Smt. C.Pavani

SC No.121 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

Dated this the 8th day of April, 2026

PRESENT: SMT. C. PAVANI, VI Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally

SESSIONS CASE No.121 of 2025

Crime No. 765 of 2023 of P.S. Madhapur

1.Name of the Complainant: The State of Telangana, through The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Madhapur

2.Name of the Accused :

Thirupathi Anurag, S/o. Ravinder, Age: 25 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.768, Prashanthi Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. N/o. Kollapur Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal & District.

3.Offence with which Charged: Under Section 307 IPC.

4.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court: Found guilty

6.Sentence or Order: In the result, the Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable U/s.307 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence.

Hence, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 05 years for the offence punishable U/s.307 IPC and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the said offence. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 02 months. The period of remand of the accused from 05.07.2023 to 06.09.2023 and 02.12.2024 to till date shall be set off 1/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

under S.428 CrPC.

M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period. The scooty shall be returned to the owner after expiry of appeal period.

The Accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal before the

Hon'ble High Court against this

Judgment. The Accused is also informed that he is entitled for free legal Aid. :Sri Upender,

7.Name of the Prosecution Counsel

Additional Public Prosecutor

:Smt. Bharathi Devi,Legal Aid

8.Name of the Defence Counsel Counsel for the Accused.

This case is coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of both the counsel on record and upon hearing both sides and upon considering the material evidence available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

The sole Accused is arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 05.07.2023 at about 03.30 PM the defacto complainant V.

Madhusudhana Swamy lodged a complaint stating that his son Anirudh was working in

VFX company and one Anurag was his colleague. About one month prior to lodging the complaint a dispute took place between Anirudh and Anurag and Anurag beat Anirudh. As the parents of Anurag requested Anirudh not to lodge any complaint they did not lodge any police complaint. On 05.07.2023 at about 12.00 Noon one Srikar, friend of Anirudh called the defacto complainant and informed him that Anurag attacked Anirudh near the tea stall 2/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

near their office with a knife with an intention to kill him and caused bleeding injuries on his face and chest. Immediately the defacto complainant went to Yashodha Hospital, where

Anirudh was admitted and found his son with injuries. As such, he lodged a complaint with the police for necessary action.

3.Basing on the said complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Madhapur, registered a case in Cr.No.765/2023 under Section 307 IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation he recorded the statement of the defacto complainant, visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drafted the rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of two mediators and seized the blood stained knife and the blood stains with the help of the clues team and got the scene of offence photographed. Later the Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statements of the other witnesses. On 05.07.2023 at about 07.30 P.M the accused went to the police station and surrendered before the investigating officer and voluntarily confessed to have committed the said offence in the presence of two mediators and in pursuance of his confession one motor cycle and the blood stained clothes of the accused were seized.

Later the arrest of the accused was effected and he was produced before the court for judicial remand. The material objects were forwarded to FSL. After completion of investigation the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Madhapur filed a charge sheet against the

Accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

4.The learned VIII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kukatpally took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against the Accused and committed the case to the Sessions Court, Ranga Reddy vide PRC No.11 of 2024.

Thereafter the case was made over to this court for disposal as per law.

5.On appearance of the Accused, the copies of the documents were furnished 3/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

to him.

6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the

Accused were heard on the charges.

7.The charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against the

Accused was framed and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 and M.O.1 to M.O.3. After closure of the prosecution evidence the

Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC explaining him the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the accused attempted to kill PW2 by stabbing him with a knife on 05.07.2023 ?

2)Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11.POINT NO.1 and 2 :

As point No.1 and 2 are interlinked they are discussed together to avoid repetition. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2023 at about 12.00 Noon the accused attacked PW2 with a knife with an intention to kill him, due to which PW2 sustained grievous injuries on his face, neck and stomach.

12.In order to prove the said allegation, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant V. Madhusudhana Swamy as PW1. He deposed that on 05-07-2023 at about 4/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

12:00 Noon when his son went to drink Tea with his colleagues, the accused attacked him with a knife due to which he sustained injuries on his forehead, neck, face, stomach and other parts of body. He further deposed that PW4 called him and informed about the same and informed that his son was admitted in Yashodha Hospital, Madhapur and immediately he went to Yashodha Hospital and saw his son with injuries on his face and other parts of the body. He further deposed that previously also about 20 days prior to the incident the accused beat his son due to which the accused was removed from service and his son informed him about the said incident and he intended to lodge a complaint with the police, but the accused along with his parents went to them and apologized and as such he did not lodge any complaint. He further deposed that his son was referred to NIMS Hospital from Yashodha Hospital where his son was admitted for 5 days and he lodged the complaint with the Police. During cross examination he deposed that he had no acquaintance with the accused. He denied the suggestion that no incident occurred 20 days prior to the alleged incident. He admitted that the accused used to reside in their colony. He deposed that he does not know if the accused used to take PW2 to the office on his motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that as the accused was intelligent and progressing in his job he filed a false complaint. He denied the suggestion that his son fell down by falling down from a motorcycle and in order to claim medical insurance they filed a false complaint. He denied the suggestion that the accused never attacked his son with the knife and he is no way concerned with the injuries sustained by PW2.

13.PW2 V.Anirudh, the injured in this case deposed that as on the date of the alleged offence he was working at VFX Studio since 2022 and the accused used to work as a junior lighting artist in the said company and himself and the accused used to reside in the same colony and used to go to the office on the same vehicle.

5/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

He further deposed that during June, 2023 while he was working with the accused, he could not understand his instructions and consequently a quarrel took place between himself and the accused and subsequently the accused was removed from the service by the management. He further deposed that on 05.07.2023 between 11:30 to 12:00 Noon when he along with PW4 and LW5 went to have Tea in the Tea Stall situated near their office, in the mean while the accused went there and started talking with him and when PW4 and PW5 went to smoke the accused attacked him with a knife and caused injuries on the left side of the face, left side of the neck, right side of the neck and on his left side of stomach and on hearing his cries PW4 and PW5 came there and shifted him to Yashodha Hospital, Madhapur and later he was shifted to NIMS Hospital and he gained consciousness after four days. He further deposed that the accused attacked him as he bore grudge against him for his removal from service. During cross examination he admitted that the accused used to get his doubts clarified through him. He admitted that the accused used he call him sir. He denied the suggestion that as the accused did not consult him for clarifying his doubts he bore grudge against him. He denied the suggestion that with an impression that the accused will get a promotion he got him removed from service by influencing the management. He denied the suggestion that he fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries and got filed a false complaint against the accused.

14.PW3 Md. Zameer, panch witness for the confession and seizure panchanama deposed that on 05.07.2023 at the request of the Station House Officer, P.S.

6/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

Madhapur he went to the police station and in his presence and in the presence of one

G.Srinivasa Rao the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the alleged offence and in pursuance of his confession police seized one Scooty and the clothes of the accused with blood stains and after the panchanama was drafted he signed on the same.

He identified the accused. During cross examination he deposed that he acted as a panch witness in other cases also. He further deposed that he went to the police station on the instructions of the Tahasildar and he has not received any written instructions. He deposed that by the time he went to the police station the panchanama was prepared and he signed on the same and the police have shown the material objects to him. He denied the suggestion that the accused never confessed anything in his presence and no panchanama was prepared in his presence and at the instance of police he was deposing false.

15.PW4 K.Srikar, eye witness reiterated the facts stated by PW1 in his examination in chief and further deposed that he informed PW1 about the incident. During cross examination he deposed that himself, the accused and PW2 worked in the same cadre. He admitted that the accused used to pick up and drop PW2 at his home while going to office. He admitted that the accused used to call PW2 as ‘Anna’. He admitted that the management intended to increase the salary of the accused. He denied the suggestion that there was a proposal to promote the accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused never attacked PW2 and only due to professional rivalry PW2 filed a false complaint. He admitted that he was examined during the enquiry conducted by the management against the accused.

16.PW5 M.Karthik Reddy, another eyewitness reiterated the facts stated by

PW2 and PW4 in his examination in chief. During cross examination he deposed that he 7/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

was at some distance at the time of the alleged incident. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the scene of offence at the time of the alleged incident. He admitted that while himself and the other colleagues went on a tea break the accused used to attend his work. He admitted that the accused used to call PW2 anna and he used to clarify his doubts from PW2. He denied the suggestion that there was a proposal to promote the accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused never attacked PW2 and only due to professional jealousy he filed a false complaint. He denied the suggestion that no incident occurred as alleged by him.

