff one D. Punyavathi is also the sister of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and 2.

Admittedly, the said D.Punyavathi, who is the sister of plaintiffs

No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and 2 is not made as party to the suit.

13. On the other hand, it is matter of record that appellant has filed in IA.No.95 of 2026, to receive the documents such as 1)

Certified copy of Register sale deed No.3116/2010, 2) Certified copy of Register sale deed No.10934/2007, 3) Original copy of

Encroachment Certificate (1984 of 2007), 4) Original Copy of

Market Value Certificate, 5) Photo showing constructed House of

Appellant, (6 photos) 6) Original Electricity bill on 03.10.2013, 7)

Photo copy of Property Tax Receipt on 19-09-2013, 8) Photocopy of

Pattedar Pass Book, 9) Certified Copy of Release Deed on 30.08.2007, 10) Certified copy of Property tax and demand notice receipt on 10.06.2000, 11) Certified copy of Decree Copy of

OS.No.1121 of 2008 on 15.07.2009, 12) Certified Copy of

Judgment Copy of OS.No.1121 of 2008 on 15.07.2009, 13)

Certified copy of Plaint in OS.No.1121 of 2008 on 13.06.2008, 14)

Certified copy of Plaint in OS.No.1121 of 2008 on 13.06.2008, as

additional evidence in order to prove the case of the appellant. It is

also matter of record that the said IA.No.95 of 2026 is allowed by receiving the said documents as additional evidence.

14. As per the contention of the appellant that he is the owner and possessor of the house No.3-3-56/16, Northern part in plot no.16, in survey no. 82/1/AA, admeasuring 100 Sq. Yards out of total land 205 Sq. Yards which is the suit schedule land having purchased from G. Lavanya i.e., defendant

No.3/respondent No.5 herein and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said property which is the part of the suit schedule property. It is also further contention of the appellant that one M. Geetha, who is the original patter of the suit schedule land sold the suit schedule property to

Gangi Lanvanya i.e. defendant No.3/respondent No.5 though the registered sale deed dated 13.09.2007, but the suit schedule property is not belonging to the father of the plaintiff either by way of purchase or acquiring from their ancestors.

15. Since the IA.No.95 of 2006 is Allowed by receiving the documents as the additional evidence in support of the contention of the appellant to establish that the suit schedule property is not belonging to the father of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant

No.1 and 2, but originally suit land belongs to M. Geetha, who was the original pattedhar and she sold the suit land through registered sale deed to defendant No.3 who in-turn sold the part of the suit land admeasuring 100 square yards out of 105 square yards to the appellant, as such this Court feels it is just and necessary to give opportunity to the appellants/respondents to lead evidence with regarding genuineness of the document which relied by the appellant. Moreover, the appellant, who is the third party to the suit proceeding had no opportunity to contents the suit as such this Court also feels that it is just and necessary to give opportunity to the appellant to adduce their evidence and also to cross examine the witness of the plaintiff with regarding to the documents relied by the plaintiff under Exs.A1 to A3. Now the dispute between the plaintiff with regard to the suit schedule property is being claimed by the plaintiff and appellant, as to whether the suit schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant no.1 and 2 acquired from their father or the suit schedule property belongs to the appellant purchased from defendant No.3, who purchased from its original

Pattedhar namely M. Geetha, and that therefore, to adjudicate the above dispute it requires full fledged trial and that both parties should be given opportunity to adduce their evidence by challenging the documents relied by the parties. Therefore, this

Court feels that the matter shall be remanded back to trial court by permitting the appellant to implead as defendant by permitting him to file written statement and adduce their evidence for better adjudication of the case afresh. Hence the points are answered accordingly.

Point No.3:

To what relief?

17. In the result, In the result, appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2009 passed by the I Addl. Senior

Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and the matter is

remanded back to the trial Court (Now Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda by permitting the appellant to implead as defendant No.4 by filing written statement and adducing their evidence and accordingly, the trial is directed to dispose off the matter afresh expeditiously as per the law.

Typed to my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of March, 2026.

