Sri. D. Devendra Babu

1 O.S No.59 OF 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT ::

BHAINSA

PRESENT:- SRI D.DEVENDRA BABU,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA

MONDAY, THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF MARCH, 2026

O.S. No. 59 OF 2017

BETWEEN:-

Nyalakanti Latha @ Vani W/o. Rajeshwar Rao, Age: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. RTC Colony, Nizamabad.

…PLAINTIFF

AND

1. Ummai Vasavi W/o. Hanmanth Rao, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Basar, mandal Basar, Dist. Nirmal.

2. Ummai Gangamma W/o. Laxman Rao, Age: 75 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Basar, mandal Basar, Dist. Nirmal.

3. Ummai Nithya Sri D/o. Late. Hanmanth Rao, Age: 09 years, Occ: Student, Gram Panchayath Basara, Nirmal Dist., (Minor under the guardianship of Pulolla Sabitha W/o. Suresh, Age: 34 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. Gokul Nagar, Bhainsa Town, Dist. Nirmal (Included as a defendant No.3 vide orders in I.A.No.700/2024, Dt.12.12.2024)

...DEFENDANTS

2 O.S No.59 OF 2017

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 11.03.2026 in the presence of Sri.T.Ravinder Singh, the counsel for the plaintiff and that of Sri Venkatesh Pardikar, the counsel for the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 is set exparte and that of Smt.Sabitha, the counsel for the defendant No.3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, after perusal of the case record this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed for partition and separate possession 1of the properties of the agricultural land in item No.1 Sy.No.320/అ admeasuring Ac.02.24 guntas bounded as East: Land of Narayan, West: Road, North: Function Hall, South:

Land of Vinayak Rddy and item No.2 Sy.No.41/ఉ admeasuring Ac.02.20 guntas bounded as East: Land of Chinna Gangaram, West: Temple, North: Land of

Shyam, South Road, both lands are situated at Basar village and mandal, Dist.

Nirmal. (Here after refer as suit schedule properties).

2.The case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant No.1 is the wife of Late.

Hanmanth Rao who is the brother of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 is the daughter of the defendant

No.1 and parties to the suit are Hindus by religion.

3 O.S No.59 OF 2017

FAMILY TREE

Late Laxman Rao (died) (Father of the plaintiff )

Ummai Gangavva mother of plaintiff (defendant No.2)

Hanmanth Rao (died) N.Latha @ Vani (Plaintiff)

Ummai Vasavi (wife) (D1)

Ummai Nithya Sri (Daughter ) (D3)

3.It is submitted by the plaintiff that she is the daughter of the defendant No.2 and after death of his father who died in the year 2007, brother of the plaintiff name was mutated in the revenue records as he is the male elder number of the family. Later his brother also died on 08.05.2015 and submits that the suit property is an ancestral property inherited in the name of the defendant No.1 after the death of the brother of the plaintiff and further submits that plaintiff and the defendants are in the joint possession over the suit land and during the life time of the plaintiff brother profits and expenses were shared among the both the parties.

4 O.S No.59 OF 2017

4.It is further submitted by the plaintiff that after the death of the brother of the plaintiff the defendant No.1 who is the wife of his brother got mutated her name over the suit land and defendant No.1 is mismanaging the suit land, as such the plaintiff demanded for the partition over the suit land on 08.11.2017. The defendant No.1 has not agreed for the partition over the suit land and taking the advantage of mutation her name in the revenue records over the suit land is now trying to alienating the suit land to the third parties. Hence, the suit.

5.Summons served to the defendant No.1, 2 and 3. After receiving summons from this court the defendant No.2 not filed W.S and she was set exparte on 09.05.2018. The defendant No.1 filed Written Statement by denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff in his plaint and submits that she is nowhere concerned with the suit land and submits that the she is the exclusive owner of the suit land. Further it is submitted that the father of the plaintiff died in the year 19.06.2010 and her husband died on 08.05.2016 and after the death of her husband the suit lands were mutated in her name after conducting due enquiries.

Further defendant No.1 submits that during the life time of Late Laxman Rao, partition has taken place and Late Laxman Rao gave gold and cash to the plaintiff

5 O.S No.59 OF 2017

and defendant No.2 and Late Laxman Rao also paid sale consideration of RCC house purchased in RTC colony in Nizamabad in the name of plaintiff and her husband by name Hanmanth Rao. Further the defendant No.1 submits that in the said 50% share in the RCC house in the Nizamabad was also given to the plaintiff towards her share and the rest of the properties of the Late Laxman Rao were given to her husband Late Hanmath and after the death of Hanmanth Rao, defendant No.1 became the exclusive owner over the suit lands and also submits the suit is bad in law for non joinder of her daughter. Hence, pray this court to dismiss the suit.

6.At the stage of arguments Order 1 Rule 10 petition was filed to implead the daughter of the defendant No.1 and the same is allowed against which a revision is referred before the Hon’ble High Court vide C.R.P.No.102/2025 and as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court this court has passed orders, again

I.A.No.14/2026 is filed by the defendant No.1 to represent defendant No.3 as a guardian and the same is allowed. W.S of defendant No.1 is adopted by the defendant No.3.

6 O.S No.59 OF 2017

7.Basing on the above pleadings of the both the parties this Court framed the following issues.

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the partition over the plaint property?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the separate possession over the plaint property, if so to what relief ?

8.During the course of trial plaintiff No.1 was examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A20, further one Rajeshwar was examined as PW2, further one Chandra Shekar was examined as PW3 but no exhibits are marked through PW2 and PW3, later the plaintiff evidence was closed. Further Defendant

No.1 was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1, further one D.Laxman Rao was examined as DW2, further one Malkanna Yadav was examined as DW3, further one Sudhakar Rao was examined as DW4, but no exhibits are marked on behalf of DW2 to DW4. Later defendants evidence was closed.

9.Heard both sides perused material on record.

7 O.S No.59 OF 2017

10.For the sake of convenience of this Court and as the issues No.1 and 2 are interconnected with each other in respect of the suit schedule property, this court finds it appropriate to answer the issue No.1 and 2 together.