17.PW6 G.Mallesh, Special Police officer of the clues team deposed that on 05.07.2023 on receipt of information from the Station House Officer, Madhapur at about 06.40 PM he went to the scene of offence situated near Kumbakarna Hotel, situated at

Madhapur and collected the blood samples, control earth and took the photographs and video of the scene of offence and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.

During cross examination he deposed that he went to the scene of offence on the oral information and no written requisition was given to him. He denied the suggestion that he never went to the scene of offence and never collected any blood samples.

18.PW7 D.Buchi Reddy, another police officer of the clues team reiterated the facts stated by PW7 in his examination in chief. During cross examination he deposed that there was no written requisition from the Station House Officer to collect the blood samples from the scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the scene of offence and never collected any blood samples. PW8 Dr. Azhupeo Phimu deposed that on 05.07.2023 at about 08.17 P.M he examined the injured Anurag and found a laceration on his right hand. He further deposed that the injury was simple in nature and he was treated as an outpatient. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that there is a 8/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

possibility of sustaining the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate by falling on a hard surface. He further deposed that the injury was a clear cut injury. He denied the suggestion that he never examined the accused and at the instance of police he issued the certificate.

19.PW9 V.S.V.A.R.C Varma, panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama deposed that on 05.07.2023 at 04.00 P.M police conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized the knife in his presence and after the panchanama was drafted he signed on the same. He identified M.O.3 knife. During cross examination he deposed that he does not know the facts of the case. He further deposed that they used to supply food to VFX company. He denied the suggestion that he had close acquaintance with PW2. He denied the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and no knife was seized and at the instance of police he was deposing false.

20.PW10 M.Lokesh Kumar, the then HR Manager of VFX company deposed that he worked as the HR Manager in Just VFX studio and the accused and PW2 joined in the said company during August, 2022. He further deposed that in 2023 the accused and PW2 quarreled with each other and an enquiry was conducted by the management and as the accused was found at fault, as directed by the management a termination letter was issued to the accused and after few days the accused went to him requesting him to reinstate him stating that the incident occurred due to the fault of PW2 and he informed that as per the company policy he cannot be reinstated. He further deposed that after about one month he came to know that the accused tried to kill PW2 by attacking him with a knife and at the request of police he gave the copy of the appointment and termination letter of the accused. During cross examination he deposed that he is not the signatory of 9/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

Ex.P5. He denied the suggestion that they have not paid the salary of the accused for the days he worked in the company prior to his termination. He denied the suggestion that they used to give work only to PW2 and not the accused. He deposed that he has no knowledge about the relationship between the accused and

PW2. He deposed that he does not know if PW2 used to degrade the accused when he asked questions. He denied the suggestion that no incident occurred and at the instance of PW2 they removed the accused from the job.

21.PW11 Dr. U.N.V. Roopesh deposed that on 05.07.2023 at about 12.40 P.M he examined PW2 and found the laceration injuries as mentioned in the injury certificate and opined that the injuries were grievous in nature. During cross examination he admitted that he has not mentioned about the object with which the injuries were sustained. He denied the suggestion that the injuries mentioned in the injury certificate can be sustained by falling on a hard surface. He deposed that the injured was conscious when he was brought to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he has not examined PW2 and only at the instance of police he issued the injury certificate.

22.PW12 A.Raja Naik, FSL expert deposed that he examined the material objects and the clothes of the accused sent to FSL and found the blood stains on item no.1,4,5 and 6 and the blood group was “O” and he further deposed that no blood was detected on item no.2 and 3. He denied the suggestion that he has not examined the material objects and only at the instance of police he issued the report. He denied the suggestion that the material objects forwarded to them are not pertaining to this case.

23.PW13 P.Ravi Kiran, the then Sun Inspector of Police, P.S.Madhapur the investigating officer in this case deposed about the manner of investigation done by him in 10/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

this case in his examination in chief. During cross examination he deposed that he has not enquired about the incident that took place prior to the alleged incident. He denied the suggestion that only basing on the complaint given by PW1 they conducted the investigation to suit the case of PW2. He denied the suggestion that no incident occurred as alleged in the complaint and the accused was falsely implicated in this case. He denied the suggestion that he has not examined the other employees of the company apart from the persons who gave evidence in the enquiry. He denied the suggestion that at the time of the alleged incident only PW2 was present and that they have planted the eyewitnesses. He denied the suggestion that he has not filed the video of the scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that he has not examined any witnesses and without conducting proper investigation he filed the charge sheet.

24.The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent and trustworthy. He further contended that PW2 has clearly deposed about the manner in which the accused attacked him and about the injuries sustained by him. He further contended that the evidence of PW2 is supported by the evidence of PW4 and PW5 the eyewitness to the incident. He contended that the injuries sustained by PW2 were proved through the Doctor. It is contended that through the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 the previous disputes of the accused and PW2 were proved. He contended that through the evidence of PW1 to PW13 the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.

25.The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused has not committed any evidence and he was implicated in a false case. It is contended that due to professional rivalry PW2 filed a false complaint. It is contended that PW1 is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. It is further contended that PW4 and PW5 were not 11/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

present at the scene of offence at the time of the alleged incident and they were planted as eyewitnesses in the case. It is contended that the accused had good relationship with PW2 and he had no reason to attack him. It is contended that no independent witnesses were examined and only the witnesses who were examined during the enquiry conducted by the management of the company were examined. It is contended that the accused has not admitted his guilt and the confession and seizure panchanama was created in collusion with the panch witnesses.

26.The evidence of PW2 is to the effect that on 05.07.2023 when he went to take tea near his office the accused went there and attacked him with a knife and caused grievous injuries on his face, neck and stomach. The evidence of PW2 is consistent, trustworthy and wholly believable. The evidence of PW2 remained unshaken during cross examination and nothing material was elicited from him. As per the evidence of PW2 there was a dispute between himself and the accused previously and in that regard the accused was removed from his job. Though a suggestion was given to PW2 that he got lodged a false complaint against the accused due to professional rivalry, the contention of the accused that due to professional rivalry a person would injure himself and file a complaint of attempt to murder against his ex-colleague is not believable.

27.Further the evidence of PW2 is supported by the evidence of PW4 and PW5 the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Undisputedly PW4 and PW5 are the colleagues of PW2 and their presence at the scene of offence is totally believable. It was also elicited from PW4 and PW5 that they used to go with PW2 for consuming tea or for smoke. Their evidence also stood unrebutted during cross examination. There is no evidence of any animosity between the accused and PW4 and PW5 to make them speak false against the accused. Further the evidence of PW2 regarding the injuries is supported by the evidence 12/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

of PW1, who went to the hospital immediately after the incident and saw PW2 with the injuries. Further, the evidence of PW2 regarding the injuries sustained by him is corroborated by the medical evidence of PW11 Doctor who categorically deposed about the injuries sustained by PW2 and opined that the injuries were grievous in nature. Further as per the evidence of PW10, the then HR Manager of the company where the accused and PW2 used to work, there was a dispute between the accused and PW2 and after enquiry the management terminated the accused.

28.Further as per the evidence on PW8 Doctor on the date of the incident he examined the accused and found a laceration injury on his hand. PW8 clearly deposed that it was a cut injury. The accused failed to explain as to how he sustained the said injury on the date of the incident. Further as per the evidence of PW13 investigating officer the accused himself surrendered before the police on the date of the incident. This is another circumstance against the accused. Further though a suggestion was given to PW1 and

PW2 that the company intended to promote the accused and as such PW2 got him removed from the job, there is no evidence to prove the same. Further though the clothes of the accused were seized and sent to FSL and on some of the material objects the blood group of the blood was also found, the blood sample of the accused and PW2 were not collected and their blood group was not enquired, more particularly in view of the evidence on record that the accused also sustained injury on the date of the incident. Further though there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the same do not go to the root of the case. Through the evidence of PW1 to PW13 supported by the Ex.P1 to P10, M.O.1 to M.O.3 the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.307 IPC. Hence point no.1 and 2 are held in favour of the prosecution and against the Accused.

13/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

29.In the result, the Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable U/s.307

IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence.

(Typed by the Stenographer to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8 th day of April 2026).

VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA

REDDY AT KUKATPALLY

Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence to which he pleaded mercy and stated that he has not committed any offence. Heard the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused on the quantum of sentence.

On considering the plea of the accused, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the grave nature of offence, the manner in which it was committed and the fact that the accused attacked the victim with a knife and caused multiple injuries, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view against the Accused.

Hence, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 05 years for the offence punishable U/s.307 IPC and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the said offence. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 02 months. The period of remand of the accused from 05.07.2023 to 06.09.2023 and 02.12.2024 to till date shall be set off under S.428 CrPC.

M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period. The scooty shall be returned to the owner after expiry of appeal period.

The Accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble High 14/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

Court against this Judgment. The Accused is also informed that he is entitled for free legal

Aid.

Sd/-

VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

R.R. DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 : V. Madhusudhana Swamy - Defacto complainant and father of injuries PW2 : V. Anirudh - Injured

PW3 : MD. Zameer – Panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama

PW4 : K. Srikar – Eye witness and colleague to the injured

PW5 : M. Karthik Reddy – Eye witness and colleague to the injured

PW6 : G. Mallesh, SPO, Clues Team – Witness/ photographed the scene of offence

PW7 : D. Buchi Reddy, SPO, Clues Team – Witness/ collected blood samples from the scene of offence

PW8 : Dr. Azhupeo Phimu – Treated the accused and issued MLC vide No.4517

PW9 : V.S.V.A.R.C Varma – Panch witness for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama PW10 : M. Lokesh Kumar – Witness/ Furnished the joining details of accused and victim

PW11 : Dr. U.N.V. Roopesh – Treated the injured

PW12 : A. Raja Naik – Issued FSL Report

PW13 : P. Ravi Kiran, Sub Inspector of Police – Investigating Officer, issued FIR and filed charge sheet

FOR DEFENCE:

--NIL--

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Seizure portion of panchanama 15/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

SC No.121 of 2025

Ex.P3 : Medical certificate Ex.P4 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5 : Copy of appointment letter issued to accused Ex.P6 : Copy of termination letter issued to accused Ex.P7 : Injury certificate issued by PW11 Ex.P8 : FSL Report dated 19.08.2023. Ex.P9 : First Investigation Report Ex.P10 : Copy of appointment letter of PW2.

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

M.O.1 : Clothes of accused

M.O.2 : Photograph of the scooty

M.O.3 : Knife

Sd/-

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

R.R. DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

16/16 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present : Smt.C.Pavani, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Ranga Reddy District.

Dated the 4th day of August 2021

O.S.No.2193/2013

Between :

1. K.Mallesh, S/o.Late. K. Sayanna,(Died per LRS)

2. K. Mallamma, W/o: Late K.Mallesh,

Age : 60 yrs, Occ: Housewife,

3. K. Shiv Raj, S/o: Late K. Mallesh, Age: 48 yrs, Occ: Business, plaintif no.2 and 3 are R/o: 8-4-390/A/14, Prem Nagar, Erragadda,

Hyderabad.

4. Suryamma, W/o: Lingappa, Age: 45 yrs, R/o: Purla Village,

Makthal, Mahaboobnagar District.

5. M. Lalithamma, W/o: Satyanarayana, Age: 41 yrs,

Occ: Housewife, R/o: Tekmal, Medak District.

6. K. Koteshwari, W/o: Late Ravi Kumar, Age: 39 yrs,

Occ: Housewife, R/o: Chintalbasti, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

7. K.Savithri, W/o: Prasad Babu, Age : 36 yrs, Occ: Housewife,

R/o: Premnagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

8. K.V. Bhimeswari, W/o: Shanti Kumari, Age : 34 yrs,

Occ: Housewife, R/o: Chintalbasti, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

9. K.Raju, S/o: Late K.Mallesh, Age: 32 yrs, Occ: Business,

R/o: H.no.8-4-390/A/14, Premnagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

10. K.Naga Laxmi, W/o: Ravi, Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Housewife,

R/o: Nampally, Hyderabad.

11. K.Mahesh, S/o: Late K. Mallesh, Age : 28 yrs,

R/o: H.no.8-4-390/A/14, Premnagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

(The plaintif no.2 to 11 were brought on record as the Lrs of

the of the plaintif no.1 as per orders in I.A.no.547/2018

dated.25.3.2019) ...Plaintifs

AND

1. Smt.G.Yellamma, W/o.Late Yellaiah,

Aged: 70 yrs, Occ: Housewife, 2O.S.no.2193 of 2013

2. G.Lakshminarayana, S/o: Late Yellaiah,

Aged: 40 yrs, Occ: Software Engineer,

3. Smt.Lakshmi @ Mahadevi, W/o: Ram Gopal,

Aged: 35 yrs,

Defendant no.1 to 3 are R/o: 8-4-368/2, Hymavathi Nagar,

Erragadda, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad- 500 018.

4. Smt. D.Nagendramma, W/o: D.Narasimha Rao, Aged : 40 yrs,

Occ: Housewife, R/o: 13-1-140, Snehapuri Colony, Motinagar,

Borabanda, Hyderabad.

5. Smt. M.Renuka, W/o: M.Narasimha, Aged : 38 yrs, Occ: Housewife,

R/o: 13-1-172, Snehapuri Colony, Motinagar,

Borabanda, Hyderabad.

6. R.Achaiah, S/o: Venkulu, Aged: 82 yrs, Occ: Business,

R/o: 4-61, V.Ramarao Nagar, Erragadda, Sanathnagar,

Hyderabad 500018.

7. S.Balaiah, S/o: Late S.Kasaiah, Aged : 77 yrs,

Occ: Retired Employee, R/o: 5-28, V.Ramarao Nagar, Erragadda,

Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 500018.

8. Khaja Moinuddin, S/o: Late Naseeruddin, Age : 58 yrs,

9. Khaja Zaheeruddin, S/o: Late Naseeruddin, Age : 55 yrs,

10. Khaja Rabibuddin, S/o: Late Naseeruddin, Age : 52 yrs,

The defendant no.8 to 10 are represented by their GPA holder Sri.

Mirza Anwar Baig, S/o: Late Mirza Aban Baig, Age : 66 yrs,

Occ: Business, R/o: H.no.60-7-423/1, Azampura, Hyderabad.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for fnal hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.M.Ravi Kumar, the learned counsel for the plaintifs and Sri.S.R.Sanjeev Kumar, the learned counsel for the defendant no.1 to 5, Sri. K.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant no.6 and 7, Sri. Syed Abdul Gafar, learned counsel for the defendant no.8 to 10, having heard and stood over for consideration this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is fled seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants.

3O.S.no.2193 of 2013

02.Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintif purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.no.28/A through the Agreement of Sale dated.17.3.1989, Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.no.28/A through the Agreement of Sale dated. 25.11.1989 and Ac.1-00 gts through the Agreement of Sale dated. 25.3.1990 situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District from the husband of the defendant No.1 and father of the defendant No.2 to 5 and the defendant No.6 and 7 for a valuable consideration in order to develop the said land for residential purpose.

The possession of the said property was delivered to the plaintif.

Since the agreements were unregistered the husband of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.6 and 7 executed registered

General Power of Attorney bearing document No. 393/1989 dated 19.03.1989 and 1378/1990 dated 03.08.1990 covering an extent of

Ac.1.00 gts and Ac.2.22 gts respectively in total Ac.3.22 gts. It is averred that through the General Power of Attorneys executed by the husband of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.6 and 7 the plaintif was authorized to execute documents such as sale deeds and to receive the sale consideration. The plaintif obtained a layout and converted the land into 83 residential plots of various extents by leaving roads and amenities. The plaintif alienated plot No. 337/9, 10, 20, 11, 21, 22, 23, 37, 38, 19, 44, 50, 51 to 55, 66, 67 in total 19 plots covering an extent of 2904 Sq.yards in favour of A.Nirmala and others through registered Sale Deeds. The plaintif also alienated plot

No.337/3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 2, 39 to 42, 7, 14, 35, 36, 34, 28, 13, 24, 25, 43, 30, 49, 8, 12, 71, 57, 15, 65, 73, 72, 26, 83, 17, 18 & 70 in total 54 plots covering an extent of 4656 Sq. yards in favour of Venkatamma and others and delivered possession of the plots to the purchasers.

The plaintif sold 54 plots covering an extent of 7560 Sq.yards out of 4O.S.no.2193 of 2013 11,770 Sq.yards and he retained 29 plots bearing No. 337/1, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 45, 46, 47, 48, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82 covering an extent of 4210 Sq.Yards.