Sd/-

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum- Addl. Family Court Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- NIL –

Sd/-

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum- Addl. Family Court Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSMM000021432025

Presented on : 25-08-2025 Registered on : 25-08-2025 Decided on : -- Duration :

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDCH AL – M ALK A JGIR I

DISTR IC T AT KUSH AIGUDA

PRESENT: SRI B.THIRUPATHI I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Medchal – Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

Dated the 09th day of April, 2026

E.P.No.25 of 2025

Between: Smt.Raavi Subhashini, W/o.Sri.Raavi Venkateshwara Rao, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Plot No.149, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500 033….. Decree Holder AND

1. M/s.Variety Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its managing director Sri. K.Sathya Reddy, S/o.Late Sri.K.Yadi Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, Office at 1-1/1, Uppal Bagayat, Uppal Nagole Road, Hyderabad-39

2. Sri.K.Sathya Reddy, S/o.Late Sri.K.Yadi Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o.2-19-90, Kalyanpuri colony, Uppal Nagole Road, Hyderabad

3. Sri. Satheesh Reddy Theepireddy,

S/o.not known to the plaintiff Aged: Major, R/o.7-22, Habsiguda, Jai Santhosh Nagar, Uppal, Secunderabad-39….. Judgment Debtors

This Execution Petition (EP) came before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s.Shyam S.Agarwal, Advocate, for the Decree Holder and M/s.Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate, for the Judgment Debtor no.2 and 3 and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

R O D E R

1. This Execution Petition is filed under Order XXI Rule 35 (1), (3) and (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the judgment debtors / defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the EP schedule property to the Decree Holder.

2. The brief averments of the Executive Petition is as follows:-

The Decree Holder has filed the suit against the Judgment

Debtors for recovery of possession of suit property i.e.,

Industrial shed bearing municipal no.1-1/1, situated at Uppal

Baghayat, Uppal, Hyderabad, admeasuring 13000 square feet of 4000 square yards land, recovery of arrears of rent of

Rs.45,12,420/-, mesne profits, and this court was pleased to decree the suit with costs on 17-02-2020 directing the

Judgment Debtors to vacate and handover the possession of the suit property within a period of three months from the date of judgment. Thereafter, the Judgment Debtors filed appeal in AS No.182/2020 and on contest the same was dismissed by Hon’ble High court for the State of Telangana by the Judgment dated 18-06-2025 confirming the Judgment and decree passed by this court. Later, the Judgment Debtor has not filed any further appeal before the Hon’ble Apex court and as such the decree of the Hon’ble court has become final.

But, the Judgment Debtor failed to vacate the suit schedule property and that the Decree Holder is entitled for Execution

Petition for delivery of vacant possession of the EP schedule property.

3. On receipt of the notice, the respondent/Judgment Debtors filed counter by denying the averments made in the petition, except admitting the relationship as land lord and tenant and further contended that aggrieved by the Judgment and

Decree, the Judgment Debtors preferred appeal to the Hon’ble

High Court vide AS No.182/2020 and the said appeal was pleased to dismiss on 18-06-2025. Aggrieved by the said

Judgment they filed review petition in AS No.182/2020. It is contended that in it's Judgment in A.S 182 / 2020 dated 18.06.2025, the Hon'ble High Court has altogether ignored the written argument dated 01.04.2025 submitted by the

Appellants (Defendants/J.DRs) in A.S No.182/2020, and the said illegality constitutes Judicial Dishonesty as per the ratio of the Judgments reported in 2003 (2) A.L.D at Page No. 926 and 2005 (2) A.L.D at Page No. 73. The Hon’ble High Court has virtually abdicated it’s responsibility cast upon the

Appellate Court to consider rival pleadings of the parties in the main suit as well as in I.A 964/ 19.06.2018 and the Bench also failed to consider documents marked in evidence in I.A

No. 964/ 2016, and so also the Hon’ble High Court avoided to consider the evidence of PW1 recorded on the civil suit bearing

O.S.No. 1417 / 2016 and the said illegality committed by the

Appellate Court is violative of the ratio of the Judgments reported in A.I.R 2001 S.C at Page No. 2171, 2001 (3) S.C.C at

Page No. 179, 2015 (1) A.L.T (S.C) at Page No. 38 & 2022 (3)

S.C.C at Page No. 90 by the Hon’ble First Appellate Court.

Despite the fact that A.S No. 182 / 2020 is also preferred against the impugned Order in I.A No. 964 / 2016 in O.S No.

1417/2016 dated 19.06.2018 passed by the Learned Trial

Court Judge, under Order 43 Rule. 1A C.P.C, the Hon’ble High

Court has totally avoided to give any finding of any nature whatsoever on the validity of the impugned Order in I.A

No.964 / 2016 by having altogether avoided to even consider the rival pleadings and the documents marked as Exhibits in 'R' Series in I.A.No. 964 / 2016, and the said error constitutes an utter violation of the ratio of the Judgments reported in

A.I.R 2001 S.C at Page No. 2171, 2001 (3) S.C.C at Page No.

179, 2015 (1) A.L.T (S.C) at Page No. 38 & 2022 (3) S.C.C at

Page No.90 by the Hon’ble First Appellate Court.