11.ISSUES No.1 and 2:-

Plaintiff was examined herself as PW1 and filed chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint and in cross examination PW1 admitted that suit land is in the name of the defendant No.1 and admitted that there is house in

Nizamabad in the joint name of herself and husband of Defendant No.1 which was purchased in the year 2003 and the said house was not partitioned among the parties and defendant No.2 resides with herself and further admitted that the suit lands in the possession of the defendant No.1 and PW1 was never in the possession over the suit lands.

12.Further one Rajeshwar who is the husband of the PW1 has filed chief affidavit in support of plaintiff and in cross examination PW2 admitted that husband of the Defendant No.1 and the plaintiff has purchased separate properties in Nizamabad and the suit land is not under cultivation.

8 O.S No.59 OF 2017

13.Further one Chandra Shekar who is examined as PW3 has filed chief affidavit in support of plaintiff and and in cross examination PW3 admitted that he do not know who is the plaintiff, but he know father of the plaintiff. The suit lands are under the cultivation of the Defendant No.1 and prior to her they are under cultivation by the husband of Defendant No.1 and the plaintiff was never in the possession over the suit lands.

14.Defendant No.1 was examined herself as DW1 who filed chief affidavit by reiterating contents of Written Statement and in cross examination DW1 admitted that the suit land was purchased during the life time of her husband and after the death of her husband the suit land mutated in her name and she was married to her husband in the year 2001. Further admitted that on Ex.B1 there is no signature of her father in law and she filed partition suit vide O.S.No.235/2024 on the file of

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad over the house in Nizamabad. DW1 further admitted that she has agreed to sell item No.1 of the suit land to one Damodhar

Reddy after filing of the present suit and the present suit is filed as she is selling the ancestral property.

9 O.S No.59 OF 2017

15.Further one Laxman Rao was examined as DW2 who filed chief affidavit in support of defendant and in cross examination DW2 admitted that he is Sarpanth of Basar and Defendant No.1 works as Karobari in the Gram Panchayath, Basar.

DW2 also admits that one Malkanna Yadav and Sudhakar are his followers. DW2 further admits that the suit land initially belongs to the father of the plaintiff and the partition has taken place in the year 2012, but neither himself nor defendant

No.1 nor Malkanna Yadav nor Sudhakar have signed on the partition deed.

16.Further one Malkanna Yadav was examined as DW3 who filed chief affidavit in support of defendant and in cross examination DW3 admitted that he has not signed on the partition deed entered between the parties and initially the suit lands are in the name of one Laxman who is the father of the plaintiff.

17.Further one Sudhakar Rao was examined as DW4 who filed chief affidavit in support of defendant and in cross examination DW4 admitted that he do not know the survey number of the suit land and also admitted the he did not singed on the partition deed between the parties and he has lodges at Basar and taxes and permissions are collected by Karobari of Basar G.P. who is DW1.

10 O.S No.59 OF 2017

18.Now coming to the Exhibits marked both the partition. On perusal of the

Ex.A1 is the pahani for the year 2001-2002 which shows that father of the plaintiff is the pattedar and possessor of the item No.1 of the suit land. Ex.A2 is the pahani for the year 2004-2005 which shows that father of the plaintiff is the pattedar and possessor of the item No.1 of the suit land. Ex.A3 is the pahani for the year 2007-2008 which shows that father of the plaintiff is the pattedar and possessor of the item No.1 of the suit land. Ex.A4 is the pahani for the year 1997- 1998 which shows that father of the plaintiff is the pattedar and possessor of the item No.2 of the suit land. Ex.A5 is the pahani for the year 1998-1999 which shows that father of the plaintiff is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.2 of the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A6 is the pahani for the year 1999- 2000 which shows that father of the plaintiff is the possessor of the item No.1 of the suit lands. Further on perusal of the Ex.A7 is the pahani for the year 2000- 2001 which shows that father of the plaintiff is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.1 of the suit lands. Further on perusal of the Ex.A8 is the pahani for the fasli year 1421 which shows that the husband of the defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.1 of the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A9 is the pahani for the fasli year 1422 which shows that the husband of the defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.1 of the suit

11 O.S No.59 OF 2017

land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A10 is the pahani for the fasli year 1424 which shows that the husband of the defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.1 of the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A11 is the pahani for the fasli year 1425 which shows that defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.1 of the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A12 is the pahani for the fasli year 1426 which shows that defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.1 of the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A13 is the pahani for the fasli year 1427 which shows that defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.1 of the suit land. Further on perusal of the

Ex.A14 is the pahani for the fasli year 1421 which shows that father of the plaintiff is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.2 of the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A15 is the pahani for the fasli year 1422 which shows that father of the plaintiff is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.2 of the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A16 is the pahani for the fasli year 1423 which shows that husband of defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor over the item

No.2 of the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A17 is the pahani for the fasli year 1424 which shows that husband of defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.2 of the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A18 is the pahani for the fasli year 1425 which shows that husband of defendant No.1 is

12 O.S No.59 OF 2017

the pattedar and possessor over the item No.2 of the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A19 is the pahani for the fasli year 1426 which shows that husband of defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor over the item No.2 of the suit land.

Further on perusal of the Ex.A20 is the pahani for the fasli year 1427 which shows that husband of defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor over the item

No.2 of the suit land.

19.Now coming to the exhibits marked on behalf of defendants, on perusal of the Ex.B1 is the CC of Registered sale deed Br.No.3436/2003, Dt.03.05.2023,

SRO, Nizamabad over the RCC house situated in RTC colony, Nizamabad in favour of plaintiff and husband of the defendant No.1.