03. It is averred that, originally one Smt.Jeenlani Begum was the pattadar and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.251.06 gts in

Sy.No.28 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. She alienated the land admeasuring Ac.42.00 gts in Sy.No.28 in favour of the husband of the defendant No.1 and the defendant

No.6 and 7 on 15.05.1948 by executing an absolute sale deed. The names of the husband of defendant No.1 and the defendant No.6 and 7 were recorded in the revenue records and out of the said extent the plaintif purchased Ac.3.22gts. Smt.Jeelani Begum migrated to

Pakistan on 21.06.1977 and as a war took place between India and

Pakistan and as she migrated to Pakistan, her entire property was declared as enemy property under the Enemy Property Act 1968. The husband of defendant No.1, the defendant No.6 and 7 and the sons of

Smt.Jeelani Begum fled a protest petition before the Custodian of

Enemy Property seeking declaration of the said land as Enemy

Property as illegal. They also fled a protest petition before the

Government of India stating that the sons of Smt.Jeelani Begum have not migrated to Pakistan. In spite of several requests as their petitions were not considered, the sons of Smt.Jeelani Begum fled

WP.No.23835/1999 and WP.No.8168/2006 before the Hon’ble High

Court and the said Writ petitions were allowed directing the Union of

India to release the land bearing Sy.No.28 in favour of Smt.Jeelani

Begum and her sons. The order passed in the Writ petitions became fnal but the authorities have not delivered the property in favour of the defendant No. 8 to 10. As the property was not registered in the name of the plaintif the defendants hatched a plan to occupy the 5O.S.no.2193 of 2013 property and on 12.12.2012 and on 18.12.2013 they tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property. As such the plaintif fled the suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants.

04.The defendant No.6 fled his written statement and the defendant no.1 to 5 and defendant No.7 fled a memo adopting the written statement of the defendant no.6 admitting that the defendant

No.1 to 5 and 6 and 7 were the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.35.00 gts in Sy.No.25/A purchased from

Smt.Jeelani Begum through a private sale deed and they were in possession of the said property and cultivated the same. It is averred that the plaintif ought to have fled a suit for specifc performance basing on the Agreements of sale and a simple suit for injunction is not maintainable. The defendant No.1 to 7 admitted the execution of

Agreements of sale and GPAs in 1989 and 1990 and further contended that the plaintif has not cooperated to get the possession of the property from the custodian of Evacuee property. It is averred that there is no layout in the suit survey number and the occupation and possession of the property is with the Custodian of the Evacuee property under the supervision of Revenue Divisional Ofcer, Chevella and the plaintif is not in possession of the property. It is averred that without any cause of action the plaintif fled a false suit.

05.The defendant No.8 to 10 fled the written statement contending that the husband of the defendant No.1 and the defendant

No.6 and 7 were never the owners and the possessors of any extent of land in Sy.No.28 and the alleged sale deed executed by Smt.Jeelani

Begum is a forged and fabricated document. It is averred that the

Agreements of sale and General Power of Attorney’s were created for the purpose of usurping the property and the entire extent of land 6O.S.no.2193 of 2013 was taken into custody by the Custodian of Enemy Property of India on 21.09.1984 and since that date the said property is in their possession till date. It is averred that though the order was passed in

Writ petition the possession of the property was not delivered to the defendant No.8 to 10 till date. The defendant No.8 to 10 are residing in California, USA since many years and they have not visited India in 2012 or 2013 and by creating a false cause of action the plaintif fled a false suit. Hence the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

06.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed:

1.Whether the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the date of fling of the suit? 2.Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

07.In support of their claim the plaintifs got examined the plaintif No.3 as Pw-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The defendants did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence.

08.Heard both sides and perused the record and the written arguments fled by the learned counsel for the plaintifs.

09.Issue No.1 :

The contention of the plaintifs is that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties having purchased the properties through Agreements of Sale and General Power of

Attorneys and without any right the defendants are trying to interfere with their possession. The contention of the defendants is that the land in the suit survey number was declared as Enemy property and was kept in the custody of the Custodian of Evacuee Property and without any right and without possession over the properties, by 7O.S.no.2193 of 2013 creating some fabricated documents, the plaintif fled a false suit.

10.The plaintif No.3 as Pw.1 categorically deposed about their possession over the suit schedule property, the illegal interference caused by the defendants with their possession in his examination in chief as narrated in the plaint. During cross examination he admitted that the suit schedule property was not registered in the name of the plaintif. He denied the suggestion that intentionally they have suppressed the fact of migration of

Smt.Jeelani Begum to Pakisthan on 21.06.1977. He admitted that

Smt.Jeelani Begum died. He denied the suggestion that as on date the possession of the land in Sy.No.28 of Miyapur Village is with the custodian. He denied the suggestion that Smt.Jeelani Begum never executed any sale deed in favour of the husband of defendant No.1 and the defendant No.6 and 7. He deposed that he has not fled the sale deed pertaining to Ac.42.00 gts of land sold to the husband of the defendant No.1, D6 and D7. He denied the suggestion that they have not fled any document to show the title and possession of the their vendors over the suit schedule property. He admitted that the defendant No. 8 to 10 are residing at California. He denied the suggestion that his father or themselves were never in possession of the suit schedule property. He denied the suggestion that the land admeasuring Ac.251.06 gts in Sy.No.28 is in the custody of the

Custodian of Enemy Property since 1978. He further deposed that he does not know if they have fled any document to show that the property was released from the custody of the custodian. He denied the suggestion that they fled the suit only to grab the suit schedule property.

11.The fact that Smt.Jeelani Begum was the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.251.06 gts in Sy.no.28 of Miyapur Village is not 8O.S.no.2193 of 2013 in dispute. Further the fact that Smt. Jeelani Begum migrated to

Pakistan and her property in Sy.no.28 was declared as Enemy property and the custody of the property was taken by the Custodian of Enemy property is also not in dispute. Even in the plaint the plaintifs mentioned about the said facts. As per the contention of the plaintif the husband of the defendant no.1, the defendant no.6 and 7 purchased Ac.42-00 gts of land from Smt.Jeelani Begum in Sy.no.28.

As per the written statement fled by the defendant no.1 to 7 the husband of the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.6 and 7 purchased Ac.35-00 gts in Sy.no.25/A from Smt.Jeelani Begum through a private Sale Deed.

12.The defendant no.8 to 10 have denied the execution of any Sale deed by Smt.Jeelani Begum in favour of the husband of the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.6 and 7. Though the defendant no.8 to 10 denied the title of the predecessor of the plaintif, the plaintif has not examined any of his vendors nor fled the Sale Deed through which his vendors allegedly purchased the property. In Ex.A1 to A3 Agreements of Sale there is no mention as to how the vendors therein acquired the land. Further the extent of land allegedly owned by the vendors in the said Agreements of Sale is mentioned as Ac.46- 00 gts in Sy.no.28. Further, though in the plaint it was averred that the names of the vendors of the plaintifs were mutated in the revenue records, the plaintif has not fled the copies of the pahanies or any other revenue records to prove the same.

13.Further as per the contention of the plaintifs and as per

Ex.A1 to A5 the plaintif allegedly purchased the property in 1989 and 1990. When admittedly the property of Jeelani Begum was in the custody of the Custodian of Enemy property since 1984 as mentioned in the written statement, there is no explanation as to how the 9O.S.no.2193 of 2013 vendors of the plaintif allegedly sold the property to the plaintif and delivered possession of the property to him. Apart from fling the alleged Agreements of Sale and the General Power of Attorneys the plaintifs have not fled any documents to prove that the plaintif no.1 and after his death the other plaintifs were in possession of the property in the suit survey number at any point of time. Further even as per the plaint averments even after the disposal of the Writ

Petitions the property in the suit survey number was not handed over to the defendant no.8 to 10 or any other persons by the Custodian of the Enemy Property. The plaintif has not fled any document showing the release of the property by the Custodian or the Government of

India. There is no plea or proof as to when the property was released by the Custodian.

14.Further, as per the contention of the plaintif he obtained the layout from the concerned authority and converted the land into layout plots and sold some plots to the third parties. But the plaintif has not fled the copy of the layout or the copies of the registered sale deeds executed by him in favour of third parties. Though in the suit schedule the plaintif has shown the properties as plots he has not fled any layout copy to show the existence of the plots.

15.Undisputedly no sale deeds were executed in favour of the plaintif in respect of the land in the suit survey number. There is no proof to show if the plaintif has taken any steps to get the sale deeds registered in his favour. Even if the Agreements of Sale are believed to be true no rights in respect of immovable property can be transferred through an Agreement of Sale or GPA as held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt.

Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and others reported in 2012 (1) SCC 656. As discussed earlier the plaintif failed to prove that they were in 10O.S.no.2193 of 2013 possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of fling the suit. In view of the above discussion Issue No.1 is answered against the plaintifs.

16.Issue no.2:

In view of the fnding on Issue no.1 the plaintif is not entitled for any relief against the defendants. Hence, Issue no.2 is answered against the plaintif.

17.In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 4 th day of August 2021.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Plaintif: On behalf of the Defendants:

Pw-1 : K.Shiv Raj-- Nil--

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Plaintifs:

Ex.A1 : Agreement of Sale dated.17.03.1989.

Ex.A2 : Agreement of Sale dated.25.11.1989.

Ex.A3 : Agreement of Sale dated.25.03.1990.

Ex.A4 : Certifed Copy of GPA bearing document no.1378/1990 dated.3.8.1990.

Ex.A5 : Certifed Copy of GPA bearing document no.393/1989 dated.18.3.1989.

On behalf of the Defendants:

--Nil--

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1 of 10

CMA No. 2 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

Dated this the 06th day of April, 2026

PRESENT: SMT. C. PAVANI, VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District At Kukatpally.

CMA NO. 2 OF 2025

Between:

1.Shanker Singh, S/o. Badri Singh, Aged about 36 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No.1-104, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

2.Vishnu Singh, S/o. Badri Singh, Aged about 32 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No.1-104, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

3.Mahesh Singh, S/o. Badri Singh, Aged about 30 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No.1-104, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

4.Apoorva, D/o. Badri Singh, Aged about 27 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.1-104, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32. ….Appellants/ Petitioner No.5 to 8

And

1.Sunil Singh, S/o. Lata Balaji Singh, Aged about 46 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No.2- 25, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

2.D. Satoshi Bai, W/o. Arjun Singh, D/o. Lata Balaji Singh, Aged about 45 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.2-25, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District- 32.

3.Saraswathi Bai, W/o. Amar Singh, D/o. Lata Balaji Singh, Aged about 40 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.13-1-1236/293/A/83,

VI ADJ, Kukatpally 2 of 10

CMA No. 2 of 2025

Ganga Bowli, Hyderabad-06.

4.Jogilal Surekha Bai, W/o. Jogilal Ram Singh, D/o. Lata Balaji Singh, Aged about 36 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.2-25, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

...Respondents/ Petitioner No.1 to 4

5. M/s. Prudhvi Infrastructure Private Limited, having its office at Flat No.S-2, Krishna Sindhu Apartment, Road #3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34. Represented by its Chairman Sri. P. Ranga Reddy, S/o. Late P.B.V. Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ : Business.

6. M/s. Srushtee Developers, Represented by its Managing Partners: a) Nayani Haritha Reddy, b) Bommineni Vishali Reddy, presently having Office at 54, Meenakshi Bamboos, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-32.

7. Sri. B. Bhasker Reddy, S/o. Sri B. Gopal Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Occ : Business, presently residing at 54, Meenakshi Bamboos, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-32.

8. Smt. Krishna Bai, W/o. Late Jagadish Singh, Aged about 75 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.1-18,NanakramgudaVillage, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

9. C. Birender Singh, S/o. Late Jagadish Singh, Aged about 55 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.1-18,NanakramgudaVillage, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

10.Phoenix Infra Zone Private Limited Rep. By its authorized signatory, having Office at Phoenix House, Plot No.1335, Road No.5, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

11.Phoenix Embassy Tech Zone Private Limited Rep. By its authorized signatory, having Office at Phoenix House, Plot No.1335, Road No.5, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

VI ADJ, Kukatpally 3 of 10

CMA No. 2 of 2025

12.M/s. Vinirrmaa Projects Private Limited Rep. By its Managing Director Sril K.V. Rayapu Rahu, having its registered Office at8-2- 239/178, 3rd Floor, Venkateswara Nagar, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34.

13.Jell IT Society, Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. Kailashnath, Office at Plot No.1335, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

14.Oryx IT Society, Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. Kailashnath, Office at Plot No.1335, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

...Respondents/ Respondents

(AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS PASSED IN I.A.No. 172 of 2022 IN O.S. No. 285 of 2022, DT: 23.12.2024 ON THE

FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, KUKATPALLY)

Between:

1.Sunil Singh, S/o. Lata Balaji Singh, Aged about 46 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No.2-25,NanakramgudaVillage, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

2.D. Satoshi Bai, W/o. Arjun Singh, D/o. Lata Balaji Singh, Aged about 45 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.2-25, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District- 32.

3.Saraswathi Bai, W/o. Amar Singh, D/o. Lata Balaji Singh, Aged about 40 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.13-1-1236/293/A/83, Ganga Bowli, Hyderabad-06.

4.Jogilal Surekha Bai, W/o. Jogilal Ram Singh, D/o. Lata Balaji Singh, Aged about 36 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.2-25, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

5.Shanker Singh, S/o. Badri Singh, Aged about 36 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No.1-104, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

VI ADJ, Kukatpally 4 of 10

CMA No. 2 of 2025

6.Vishnu Singh, S/o. Badri Singh, Aged about 32 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No.1-104, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

7.Mahesh Singh, S/o. Badri Singh, Aged about 30 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No.1-104, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

8.Apoorva, D/o. Badri Singh, Aged about 27 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.1-104, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32. ….Petitioners/ Plaintiffs

And

1.M/s. Prudhvi Infrastructure Private Limited, having its office at Flat No.S-2, Krishna Sindhu Apartment, Road #3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34. Represented by its Chairman Sri. P. Ranga Reddy, S/o. Late P.B.V. Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ : Business.

2. M/s. Srushtee Developers, Represented by its Managing Partners: a) Nayani Haritha Reddy, b) Bommineni Vishali Reddy, presently having Office at 54, Meenakshi Bamboos, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-32.

3. Sri. B. Bhasker Reddy, S/o. Sri B. Gopal Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Occ : Business, presently residing at 54, Meenakshi Bamboos, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-32.

4. Smt. Krishna Bai, W/o. Late Jagadish Singh, Aged about 75 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.1-18,NanakramgudaVillage, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

5. C. Birender Singh, S/o. Late Jagadish Singh, Aged about 55 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.1-18,NanakramgudaVillage, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District-32.

VI ADJ, Kukatpally 5 of 10

CMA No. 2 of 2025

6.Phoenix Infra Zone Private Limited Rep. By its authorized signatory, having Office at Phoenix House, Plot No.1335, Road No.5, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

7.Phoenix Embassy Tech Zone Private Limited Rep. By its authorized signatory, having Office at Phoenix House, Plot No.1335, Road No.5, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

8.M/s. Vinirrmaa Projects Private Limited Rep. By its Managing Director Sril K.V. Rayapu Rahu, having its registered Office at8-2- 239/178, 3rd Floor, Venkateswara Nagar, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34.

9.Jell IT Society, Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. Kailashnath, Office at Plot No.1335, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

10.Oryx IT Society, Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. Kailashnath, Office at Plot No.1335, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

...Respondents/ Defendants

This appeal is coming before me on 17.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of M/s. Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the Appellants and M/s. P. Soma Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents, upon hearing both sides and upon having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Appellants aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally in I.A.No. 172 of 2022 in O.S.No. 285 of 2022, Dated 23.12.2024.

2.The appellants are the petitioner No.5 to 8 and the respondents are the petitioner No.1 to 4 and the respondents before the Trial Court. The parties are referred as arrayed before the trial Court in the I.A for the sake of convenience.

VI ADJ, Kukatpally 6 of 10

CMA No. 2 of 2025

3.The petitioners filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the respondents and its men not to change the nature of the petition schedule property.