(ii) The Hon’ble High Court audiciously ignored the ratio of the Full Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble A.P High Court reported in A.I.R 1973 A.P at Page No.1 wherein, their

Lordships held that an Order passed without considering documents relied upon by either of the parties, would be illegal and would not confirm to the defination of a Decree as defined under Order 20 Rule 4 (2) C.P.C whereby, the impugned order in I.A No.964 / 2016 dated 19.06.2018 under challenge in the said Appeal bearing A.S No.182/2020, would be liable to be set aside as the Learned Trial Court Judge entirely ignored the documents marked in ‘R’ series in I.A No.964/2016 while passing the impugned Order dated 19.06.2018. The Hon’ble

High court in its Judgment in A.S.No.182/2020 dated 18.06.2015 has altogether avoided to consider ratio the of the

Judgment reported in 2010 (10) S.C.C at Page No.677 wherein, their Lordships were pleased to hold that as a condition precedent to claiming ceiling surplus land, the claimant has to prove the authenticity of his own sale deed as a condition precedent. The Hon’ble High Court, in it's

Judgment in A.S.No.182/2020 dated. 18.06.2025, being the

First Appellate Court has entirely ignored and avoided to consider Ground No’s.3(i)(ii), Ground No.4, Ground No.5,

Ground No.6, Ground No.7, Ground No.8 and Ground No.10 and Ground No.10 urged in the Memorandum of Grounds in

AS No.182/2020 and the said error has lead to a grave

miscarriage of Justice and the Appellate court has abdicated its responsibility to consider the said aspect in violation of the ratio of the Judgments reported in A.1.R 2001 S.C at Page No.

2171, 2001 (3) S.C.C at Page No. 179, 2015 (1) A.L.T (S.C) at

Page No.38 & 2022 (3) S.C.C at Page No. 90.

(iii) The Hon'ble High Court, being the First Appellate

Court, in it’s Judgment in A.S No. 182 / 2020 dated.

18.06.2025 has entirely ignored and avoided to consider

Ground No's.10 and 11 urged in A.S.No.182/2020 and also ignored the ratio of the Judgment reported in AIR 2017 SC at

Page No.2042 wherein, their Lordships were pleased to hold that in respect of a civil suit involving ceiling surplus land, the

Government should be compulsorily be made a party to the suit. The Hon’ble High Court, in its Judgment in AS

No.182/2020 dated 18.06.2025 altogether ignored the ratio of the Judgment reported in AIR 2017 SC at Page No.2042 in audicious violation of the provisions contained in Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble High Court in it's

Judgment dated 18.06.2025 deliberately avoided to pass any

Orders in IA No.2/2025 in AS No.182/2020 wherein, the appellants had prayed that the subject appeal ought to be heard alongwith Writ Petition No.32242/2014 and Writ

Petition No.11953/2019, as the entire fraudulent claim of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder would have been exposed as the entire suit scheduled land is ceiling surplus land which has been handed over to the HMDA and is part and parcel of

Moosi Riverfront Project.

(iv) The Hon’ble High Court, in it's Judgment in A.S No. 182 / 2020 dated. 18.06.2025 entirely ignored the legitimate plea of the Appellants in A.S.No.182 / 2020 (Defendants / JDRs herein) that even though the Two (2) Gift Deeds both dated 30.09.2005 are standing in the name of the Writ Petitioners in

W.P.No.32242/2014, the respondent in AS No.182/2020 (Plaintiff/Decree Holder herein) illegally claimed title to the property without any title deed and in her capacity as

Benamidar of the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.32242/2014 whereby, the provisions contained in the Prohibition of Benami

Properties Transactions Act,1988 (as amended by Act No.43 of 2016) would be attracted to non-suit the respondent/plaintiff.

Therefore, the entire claim of the Respondent (Plaintiff/Decree qua the leased premises was Holder herein) in A.S No.

182/2020 in illegal and thereby, void as per the provisions contained Section. 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and

Section. 6 (h) of the Transfer of property Act, 1881 as per the ratio of the Judgment reported in A.1.R 2006 SCW at Page No.

5470. However, the Hon’ble High Court, in it's Judgment in

A.S No.182/ 2020 dated. 18.06.2025 has entirely ignored the

Ground No.3 (i) urged in the Memorandum of Grounds in A.S

No. 182/2020 thereby, resulting in a grave miscarriage of

Justice.

(v) In the impugned Judgment in A.S No. 182 / 2020 dated 18.06.2025, the Hon’ble High Court has therefore audiciously ignored the ratio of the within mentioned Judgments which were cited by the Appellants (Defendants / Judgment Debtors herein) the Memorandum of Grounds in A.S No. 182 / 2020 and also in the Written Arguments dated 01.04.2025 filed in

A.S No.182/ 2020, as under:

1. A.I.R 1974 A.P at Page No. 1

2. AIR 2006 SCW at Page No. 5470

3. A.I.R 2017 S.C at Page No. 2042

4. A.I.R 1987 S.C at Page No. 1656

5. A.I.R 1987 S.C at Page No. 2192

6. 2011 (6) A.L.T at Page No. 288

7. 2000 (4) A.L.D at Page No. 121

8. A.I.R 1987 S.C at Page No. 2192

9. A.1.R 1987 S.C at Page No. 1656

The Hon 'ble High Court, in it's Judgement in A.S No.

182 / 2020 dated. 18.06.2025, cleverly avoided to pass any

Orders in I.A No. 3 / 2025 filed by the Appellants seeking referance of A.S No. 182/2020 to a larger Bench in case, the

Hon’ble High differs with the ratio of the Full Bench

Judgement of the Hon’ble A.P High Court reported in A.I.R

1973 A.P at Page No. 1 and the Judgements reported in 2011 (1) A.L.T at Page No. 467 and 2011 (6) A.L.T at Page No. 288, as per the ratio of the Judgement reported in A.I.R 2001 S.C at Page No. 83 wherein, their Lordships held that if a Bench disagrees with the Judgement rendered by the Co-ordinate

Bench, the matter should be referred to a Larger Bench.

(vi) In the within mentioned Judgements, their Lordships held that any Judgement or, Order which is passed in violation of the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India is illegal, null and void:

1. 1993 (1) An.W.R at Page No. 149

2. 1992 (1) An.W.R at Page No. 776

3. 2000 (4) A.L.T at Page No. 336

4. 1998 (2) A.L.T at Page No. 641

5. 1998 (5) A.L.T at Page No. 772

6. 1999 (4) A.L.T at Page No. 688

(vii)Furthermore, in the Judgement reported in A.I.R 2008 S.C at Page No. 1177 their Lordships were pleased to observe as under:

A.I.R 2008 S.C at Page No. 1177 Para No. 70 at Page

No.1207: We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of and the the basics of Judicial discipline. The Learned Single Judges and

Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by co-ordinate and even larger

Benches by citing minor differences in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to Constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of the Judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictibility and certainty is an important hallmark of

Judicial Jurisprudence developed in this Country since the last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting

Judgements of the superior Judiciary will do incalculable

harm to the system inasmuch as the Courts at the grass roots will not able to decide as to which of the Judgements lay down the correct law and which one should be followed. They may add that, in their the superior Judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the Judgements lay down the correct law and which one should be followed. They may add that in their Constitutional set up, every Citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect it's ideals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system and operating various constituents of the State and who take oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and uphold the same, have to set an example by exhibiting total commitment to the

Constitutional ideals. This principle is required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of the Judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal issues and protect and preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole.

Discipline is a sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the Judicial system. If the Courts command others and to act in accordance with the provisions of the

Constitution Rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the Constitutional principles by those who are required to lay down the law.

Para No. 71 at Page No. 1207: In the light of what has been stated above, they deem it proper to clarify that the comments and observations made by two (2) Judges Bench in U.P State

Electricity Board Vs Poonam Chandra Pandey (supra) should be read OBITER and the same should neither be treated as binding by the High Courts, Tribunals and other Judicial foras nor, should they be relied upon or, made a basis for bye- passing the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench.

(viii) The Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Court in A.S

No. 182 / 2020 dated 18.06.2025 by ignoring the legal provisions contained in the Prohibition of Benami Properties

Transactions Act, 1988 (as amended by Central Act No.

43/2016) and by ignoring the binding precedents of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and by ignoring the Full

Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble A.P High Court reported in

A.I.R 1973 A.P at Page No. 1 constitutes a Ground for Review and so also, the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court in A.S No. 182 / 2020 dated 18.06.2025 by entirely ignoring the Grounds urged in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal in A.S No. 182 / 2020 and by ignoring the documents marked in 'R' series in I.A No. 964/2016 and by altogether failing to give a finding on the validity of the impugned Order in I.A No.

964 / 2016 dated 19.06.2018 which was under challenge in the subject Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1A C.P.C in violation of the ratio of the Judgments reported A.I.R 2001 S.C at Page

No. 2171, 2001 (3) S.C.C at Page No. 179, 2015 (1) A.L.T (S.C) at Page No. 38 & 2022 (3) S.C.C at Page No. 90 constitutes a ground for Review of the impugned Judgement in A.S No.

182 / 2020 dated. 18.06.2025 under Order 47 Rule 1 R/w

Section 114 C.P.C. The Review Petition Appellants in A.S No.

182 / 2020 (2nd & 3rd Judgement Debtors herein) is duly registered as I.A No. 5/2025 on the file of the Hon’ble High

Court and the listing of the matter is eagerly awaited. In the light of the foregoing, the Judgement and Decree in A.S No.

182 / 2020 dated. 18.06.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court virtually constitutes an illegal, null Judgement having been passed in violation of the binding precedents in violation of Article. 141 of the Constitution India and by the Learned

Judges having altogether ignored the Written Arguments filed

by the Appellants (Judgment Debtors herein) in A.S No. 182 / 2020 and therefore, the said Judgement and Decree in A.S No.

182 / 2020 dated. 18.06.2025 constitutes an illegal, null and void order as per the ratio mentioned Judgements as under:

1. 1993 (1) An.W.R at Page No. 149

2. 1992 (1) An.W.R at Page No. 776

3. 2000 (4) A.L.T at Page No. 336

4. 1998 (2) A.L.T at Page No. 641

5. 1998 (5) A.L.T at Page No. 772

6. 1999 (4) A.L.T at Page No. 688 and hence prayed to dismiss the EP.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the decree holders are entitled for delivery of possession of the EP schedule property as prayed for?

5. Heard the learned counsel for the Decree Holder and

Judgment Debtors and perused the written arguments filed by them.

P O I N T:

6. Before adverting to the issue for delivery of EP schedule property to the decree holder, it is just and necessary to extract the operative portion of Judgment and Decree passed by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar as under:- “In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendants no.1 to 3 are directed to vacate and handover the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of Judgment and defendants no.1 to 3 are directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.45,12,420/- (Rupees Forty

Five Lakhs Twelve Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Only) along with interest @12% per annum, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to get it done through process of the court at the cost of the defendants and plaintiffs are directed to file separate application for ascertaining mesne profits and defendants no.1 and 3 shall pay a sum of Rs.2,62,834/- to the plaintiff towards the costs of the suit.”

7. It is also just and necessary to extract the EP schedule property which was sought for deliver of possession.

“ Industrial shed bearing municipal no.1-1/1, situated at

Uppal Baghayat, Uppal, Hyderabad, admeasuring 13000 square feet of 4000 square yards land.”

8. Having regard to the rival contentions on both sides, it is matter of record that Decree Holder has filed the above suit against Judgment Debtor for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and the said suit was decreed on directing the defendants to vacate and handover the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of

Judgment and defendants no.1 to 3 are directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.45,12,420/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Twelve

Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Only) along with interest @12% per annum, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to get it done through process of the court at the cost of the defendants and plaintiffs are directed to file separate application for ascertaining mesne profits and defendants no.1 and 3 shall pay a sum of Rs.2,62,834/- to the plaintiff towards the costs of the suit. It is also matter of record that aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, the Judgment Debtor have preferred appeal vide AS No.182/2020 before the Hon’ble High

Court and after hearing both sides, the appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana. Though the Judgment Debtor contended that they also preferred review against the Judgment passed in AS No.182/2020, but the Judgment Debtor has not submitted the status of the said review whether it is numbered or still pending, which shows that the Judgment and Decree passed by this court attained finality. It is the main contention of the Decree Holder that even after passing of the Decree and dismiss of the appeal, the

Judgment Debtor failed to vacate the premises, as such he is constrained to file the present EP. On the other hand, it is contention of the Judgment Debtors that the entire EP schedule property is a ceiling surplus land and they intend to handover to the HMDA which is part and parcel of the Moosi

Riverfront project, as such the Decree Holder is not entitle to recovery of the EP schedule property. It is also contended by the Judgment Debtor that they relied upon the decisions in the first appeal vide As No.182/2020, but the appellant court has ignored those citations and has not considered the grounds alleged by the Judgment Debtor. However, such contention that the Hon’ble first appellant court has not considered ratio laid down in the decisions relied upon by the

Judgment Debtor and the dispute with regard to the EP schedule property belongs to ceiling surplus land cannot be adjudicated in this executive petition.

9. It is well settled law that this court cannot go beyond decree. Moreover, the Judgment and decree passed in the suit vide OS No.1417/2016 is also confirmed by the Hon’ble appellant court vide AS No.182/2020. Since, the relationship of the Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor is that of landlord and tenant and the EP is filed for vacant and delivery of EP schedule property to the Decree Holder basing on the

Judgment and Decree passed by this court in OS

No.1417/2016 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Appellant court vide AS No.182/2020, and that the ownership of the

Decree Holder disputed for the said land is ceiling surplus land, cannot be adjudicated in this execution petition which cannot be permitted. If at all, in the land where the Decree

Holder made constructing belongs to the Government surplus land, it is for the Government to take appropriate legal proceedings before the proper forum. The present EP is filed for the delivery of EP schedule property to the Decree Holder basing on the Judgment and Decree dated 17-02-2020 passed by this court and which was confirmed by the Hon’ble

Appellant court vide AS No.182/2020. But, it is not the contention of the Judgment Debtor that he has handed over the vacant possession of the EP schedule property to the

Decree Holder. But, it is the contention of the Judgment

Debtor that he intend to handover the possession of the EP schedule property to the GHMC as it is a ceiling surplus land.

However, as earlier discussed that if at all the Decree Holder has made any construction over the Government surplus land i.e., EP schedule property, it is for the Government to initiate valid legal proceedings, but such contention cannot be re- adjudicated in the execution proceedings as this court cannot go beyond the decree and that there is no substance in the grounds raised by the Judgment Debtors.

10.In view of the above discussion held, this court is of the opinion that the Decree Holder is entitled for delivery of possession of the EP schedule property. Hence, the point is answered in favor of Decree Holder and against the Judgment

Debtors.

11.In the result, Execution Petition is allowed by issuing warrant for delivery of possession of the EP schedule property to the Decree Holder on payment of process. For report, call on 01-05-2026.

Typed to my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 09 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge cum

Addl. Family Court Judge, Medchal –

Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked on behalf of Decree Holder: -NIL-

Exhibits Marked on behalf of Judgment Debtors: -NIL-

Sd/-

I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge cum

Addl. Family Court Judge, Medchal –

Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

1 F.C.O.P No. 107 of 2025 Dated. 21.05.2025

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - CUM - I ADDL

SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM- ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI

DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL.

PRESENT: SRI. B. THIRUPATHI, III Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum- II Addl Sessions Judge-cum-Prl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. FAC: II Addl. District. and Sessions Judge-cum- Addl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2025

FCOP.No. 107 of 2025

BETWEEN

1. Sri. Pola Sai Kumar, S/o. Pola Anjaneyulu, aged about 34 years, Occ: Software Employee, R/o. H.No. 49-416/7/C, Padma Nagar, Phase-2, Chintal, Hyderabad – 500 054. Currently residing at 1850, Mercer Pkwy APT 7208, USA, Reprewsented by his natural father and special power of attorney holder Sri. P. Anjaneyulu, S/o. P. Manaiah, aged 56 years, Occ: Business, H.No. 49-416/7/C, Padma Nagar, Phase-2, Chintal, Hyderabad – 500 054.

2. Smt. Gunda Vaishnavi, W/o. Pola Sai Kumar, aged about 27 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.H.No: 21-108, Rd.No.2, bank Colony, Venkatapuram, Alwal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

...Petitioners

This petition is coming on 19.05.2025 for disposal before me in the presence of Sri. J. VENUDHAR REDDY, Advocate for Petitioner Nos 1 and 2 and upon perusing of the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following :-

: O R D E R :

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act seeking the relief of dissolution of their marriage by way of granting divorce on mutual consent.

2.The Case of the petitioners succinctly is as follows:-

(i)The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are the husband and wife respectively and their marriage was solemnized on 29-11-2017 at SNR Gardens, Kompally,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Immediately 2 F.C.O.P No. 107 of 2025 Dated. 21.05.2025 after the marriage petitioner no 2, joined the conjugal society of the petitioner no.1.

(ii)It is further stated that the petitioner nos 1 and 2 started living under one roof by setting a family and thereafter some disputes arose between the petitioners as such residing seperately since 27-12-2018. Subsequently several mediations took place but their efforts resulted in vain. The petitioners have been living seperately and they have not been able to live together in view of disputes which arose between them and that they mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent.

(iii)It is submitted that nearly 02 years have been elapsed and the petitioners agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual divorce and that petitioners agreed to take divorce and prayed to grant divorce.

3.Having registered the case, on 04.04.2025 and posted for appearance of both parties for compliance of statutory period of six months as envisaged under

Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act. The matter was referred to District Legal

Authority, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda for mediation. The mediation efforts made by the District Legal Services Authority, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda failed and the reconciliation efforts made this court are also failed.

As per the orders passed in IA.No. 230/2025 dated 09.05.2025 the remaining cooling period is waived.

4.In view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in IA

No.1 and 3 of 2019 in F.C.A.No.155 of 2017 decided on 16-10-2019, six months statutory period need not be observed. It was an appeal filed before the Hon'ble

High Court against the judgment of Family Court dismissing the divorce petition in the said appeal. The parties in the said appeal filed an application for amendment of the petition as a petition for divorce by mutual consent and it was allowed by

Hon'ble High Court and divorce was granted waiving the six months period

3 F.C.O.P No. 107 of 2025 Dated. 21.05.2025 considering the fact that the parties settled their dispute.

5.In Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur (Civil Appeal No.11158 of 2017) decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 12-09-2017, it was held that six months period can be waived if the conditions mentioned in the same are satisfied. As the petitioners are living separately since considerable period and as original petition for divorce was filed and the court is of the considered opinion that the mandatory statutory period can be waived and divorce by mutual consent can be granted.

6.During the enquiry, the petitioner no.1 is examined as PW1, the petitioner no. 2 is examined as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

8.Now, the points for consideration is :- (1)Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent as per Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act?

(2)To what relief ?

Point No.1:-

9.To substantiate their contention, the petitioners relied on Exs. A1 to A5. As per the Exs.A1 and Ex.A2 which are the Certified Copy of Marriage card, Certified Copy of Marriage photographs would show that the marriage of the petitioners was performed on 29-11-2017 at SNR Gardens, Kompally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

Ex.A3 and A4 are the Aadhar cards of the petitioners nos.1 and 2 would show their identity. Ex.A5 is Memorandum of Understanding entered by the parties agreeing to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent by adhering to the terms and conditions therein.

10.The evidence of PW1 and 2 shows that the petitioners are living separately since 27-12-2018, and they have not been able to live together and there is no 4 F.C.O.P No. 107 of 2025 Dated. 21.05.2025 possibility of their living together and both parties agreed for mutual divorce voluntarily and they have been living separately since 27-12-2018, and they have been living separately even after filing of the petition. The entire material on record shows that, the petitioners decided to take divorce by mutual consent.

11.Considering the above circumstances, this Court holds that all ingredients of

Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act have been made out and satisfied that there is irrecoverable break down of the marriage and therefore this is a fit case to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent as prayed by the petitioners. Accordingly the point is answered.

Point No.2:-

12.In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage of the petitioners nos.1 and 2 solemnized on 29-11-2017 at SNR Gardens, Kompally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce by mutual consent with effect from 21.05.2025.

Typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of May, 2025.

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum- II Addl Sessions Judge-cum-Prl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. FAC: II Addl. District. and Sessions Judge-cum- Addl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

5 F.C.O.P No. 107 of 2025 Dated. 21.05.2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: PW1: Smt. Gunda Vaishnavi (Petitioner No.2). PW2: Sri. Pola Sai Kumar (Petitioner No.1).

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1: Certified Copy of Wedding Card. Ex.A2: Certified Copy of Marriage Photographs. Ex.A3: Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner no.1. Ex.A4: Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner no.2. Ex.A5: Memorandum of Understanding.

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum- II Addl Sessions Judge-cum-Prl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. FAC: II Addl. District. and Sessions Judge-cum- Addl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

1 F.C.O.P No. 80 of 2025 Dated. 21.05.2025

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - CUM - I ADDL

SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM- ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI

DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL.

PRESENT: SRI. B. THIRUPATHI, III Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum- II Addl Sessions Judge-cum-Prl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. FAC: II Addl. District. and Sessions Judge-cum- Addl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2025

FCOP.No. 80 of 2025

BETWEEN

1. Smt. Kodela Haritha, W/o. K. Juhi Kumar, D/o. K. Venkata Rao, aged about 31 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Flat No. 411, Sai Balaji Towers, TSIIC Colony, I.D.A. Jeedimetla, Quthbullapur Municipal Circle, GHMC, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana – 500 055. Presently residing at Plot No. 1-9-4/A, Flat No. 103, Phani Grand Apartments, FVN Colony, Main Road, Gijjanagundla, Guntur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh – 522 006.

2. Sri. Koritala Juhi Kumar, S/o. K. Aruna Rao, aged about 33 years, Occ: Software Employee, R/o. Flat No. 411, Sai Balaji Towers, TSIIC Colony, I.D.A. Jeedimetla, Quthbullapur Municipal Circle, GHMC, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana – 500 055.

...Petitioners

This petition is coming on 20.05.2025 for disposal before me in the presence of Sri. B. SURESH BABU, Advocate for Petitioner Nos 1 and 2 and upon perusing of the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following -

: O R D E R :

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act seeking the relief of dissolution of their marriage by way of granting divorce on mutual consent.

2.The Case of the petitioners succinctly is as follows:-

(i)The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are the wife and husband respectively and their marriage was solemnized on 20-06-2018 at Chalapathi College, Lam, 2 F.C.O.P No. 80 of 2025 Dated. 21.05.2025

Guntur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, as per Hindu Rites and Customs.

Immediately after the marriage petitioner no 1, joined the conjugal society of the petitioner no.2.

(ii)It is further stated that the petitioner nos 1 and 2 started living under one roof by setting a family and blessed with one male child namely K. Mayank, thereafter some disputes arose between the petitioners as such residing seperately since 05-01-2024. Subsequently several mediations took place but their efforts resulted in vain. The petitioners have been living seperately and they have not been able to live together in view of disputes which arose between them and that they mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent.

(iii)It is submitted that nearly 02 years have been elapsed and the petitioners agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual divorce and that petitioners agreed to take divorce and prayed to grant divorce.

3.Having registered the case, on 21.03.2025 and posted for appearance of both parties for compliance of statutory period of six months as envisaged under

Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act. The reconciliation efforts made this court also failed.As per the orders passed in IA.No. 271/2025 dated 20.05.2025 the remaining cooling period is waived.

4.In view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in IA

No.1 and 3 of 2019 in F.C.A.No.155 of 2017 decided on 16-10-2019, six months statutory period need not be observed. It was an appeal filed before the Hon'ble

High Court against the judgment of Family Court dismissing the divorce petition in the said appeal. The parties in the said appeal filed an application for amendment of the petition as a petition for divorce by mutual consent and it was allowed by

Hon'ble High Court and divorce was granted waiving the six months period

considering the fact that the parties settled their dispute.

3 F.C.O.P No. 80 of 2025 Dated. 21.05.2025

5.In Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur (Civil Appeal No.11158 of 2017) decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 12-09-2017, it was held that six months period can be waived if the conditions mentioned in the same are satisfied. As the petitioners are living separately since considerable period and as original petition for divorce was filed and the court is of the considered opinion that the mandatory statutory period can be waived and divorce by mutual consent can be granted.

6.During the enquiry, the petitioner no.1 is examined as PW1, the petitioner no. 2 is examined as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

8.Now, the points for consideration is :- (1)Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent as per Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act?

(2)To what relief ?

Point No.1:-

9.To substantiate their contention, the petitioners relied on Exs. A1 to A5. As per the Exs.A1 to Ex.A3 which are the Marriage card, Marriage photographs and Copy of Marriage Certificate would show that the marriage of the petitioners was performed on 20-06-2018 at Chalapathi College, Lam, Guntur, Guntur District,

Andhra Pradesh. Ex A4 and A5 are the Aadhar cards of the petitioners nos.1 and 2 would show their identity.

10.The evidence of PW1 and 2 shows that the petitioners are living separately since 05-01-2024, and they have not been able to live together and there is no possibility of their living together and both parties agreed for mutual divorce voluntarily and they have been living separately since 05-01-2024, and they have been living separately even after filing of the petition. The entire material on 4 F.C.O.P No. 80 of 2025 Dated. 21.05.2025 record shows that, the petitioners decided to take divorce by mutual consent.

11.Considering the above circumstances, this Court holds that all ingredients of

Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act have been made out and satisfied that there is irrecoverable break down of the marriage and therefore this is a fit case to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent as prayed by the petitioners. Accordingly the point is answered.

Point No.2:-

12.In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage of the petitioners nos.1 and 2 solemnized on 20-06-2018 at Chalapathi College, Lam, Guntur, Guntur District,

Andhra Pradesh, is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce by mutual consent with effect from 21.05.2025.

Typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of May, 2025.

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum- II Addl Sessions Judge-cum-Prl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. FAC: II Addl. District. and Sessions Judge-cum- Addl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

5 F.C.O.P No. 80 of 2025 Dated. 21.05.2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: PW1: Smt. Kodela Haritha (Petitioner No.1). PW2: Sri. Koritala Juhi Kumar (Petitioner No.2).

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1: Wedding Card. Ex.A2: Marriage Photographs. Ex.A3: Copy of Marriage Certificate. Ex.A4: Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner no.1. Ex.A5: Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner no.2.

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum- II Addl Sessions Judge-cum-Prl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. FAC: II Addl. District. and Sessions Judge-cum- Addl.Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.