20.This is suit filed for partition and separate possession over the agricultural lands and there is no dispute with relation among the parties and it is claimed by the defendant No.1 that the suit lands are her exclusive properties and the plaintiff claims that she is entitle for the partition over the suit lands and to prove the same plaintiff examined herself and two other witnesses on her behalf and filed Ex.A1 to A20 and on collective perusals of the exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff it is

13 O.S No.59 OF 2017

found that the suit properties are initially in the name of the father of the plaintiff

Late Laxman Rao and in the year 2011 i.e., fasli 1421 the item No.1 of the suit lands were mutated in the name of husband of defendant No.1, later in the year 2018 item No.1 of the suit lands were mutated in the name of defendant No.1 and in the year 2014 the item No.2 of the suit lands was mutated in the name of the husband of the defendant No.1 and before mutation of the suit lands in the name of husband of defendant No.1 the suit lands were in the name of father of the plaintiff and husband of defendant No.1 and it is admitted by the defendants in their Written Statement that Laxman Rao who is the father of the plaintiff died in the year 2010. Thus it could be understood that till the death of late Laxman Rao i.e., till 2010 the suit lands are in his name after the death of Late Laxman Rao the suit lands were mutated in the name of husband of defendant No.1. Late

Hanmanth Rao and later after his death the suit lands were mutated in the name of defendant No.1. Thus it could be understood that the suit land is an ancestral property of the plaintiff, defendant No.2 and husband of defendant No.1.

21.To prove that the suit lands are partitioned among the parties the defendant has not filed any documents to show that partition has taken place and it is also

14 O.S No.59 OF 2017

admitted by the defendant No.1 to defendant No.3 that they have not signed on the alleged partition deed. To the contrary DW1 to DW3 have admitted that the suit lands are initially are in the name of father of the plaintiff late Laxman Rao and it is also admitted by the DW1 that she has agreed to sell the item No.1 of the suit lands to one Damodhar Reddy after filing of the present suit and the present suit is filed only after the DW1 trying to sell the ancestral property of the plaintiff.

Defendants submitted in their written statement that the Late Laxman Rao during his life time has gave cash and gold to the plaintiff and defendant No.2 as their share but has not filed any documents to prove the same or adduced any oral evidence in that regard. Further in cross examination of plaintiff witnesss no material disparities could be elucidated from the evidence of plaintiff to prove that partition has taken place among the parties over the suit land and the entire cross examination of plaintiffs was around house in Nizamabad.

22.When no evidence was produced before this court to show that partition has taken place over the suit land and when the suit land is found to be a ancestral property of the plaintiff, this court do not find any reason to disallow the claim of the plaintiff. In this case it is admitted by both the parties that there is an house in

15 O.S No.59 OF 2017

Nizamabad purchased in the name of plaintiff and husband of the defendant No.1, but the same was not include in the suit schedule properties. However a separate suit vide O.S.No.235/2024 is pending on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nizambad over the alleged house in Nizamabad. However on perusal of the

Ex.B1 it is found that the house in Nizamabad was purchased in the name of plaintiff and defendant No.1 jointly.

23.Thus in view of the above discussion, this courts finds that the suit land is liable for partition among the parties and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share over the suit lands. As per section 8, 9 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act-1956 this court holds that defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 together are entitled for 1/3rd share over the suit lands, defendant No.2 is entitled for 1/3rd share over the suit lands. Preliminary decree to that effect follows. Accordingly points No.1 and 2 are answered.

24.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is preliminary decreed declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share over the suit lands, defendant No.1 and

16 O.S No.59 OF 2017

defendant No.3 together are entitled for 1/3rd share over the suit land and defendant No.2 is entitled for 1/3rd share over the suit lands i.e., agricultural lands in item No.1 Sy.No.320/అ admeasuring Ac.02.24 guntas and item No.2

Sy.No.41/ఉ admeasuring Ac.02.20 guntas, both lands are situated at Basar village and mandal, Dist. Nirmal.

Typed to dictation by my stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of March, 2026.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1. Nyalakanti Latha @ Vani DW-1.Ummai Vasavi PW-2. RajeshwarDW-2.D.Laxman Rao PW-3. Attoli ChandrashekarDW-3.Bala Malkanna Yadhav DW-4. Aljapur Sudhakar Rao

(EXHIBITS MARKED)

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: True copy of Pahani for the year 2001-2002.

Ex.A2: True copy of Pahani for the year 2004-2005.

Ex.A3: True copy of Pahani for the year 2007-2008.

Ex.A4: True copy of Pahani for the year 1997-1998.

17 O.S No.59 OF 2017

Ex.A5: True copy of Pahani for the year 1998-1999.

Ex.A6: True copy of Pahani for the year 1999-2000

Ex.A7: True copy of Pahani for the year 2000-2001

Ex.A8: Computerized Pahani for the fasli year 1421 for Sy.No.320A

Ex.A9: Computerized Pahani for the fasli year 1422 for Sy.No.320A

Ex.A10: CC of Pahani for the fasli year 1424 for Sy.No.320A

Ex.A11: Computerized Pahani for the fasli year 1425 for Sy.No.320A

Ex.A12: Computerized Pahani for the fasli year 1426 for Sy.No.320A

Ex.A13: Computerized Pahani for the fasli year 1427 for Sy.No.320A

Ex.A14: Computerized Pahani for the fasli year 1421 for Sy.No.41/ఊ

Ex.A15: Pahani for the fasli year 1422 for Sy.No.41/ఊ

Ex.A16: Pahani for the fasli year 1423 for Sy.No.41/ఊ

Ex.A17: Pahani for the fasli year 1424 for Sy.No.41/ఊ

Ex.A18: Pahani for the fasli year 1425 for Sy.No.41/ఊ

Ex.A19: Pahani for the fasli year 1426 for Sy.No.41/ఊ

Ex.A20: Pahani for the fasli year 1427 for Sy.No.41/ఊ

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: CC of the Sale deed No.3436/2003, Dt.03.05.2023 Registered at Sub Registration Office, Nizamabad.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA.

1 OS No.05 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT :: BHAINSA

PRESENT:- SRI D.DEVENDRA BABU,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 08 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

O.S. No.5 OF 2022

BETWEEN:-

Kasire Ramulu S/o. Chinnanna, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Godesra village, R/M. Lokeshwaram, Dist. Nirmal. …PLAINTIFF

AND

Mallela Pochaiah S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Wastapur village, R/M. Lokeshwaram, Dist. Nirmal.

...DEFENDANT

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 04.09.2025 in the presence of Sri.T.Ravinder Singh, the counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri S.Sainath, the counsel for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, after perusal of the case record this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction against the Defendants and his men over the agricultural land in Sy.No.83/ ఆ to an extent of Ac.04.09 guntas situated at

Wastapur village, Lokeshwaram mandal, Dist. Nirmal bounded by as follows:

2 OS No.05 OF 2022

East : Land of Kunta Gangaram West : Lnad of Kasire Posani North : Land of Kasire Sayanna South : Land of Kunta Rajeshwar (Here after referred as suit schedule property.)

2.The case of the plaintiff is that:

He is the absolute owner and possessor over the suit schedule property which is assigned to him by the Govt. vide Proc.No.NOF/2338/2000, Dt.27.12.2000 and he is in the continuous possession over the suit property and got his name in the revenue records and also got issue patta pass book. The defendants who are nowhere concerned with the suit land is trying to dispossess the plaintiff and on 31.12.2021 defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property however the plaintiff maintained his possession over the suit land with the help of neighbours. Hence the suit.

3.Summons served to the defendant, who filed Written Statement denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff in his plaint and submits that defendant is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land in Sy.No.82/ఆ/2 to an extent of

Ac.05.00 guntas situated at Wastapur village of Lokeshwaram mandal, Nirmal Dist.

3 OS No.05 OF 2022

Surrounded by East : Land of Kunta Gangaram, West: Land of Kasire Posani,

North : Land of Kasire Sayanna and South : Land of Kunta Rajeshwar and submits that plaintiff intentionally wrong boundaries which are the boundaries of the defendant property as the boundaries of the suit property and trying to encroach the suit land under the guise of this suit and counter claims that he is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land in Sy.No.82/AA/2 to an extent of Ac.05.00 guntas situated at Wastapur village of Lokeshwaram mandal, Nirmal Dist. and got issued patta passbook bearing No.T14100240270, Khata No.367 which is an ancestral property and submits that on 15.05.2022 when the defendant is monitoring the agricultural work in his land plaintiff tried to encroach into the suit land and tried to dispossess the defendant. Hence pray this ocurt to dismiss the suit and pray to grant injunction against the plaintiff over the agricultural land in Sy.No.82/AA/2 to an extent of Ac.05.00 guntas situated at Wastapur village of Lokeshwaram mandal,

Nirmal Dist.

4.Basing on the above pleadings of the both the parties this Court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property till filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

3. If so, to what relief ?

4 OS No.05 OF 2022

5.During the course of trial Plaintiff was examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. Further plaintiff examined one Gangadahr who is the who wokred as VRO at Pipri village was examined as PW2, but no exhibits are marked through PW2. After closing of the plaintiff evidence Defendant was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex. B1 to Ex B4. Later the defendant evidence was closed.

6.Heard both sides perused material on record.

7. For the sake of convenience of this Court and as issue no. 1 to 3 are are interconnected with each other in respect of the suit schedule properties, this court finds it appropriate to answer the issue No.1 to 3 together.

8.ISSUES No.1 to 3:-

Plaintiff was examined himself as PW1 and filed chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint and in cross examination PW1 admitted that he do not know the suit land survey number and the suit land is acquired by his father and the same was mutated on his name in the year 2000.

5 OS No.05 OF 2022

9.Further one gangadhar was examined as PW2 who filed chief affidavit in support of the plaintiff. In cross examination PW2 admitted that he do not know the boundaries of the suit land or the suit land survey number.

10.Further defendant was examined as DW1 who filed chief affidavit by reiterating contents of Written Statement however in cross examination DW1 admitted that he has not filed any suit against the plaintiff and the suit land Survey number is different and his land survey number is different.

11.Now coming to the Exhibits marked, on perusal of Ex.A1 which is CC of the new patta passbook of the plaintiff over the suit land stating that he acquired the suit land by way of succession and it is an assigned land along with final patta certificate issued by the Govt. of A.P, Dt.27.12.2000 over the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A2 which is the pahani for the falsi year 1427 which shows that the plaintiff is the pattedar and possessor over the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A3 which is the pahani for the falsi year 2007-2008 which shows that the plaintiff is the pattedar and possessor over the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A4 1-B namoona for the year 2021-2022 which shows that the plaintiff is the pattedar and

6 OS No.05 OF 2022

possessor over the suit land. Further on perusal of the Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 are the 3rd party affidavits Coming to the exhibits marked in favour of the defendants. On perusal of the Ex.B1 which is the original new patta passbook of the defendant over the agricultural land in Sy.No.83/ఆ 2 to an extent of Ac.05.00 of Wastapur village.

Ex.B2 which is the computerized dharani copy which shows that defendant is the pattedar over the agricultural land in Sy.Bno.83/AA2 to an extent of Ac.05.00 of

Wastapur village . Ex.B3 which is the pahani for the fasli year 2017 which shows that defendant is the pattedar and possessor over the agricultural land in

Sy.Bno.83/AA2 to an extent of Ac.05.00 of Wastapur village. Ex.B4 which is the pahani for the fasli year 2020 which shows that defendant is the pattedar and possessor over the agricultural land in Sy.No.83/AA2 to an extent of Ac.05.00 of

Wastapur village.

12.This is the suit filed for perpetual injunction and plaintiff has to prove that he is in the Lawful possession of the suit property as on date of filing of the present suit. To prove the same plaintiff has filed Ex A1 to A4 which shows that he is the pattedar and he is in the possession over the suit land as on the filing of the present suit. Herein the present suit defendant claims that he is not interfering with the suit land and the present suit is filed with the boundaries of his agricultural land in

Sy.No.83/ఆ 2 to an extent of Ac.05.00 of Wastapur village and claims that plaintiff

7 OS No.05 OF 2022

himself has tried to interfered to the peaceful possession of his property in

Sy.No.83/ఆ 2 on 15.05.2022. when the defendant claims that the there are severe boundary dispute over the suit land and plaintiff is trying to interfere into the peaceful possession of the defendant over his land. The defendant ought to have take steps for identification of the boundaries of the suit land by way of an application under order XXVI of C.P.C which is not filed in this case and as no witnesses is examined by the defendant to prove that the plaintiff tried to encroach into his land defendant cannot claim any counter claim against the plaintiff When no steps was taken by the defendant over the identification of the boundaries of the suit land this court has to rely up on the material available on record. In view of Ex.A1 to A4 this court finds that the plaintiff is the pattedar over the suit land which is assigned to him by the Govt. of A.P and he is in the possession over the suit land and holds that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of the perpetual injunction over the suit against the defendant and his men. Accordingly the points are answered.