4.The case of the petitioners is that their great grandfather Chinna Singh was the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-19 gts., in

Sy.No.108, Ac.4-31 gts., in Sy. No.118, Ac.0-21 gts., in Sy.No.120 and Ac.0-35 gts., in

Sy.No.121, total admeasuring Ac.6-26 gts., situated at Nanakramguda Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which is herein after referred to as the “Petition Schedule Property”. Late Chinna Singh had three sons by name Sheetal Singh,

Satyanarayan Singh and Lakshman Singh and during their lifetime they divided the properties inherited by them and the petition schedule property fell to the share of Sheetal

Singh. Sheetal Singh had seven sons. The petitioner No.1 to 4 are the children of Late

Balaji Singh and the petitioner No.5 to 8 are the children are Badri Singh. The father of the petitioner No.1 to 4 and the paternal uncle of the petitioner No.5 to 8 filed OS No.772/2002 on the file of V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeking partition and separate possession and the said suit was decreed on 07.06.2006. During his lifetime

Balaji Singh executed a Will Deed dated 15.04.2006 in favour of his three wives, nine sons and four daughters. Balaji Singh along with his four sons executed a Development

Agreement cum GPA bearing document No.10056/2006 dated 28.03.2006 in respect of 1/7th share in the petition schedule property and the sister of Balaji Singh by name Munni

Bhai executed a Ratification Deed. After the death of Balaji Singh on 02.04.2008 the petitioner No.1 to 4 succeeded his share in the petition schedule property. Some of legal heirs of Balaji Singh malafidely obtained an exparte decree in OS No.19/2008 without including all the legal heirs and when the petitioners came to know about the same they

VI ADJ, Kukatpally 7 of 10

CMA No. 2 of 2025

filed OS No.6/2013 challenging the said decree. The respondent No.1 purchased 1/7th share of Balaji Singh during the pendency of OS No.6/2013 which is not binding on the petitioner No.1 to 4. Some of the legal heirs of Balaji Singh filed IA No.633/2009 in OS

No.779/2002 seeking final decree and the same is pending. The document executed in favour of the respondent No.10 in 2013 is not binding on the petitioner No.1 to 4. The elder sister of the petitioner No.5 to 8 filed OS No.225/2006 seeking cancellation of the Sale

Deed executed by Badri Singh on 04.12.2003 and the said suit was dismissed on 17.06.2016. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner No.5 to 8 and their sister filed AS

No.910/2016 which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The petition schedule property being joint family property the respondents have no right over the said property.

The respondent No.1 to 3 and 9 executed a Development Agreement cum GPA in favour of the respondent No.7 and they have also executed Supplementary Deeds. The said documents are not binding on the petitioners. The respondents without obtaining the construction permission are making illegal construction over the property and as such the petitioners filed WP No.16214/2013 before the Hon’ble High Court. The respondents are trying to change the nature of the property. As such, the petitioners prayed to grant temporary injunction against the respondents.

5.The respondents filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the suit as the first appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court in AS No.910/2016. The rights of the petitioners were already determined under the preliminary decree dated 07.09.2006. There is no specific identification of the property in respect of which the suit is filed. The property was sold to the respondent No.1 on 03.06.2013. The petitioners are still contesting the suit in

OS No.6/2013. Hence, the respondents prayed to dismiss the petition.

VI ADJ, Kukatpally 8 of 10

CMA No. 2 of 2025

6.Before the Trial Court, the petitioners got marked Ex.P1 to P21 and the respondent got marked Ex.R1 to R3.

7.After hearing both sides the Trial Court dismissed the petition and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.On the rival contentions made by both parties and after going through the documentary evidence filed before the Trial Court, the following points would emerge for consideration:

1 ) Whether the petitioners have made out a prima facie case, shown the balance of convenience in their favour and the aspect of irreparable loss?

2) Whether the order under appeal is legally and factually sustainable. To What relief ?

10.Point No.1 and 2:

The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants is that the partition suit was decreed in 2002 and some of the legal heirs of Badri Singh sold the property without the shares being crystallized in the final decree petition which is pending. It is contended that after the dismissal of OS No.101/2016 an appeal is filed before the

Hon’ble High Court. It is contended that the suit schedule property is joint family property

and the Settlement Deed was created by suppressing the final decree proceedings. It is contended that the petitioners are in joint possession of the petition schedule property which is a joint family property. It is contended that sale of the joint family property is invalid.

11.The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that after the preliminary decree was passed the Sale Deeds were executed in favour of third parties. It

VI ADJ, Kukatpally 9 of 10

CMA No. 2 of 2025

is contended that the rights of the petitioners over the petition schedule property are not crystallized. It is contended that the plaintiffs failed to show a prima facie case. It is further contended that the respondent No.1 purchased the property from the LRs of Balaji Singh.

It is contended that the petitioners were not in possession of the property and without seeking the relief of recovery of possession the suit is not maintainable. It is contended that as the alleged Will Deed is not filed suit as the same was cancelled subsequently. It is further contended that as per Ex.R1 to R3 the land in suit survey was declared as SEZ.

12.The petitioners contend that they are the joint owners of the petition schedule property having acquired the same from their father Balaji Singh. Admittedly only a preliminary decree was filed and the final decree proceedings are pending. The petitioners do not have any exclusive rights over the petition schedule property claimed to be joint family property. Admittedly some of the legal heirs of Balaji Singh filed a suit to declare them as legal heirs vide OS No.6/2013 and the said suit was challenged in OS

No.91/2019. Admittedly OS No.91/2019 was dismissed, though it is contended that an appeal is pending against the said judgment. The decree passed in OS No.6/2013 is not yet set aside.

13.The petition schedule property is shown as agricultural land. Perusal of the schedule shows that vague boundaries are mentioned for the petition schedule property by giving only the survey numbers. The petitioners at this stage have not filed any document to show that they are in joint possession of the petition schedule property, though the respondents claimed to have purchased the property. The petitioners have not sought the relief of recovery of possession from the purchasers. Undisputedly there are several suits pending between the petitioner and other legal heirs of Balaji Singh and his brothers. The petitioners failed to make out a prima case in their favour and the balance of

VI ADJ, Kukatpally 10 of 10

CMA No. 2 of 2025

convenience is not in their favour and the petitioners will not suffer any irreparable loss if injunction is not granted. The Trial Court passed the order after considering the material on record and there is no illegality or irregularity in the said order and as such the order passed by the Trial Court does not require any interference. Hence, the Point no.1 and 2 are answered against the appellant.

14.In the result,the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally in I.A.No. 172 of 2022 in O.S.No. 285 of 2022, Dated 23.12.2024.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 06 th day of April, 2026).

Sd/-

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

(On behalf of Petitioner) --Nil-- (On behalf of Respondent) --Nil--

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of Petitioner) --Nil-- (On behalf of Respondent) --Nil--

Sd/-

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

Copy to: The Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at Kukatpally.

VI ADJ, Kukatpally

AS No. 233 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: SMT. C. PAVANI, VI Additional District Judge, R.R.District at Kukatpally

Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026

APPEAL SUIT NO. 233 OF 2018

Between:

1.Mulle Saraswati, W/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah, Aged about 62 Years, Occ: Household, Rep. By GPA Holder i.e., Appellant No.4 Mulle Sravan Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah,

2.Mulle Praveen Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Private Service, Rep. By GPA Holder i.e., Appellant No.4 Mulle Sravan Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah,

3.Mulle Ganesh Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah, Aged about 34 Years, Occ: Private Service, Rep. By GPA Holder i.e., Appellant No.4 Mulle Sravan Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah,

4.Mulle Sravan Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah, Aged about 34 Years, Occ: Private Service,

5.D. SudhaRani, W/o. D. Venkat Rao, D/o. Mulle Anjaiah, Aged about 41 Years, Occ: Household, Rep. By GPA Holder i.e., Appellant No.4 Mulle Sravan Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah,

All are R/o. H.No.8-1-303/48, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad. … Appellants/ Plaintiffs

AND

1.Begari Yadaiah, S/o. Late B. Saianna, Aged Major, Occ: Service, 1/10 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

AS No. 233 of 2018

2.Begari Jayamma, W/o. Late Kishtaiah, Aged Major, Occ: Household,

3.Begari Gandaiah, S/o. Late Begari Shankaraiah, Aged Major, Occ: Service,

4.Begari Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Begari Shankaraiah, Aged Major, Occ: Service,

5.Begari Bhagyamma, W/o. Late Begari Raju, Aged Major, Occ: House wife,

All are R/o. H.No.2-99, Nallagandla Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Respondents/ Defendants

AGGRIEVED BY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S. NO. 1832 OF 2015, DT: 12.09.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE

THEN VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

1.Mulle Saraswati, W/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah, Aged about 62 Years, Occ: Household, Rep. By GPA Holder i.e., Appellant No.4 Mulle Sravan Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah,

2.Mulle Praveen Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Private Service, Rep. By GPA Holder i.e., Appellant No.4 Mulle Sravan Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah,

3.Mulle Ganesh Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah, Aged about 34 Years, Occ: Private Service, Rep. By GPA Holder i.e., Appellant No.4 Mulle Sravan Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah,

4.Mulle Sravan Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah, Aged about 34 Years, Occ: Private Service,

5.D. SudhaRani, W/o. D. Venkat Rao, D/o. Mulle Anjaiah, Aged about 41 Years, Occ: Household, Rep. By GPA Holder i.e., Appellant No.4 Mulle Sravan Kumar, S/o. Late Mulle Anjaiah,

All are R/o. H.No.8-1-303/48, Vivekananda 2/10 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

AS No. 233 of 2018

Nagar Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad. …Plaintiffs

AND

1.Begari Yadaiah, S/o. Late B. Saianna, Aged Major, Occ: Service,

2.Begari Jayamma, W/o. Late Kishtaiah, Aged Major, Occ: Household,

3.Begari Gandaiah, S/o. Late Begari Shankaraiah, Aged Major, Occ: Service,

4.Begari Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Begari Shankaraiah, Aged Major, Occ: Service,

5.Begari Bhagyamma, W/o. Late Begari Raju, Aged Major, Occ: House wife,

All are R/o. H.No.2-99, Nallagandla Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

... Defendants

This Appeal Suit is coming on 01.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. Ali Farooq & Ali Faraz Farooqui, learned counsel for the Appellants and M/s. K.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for Respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by the then VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in O.S.No.

1832 of 2015, dated 12.09.2018.

2.The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants

before the Trial Court. For convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as they

were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3.The brief averments of the plaint filed in the suit are as follows:

3/10 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

AS No. 233 of 2018

Originally the father of the plaintiffs Mulle Anjaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 847 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.94 and the land admeasuring 153 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.95 (Part) in total 1,000 Sq.Yards situated at

Nallagandla Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which is hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Schedule Property” having purchased the same through the

Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.550/2011 dated 05.03.2011 from K. Baby

Sarojini Devi and others as first party and Mohd. Moin and others as second party and

Kande Rao and another as consenting party. Since the date of purchase the father of the plaintiffs was in possession of the suit schedule property and he got constructed a small rooms and compound wall. The vendors of the plaintiff’s father obtained an electricity connected and they also got dug a bore well for which a separate electricity connection was obtained. The consenting parties in the Sale Deed of the father of the plaintiffs claimed title over the property through the Sale Deed bearing document No.8219/1992

dated 29.07.1992 executed by K. Rajaiah and others and the Sale Deed bearing

document No.4404/2004 dated 18.01.2004 executed by K.Manemma in favour of

K.Prasad. The said Sale Deed was ratified through the Ratification Deed bearing document No.11487/2005 dated 08.08.2005. In order to avoid litigation as a precaution the father of the plaintiffs obtained a Comprehensive Sale Deed by including all the legal heirs of Begari Saianna and all other persons claiming title in respect of the suit schedule property. Baby Sarojini Devi and others after purchasing the property through the Sale

Deed bearing document No.5994/2003 dated 12.05.2003 executed an Agreement of

Sale cum GPA bearing document No.1014/2008 dated 18.06.2008 in favour of Mohd.

Moin and two others. The legal heirs of Late Saianna filed an affidavit before the MRO on 03.10.1992 stating that they executed the Sale Deed and reporting no objection for 4/10 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

AS No. 233 of 2018

mutation of the name of M.Sarada. Accordingly the mutation proceedings were issued in favour of K.Devi Sarojini Devi and two others, basing on the earlier mutation orders in favour of the defendant No.1. The defendants by suppressing the execution of Sale

Deed in 1992 obtained Occupancy Right Certificate on 11.03.2015. During his lifetime the father of the plaintiffs was in possession of the suit schedule property and after his death the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants under the guise of the false certificate tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property on 11.07.2015 and 18.11.2015. The plaintiffs filed an appeal

before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy against the ORC granted in favour of the

defendants. As such, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants.

4.All the defendants remained exparte.

5.In support of their case, the plaintiff No.4 got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A17.

6.After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, which is now under challenge before this Court.

7.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the father of the plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule properties from two branches who have compromised the case and after purchasing the property he got constructed two rooms and a compound wall and there is an electricity connection for the suit schedule property.

It is further contended that the Ratification Deed was executed by the defendants confirming the sale made in favour of the vendors of the father of the plaintiffs. It is contended that by suppressing the execution of Sale Deed and the mutation proceedings 5/10 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

AS No. 233 of 2018

the defendants obtained an ORC which was challenged before the Joint Collector. It is contended that prior to passing the mutation proceedings the legal heirs of Saianna gave a no objection affidavit. It is contended that the possession of the suit schedule property was never delivered to the defendants after the ORC was granted and the Sale Deed of the father of the plaintiffs and his predecessors in title were never challenged. It is further contended that there is no rebuttal evidence as the defendants remained exparte. It is further contended that a fresh enquiry is pending in the ORC application and the ORC granted in favour of the defendants was set aside. It is contended that though there is no dispute as to the boundaries, the Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit stating that there is a discrepancy as to the boundaries in Ex.A1 Sale Deed and the boundaries of the suit schedule property.

8.The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the plaintiffs claim that their father purchased the property from two branches, but there is no proof as to how the original owners of the said branches acquired the said property. It is contended that the suit filed for cancellation of the Sale Deed of the second branch was decreed and without any right the second branch executed the Sale Deed in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. It is contended that the two branches who executed the Sale Deed in favour of the father of the plaintiffs did not obtain any ORC. It is contended that when the title of the plaintiffs is in dispute the simple suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking perpetual injunction is not maintainable and the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit seeking declaration of title. It is contended that as on the cut off date in 1973 the defendants were the Inamdars of land in the suit survey numbers. It is contended that the injunction suit filed by the plaintiffs against the true owners is not maintainable. It is further contended that after fresh enquiry also ORC was issued to the defendants. It is 6/10 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

AS No. 233 of 2018

contended that the boundaries of the suit schedule property are not tallying with the boundaries mentioned in the documents filed by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have shown fictitious boundaries.

9.Basing on the contentions raised in the appeal and on going through the grounds of appeal, the following points would emerge for consideration.

1) Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit?

2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants ?

3) Whether the Trial Court judgment and decree are legally and factually sustainable?

10.POINT No.1 AND 2 :

The contention of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties and without any right the defendants are trying to interfere with their possession.

11.The contention of the plaintiffs that their father purchased the suit schedule property through a registered Sale Deed is supported by Ex.A1. The plaintiffs have shown the flow of title from the original owners to the vendor of their father through Ex.A5 to A8 Sale Deeds and Ratification Deed. Further as per Ex.A10 and A11 Mutation

Proceedings the name of the vendors of the father of the plaintiff are mutated in the

Revenue records. As per Ex.A12 orders passed by the Inam Tribunal by that date the

Sale Deeds were already executed in favour of the vendors of the father of the plaintiffs and their names were already mutated in the Revenue records. There is no evidence to show if a notice was issued to the plaintiffs or their father before granting the ORC to the 7/10 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

AS No. 233 of 2018

defendants. Though the mutation proceedings were issued in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff’s father in 1992 and 2004 there is no reference of the said sale and mutation proceedings in Ex.A12 ORC proceedings.

12.Further as per Ex.A2 and A3 statement of electricity account and electricity bills the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property since 2009 to 2015.

Though the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to show as to how the vendors of their father acquired the title to the suit schedule property, the defendants have not contested the suit by filing written statement and they have not opposed the claim of the plaintiffs. Further though it is contended that an ORC was issued in favour of the defendants there is no evidence to show if the possession of the suit schedule property was handed over to the defendants subsequent to the grant of the ORC. Further as evident from the record, till date the Sale

Deed of the father of the plaintiffs or his predecessors in title is not challenged. Further as stated earlier the defendants have not contested the suit and they have not produced any evidence to show that they were in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. On the other hand as per the evidence of PW1 and the documents filed by the plaintiffs show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. Further the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendants are trying to interfere with their possession is supported by Ex.A15 and A16 and the evidence of PW1 in this regard and Ex.A15 and A16 remained unrebutted. As such, the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants. In view of the above discussion, point No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellants against the respondents.

8/10 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

AS No. 233 of 2018

13.POINT No.3:

The Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case. Therefore, in view of the detailed discussion and the reasoned findings arrived at under point No.1 and 2, that the plaintiffs could prove their case and the Trial Court has dismissed the suit without appreciating the evidence on record and without proper application of law and as such the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court needs to be set aside. Hence, Point No.3 is answered in favour of the Appellants.

14.In the result, the appeal suit is allowed setting aside the Judgment and

Decree passed in OS No.1832 of 2015 dated 12.09.2018 by the then learned VIII

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and granting perpetual

injunction in favour of the appellants restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with the possession of the appellants over the suit schedule property. The parties shall bear their own costs.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10 th day of April, 2026).

Sd/-

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Sd/-

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Copy to:

The then VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, 9/10 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

AS No. 233 of 2018

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

10/10 VI ADJ, Kukatpally

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present : Smt.C.Pavani, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Ranga Reddy District.

Dated the 8th day of April 2021

O.S.No.2308/2008

Between :

P.Jithender Rao S/o. P. Hagan Mohan Rao, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.No.16-11-511/C/42, Mansoorabad, R.R.District.

...Plaintif

AND

1.. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

2. The Dy. Commissioner , Rep. By the Deputy Commissioner, L.B.Nagar, Municipal Circle, Saroornagar village, R.R.District.

3. The Vice, Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Marred pally, Secunderabad.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for fnal hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.G.Tirumal Reddy, the learned counsel for the plaintif and Sri.Narsimha REddy, the learned counsel for the defendant no.2 and the defendant no.1 and 3 having remained exparte, having heard and stood over for consideration this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is fled seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants.

02.Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintif is the absolute owner and possessor of the premises bearing plot No.19 in Sy.No.42 (Part) admeasuring 265 2O.S.no.2308 of 2008 sq.yds situated at Mansoorabad, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District which is hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Schedule

Propery”. The plaintif purchased the suit schedule property through a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.2943 of 1995 dated 23.02.1995 from Mohd. Fateh Ali Khan who was the owner of the total land admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts. The vendor of the plaintif converted

Ac.2.50 gts of land into house plots providing roads and other amenities and the same was approved under the proposed group housing scheme vide proceeding No.F.No.5249/MP-2/89 and he obtained building permission from defendant No.2 vide File No.G2/BP/ 7044/94 dated 27.71994 and entered into an Agreement for Sale of the suit schedule property without taking up any development activity. The vendor of the plaintif abondoned the project and all the purchasers including the plaintif of the said group housing scheme approached the defendant No.2 and constructed houses with their own funds. The ofcials of the defendant No.1 and 2 tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without issuing any notice as contemplated under the provisions of

Municipalities Act as such the plaintif got issued a statutory notice U/

S.685 of the Hyderabad Municipality Act dated 20.06.2008 but the defendants did not give any reply. On 01.11.2008 the defendant tried to demolish the compound wall, constructed by the plaintif in order to prevent illegal encroachment. As such the plaintif fled this suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants.

03.The defendant no.2 fled written statement denying the title and possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property and contended that the plaintif has not submitted any application seeking permission to construct the compound wall or building. It is further averred that the plaintif has not constructed any compound 3O.S.no.2308 of 2008 wall. It is averred that with a ill motive to start the construction without paying the required fees the plaintif fled a false suit against the defendants, though the defendant no.2 never tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintif. Hence the defendant no.2 prayed to dismiss the suit. The defendant no.1 and 3 remained exparte.

04.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed:

1.Whether the plaintif is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant municipality in

respect of the suit schedule property ?

2.To what relief ?

05.In support of his claim the plaintif got examined himself as Pw-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6. The defendant no.2 got examined one T.Srinivas as Dw-1 and got marked Ex.B1.

06.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif and perused the record. Inspite of granting sufcient time the learned counsel for the defendant failed to submit his arguments. Hence his arguments were recorded as Nil.

07.Issue No.1 :

The contention of the plaintif is that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same through a registered Sale Deed in 1995 and without any right and without issuing any notice the defendants are trying to interfere with his possession over the suit schedule property and are trying to demolish the compound wall constructed by him. The contention of the defendant no.2 is that the plaintif has not constructed any compound wall and they have not received any application seeking permission to construct the compound wall and that they never tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintif.

4O.S.no.2308 of 2008

08.The plaintif as Pw.1 categorically deposed about his title and possession over the suit schedule property, the illegal interference caused by the defendants with his possession in his examination in chief as narrated in the plaint. During cross examination he deposed that he has not submitted any application in writing seeking permission to construct the compound wall. He further deposed that on his oral request he was informed that there is no necessity to obtain the construction permission. He deposed that in

Ex.A3 notice he did not mention that he was going to construct the compound wall. He denied the suggestion that in order to avoid payment of the necessary fees to construct the compound wall he fled a false suit. He denied the suggestion that there is no compound wall in the suit schedule property and that he was deposing false.

09. Dw.1 T.Srinivas deposed that a revised layout was issued for the land in Sy.no.42 of Mansoorabad Village vide File no.1401/MP2/

HUDA/93 and as per the revised layout there is no plot no.19. He further deposed that in order to encroach the open space the plaintif created some fabricated documents and fled a false suit. During cross examination he deposed that the revised layout plan was submitted by Fateh Ali Khan for the land in Sy.no.42 of Mansoorabad

Village. He admitted that they have issued notice to the builder asking him to comply the terms of the tentative plan. He admitted that Fateh Ali Khan did not complete the constructions. He deposed that the defendant no.1 has not issued any letter granting fnal layout. He admitted that Fateh Ali Khan abandoned the construction work. He further deposed that he has visited the disputed site and he found open space surrounded by a compound wall. He deposed that he has not fled any document to show that plot no.19 is an open space in the layout. He denied the suggestion that there is no 5O.S.no.2308 of 2008 necessity to obtain a permission for construction of compound wall.

He admitted that he has not fled any document to show that the revised layout was fnalized. He deposed that he has not fled any document to show that the defendant no.1 constructed the compound wall around the disputed property.

10.The fact that one Fateh Ali Khan was the owner of the land in Sy.no.42 and he converted the land into plots under a layout for developing the same into group houses is not in dispute. The evidence of the plaintif is to the efect that he purchased the suit schedule property in the said layout from Fateh Ali Khan. The said contention of the plaintif is supported by Ex.A1 Sale Deed. The plaintif purchased the suit schedule property in 1995. Though the defendant no.2 disputed the title and possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property, they failed to rebutt the evidence of Pw.1 and Ex.A1 Sale Deed.

11.As per the contention of the plaintif the defendants are trying to interfere with his possession over the suit schedule property.

Though the plaintif contended that he got constructed a compound wall around the suit schedule property in order to protect the same from encroachments, admittedly the plaintif has not obtained any construction permission. Perusal of the record shows that no notice was issued to the plaintif against the construction of the compound wall made by him.

12.Further, though in the written statement the defendant no,.2 disputed the possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property and the construction of the compound wall, during the evidence of Dw.1 he deposed that he visited the disputed property and found a compound wall there. Further, though in the written statement there is no plea about any revised layout, for the frst time 6O.S.no.2308 of 2008 in the evidence of Dw.1 the defendant no.2 introduced the plea of a revised layout. It is settled law that without a pleading no amount of evidence can be looked into to prove a fact. Undisputedly there is no fnal layout approved for the land in the suit survey number.

13.Further, though the defendant no.2 contented that as per

Ex.B1 revised layout there is no plot no.19 as claimed by the plaintif,

Ex.B1 is not an approved fnal layout. Admittedly Ex.B1 does nor bear the proceedings number, seal and signature of the competent authority. Further, in Ex.B1 after plot no.18 the next plot number is mentioned as plot no.20. There is no explanation as to why there is no continuity in the plot numbers. There is no cogent evidence to prove that the plaintif is showing the open land as plot no.19. As admitted by Dw.1 there is no evidence to show that the compound wall constructed around the disputed property was constructed by the defendant no.1. There is no evidence to show that the land shown as the suit schedule property is open space in the layout. It is pertinent to mention here that if really the land claimed by the plaintif is open space in the layout, there is no explanation as to why the defendant no.1 remained exparte.

14.Further, if the plaintif makes any construction in the suit schedule property unauthorizedly or without permission the defendants can proceed against him by issuing notice and by following the due process of law. Through his evidence supported by the documents fled by him the plaintif succeeded in proving that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and without any right the defendants are trying to interfere with his possession. In view of the above discussion Issue no.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif.

15.In the result the suit is decreed without costs granting 7O.S.no.2308 of 2008 perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintif restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property without following due process of law.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 8 th day of April 2021.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Plaintif: On behalf of the Defendant:

Pw-1 :P.Jithender Rao Dw-1 : T.Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Plaintif:

Ex.A1 : Certifed Copy of Sale Deed No.2934/95, Dt:23.02.1995.

Ex.A2 : Approved layout No.1401/MP2/H/93, Dt: 21.10.1993.

Ex.A3 :Ofce copy of legal notice dated 20.06.2008.

Ex.A4 : Postal receipts (3Nos) dated 20.06.2008.

Ex.A5 : Postal acknowledgments (3 Nos).

Ex.A6 : Positive photograph with negative of suit property.

On behalf of the Defendants:

Ex.B1: Certifed Copy of the Revised Layout for the land in Sy.No. 42 of Mansoorabad village approved by HUDA in the year 1997.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT