Sri.D.KiranKumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present : Sri. D. KIRAN KUMAR Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District FAC: I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District

Dated, this the 8th day of October, 2021

Sessions Case No. 486 of 201 6

(P.R.C.No.117 of 2014 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar)

1. Name and description of :The State of Telangana through SHO of the complainant P.S. Shamshabad.

2Name and description of : A3: Pala Vijay, S/o. Late Pala Narayana, the accused age : 20 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o. Rurdrampet Village, Ramnagar Mandal, Ananthapur District, N/o. Ratnala Cheruvu Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. A4: Pala Jashwa, S/o. Narayana, age : 21 years, Occ: Cloth business, R/o. Rurdrampet Village, Ramnagar Mandal, Ananthapur District, N/o. Ratnala Cheruvu Village, Mangalagiri Man- dal, Guntur District. A5: Neelam Sriram Vijay, S/o. Venkat Rao, age: 30 years, Occ: Cloth Business, R/o. Narayanapuram (V), Thapovanam (M), Ananthapur District, N/o.Gan- navaram,Vijayawada, Krishna District. A6: Pala Karna Kumar Karna @, S/o. Late Pala Narayana, age : 22 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o. Rurdrampet Village, Ramnagar Mandal, Ananthapur District, N/o. Ratnala Cheruvu Village, Mangala- giri Mandal, Guntur District.

3Offence with which charged: Under Sections 395 ,400, 411 IPC and Secs. 25(i) (a), 27 (2) of Indian Arms Act 2 1959.

4Plea of the accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge: Guilty for offence under section 395 IPC.

6Sentence or order: The accused No. 3 to 6 are found guilty for the offence under Sections 395 IPC and convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C The accused No.3 to 6 are not found guilty for the offence Under Sections 400, 411 IPC and Sections 25 (i) (a) and 27 (2) of Arms Act 1959 accordingly, they are acquitted for the said charges under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Since split up case is pending against A13 no orders as to disposal of case property. 7Prosecution conducted by :Sri G.V. Rama Krishna, APP 8Accused defended by: Sri. A. Narsimha Reddy Legal-aid Advocate

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 12.05.2017 for disposal in the presence of Sri G.V. Rama Krishna,

Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri. A. Narsimha Reddy, Legal-

aid Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of Dacoity armed with deadly weapons for which Detective Inspector of Police P.S. Shamshabad, Cyberabad filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 7 and 13 in

Cr.No.74/2014 for the offence Under Sections 395, 400, and 411

Indian Penal Code and U/Sec. 25(i) (a) and 27(2) of Arms Act 1959.

The case against accused No.1, 2, 7 and 13 is separated since non-Bailable Warrants are pending against them.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :

3

On intervening night of 12/13-03-2014 the accused No.1 to 6 and 13 have come to Pedda Golkonda Village, Shamshabad area armed with deadly weapons and a revolver, in that area they have selected house of A.Devender Goud (LW.1) have gained ingress into house by break opening the main door, the accused tied said

A.Devender Goud with door curtain to a window and robbed the gold ornaments i.e., 1) Gold Pusthela Tadu about 5 tulas, 2) Two pairs ear tops about 2 tulas, 3) 7 gold rings about 5 1/2 tulas, 4) 2 tuals gold necklace, 5) 2 tulas neck chain, 6) three gold neck chains about 3 tulas total 19 1/2 tulas gold ornaments, 4 pairs leg chains about 30 tulas and net cash of Rs. 50,000/- and decamped with the booty.

3.On 13-3-2014 the defacto complainant/A.Devender Goud went to the police station lodged a report stating that in the intervening night theft has committed in his house, basing on that, case in Cr.No.74/2014 was registered. During the course of investigation Detective Inspector of Police recorded the statements of the witnesses, while investigation is in progress, on 14-4-2014 received a telephonic message from SHO Hayathnagar Police station that they have arrested the accused No.1 to 6 they have confessed about the offence in this case along with other three persons and stolen property was recorded, then Detective Inspector of Police filed a requisition before the court and accused were produced in this case, on 17-4-2014 accused No.1 to 7 were produced before the 4 court on Prisoner Transit warrant, the accused remanded to judicial custody. On 24-04-2014 accused No.13 was apprehended he confessed about commission of offence along with other accused his confession statement was recorded. In pursuance of the confession made by the accused No.13 one gold chain wg.4.6 tulas seized by police from his possession the presence of mediators.

According to the investigation of Detective Inspector of police, the accused No.1 to 6 and 13 have committed charged offence. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Rajendranagar took cognizance of the offence punishable Under

Section 395 IPC and U/Sec. 25(i) (a) and 27(2) of Arms Act 1959 which are extremely tirable by the court of sessions. Learned

Magistrate registered the charge sheet as PRC.No.117/2014 and

copies of all documents were furnished to the accused, on their production from jail, as required under section 208 of Cr.P.C and committed the case under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C to court of session, thereafter, the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga

Reddy District has made over the case for trial and disposal according to law to this court, after registering it as

SC.No.486/2016.

5. On production of the accused the accused heard the accused by explaining the accusation on consideration of material on record 5 charges under Sections 395, 400, and 411 IPC and U/Sec. 25(i) (a) and 27(2) of indian Arms Act 1959 are framed and explained to the accused in Telugu language, all accused have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor got opened the case

U/Sec.226 of Cr.P.C by describing the charge brought against the accused and also about the evidence that is going to be let-in, to prove the guilt of the accused. During the course of evidence, the prosecution examined Pws1. to 8 witnesses got marked Ex. P1 to

P9 documents and Mos.1 to 8 material objects.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused

No.3 to 6 have examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them for which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and legal aid counsel appeared on behalf of the accused.

T he point s for determination are as follows:

1. Whether the accused No.3 to 6 armed with deadly weapons and revolver have gained entry into the house of A. Devender Goud by break opening the main door have committed offence of Dacoity ?

6

2. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charged offences beyond all reasonable doubts?

Point No.1 and 2:

9.The Accused No.3 to 6 here are implicated in this case basing on the confession and recovery panchanama said to be recorded by the police in the presence of mediators and recovery of stolen property in pursuance of such confession of the accused. The cardinal principle in criminal trial is that the persons arraigned as accused are presumed to be innocent unless and until proved guilty, another golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted.

10.The burden of proof to prove guilt of the accused is on the prosecution, a high standard of proof for imposing punishment is prescribed which is proof beyond reasonable doubt, but it is equally important that on hypothetical grounds and surmises prosecution evidence should not be brushed aside and disbelieved to give undue benefit of doubt to the accused.

11. In the present case to prove the charges the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 8 witnesses, It is necessary mention here the oral evidence of prosecution witness, PW1 is the defacto 7 complainant and victim, this witnesses is examined as an eye witness, evidence of Pw1 is that on intervening night 12/13-3-2014 his children were studying in a room till 1.00 am thereafter they have gone to sleep at 2.00 am, he was sleeping in another room at 3.00 am, he heard some noise immediately he woke up and seen five persons gained entry into his house by break opening the door with a big stone armed with knives and sticks those persons have threatened him, further PW1 identified accused No.3 to 6 and 13 present in the court hall as the persons entered into his house and committed theft. It is further deposed by Pw1 that accused were wearing drawers at the time of incident. He further stated that the accused tied his hands to window with the curtain and went to the room of his children and threatened them to kill, if they shout accused have forcibly taken away gold pusthelathadu weighing 5 tulas, necklace, 7 rings, silver anklets weighing 30 tulas and net cash of Rs.50,000/- and left his house. It is further stated that

Pw1 after half-an-hour of the incident, he went to the police station and lodged a complainant before police Ex.P1 is his report. After 5 months of the incident, he took some of the stolen articles from this court for interim custody which are marked as MOS.1 to 8. In

Cross-examination Pw1 stated on 13-3-2014 at 5.00 am he lodged a report to the police, when he went to police station police were not present, he has not mentioned the name of accused No.13 in Ex.P1.

12. PW2 is wife of Pw1 she deposed in the lines of Pw1 and 8 clearly stated that the accused persons standing in the court hall as the persons who have entered into their house on the date of offence. The prosecution examined Pw3 as witness for scene of offence panchanama conducted by the investigating officence, PW.3 deposed that on 13-3-2014 at 8.30 am he went to the house of Pw1 observed house of PW.1 is in disturbed condition, in his presence police have seized one Granite stone and door curtain (Mos.7 and 8) he admitted his signature on Ex.P2 scene of offence panchanama, he further deposed that there are two gates to the house of Pw1, police have not seized the door lock, almirah situated north side of the room in the house.

13.Pw4 is daughter of Pw1 and 2 her evidence is that on 13-04- 2014 at 3.00 am when they were sleeping some unknown persons entered to their house committed theft. She further deposed that, the accused have taken his father to another room and tied his hands with one curtain, warned not to shout. Pw4 deposed that when the accused entered into their house they came with mask and while leaving she saw them by without mask as such she identified the accused except accused No.13 she identified all the other accused as persons who committed theft.

14.PW.5 is examined as mediator for confessional cum seizure panchanama of accused No.13 his evidence is that, in his presence accused No.13 gave one long chain to the police, he has seen gold 9 chain and identified his signature on Ex.P3 in cross-examination it is elicited that on 24-04-2014 at 6 pm in the police station police have recorded his confession panchanama he identified his signature.

15.The prosecution examined PW6 as mediator for confession panchanama of accused No.1 to 7 his evidence is that, On 13-4- 2014 police have called him near Kothagudem Chowrastha, A1 to

A7 were in the custody of police on the request of police he has enquired the accused persons then they have confessed before him about commission of offence, have stolen gold and silver, cash at

Peddamberpet, Suryapet, Parigi, Vishakaparnam, Sangareddy,

Shamshabad, and Vikarabad ares. It is further deposed by PW6 those items were seized from the possession of wife of accused

No.1, police have obtained his signatures on panchanama. In cross-examination PW.6 stated that he cannot say physical features of each accused, on written panchanama he subscribed his signature.

16.PW7 is Inspector of police P.S Hayathnagar who apprehended in another case. According to him on 13-4-2014 when he was conducting vehicle checking he apprehended the accused No.1 to 7 on interrogation they confessed about the several crimes of different

Police stations including the crime in this case he further deposed that, he recovered stolen property from the possession of the accused.

10

17.Finally, the prosecution examined investigating officer as PW.8 according to him on receipt of report from Pw1 he took up the investigation visited the scene of offence house there conducted scene of offence panchanama, on receipt of information about confession and recovery of stolen property by SI of police ( PW.7) he filed requisition before this court for production of accused and also about receiving this case property, as per his investigation the accused No.1 to 7 and 13 hails from Chitoor they are habitual offenders they have committed this offence. He further stated that, in compliance Sec.35 of Arms Act he has taken sanction and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

18.With the above evidence now it is to be seen whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused , the accused in this case charged for the offence Under Sections 395, 400 and 411 IPC and U/Sec. 25(i) (a) and 27(2) of Arms Act 1959.

19.The first Charge against the accused is for the offence under section 395 IPC, For the sake of convenience, Section 391 IPC, which defines ‘dacoity’ is reproduced as under:- “391. Dacoity When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person 11 so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”.

Section 395 IPC provides punishment for dacoity. The same reads as under:- “395. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

20.From bare reading of provisions of aforesaid Section, it is clear that when five or more persons conjointly commit a robbery or they conjointly attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt amount to five or more, every person who is so committing, attempting or aiding is said to commit 'dacoity'. Therefore, robbery or attempted robbery by at least five persons is dacoity. Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 says that in all robbery there is either extortion or theft. The essential ingredients of Robbery are There must have been commission of theft . The act of theft must have been committed by the offender causing or attempting to cause fear of death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.

21.In the present case as per the contents of charge sheet and evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., Pw1, Pw2 and Pw4, five accused persons have entered into their house committed offence, 12 there is clear evidence that more than five persons said to have entered into the house of Pw1.

22.On examination of prosecution evidence in this case the witnesses Pw1 to 8 can be broadly classified into four categories.

First, Set comprises of victims/eye witness and complainant they are PW.1, 2 and PW4. Second, set of witnesses are mediators to the scene of offence panchanama ie., Pw3 is scene of offence panchanama. Third set of witnesses are mediators in whose presence confession statements of the accused recorded stolen property said to be seized. Fourth, set of Witnesses are police officials who apprehended the accused seized stolen property and investigated the case.

23.Learned counsel for the accused contended that no test identification parade of the accused conducted by the prosecution, the accused are first time identified by the witnesses in the court hall and there is no identity of the accused, Confession of the accused is not proved therefore prayed to acquit the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that, witnesses

Pw1, Pw2 and Pw4 clearly identified the accused there is no discrepancy as to identity of the accused, Pw1 in his examination stated that he can identify accused shown the accused as those four persons. It is also deposed by him the accused have put them in fear with knife and took his children into a room, tied him with a 13 curtain to window and demanded to give valuable items. It is also in the evidence of Pw1 that the accused were wearing drawers at the time of incident and they have tied his hands to window with the curtain. Similarly, the Pw2 also deposed, shown the accused as the persons who have entered into their house.

24.Pw4 is daughter of PW1 and 2, she clearly deposed that, the accused have entered into their house they came with mask while they leaving she has seen them removing mask as such she identified the accused, in cross examination of Pw1, 2 and 4 nothing is elicited to doubt their evidence as to identity. Primarily there is no reason why the version of the complainant/PW.1 and his family members should not be believed, PW1 being direct witness and victim his version is first hand information relating to the crime he being suffered in the hands of the accused.

Statements of Pw1, 2 and 4 are consistent. Therefore, reliance can be placed on their testimonies about the identity of the accused without any corroboration with Test identification parade evidence.

25.It is established rule that the identification of the accused is relevant under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act, When the identity of a person is in question, identification by parents is relevant identification of a person can be made by holding Test identification parade, however holding TI parade is not compulsory, failure to hold TI parade is not fatal to prosecution case. Hon’ble Supreme 14

Court in the case between Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. (2003) 5

SCC 746 observed as follows.

It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trust worthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court.

The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on 15 corroboration.”

26. The above principles are squarely applicable to the present case because the evidence of identification of accused in the court hall is consistent and this court impressed by the testimony of Pw1, 2 and 4 accordingly, even there is no test identification parade identification of the accused in the court hall is believed.

27.One of the necessary ingredient to establish charge against the accused under section 395 IPC is the offence of robbery by extortion and theft, in the present case evidence of PW.1 2 and 4 is clear that, the accused have warned them not to shout and put them under fear of death, hurt, it is also deposed that, with a curtain hands of PW.1 tied to window thus there is clear evidence of wrongful restraint and fear of instant death and instant hurt against PW.1,2 and 4. The evidence of direct witnesses clearly proved extortion by putting fear.

28.The next aspect which is to be seen as to theft, The prosecution claims that, PW.7 apprehended the accused with stolen property and recovered from the possession of the accused No. 3 to 6 under cover of a panchanama. PW.7 deposed that on the morning of incident on 13.2.2014 he was conducting vehicle checking at Kothagudem X roads, he apprehended the accused

No.1 to 6 and recorded their confession, Pw6 is mediator for confession and seizure panchanama conducted by him. Pw6 in his 16 examination stated that near Kothagudem Chowrastha on 13-04- 2014, he was called by police the accused No.1 to 6 were in the custody of police, police have interrogated the accused there they have confessed about commission of theft of gold property in different places and kept stolen property with A7, The said items were seized from the possession of wife of accused No.1 who is A7.

The police have obtained his signatures he identified his signatures on Ex.P4. Pw6 in cross examination has failed to give details of the property seized under cover of panchanama, PW.6 gave evidence in this case after seven years of the incident.

29.Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act says that, no confession made to police officer shall be proved against the accused, similarly, Section 26 provides that Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against them, however there is an exception to these rules under Section 27 of Evidence Act that, “when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved." Therefore, under Section 27 of

Indian Evidence Act a fact is discover in pursuance of confession while in the custody of police is admissible. In the present case,

Pw7 recorded confession of the accused No.1 to 6 separately in

Ex.P4 confession cum seizure panchanamas. Pw6 deposed about 17 his presence at the time of confession, the stolen property is discovered/recovered with the possession of A7, therefore the information of commission of offence by Accused is proved with the evidence of PW6 and 7. Mos.1 to 6 are the gold and silver ornaments which are given for interim custody to Pw1, the complainant identified these properties Pw1 clearly deposed that

Mos.1 to 6 are stolen from his house. Ex.P4 panchanamas shows that Mos.1 to 6 are seized from the possession of the accused No.7 in-pursuance of confession of the accused. Therefore the confession of the accused is proved by the prosecution.

30.As seen from the prosecution evidence in Pws.1 to 8 the identity of the accused is established by the prosecution, it is also established that that the accused were apprehended by Pw7 while he was conducting by vehicle checking, in the presence of mediators Pw7 recorded confession and thereafter seized the stolen property from the possession of accused No.7 as such the prosecution satisfactorily established that accused No.3 to 6 along with some others conjointly committed the offence of robbery in the house of Pw1 by putting PW.1and his family members in instant fear of death, hurt, wrongful restraint, therefore, the prosecution has proved charged under section 395 IPC against the accused No.

3 to 6.

31.With regard to the next charge against the Accused which is 18 under Section 400 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused belongs a gang of persons and habitual offender committed dacoity, however as seen from the evidence of PW.1 to 8 and documentary evidence there is no such evidence in this case against the accused that they belongs to or associated with the persons committed dacoity. As such charged under Section 400

IPC is not proved by the prosecution.

32. With regard to charge under Section 411 IPC whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property is liable to be punished under Section 411 IPC. In this case case property recovered from the possession of the Accused No. 7 and 13, case against these accused is separated, there is no evidence against A 3 to 6 that they are receivers of stolen property Accordingly, charge under section 411 IPC is not established by the prosecution.

33.Now with regard to charges under Sections 25 (i) (a) and 27 (2) of Indian Arms Act 1959, as per contents of the charge sheet the accused herein along with some other accused persons armed with deadly weapons and revolver, broke open the door of house, moreover in the evidence of Pw1, 2 and 4 who are direct witnesses to the incident and victims they have not stated anything about the possession of deadly weapons more particularly revolver in the hands of the accused, MO7 is a granite stone said to be used for opening the door not used as a weapon against the victims for all 19 those reasons the prosecution failed to prove charge under

Sections 25 (i) (a) and 27 (2) of Arms Act 1959.

34.In the result,

The Accused No. 3 to 6 are not found guilty for the offences

Under Section 400, 411 IPC and Sections 25 (i) (a) and 27 (2) of

Arms Act 1959, accordingly they are acquitted for said charges under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The Accused NO. 3 to 6 are found guilty for the offence under section 395 IPC accordingly they are convicted under section 235(2)

Cr.P.C and liable to be punished as per law.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 8th day of October, 2021.

FACI Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

On production of the Accused from central prison, The accused are questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence for which they prayed to take a lenient view and also stated that they are sole bread winner of their family.

2.U/s.395 of IPC the punishment prescribed is with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Considering the nature of the offence it is not a fit case to extend the benefit available under probation of offenders act, considering the age of the accused and 20 nature of the accusation in my considered view if the accused are sentenced to under go rigorus imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence under section 395 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each the same would meets the ends of justice.

In the result A3 to A6 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under section 395 IPC, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days, both sentence and default sentences against A3 to 6 are ordered to be run concurrently. Since splitup case against A13 is pending no orders are passed as to disposal of MO. 1 to 8. The remand period undergone by the Accused in this case is ordered to be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The Accused are appraised of their right of Appeal and free legal Aid. Free copy of this

Judgment is handed over to the Accused No. 3 to 6.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 8th day of October, 2021.

FACI Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

1 Pw 1:A. Devender Goud 2Pw 2:Chandrakala 3Pw 3:K. Venkatesh 4Pw 4:Shivani 5Pw 5:G. YadagiriNIL 6Pw 6:K. Venkat Reddy 7Pw 7:P. Venkateswarlu 8Pw 8:K. Sudarshan Reddy 21

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

1Ex P 1 : Complaint 2Ex P 2 : Scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch 3Ex P 3 : Confessional cum seizure panchanama of A13 4Ex P 4 : Confessional-cum-seizure panchanamaNIL 5Ex P 5 : FIR 6Ex P 6 : Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch 7Ex P 7 : Confessional recovery panchanama of A13 8Ex P 8 : Scene of offence panchanama along with the rough sketch of the scene 9Ex P 9 : Proceedings of Commissioner of Police

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

1MO 1 : Gold Chain 2MO 2 : Ring 3MO 3 : Pairs of ear tops 4MO 4 : One pair mattees 5MO 5 : Gold ear rings 6MO 6 : Gold ear rings 7MO 7 : Granite stone 8MO 8 : Door Curtain

FAC I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1 of 5 SOP.No. 107/2021 PSCJ, R.R.Dist

TSRA010019012021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Sri D. KIRAN KUMAR Prl. Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R. District

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2022

O. S. P . No. 107 of 20 21

BETWEEN:-

P.V. Lakshmi, W/o. Late padala Chinna Rao, Age 63 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Flat No. 1904, E – Block, 7 Hills apartment, Kokapet, Rajendranagar Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District.

...Petitioner

A N D

1. Life Insurance Co – operation of India, Rep., by Branch Manager, Office at 1st and 2nd Floor, Quality Evolution Sergvices, Auto Nagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2. Sri PSB. Pavan Kumar, S/o. Late Padala Chinna Rao, Aged about 36 Years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. Flat No. 1904, E – Block, 7 Hills apartment, Kokapet, Rajendranagar Mandal, K.V.Ranga Reddy District.

.... Respondents

This petition is coming up for final hearing on 29-07-2022 before me in the presence of Sri S. Venkateshwarlu, Counsel for petitioner and Sri G. Sriram, counsel for Respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing, this Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

1.This petition is filed U/Sec.372 of Indian succession act, for grant of succession certificate in respect of LIC Policy Jeevan Anand (With Profits ) ( With

Accident Benefits) vide Policy No. 696676696 an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- standing in the name of late Padala Butchi Uma Hariprasad.

2 of 5 SOP.No. 107/2021 PSCJ, R.R.Dist

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

The petitioner is mother of late Padala Butchi Uma Hariprasad, who is younger son of the petitioner, on 03-06-2021 due to Covid said Padala Butchi

Uma Hariprasad died, husband of the petitioner also died. During life time said late Padala Butchi Uma Hariprasad was working as a Private Employee he died unmarried. The respondent No. 2 is elder brother of late Padala Butchi Uma

Hariprasad and son of the petitioner. During life time the deceased obtained LIC

Jeevan Anand Policy No. 696676696, dt. 21-12-2011 by mentioning his father name as nominee, said insurance policy is for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only). Nominee under insurance policy died on 31-01-2014. The petitioner is only legal heir to succeed entire estate of late Padala Butchi Uma Hariprasad, as such she approach the respondent No. 1 insurance company for release of insurance amount for which they required succession certificate, hence the present petition.

3.Respondent No. 1 filed counter contending that as per their records Policy was issued in the name of B.U. Hari Prasad, premium is payable half yearly and nominee under the policy is Sri P. Chinna Rao, who is father of Policy holder, the

Policy holder died on 03-06-2021. The petitioner alone is not entitled to succeed the entire proceeds out of the estate of deceased Padala Butchi Uma

Hariprasad. The petitioner claiming that the respondent No. 2 has given no objection without any substance, therefore the respondent No. 1 advised the petitioner that nominee will be entitled to receive the benefits under the policy, the petitioner here approach this court by suppressing material facts as such the respondent No. 1 prayed to dismiss the petition.

3 of 5 SOP.No. 107/2021 PSCJ, R.R.Dist 4.Notice duly served on the respondent No. 2, hecalled absent, hence respondent No.2 set exparte.

5.During the course of enquiry on behalf of the petitioner PW1 is examined

Ex. P1 to P5 documents are exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No. 1 RW1 is examined Ex. R1 to R3 documents are exhibited, heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 1.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to get succession certificate as

legal heir of late Padala Butchi Uma Hariprasad?

7 . POINT :

The petitioner is mother of late Padala Butchi Uma Hariprasad, according to the petitioner her husband died on 31-01-2014, she is having two sons, among them the respondent No. 2 is elder son, late Padala Butchi Uma Hariprasad is her younger son. On 03-06-2021 younger son of the petitioner died unmarried due to Covid. It is further case of the petitioner that during life time of her younger son he has taken Jeevan Anand Policy sum assured is Rs. 10,00,000/-, her husband whose name is mentioned as nominee predeceased the Policy holder. The petitioner in support of her case relied on Ex. P1 to P5 documents,

Ex. P1 is Original Aadhar card of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is shown as wife of late Padala Chinna Rao, her residential address is at Kokapet of Ranga

Reddy District. Ex. P2 is original death certificate of Padala Butchi Uma

Hariprasad, on 03-06-2021 he died. Father’s name on Ex. P2 is mentioned as

P. Chinna Rao, Ex. P1 and P2 documents clearly established that the petitioner herein is mother of late Padala Butchi Uma Hariprasad, the respondent No. 1 4 of 5 SOP.No. 107/2021 PSCJ, R.R.Dist not denied as to the relationship. Ex. P4 is death certificate of Padala Chinna

Rao, dated 31-01-2014. Ex. P5 is family member certificate issued by Tahasildar, the petitioner herein is shown as wife, the respondent No. 2 is elder son, the deceased is younger son of the petitioner.

8.The documentary evidence in Ex. P1, P2, P4 and P5 clearly established that the petitioner is mother of deceased Padala Butchi Uma Hariprasad. Ex. P3 is original Policy No. 696676696, dated 21-12-2011 for a term of 20 Years sum assured under the policy is Rs. 10,00,000/-. The respondent No. 1 is insurance company not denied as to Ex. P3 policy in the name of deceased Padala Butchi

Uma Hariprasad. According to the respondent No. 1 father of the Policy holder is nominee, as seen from Ex. P4 original death certificate nominee predeceased the policy holder. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are legal heirs.

9.It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 is her elder son given no objection in favour of the petitioner as per Sec. 8 of Hindu

Succession Act, if a male person dies intestate Class – I heir they are wife, son, daughter and mother are heirs. In the present case late Padala Butchi Uma

Hariprasad died unmarried, the petitioner is his mother, she is Class – I legal heir, the respondent No. 2 being brother he is Class – II legal heir as per law in the absence of Class – I legal heirs Class – II heirs are entitled to inherit estate of deceased person. In the present case the petitioner is Class – I legal heir she is entitled to get the benefits under Ex. P3 Insurance Policy. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled get succession certificate.

10.In the result, this petition is allowed issue succession certificate in favour of the petitionerthat she is entitled to receive the amounts under 5 of 5 SOP.No. 107/2021 PSCJ, R.R.Dist

Jeevan Anand Life insurance Policy No. 696676696 in the name of late Padala

Buchi Uma Hariprasad. The petitioner is directed to furnish personal bond for

Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) and also directed to pay required court fee and stamp duty for engrossing succession certificate. In the circumstances of the case, there are no order as to costs.

(Typed my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10 th day of August, 2022)

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

R. R. District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1 : Smt. P.V. Lakshmi Suresh Sarode

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.P.1 - Aadhar Card of the Petitioner

Ex.P.2 - Original death Certificate of Late Padala Butchi Uma Hari Prasad,

Ex.P.3 – Original LIC Policy Bond

Ex.P.4 – Original death Certificate of Late Padala Chinna Rao.

Ex.P.5 – Family Member Certificate.

FOR RESPONDENT

Ex. R1 – Attested copy of LIC Proposal for Insurance issued by 1st Respondent to the Proposer life Assured.

Ex. R2 - Attested Copy of LIC Policy Jeevan Anand bearing Policy No. 696676696

Ex. R3 - Status Report of Policy No. 696676696 issued by Respondent No. 1 LIC of India.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

R. R. District.

6 of 5 SOP.No. 107/2021 PSCJ, R.R.Dist

OS.584/2020

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Present : Sri. D. Kiran Kumar, Prl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar FAC: I Addl.Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar

DATED, THIS THE 7 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

OS. No. 584 OF 2020

Between : Sri Siva Srinivas, S/o. Late S. Ramulu, Aged 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-7-214/1, on Plot No.59, in Survey No.316, Kamalanagar, ECIL X Roads, Opposite Police Station, Kapra, Now known as Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1.M/s. R.S. Bakers Rep. By Shop No.1-7-214/1, on Plot No.59 in Sy.No.316, Kamalanagar, ECIL X Roads, Opposite Police Station, Kapra, Now known as Medchal- Malkajgiri District. P. Santhosh Kumar, S/o.P. Ramulu, Aged: 33 years, R/o. 29-1407/4/8, Plot No.212, Deendayal Keshava Nagar, Neradmet, Malkajgiri District 500056.

2. Dipani Ram, W/o. Biroj Kumar Ram, Aged 29 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 8-1-98/301, Veerabadra Towers, Old Bowenpally, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad 500011.

And also at Shop No. 1-7-214/1, on Plot No.59, in Sy.No.316, Kamalanagar, ECIL X Roads, Opposite Police Station, Kapra, Now known as Medchal- Malkajgiri District 500062.

... defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 06.09.2021 in the presence of M/s. L. Srinivas Rao, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for eviction, recovery of possession of suit schedule property and mesne profits.

OS.584/2020

2

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the property premises bearing No.1-7-214/1, on Plot No.59, Sy.No.316, Kamalanagar, ECIL X Road,

Opposite Police Station, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District now known as Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, it is consisting of Ground and first floor commercial building.

The plaintiff was running a Bakery in said premises since 20 years in the name of

Rama Bakers in the portion of ground floor approximately 1500 Sq. feets along with Kitchen on the first floor. In the month of September 2019, the defendants approached the plaintiff to let out the said Bakery along with kitchen for a monthly rent of Rs.2,40,000/- excluding Electricity and other charges. Accordingly, the plaintiff has let out the said building to defendants on 15-12-2019 on monthly rent of Rs.2,40,000/- basing on which an unregistered Lease Agreement dated 21-01- 2020 was also executed, at the time of inception the defendants have deposited

Rs.10,00,000/- as security deposit. The defendants failed to pay the rents for the months of December 2019 and January 2020 then the plaintiff requested them to clear the arrears of rents in the month of March 2020. Inturn, the defendant

No.1 had issued a cheque bearing No.524851, dated 25-03-2020, for an amount of Rs.1,77,015 in favour of GHMC, Kapra Municipality to pay the property tax, however, the said cheque was dishonoured with reason ‘insufficient funds’.

In the month of June 2020 the plaintiff requested the defendants to pay the arrears of rents but they abused the plaintiff, when the plaintiff demanded for payment of rents, the defendants lodged a false complaint before the Police

Station and also filed Caveat petition before Malkajgiri Court and filed a suit in

OS.No.229/2020 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Malkajgiri with all false

grounds. Therefore, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy and requested the defendant to hand over the vacant possession with respect of above said property by 31-8-2020. But defendants not vacated the premises. There are arrears of rent of Rs.16,80,000/- for seven (7) months from December 2019 to

OS.584/2020

3

July 2020 and also sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the charges paid by the plaintiff to the GHMC. On 07-08-2020 the plaintiff got issued notice to the defendants by terminating tenancy and demanding to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property by 31-8-2020 and also demanded for payment of arrears but the said notice was returned with endorsement refused by defendants. On 10-09-2020 the defendants have removed some valuable material from the shop and also on 11-9-2020 the defendants have removed furniture from the shop with an intention to take away the same as such the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendants, recovery of possession, arrears along with cost.

3. The suit summons duly served on defendant Nos.1 and 2 but the defendants failed to file written statement failed to contest the case as such they were exparte, the case posted for plaintiff evidence.

4. The plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 got exhibited Ex.A1 to A5 documents. Ex.A-1 is the C.C of Sale Deed, dt. 16-08-1979, Ex.A-2 is the Copy of plaint in the OS.No.228/2020 filed by the defendants, Ex.A-3 is the Office copy of legal notice, dt. 07-08-2020, Ex.A-4 is the Original Postal receipts Nos.3, dt.07-08-2020, Ex.A-5 is the Original postal returned cover Nos.3

5. On report of closer of plaintiff evidence, heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled to get vacant possession of the suit schedule property ? whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent along with future mesne profits and cost ?

POINT:- The present suit is filed for eviction of tenants i.e., defendant

No.1 and 2, the plaintiff in support of his claim relied on Ex.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the C.C of Sale Deed, dt. 16-08-1979, a perusal of this document the plaintiff clearly shown as owner of suit schedule property premises, Ex.A2 is s the Copy of plaint in the OS.No.228/2020 which is filed by the defendants on the file of

OS.584/2020

4

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, this suit is filed by the defendant No.1 against the plaintiff for the relief of perpetual injunction on careful examination of contents of plaint in OS.No.228/2020 it is clear that the defendant No.1 and 2 have taken business of Bakery which in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule premises on lease. Ex.A3 is termination of lease notice which shows that the plaintiff terminated the tenancy w.e.f. 31-08-2020 and demanded the vacant possession of suit schedule property.

7. The plaintiff gave evidence before this court relied on Ex.A1 to A5 documents, the oral evidence and documentary evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged by the defendants. The documentary evidence clearly established that the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property, the defendants are tenants and tenancy was terminated by 31-8-2020. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get the vacant possession of suit schedule property.

Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff be and hereby decreed with costs directing defendant No.1 and 2 to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of this decree, the plaintiff is entitled to get the arrears of rents of Rs.19,20,000/- with future interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till date of realization. The plaintiff is entitled to get mesne profits for the possession of defendants over the suit schedule property after termination of the tenancy after ascertaining the same after due enquiry. The defendants and their men are hereby restrained from removing the material or furniture of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 7th day of September, 2021.

FAC I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

OS.584/2020

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1- Siva Srinivas - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A-1 is the C.C of Sale Deed, dt. 16-08-1979 Ex.A-2 is the Copy of plaint in the OS.No.228/2020 filed by the defendants Ex.A-3 is the Office copy of legal notice, dt. 07-08-2020 Ex.A-4 is the Original Postal receipts Nos.3, dt.07-08-2020 Ex.A-5 is the Original postal returned cover Nos.3

FOR Defendants -NIL-

FAC I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1 Of 5 E.P. 25/2020

COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, at L.B. NAGAR,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT:- Sri.D. Kiran Kumar,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R. District.

Dated this the 26th day of July, 2022

E.P.No. 25 of 2020

Between:

M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Having its Registered Office Fathe Maidan Road, Nampally, Hyderabad, having its Branch Office at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, rep., by its Foreman/Sr. Manager Mr. Kondabolu Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. K. Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 54 Years, R/o. Flat No. 306, Vaishnavi’s Sun Rise, Block -2, Stret No. 3, Czech Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad – 500018.

... Petitioner/Decree Holder

AN D

1. M. Sravan Kumar, S/o. M. Vishweshwar Rao, Aged about 36 Years, R/o. Secunderabad.

2. B. Venkatesh, S/o. B. Narayana Gupta, Aged about 46 Years, R/o. R.R.District.

3. K. Nagaraju, S/o. K. Siddaiah, Aged about 40 Years, R/o. H.No. 4-119/B/43, Block -8, Janapriya Township, Mallapur, R.R.District.

4. B. Uday Kumar, S/o. B. Narayan Gupta, Aged about 50 Years, R/o. Hyderabad.

5. M. Vishweshwar Rao, S/o. M. Shankaraiah, Aged about 65 Years, R/o. Secunderabad.

6. B. Laxman, S/o. B. Koteshwar Gupta, Aged about 33 Years, R/o. H.No. 1-5-335/4/A, Street No. 8, New Maruthi Nagar, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District. ….Respondents /Judgment Debtors

This application is having come before me for hearing and final disposal in the presence of Sri T. Kamalakar, learned Counsel

for Petitioner/Decree Holder, and notice served on JDR No. 3 and

6, called absent, hence JDR No. 3 and 6 set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, this court delivered the following:

PSCJ,R.R.Dist.

2 Of 5 E.P. 25/2020

O R D E R

1.This Execution Petition is filed Under Order XXI, Rule 11 CPC for arrest and detention of JDR No. 3, 6 in civil prison under Order 21, Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for realization of the decreetal amount and costs.

2. The brief averments of the Affidavit, filed in support of the application by the petitioner, are that : Judgment Debtor No.3 and 6 are having substantial income out of their business as they are the proprietor of M/s. Kanish Wedding Cards engaged in printing of wedding cards, they are earning substantial income out of their business also submitted

Income tax returns, for the assessment year 2013 -14, the JDR No. 6 doing business in the name of Mangalya Cards, Shradda Ladies Fashions Gallery.

The JDR No. 3 and 6 having having business, own property they intentionally not paying decreetal amount, hence this petition.

3.Though Judgment debtor No.3 and 6 are served with notice, they did not appear before the Court and, therefore,they were set ex parte.

4.The decree holder filed chief examination affidavit of the Executive of the DHR Company as PW-1(Sri J. Venkatesh) and got marked Ex.P1-I.T returns of JDR No. 3, Ex. P2 I.T return of JDR No. 6 are marked as documentary evidence.

5.After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the decree holder, on 13-07-2022 the petition is posted to today for orders.

PSCJ,R.R.Dist.

3 Of 5 E.P. 25/2020 6.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of the relief, as prayed for?

7. (A)(i) The averment in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition by the petitioner and the version of PW1 is that the JDR No. 3 and 6 in due of Rs.6,06,648/- (Rupees six lakhs six thousand six hundred and forty eight only) and that though they are having sufficient means, they are failed to pay the due amount to the petitioner and that, therefore the petitioner is entitled for arrest and detention of respondent No.3 and 6.

(ii) Since the decree passed against the judgment debtors is for recovery of Rs.6,06,648/- (Rupees six lakhs six thousand six hundred and forty eight only), with interest, in a money decree, for proper appreciation of the facts of the case, it is just and necessary to reproduce proviso to

Section 51 of the Code, which reads as follows:

“Provided that, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied.

(a) that the judgment debtor, with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree,-

(i) is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court; or

(ii) has, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed, or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property; or

PSCJ,R.R.Dist.

4 Of 5 E.P. 25/2020

(b) that the judgment debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same, or

(c) that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account.

Explanation: In the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purposes of clause (b), there shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force, is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree.” (B) (i)The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the case of the petitioner, also relied on Judgment in the case of :

Konda Subbaiah v/s. Yedoti Kamalakshaiah (1) (2008(6) ALD 290)

(ii) In support of the case of the petitioner, PW1 produced Ex.P1 and

P2 documentary evidence, which are the copies of income tax assessment of judgment debtor No.3 and 6 for the year 2013-04, wherein it is mentioned that judgment debtor No.3 and 6 having annual income they are financially sound enough to discharge the decreetal amount. Though, it is the pleading of the petitioner and the version of PW1 that Judgment

Debtor is also having valuable movables, except Ex. P1 and P2, the petitioner did not produce any other document. But, since the judgment debtor No.3 and 6 are set ex parte, the version of PW1 remained unchalleged.

PSCJ,R.R.Dist.

5 Of 5 E.P. 25/2020

(iii)However, Ex.P1 is sufficient to show that judgment debtor No.3 and 6 are having sufficient means to discharge the decree debt, in the case. Thus, judgment debtor No.3 and 6 concealed their property and failed to discharge the debt due, having sufficient means, to the decree holder.

(iv) Therefore, this court is of the opinion, that the petitioner is entitled for grant of the relief as judgment debtor No.3 and 6 have refused and neglected to pay the decreetal amount, having sufficient means.

8.In the result, the execution petition filed by the decree holder is allowed. Issue arrest warrant against Judgment Debtor No.3 and 6 under

Order 21 Rule 38 of the Code, on payment of process. Call on 12-09-2022 for compliance.

(Typed my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on 26 th day of July, 2022).

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR DECREE HOLDER : FOR JUDGMENT DEBTORS:

PW1 : J. Venkatesh Ex -parte

PSCJ,R.R.Dist.

6 Of 5 E.P. 25/2020

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR DECREE HOLDER:

Ex.P1 : Income Tax Returns of Judgment Debtor No.3 for the assessment year 2013-04.

Ex.P2 : Income Tax Returns of Judgment Debtor No.6 for the assessment year 2013-04.

FOR JUDGMENT DEBTOR :

Nil

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

PSCJ,R.R.Dist.

7 Of 5 E.P. 25/2020

PSCJ,R.R.Dist.

OS.109/2021

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Present : Sri. D. Kiran Kumar, Prl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar FAC: I Addl.Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

DATED, THIS THE 27 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

OS. No. 109 OF 2021

Between :

1. Sri Mohammed Salman, S/o. Sri. Mohammed Abdur Rahman, Aged 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 9-4-86/64, Salarjung Colony, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. Rumana Rahman, W/o. Sri Nayeem Ather, Aged about 49 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. 107/2RT/(10-3-434), Vijaya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad- 500057.

3. Miss. Shabana Rahman, D/o. Sri. Mohammed Abdur Rahman, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. 9- 4-86/64, Salarjung Colony, Hyderabad.

4. Miss.Rizwana Rahman, D/o. Sri. Mohammed Abdur Rahman, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. 9-4- 86/64, Salarjung Colony, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiffs

AND

Sri. Mohammed Abdur Rahman, S/o. Late Fateh Mohammed, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Civil Engineer, R/o. 107/2RT/(10-3-434) Vijaya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-50005.

... defendant

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 21.09.2021 in the presence of M/s.V. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for declaration of title over immovable property and perpetual injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

OS.109/2021

2

The plaintiff No.1 is the son, plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are daughters of Late

Akhtar Jahan who died on 07-03-2008. During life time the said Akhtar Jahan was absolute owner in possession of the Plot No.26 in Sy.No.93, admeasuring 240 Sq.yards and Plot No.27, Sy.No.93, admeasuring 240, Sq.yards totaling 480

Sq.yards or 401.28 Sq.mts, situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally

Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, and she purchased it through a registered document No.8623/1993 dated 30-08-1993 for valuable consideration. The said

Akhtar Jahan also purchased Plot No.25 admeasuring 240 Sq.yards, in Sy.No.93

Part, situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy

District and schedule B, C, D, E properties. The defendant is husband of Late

Akhtar Jahan, the plaintiffs and defendants are enabled to succeed her estate.

On 03-08-2019 the Partition Deed was executed between the plaintiffs and defendant according to which each 1/5th share was allotted in the suit schedule properties. The defendant refused to acknowledge the rights, title of the plaintiffs in the suit property. The defendant started to claim right of 1/3rd of the suit properties which is contrary to the registered partition deed as such the plaintiffs have filed the declaration of their entitlement of 4/5th share of suit property as legal heirs of Akhtar Jahan and for perpetual injunction. It is also alleged that the defendant is trying to alienate the suit property to the 3rd parties with an intention to create 3rd party interest. Hence, the present suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement through his counsel contending that the plaintiff No.1 is the son, plaintiff No.2 to 4 are his daughters. The defendant in written statement admitted ownership of suit properties by Late Akhtar Jahan.

It is also stated in the written statement that he refused to acknowledge the rights, title and interest of plaintiffs in terms of document bearing No.13911 of 2019 the parties are entitled to their respective shares of registered partition deed therefore, prayed to pass orders in the suit.

OS.109/2021

3

4. On examination of pleadings of the parties and admission of the defendant this court finds that the parties are not at issue accordingly no issues are framed.

The plaintiff No.2 is examined as Pw1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to A6 documents.

Ex.A-1 is the C.C of Partition Deed, dt. 03-08-2019 vide document No.13911 of 2019, Ex.A-2 is the Original Death Certificate of Late Akhtar Jahan dated 13-03- 2008, Ex.A-3 is the Original copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.1, Ex.A-4 is the

Original copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.2, Ex.A-5 is the Original copy of

Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.3, Ex.A-6 is the Original copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.4.

5.Heard both sides

6. Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get suit relief ?

POINT:- The present suit is filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction the plaintiffs claiming right over suit schedule immovable properties by virtue of Ex.A1 registered family partition deed, Ex.A2 original death certificate of

Akhtar Jahan this document clearly established that Akhtar Jahan died on 13- 03-2008, as per Ex.A1 partition deed parties have agreed to take share in the properties. The defendant not disputed the claim of plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree as prayed for.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share in each in the suit schedule A to E properties in terms of Partition

Deed bearing document No.13911/2019. The defendant hereby perpetually restrained from in any way interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs with respective shares. In the circumstances of the case there are no orders as to costs.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 27th day of September, 2021.

FAC I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

OS.109/2021

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1- Rumana Rahman - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A-1 is the C.C of Partition Deed, dt. 03-08-2019 vide document No.13911 of 2019. Ex.A-2 is the Original Death Certificate of Late Akhtar Jahan dated 13-03-2008 Ex.A-3 is the Original copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.1 Ex.A-4 is the Original copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.2 Ex.A-5 is the Original copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.3 Ex.A-6 is the Original copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.4

FOR Defendants -NIL-

FAC I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.