13.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with costs and the defendant is hereby restrained by way of Perpetual Injunction from ever entering and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the

8 OS No.05 OF 2022

suit schedule property i.e.,the agricultural land in Sy.No.83/ఆ to an extent of

Ac.04.09 guntas situated at Wastapur village, Lokeshwaram mandal, Dist. Nirmal.

Dictated to my stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court on this the 8th day of October, 2025.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1. Kasire Ramulu DW-1. Mallela Pochaiah PW-2. Kadam Gangadhar

(EXHIBITS MARKED)

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1: CC of Pattedar passbook of the plaintiff, Dt.24.04.2018

Ex.A-2: Computerized pahani for the year 1427 fasli of plaintiff, Dt.20.02.2018

Ex.A-3: Pahani for the year 2007-2008 issued by revenue officer, Joharpur

Ex.A-4: Online copy of ROR 1-B of plaintiff, Dt.28.12.2021

Ex.A-5: Third party affidavit of Kunta Gangaram, Dt.03.01.2022

Ex.A-6: Third party affidavit of Kasire Posani, Dt.03.01.2022

Ex.A-7: Third party affidavit of Sayanna, Dt.03.01.2022

Ex.A-8: Third party affidavit of Kunta Rajeshwar, Dt.03.01.2022

9 OS No.05 OF 2022

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B-1: Original Pattedar passbook cum title deed

Ex.B-2: Online copy from Dharani portal showing land details of Sy.No.83/AA2 of Wastapur

Ex.B-3: Certified copy of Pahani patrak for fasli year 2017, Dt.27.02.2019

Ex.B-4: Certified copy of pahani patrak for fasli year 2020, Dt.01.09.2020

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA

1 OS No.07 OF 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT ::

BHAINSA

PRESENT:- SRI D.DEVENDRA BABU,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 08 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

O.S. No. 07 OF 2020

BETWEEN:-

S.A.Farana W/o. S.K. Yousuf, Age: 45 years, Occ: Anganwadi Teacher, R/o. Bamni-K village, R/M. Lokeshwaram, Dist. Nirmal. …PLAINTIFF

AND

Aasia Dottani W/o. S.A.Majeed, Age: 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Bamni-K village, R/M. Lokeshwaram, Dist. Nirmal.

...DEFENDANT

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 15.09.2025 in the presence of Sri.Venkatesh Pardikar, the counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri T.Ravinder Singh, the counsel for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, after perusal of the case record this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction against the Defendant and her men over the open place of the H.No.1-132/1 admeasuring 33’ East to West and 30”

2 OS No.07 OF 2020

North to South equal to 990 Sq. Feet which is equal to 110 Sq. yards situated at

Bamni-K village of Lokeshwaram mandal, Dist. Nirmal. (Here after referred as suit schedule property).

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

That the plaintiff’s father is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit property who gifted the suit property orally to the plaintiff on 07.04.1995 in the presence of one Saleem Pasha and one Akramunnisa and delivered the possession to the plaintiff. Later plaintiff accepted the said gift and constructed a tin shed and using the same for car parking and to store other articles. Later the Gram

Panchayath has allotted the said tin shed H.No.1-132/1 and the plaintiff is paying property tax to the revenue department and he is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit land.

3.It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant whose house is towards Eastern side of the suit land after some space and he is nowhere concerned with the suit land tried to purchase the suit land for which the plaintiff refused. Later on 23.02.2020, 25.02.2020 and 01.03.2020 the defendant tried to

3 OS No.07 OF 2020

interfere dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property however the plaintiff maintained his possession over the suit property. Hence the suit.

4.Summons served to the defendants, who filed W.S denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff in his plaint and submits that suit property is not the part and parcel of the H.No.1-132/1 and it is the part and parcel of the defendant H.No.1-136 which is previously in the name of the Majid Vakeel and submits that the plaintiff taking the advantage ownership certificate issued by the panchayath secretary by forging the certificate filing the present suit suppressing the real facts and hence pray this court to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings of the both the parties this Court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in the possession of the plaint schedule property till filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Perpetual Injunction as prayed for ?

3. If so, to what relief ?

4 OS No.07 OF 2020

6.During the course of trial Plaintiff was examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. Further one Akramunnisa was examined as PW2. Further one Bhuma Goud was examined as PW3, but no exhibits are marked through

PW2 and PW3. After closing of the plaintiff evidence Defendant was examined as

DW1 and one Syed Abdul Mujeed was examined as DW2, no exhibits are marked in favour of the defendants. Later the defendant evidence was closed.

7.Heard both sides perused material on record.

8. For the sake of convenience of this Court and as issue no. 1 to 3 are are interconnected with each other in respect of the suit schedule properties, this court finds it appropriate to answer the issue No.1 to 3 together.

9.ISSUES No.1 to 3:-

Plaintiff was examined himself as PW1 and filed chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. PW1 was cross examined at a length, but no useful material could be elicited.

10.Further one Akramunnisa was examined as PW2 who is the mother of the plaintiff has filed chief affidavit in support of the plaintiff. PW2 was cross examined at a length, but no useful material could be elicited.

5 OS No.07 OF 2020

11.Further one Bhumagoud was examined as PW3 who is the resident of

Bamini-K village has filed chief affidavit in support of the plaintiff. PW3 was cross examined at a length, but no useful material could be elicited.

12.Further defendant was examined as DW1 who filed chief affidavit by reiterating contents of Written Statement however in cross examination DW1 admitted that he did not file any documents to prove his case.

13.Further one Syed Abdul Mujeed was examined as DW2 who is the relative of the plaintiff and the defendants filed chief affidavit stating that he is the son of the S.A Vakeel and in the year 1996 the suit property was fell in his share and he sold suit property to the defendant and put her in the possession over the suit property and the suit property is the part and parcel of the Western portion of the

H.No.1-136 which belongs to the defendants. In cross examination DW2 admitted that he did not file any documents to show that the suit property was given to him in the year 1996.

14.Now coming to the Exhibits marked, on perusal of Ex.A1 which is the

House declaration Certificate, Dt.06.05.2014 stating that the H.No.1-132/1 is in

6 OS No.07 OF 2020

the name of the plaintiff admeasuring 33X30 feet. Further on perusal of the Ex.A2 is the residence certificate, Dt.09.01.2016 issued to plaintiff stating that she is residing in a house admeasuring 33X30 feet since 12 years. Ex.A3 to A11 are the house Tax receipts for the H.No.1-132/1 paid by the plaintiff. Ex.A12 is the

Photographs.

15.This is the suit filed for perpetual injunction and plaintiff has to prove that he is in the Lawful possession of the suit property as on date of filing of the present suit. To prove the same plaintiff has filed the Ex A1 and A2 which shows that she is in the possession over the H.No.1-132/1 admeasuring 33X30 feet. But in the present suit it is submitted by the plaintiff that the suit property is an open place of the H.No.1-132/1 and on perusal of the plaint it is found that the boundaries mentioned are East: open place of defendant, West: open place of

Moulali, North: Open place of S.A Jaleel, South: House of husband of the plaintiff. Thus this court finds that if the suit property is the open place of

H.No.1-132/1 the said house property shall be a boundary to the suit land, but it is not the case in this suit. Further the suit map annexed to the plaint also do not specifically show what is the suit property, but shows that house plot admeasuring 30X33 and there is also ambiguity from there is a access to the house No.1-132/1.

7 OS No.07 OF 2020

Further DW2 who is the vendor of the defendant H.No.1-136 has deposed that the suit land is the part and parcel of the H.No.1-136 and not H.No.1-132/1. Thus there is an ambiguity with respect to the suit schedule property and to get clarity the plaintiff ought to have file Advocate Commission petition clearly distinguishing suit property and the H.No.1-132/1. Further plaintiff submits that he has received the suit property from his father S.A. Wahab but has not mentioned how the said property was acquired by his father as it is a house plot.

Thus for the above said reasons this court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of Perpetual Injunction as prayed for. Hence the suit is dismissed.

Accordingly the points are answered.

16.IN THE RESULT, The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.

Dictated to my stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 8th day of October, 2025.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA

8 OS No.07 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1. S.A. FaranaDW-1. Aasia Dauthani PW-2. Akramunnisa DW-2. Syed Abdul Mujeeb PW-3. Konda Bhuma Goud

(EXHIBITS MARKED)

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1: Certificate issued by Gram Panchayath Gadchanda, Dt.06.05.2014

Ex.A-2: Possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar Lokeshwaram, Dt.09.04.2016

Ex.A-3: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.14.02.2006

Ex.A-4: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.18.03.2008

Ex.A-5: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.02.08.2009

Ex.A-6: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.03.03.2010

Ex.A-7: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.05.04.2011

Ex.A-8: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.08.03.2013

Ex.A-9: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.05.03.2015

Ex.A-10: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.05.02.2016

Ex.A-11: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.05.01.2017

FOR DEFENDANTS:

-NIL-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA

1 OS No.07 OF 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT ::

BHAINSA

PRESENT:- SRI D.DEVENDRA BABU,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 08 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

O.S. No. 07 OF 2020

BETWEEN:-

S.A.Farana W/o. S.K. Yousuf, Age: 45 years, Occ: Anganwadi Teacher, R/o. Bamni-K village, R/M. Lokeshwaram, Dist. Nirmal. …PLAINTIFF

AND

Aasia Dottani W/o. S.A.Majeed, Age: 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Bamni-K village, R/M. Lokeshwaram, Dist. Nirmal.

...DEFENDANT

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 15.09.2025 in the presence of Sri.Venkatesh Pardikar, the counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri T.Ravinder Singh, the counsel for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, after perusal of the case record this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction against the Defendant and her men over the open place of the H.No.1-132/1 admeasuring 33’ East to West and 30”

2 OS No.07 OF 2020

North to South equal to 990 Sq. Feet which is equal to 110 Sq. yards situated at

Bamni-K village of Lokeshwaram mandal, Dist. Nirmal. (Here after referred as suit schedule property).

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

That the plaintiff’s father is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit property who gifted the suit property orally to the plaintiff on 07.04.1995 in the presence of one Saleem Pasha and one Akramunnisa and delivered the possession to the plaintiff. Later plaintiff accepted the said gift and constructed a tin shed and using the same for car parking and to store other articles. Later the Gram

Panchayath has allotted the said tin shed H.No.1-132/1 and the plaintiff is paying property tax to the revenue department and he is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit land.

3.It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant whose house is towards Eastern side of the suit land after some space and he is nowhere concerned with the suit land tried to purchase the suit land for which the plaintiff refused. Later on 23.02.2020, 25.02.2020 and 01.03.2020 the defendant tried to

3 OS No.07 OF 2020

interfere dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property however the plaintiff maintained his possession over the suit property. Hence the suit.

4.Summons served to the defendants, who filed W.S denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff in his plaint and submits that suit property is not the part and parcel of the H.No.1-132/1 and it is the part and parcel of the defendant H.No.1-136 which is previously in the name of the Majid Vakeel and submits that the plaintiff taking the advantage ownership certificate issued by the panchayath secretary by forging the certificate filing the present suit suppressing the real facts and hence pray this court to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings of the both the parties this Court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in the possession of the plaint schedule property till filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Perpetual Injunction as prayed for ?

3. If so, to what relief ?

4 OS No.07 OF 2020

6.During the course of trial Plaintiff was examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. Further one Akramunnisa was examined as PW2. Further one Bhuma Goud was examined as PW3, but no exhibits are marked through

PW2 and PW3. After closing of the plaintiff evidence Defendant was examined as

DW1 and one Syed Abdul Mujeed was examined as DW2, no exhibits are marked in favour of the defendants. Later the defendant evidence was closed.

7.Heard both sides perused material on record.

8. For the sake of convenience of this Court and as issue no. 1 to 3 are are interconnected with each other in respect of the suit schedule properties, this court finds it appropriate to answer the issue No.1 to 3 together.

9.ISSUES No.1 to 3:-

Plaintiff was examined himself as PW1 and filed chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. PW1 was cross examined at a length, but no useful material could be elicited.

10.Further one Akramunnisa was examined as PW2 who is the mother of the plaintiff has filed chief affidavit in support of the plaintiff. PW2 was cross examined at a length, but no useful material could be elicited.

5 OS No.07 OF 2020

11.Further one Bhumagoud was examined as PW3 who is the resident of

Bamini-K village has filed chief affidavit in support of the plaintiff. PW3 was cross examined at a length, but no useful material could be elicited.

12.Further defendant was examined as DW1 who filed chief affidavit by reiterating contents of Written Statement however in cross examination DW1 admitted that he did not file any documents to prove his case.

13.Further one Syed Abdul Mujeed was examined as DW2 who is the relative of the plaintiff and the defendants filed chief affidavit stating that he is the son of the S.A Vakeel and in the year 1996 the suit property was fell in his share and he sold suit property to the defendant and put her in the possession over the suit property and the suit property is the part and parcel of the Western portion of the

H.No.1-136 which belongs to the defendants. In cross examination DW2 admitted that he did not file any documents to show that the suit property was given to him in the year 1996.

14.Now coming to the Exhibits marked, on perusal of Ex.A1 which is the

House declaration Certificate, Dt.06.05.2014 stating that the H.No.1-132/1 is in

6 OS No.07 OF 2020

the name of the plaintiff admeasuring 33X30 feet. Further on perusal of the Ex.A2 is the residence certificate, Dt.09.01.2016 issued to plaintiff stating that she is residing in a house admeasuring 33X30 feet since 12 years. Ex.A3 to A11 are the house Tax receipts for the H.No.1-132/1 paid by the plaintiff. Ex.A12 is the

Photographs.

15.This is the suit filed for perpetual injunction and plaintiff has to prove that he is in the Lawful possession of the suit property as on date of filing of the present suit. To prove the same plaintiff has filed the Ex A1 and A2 which shows that she is in the possession over the H.No.1-132/1 admeasuring 33X30 feet. But in the present suit it is submitted by the plaintiff that the suit property is an open place of the H.No.1-132/1 and on perusal of the plaint it is found that the boundaries mentioned are East: open place of defendant, West: open place of

Moulali, North: Open place of S.A Jaleel, South: House of husband of the plaintiff. Thus this court finds that if the suit property is the open place of

H.No.1-132/1 the said house property shall be a boundary to the suit land, but it is not the case in this suit. Further the suit map annexed to the plaint also do not specifically show what is the suit property, but shows that house plot admeasuring 30X33 and there is also ambiguity from there is a access to the house No.1-132/1.

7 OS No.07 OF 2020

Further DW2 who is the vendor of the defendant H.No.1-136 has deposed that the suit land is the part and parcel of the H.No.1-136 and not H.No.1-132/1. Thus there is an ambiguity with respect to the suit schedule property and to get clarity the plaintiff ought to have file Advocate Commission petition clearly distinguishing suit property and the H.No.1-132/1. Further plaintiff submits that he has received the suit property from his father S.A. Wahab but has not mentioned how the said property was acquired by his father as it is a house plot.

Thus for the above said reasons this court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of Perpetual Injunction as prayed for. Hence the suit is dismissed.

Accordingly the points are answered.

16.IN THE RESULT, The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.

Dictated to my stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 8th day of October, 2025.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA

8 OS No.07 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1. S.A. FaranaDW-1. Aasia Dauthani PW-2. Akramunnisa DW-2. Syed Abdul Mujeeb PW-3. Konda Bhuma Goud

(EXHIBITS MARKED)

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1: Certificate issued by Gram Panchayath Gadchanda, Dt.06.05.2014

Ex.A-2: Possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar Lokeshwaram, Dt.09.04.2016

Ex.A-3: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.14.02.2006

Ex.A-4: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.18.03.2008

Ex.A-5: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.02.08.2009

Ex.A-6: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.03.03.2010

Ex.A-7: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.05.04.2011

Ex.A-8: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.08.03.2013

Ex.A-9: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.05.03.2015

Ex.A-10: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.05.02.2016

Ex.A-11: Tax receipt issued by the G.P. Gadchanda, Dt.05.01.2017

FOR DEFENDANTS:

-NIL-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA

1 OS No.79 OF 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: BHAINSA

PRESENT:- SRI D.DEVENDRA BABU,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA.

MONDAY, THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF MARCH, 2026

O.S. No.79 OF 2025

Between:

1. Afsari Begum W/o. Late Shaik Ahmed, Age: 72 years, Occ: House hold, R/o.H.No.1-5-155, Zulfakhar galli, Bhainsa, in R/M. Bhainsa, Dist. Nirmal.

2. Imtiyaz Ahmed S/o.Late Shaik Ahmed, Age: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-5-155, Zulfakhar galli, Bhainsa in R/M. Bhainsa, Dist. Nirmal.

3. Wakeel Ahmed S/o.Late. Shaik Ahmed, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-5-155, Zulfakhar galli, Bhainsa in R/M. Bhainsa, Dist. Nirmal.

4. Ifteqar Ahmed S/o. Late. Shaik Ahmed, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-5-155, Zulfakhar galli, Bhainsa in R/M. Bhainsa, Dist. Nirmal.

5. Mubeena Kausar D/o. Late. Shaik Ahmed W/o. Numan Bin Quyyum, Age: 32 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.1-5-155, Zulfakhar galli, Bhainsa in R/M. Bhainsa, Dist. Nirmal. … Plaintiffs

AND

1. To whomsoever it may concern

2. The Thasildar, Revenue Mandal, Bhainsa, Dist. Nirmal, (The defendant No.2 is impleaded) … Defendants

2 OS No.79 OF 2025

This suit is coming before me on 19.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Muneer Ahmed, Advocate for the plaintiffs and that of Sri.A.G.P for the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.1 is set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this court to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of deceased plaintiff by name Shaik Ahmed S/o. Shaik

Moulana.

2. The case of the Plaintiff is that:

It is submitted by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are residents of the

Zulfakhar galli, Bhainsa. The plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Shaik Ahmed and father of the plaintiff No.2 to 5.

3.It is further submitted that Late Shaik Ahmed S/o. Shaik Moulana was a

Ex Service man who worked in the Army as GNR/GD, Regimental No.1227612 who retired from the services and was getting pension vide T.S.No.20020 and

CR.No.166 of Treasury, Adilabad. Further submits that the said Shaik Ahmed

S/o. Shaik Moulana was died on 02.12.2024 in Bhainsa survived by the plaintiff

No.1 as his wife and the plaintiff No.2 to 5 are the sons and daughters

3 OS No.79 OF 2025

respectively and obtained family members certificate bearing No.FAMC 022501674672, Dt.27.01.2025 issued by Tahsildar, Bhainsa mandal.

4.It is further submitted by the plaintiffs that being the wife, sons and daughter are legal heirs of the deceased Shaik Ahmed S/o. Shaik Moulana, the plaintiff No.1 after death of her husband applied for family pension to concern authority based on the family members certificate to her great astonishment that her name, is not mentioned in the pension book stated supra instead of her name the the name of the mother of her husband is mentioned as the deceased

Shaik Ahmed retired form service in the year 1970 and the pension book is issued in the month of December 1970 and the marriage took place in the year 22.02.1971 and hence the name of the plaintiff No.1 is not mentioned in the pension book of the deceased Shaik Ahmed and further stated that the mother of the deceased Shaik Ahmed namely Ameena died much prior to the death of the

Shaik Ahmed. Later the plaintiff No.1 came to know that her name is not mentioned in the pension book of the Late Shaik Ahmed S/o. Shaik Moulana through the concern authority when she applied for family pension and the concerned authority directed the plaintiff to submit legal heir certificate vide

Lr.No.Gen/1227612/Obsn/ML/POR/NER (Pub Cell), Dt.11.04.2025. It is further submits that the plaintiff No.1 is a household pardanasheen woman and

4 OS No.79 OF 2025

after death of her husband she is facing financial hardship to maintain her basic necessities and hence to get obtained the family pension, it is necessary to declare the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of the deceased Shaik Ahmed S/o. Shaik

Moulana. Hence, the suit.

5. After receiving the summons from the court, the defendant No.1 did not appeared through his counsel and not filed written statement and the defendant

No.1 remained set exparte on 09.01.2026. The learned A.G.P for the defendant

No.2 has filed counter denying the contents of the plaint and submits that the plaintiffs unnecessarily filed the suit against the defendant No.2 without any specific pleadings and without any cause of action and this suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs did not issue statuary notice and made the Govt. of

Telangana as party as provided under order 27 Rule 5A of C.P.C. Hence pray this court to dismiss the petition.

6. In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff No.3 examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4. Further the defendant No.2 examined as DW-1 and no exhibits are marked in favour of the defendants.

7. Now the point for consideration is:-

(i) Whether the plaintiffs is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

5 OS No.79 OF 2025

8. POINT :- In order to prove the pleadings, the Plaintiff No.3 examined as

PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-4 he deposed in his chief-examination affidavit by re-iterating the plaint pleadings once again. However the PW-1 relied upon the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1: Original Death Certificate of

Deceased Shaik Ahmed S/o. Shaik Moulana bearing ID.No.50046-d-79695,

Dt.31.12.2024 which shows that the deceased Shaik Ahmed was died on 02.12.2024 at Sri Vishnu Super Specialty Hospital, Opp. Central Library at

Nizamabad and he is the resident of Zulfakar Gally, Bhainsa mandal, Dist.

Nirmal. Ex.A2: Original family members certificate bearing No.FAMC 022501674672, Dt.27.01.2025 which shows that the family members of deceased Shaik Moulana and the particulars of his family members i.e., the plaintiff No.1 is the wife, the plaintiff No.2 to 4 are the sons and plaintiff No.5 is the daughter of the deceased Shaik Moulana. Ex.A3: Original Pension book bearing No.TS 20020 in Cr.No.166, Dt.02.08.1970 which shows that the deceased Shaik Ahmed is the Ex-S-Man and he is retired from the service on 02.08.1970 and he is taking pension from 05.04.1971 to till his death and

Ex.A4: Original Aadahr Card of deceased shaik, Ahmed S/o. Shaik Moulana bearing No.8431 8697 1270.

6 OS No.79 OF 2025

09.On the other hand the defendant No.2 is examined as DW1 and in his cross examination he admitted that he has issued family members certificate as in Ex.A2 and also admitted that he do not have any authorities to issue legal heir certificate, even if any person applied for legal heir certificate they will issue family members certificate.

10.On further careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record which are unchallenged, as such this court holds that the plaintiffs proved their case by adducing documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

Further basing on the Ex.A2 the plaintiffs are the family members of the deceased Shaik Ahmed and they are wife, sons and daughter respectively and they have blood relation with the deceased Shaik Ahmed. Accordingly, the point is answered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

11.IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiffs by declaring them as legal heirs of the deceased Ahmed S/o. Shaik

Moulana.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of March, 2026.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA.

7 OS No.79 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1. Wakeel Ahmed DW-1. P.Praveen Kumar

(EXHIBITS MARKED)

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.A1: Original Death Certificate of Deceased Shaik Ahmed S/o. Shaik Moulana bearing ID.No.50046-d-79695, Dt.31.12.2024, Ex.A2: Original family members certificate bearing No.FAMC 022501674672, Dt.27.01.2025, Ex.A3: Original Pension book bearing No.TS 20020 in Cr.No.166, Dt.02.08.1970. Ex.A4: Original Aadahr Card of deceased shai, Ahmed S/o. Shaik Moulana bearing NO.8431 8697 1270.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHAINSA.