Sri D Vijaya Saradhi Raju

1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AT SANGAREDDY.

Present: Sri.D.Vijaya saradhi raju, LL.M., Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of December, 2018.

O.S. No. 239 of 2016.

Between:-

P. Jyothi, W/o. Late Anjaneyulu, A/o. 35 yrs, O/o. Agriculturist, R/o. Kondapur village, Medak District. . . .Plaintiff.

And

(1.) Ramulamma, W/o. Late Abbagoni Anja Goud, A/o. 58 yrs, O/o. Household, Rudraram village, Patancheru mandal, Medak district. (2.) A. Shoba rani, D/o. Late Abbagoni Anja Goud, A/o. 40 yrs, O/o. Nil, Rudraram village, Patancheru mandal, Medak district. (3.) Shapuram Srilatha, W/o. Krishna Goud, A/o. 33 yrs, O/o. Household, Kashipur village, Sangareddy mandal, Medak district. (4.) Duggodi Manjula, W/o. Mallesh Goud, A/o. 37 yrs, O/o. Agriculturist, Rudraram village, Patancheru mandal, Medak district. (5.) Abbagoni Srinivasa Goud, S/o. Late Abbagoni Anja Goud, A/o. 39 yrs, O/o. Agriculturist, Rudraram village, Patancheru mandal, Medak district. . . .Defendants No.1 to 5.

-o0o-

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. A. Devender reddy, Learned counsel for plaintiff, and Sri. N. Shiva kumar, Learned counsel for defendants no.1 to 4, and none on behalf of defendant no.5, as he was set exparte, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following; 2 of 7

J U D G M E N T

[1.] This is a suit filed U/sec. 26 r/w Order 7 Rule 1 of

C.P.C, for grant of preliminary decree for partition of suit schedule properties, and to award costs.

[2.] The brief averments of plaint are that; Late

Lingamaiah Goud@ Linga Goud is the common ancestor of parties, and he was the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.026¾ guntas in survey number 537, and land to an extent of Ac.0.36½ guntas in survey number 554, and house bearing number 2-126 situated at

Rudraram village, which was more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaint. That after the demise of

Late Lingamaiah Goud@ Linga Goud, his only Abbagoni

Anja Goud succeeded the suit properties, and said

Abbagoni Anja Goud died intestate on 14-09-2002 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants to succeed his estate. That the defendant no.1 is wife of Late

Abbagoni Anja Goud, and plaintiff and defendant no.2 to 5 are children of Late Abbagoni Anja Goud and defendant no.1. That the suit properties are joint family properties and the plaintiff and defendants are having right of share over it, and the defendants has no exclusive right of alienation over the suit properties, and even then the defendant no.1 has executed registered gift settlement deeds in favour of defendants no.2 & 3 for the schedule – A property, which is not binding upon the parties, and the defendants are not cooperating for partition and they are refusing for partition of suit schedule properties. Hence the plaint.

3 of 7 [3.] The defendant no.5 set exparte, and defendant no.1 to 4 contested the suit. Defendants no.1 to 3 filed common written statement and defendant no.4 adopted the same. In their written statement the defendants no.1 to 4 admitted the material averments of plaint and consented for partition of suit schedule properties, and however the denied the averment of plaint that to defeat the right of share of plaintiff the defendant no.1 has executed registered gift settlement deeds in favour of defendant no.2 and 3, and according to the defendants those gift settlement deeds were executed to safeguard the property, and in written statement it is averred by the defendants that the gift settlement deeds will be cancelled to facilitate the partition of suit schedule properties.

[4.] Basing on the rival pleadings of the contesting parties the following issues were settled for trail; (1)Whether the cause of action arose for the plaintiff to institute present suit in view of admission of plaint averments by the defendants no.1 to 4 in their written statement.? (2)Whether the plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 5 are entitled for decree of partition with respective shares as prayed for.? (3)To what relief.?

[5.] At the event of trail, plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1, and marked Ex.A.1 to A.26 documents and those are; Ex.A.1 is C.C of R.O.R for the year 1979-80 pertaining to survey number 537, Ex.A.2 is C.C of R.O.R for the year 1989-90 pertaining to survey number 537,

Ex.A.3 is C.C of Pahani for the year 1989-90 pertaining to survey number 537, Ex.A.4 is C.C of Pahani for the 4 of 7 year 1994-95 pertaining to survey number 537, Ex.A.5 is

C.C of Pahani for the year 1999-2000 pertaining to survey number 537, Ex.A.6 is C.C of Pahani for the year 2004-2005 pertaining to survey number 537, Ex.A.7 is

C.C of Pahani for the year 2010 pertaining to survey number 537, Ex.A.8 is C.C of Pahani for the year 2013 pertaining to survey number 537, Ex.A.9 is C.C of Pahani for the year 2015 pertaining to survey number 537,

Ex.A.10 is C.C of R.O.R for the year 1979-80 pertaining to survey number 554, Ex.A.11 is C.C of R.O.R for the year 1989-90 pertaining to survey number 554, Ex.A.12 is C.C of Pahani for the year 1989-90 pertaining to survey number 554, Ex.A.13 is C.C of Pahani for the year 1994-95 pertaining to survey number 554, Ex.A.14 is C.C of Pahani for the year 1999-2000 pertaining to survey number 554, Ex.A.15 is C.C of Pahani for the year 2004- 2005 pertaining to survey number 554, Ex.A.16 is C.C of

Pahani for the year 2010-2011 pertaining to survey number 554, Ex.A.17 is C.C of Pahani for the year 2012- 2013 pertaining to survey number 554, Ex.A.18 is C.C of

Pahani for the year 2014-2015 pertaining to survey number 554, Ex.A.19 is Legal notice dated 29-01-2016 issued by defendant no.4, Ex.A.20 is Office copy of reply notice dated 28-03-2016, Ex.A.21 is Postal receipts two in number, Ex.A.22 is Copy of transfer order proceedings of Rudraram Grampanchayat dated 26-06-2003, Ex.A.23 is Family member certificate issued by Rudraram

Grampanchayat dated 27-05-2006, Ex.A.24 is Registered gift settlement deed in document number 8714 of 2004 pertaining to land in survey number 537, Ex.A.25 is 5 of 7 Registered gift settlement deed in document number 8713 of 2004 pertaining to land in survey number 554, and Ex.A.26 is D.C of Late Abbagoni Anja Goud showing

D.O.D as 14-09-2002.

[6.] On the other hand, the defendant no.1 got examined herself as D.W.1 on behalf of defendants no.1 to 4, and however no documents were marked on their behalf.

[7.] Heard the Learned counsels for the parties to the lis.

[8.] ISSUE NO.1 to 3- The issues no.1 to 3 are inter related and as such I am taking up the discussion of all these issues together. In her chief affidavit P.W.1 reiterated the version claimed in plaint, and similarly

D.W.1 reiterated the version claimed in written statement. The version of plaintiff is that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants, and as such the suit properties may be partitioned. Except defendant no.5 the remaining defendants entered contest and however in their written statement they consented for partition of suit properties.

The defendant no.5 did not choose to contest the suit proceedings and as such it has to be presumed that the defendant no.5 has no objection for the claim of plaintiff.

[9.] The oral and documentary evidence brought on record showing us that the suit properties are joint family properties of the parties and all of them are entitled for share, and as such the plaintiff is entitled for 6 of 7 partition of suit properties. The issues no.1 to 3 are decided accordingly.

[10.] In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed without costs, for partition of suit schedule properties into six shares, and for allotment of 1/36th share to the defendant no.1, and for allotment of 7/36th each share to the plaintiff and defendant no.2 to 5. The allocated shares will be divisioned by metes and bounds in final decree petition proceedings.

Typed and corrected by me in laptop. The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is

pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 26 th

day of December, 2018, under the hand and seal of this court.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For plaintiff: P.W.1: P. Jyothi.

For defendants: D.W.1: Ramulamma.

Documents marked:

For plaintiff: Ex.A.1: C.C of R.O.R for the year 1979-80 pertaining to survey number 537. Ex.A.2: C.C of R.O.R for the year 1989-90 pertaining to survey number 537. Ex.A.3: C.C of Pahani for the year 1989-90 pertaining to survey number 537. Ex.A.4: C.C of Pahani for the year 1994-95 pertaining to survey number 537. Ex.A.5: C.C of Pahani for the year 1999-2000 pertaining to survey number 537. Ex.A.6: C.C of Pahani for the year 2004-2005 pertaining to survey number 537.

7 of 7 Ex.A.7: C.C of Pahani for the year 2010 pertaining to survey number 537. Ex.A.8: C.C of Pahani for the year 2013 pertaining to survey number 537. Ex.A.9: C.C of Pahani for the year 2015 pertaining to survey number 537. Ex.A.10: C.C of R.O.R for the year 1979-80 pertaining to survey number 554. Ex.A.11: C.C of R.O.R for the year 1989-90 pertaining to survey number 554. Ex.A.12: C.C of Pahani for the year 1989-90 pertaining to survey number 554. Ex.A.13: C.C of Pahani for the year 1994-95 pertaining to survey number 554. Ex.A.14: C.C of Pahani for the year 1999-2000 pertaining to survey number 554. Ex.A.15: C.C of Pahani for the year 2004-2005 pertaining to survey number 554. Ex.A.16: C.C of Pahani for the year 2010-2011 pertaining to survey number 554. Ex.A.17: C.C of Pahani for the year 2012-2013 pertaining to survey number 554. Ex.A.18: C.C of Pahani for the year 2014-2015 pertaining to survey number 554. Ex.A.19: Legal notice dated 29-01-2016 issued by defendant no.4. Ex.A.20: Office copy of reply notice dated 28-03-2016. Ex.A.21: Postal receipts two in number. Ex.A.22: Copy of transfer order proceedings of Rudraram Grampanchayat dated 26-06-2003. Ex.A.23: Family member certificate issued by Rudraram Grampanchayat dated 27-05-2006. Ex.A.24: Registered gift settlement deed in document number 8714 of 2004 pertaining to land in survey number 537. Ex.A.25: Registered gift settlement deed in document number 8713 of 2004 pertaining to land in survey number 554. Ex.A.26: D.C of Late Abbagoni Anja Goud showing D.O.D

as 14-09-2002.

For defendants: -Nil-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT SANGAREDDY.

Present: Sri.D. Vijaya saradhi raju, LL.M., Prl. Junior civil judge, Sangareddy.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of December, 2018.

O.S. No. 355 of 2016.

Between:- Gudepu Buchi reddy, S/o. Laxma reddy, A/o. 63 yrs, O/o. Agriculturist, R/o. Velemela village, Medak district. . . .Plaintiff.

And

(1.) K. Devendhar reddy, S/o. Late Ranga reddy, A/o. 47 yrs, O/o. Business, R/o. Kondakal village, Rangareddy district.

(2.) Nandigama Komuraiah, S/o. Late Mallaiah, A/o. 43 yrs, O/o. Agriculturist, R/o. Velemela village, Medak district.

(3.) Nandigama Ashok, S/o. Late Mallaiah, A/o. 40 yrs, R/o. Velemela village, Medak district.

(4.) M/s. Advik Builders & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., and Electrical Contractors, Rep., by its Director Ganta Rambabu,

S/o. Appa rao, A/o. 60 yrs, R/o. Ameerpet, Hyderabad. (5.) Chadalavada Venkata Subba rao, S/o. Chadalavada

Adeiah, A/o. 50 yrs, O/o. Business, R/o. Kukatpally, Hyderabad. . . . Defendants no.1 to 5.

-o0o-

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. Joshi Narayan rao, Learned counsel for the plaintiff, and none on behalf of defendants, as they were set exparte, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and 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 suit filed under section 26 r/w Order VII rule 1 of C.P.C with a prayer to declare the plaintiff as owner and possessor of suit schedule – A property, and to grant perpetual injunction against the defendants and all the persons claiming through them from in anyway interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule A & B properties, and to declare the registered sale deeds in document numbers 21898 of 2006 dated 22-09- 2006, 25730 of 2006 dated 06-11-2006, and 5699 of 2010

dated 26-06-2010 as null void to the extent of suit schedule –

A property, and to award costs.

[2.] Briefly stated the averments of plaint are like this; that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of land to an extent of

Ac.0.20¾ guntas in survey number 531 situated at Velemela village, and the plaintiff has purchased the same through registered sale deed in document number 2334 of 1998

dated 02-07-1998 from brother of defendant no.2, and since

then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

Originally one Nadigama Mallaiah was the pattedar of land to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in survey number 531, and subsequent to his death the defendant no.2 and vendor of plaintiff got Ac.0.20¾ guntas each in survey number 531 and their respective shares were mutated in their names in the revenue records. That the plaintiff is an illiterate and that he could not verify the revenue records every year, and taking advantage of the same the defendant no.2 and 3 reduced the extent of land in the name of plaintiff from

Ac.0.20¾ guntas to Ac.0.14 guntas i.e., less than Ac.0.06 guntas owned by plaintiff, which was more fully described in the schedule – A appended to the plaint, and the same was came to the knowledge of plaintiff in the month of April, 2016. Upon verification the plaintiff came to know that the defendant no.2 and 3 has brought into existence an registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession in document number 21898 of 2006 dated 22-09-2006 in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.27½ guntas in survey number 531. The defendant no.2 and 3 had right over Ac.0.20¾ guntas only, and without having any title or interest they have executed that document in favour of defendant no.1 excessively by including the schedule – A property. That in turn the defendant no.1 has executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.4 in document number 25729 of 2006 dated 08-11-2006 for the land to an extent of Ac.0.14 guntas, and in turn defendant no.4 has executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.5 in document number 25730 of 2006 dated 08-11-2006 for the land to an extent of Ac.0.13.5 guntas. That the defendants are showing the land of plaintiff as Ac.0.14¾ guntas, which was more fully described as schedule – B appended to the plaint. That after having knowledge of these documents the plaintiff has approached the defendants, but of no avail. The defendants with these sham documents creating cloud over the title of the schedule – A property of plaintiff and they are also trying to knock the land of plaintiff. Hence the plaint.

[3.] The defendant set exparte.

[4.] To substantiate his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1, and exhibited Ex.A.1 to A.19 documents, and those are Ex.A.1 is C.C of Form No.1 of R.O.R for the year 1979-80 dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.2 is C.C of registered sale deed in document number 2334 of 1998 dated 02-06- 1998, Ex.A.3 is C.C of Form No.1 of R.O.R for the year 1989- 90 dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.4 is C.C of pahani for the year 2000-01 dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.5 is C.C of pahani for the year 2002-03 dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.6 is C.C of pahani for the year 2003-04 dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.7 is C.C of pahani for the year 2004-05 dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.8 is C.C of pahani for the year 2005-06 dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.9 is C.C of pahani for the year 2006-07 dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.10 is

C.C of pahani for the year 2007-08 dated 05-05-2016,

Ex.A.11 is C.C of pahani for the year 2008-09 dated 05-05- 2016, Ex.A.12 is C.C of pahani for the year 2009-10 dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.13 is C.C of pahani for the year 2010-11

dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.14 is C.C of pahani for the year

2011-12 dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.15 is C.C of pahani for the year 2012-13 dated 05-05-2016, Ex.A.16 is C.C of Registered

Agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A in document number 21898 of 2006 dated 05-04-2006, Ex.A.17 is C.C of registered sale deed in document number 25730 of 2006 dated 06-11-2006,

Ex.A.18 is C.C of registered rectification deed in document number 5699 of 2010, and Ex.A.19 is C.C of representation submitted to R.D.O dated 29-03-2016 for correction of revenue entries.

[5.] Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for plaintiff.

[6.] Now the point that arises for consideration is that;

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief

prayed.?” [7.] POINT:- In his chief affidavit P.W.1 reiterated pleading in plaint. Since the defendants set exparte, the version claimed by plaintiff/P.W.1 remains unchallenged and unrebutted. The documents marked and relied upon by the plaintiff are showing his right, interest and possession over the suit property. The plaintiff with his oral and documentary evidence substantiated his version, and hence the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed. The point is decided in affirmative.

[8.] In the result, suit is decreed with costs, by declaring the plaintiff as owner and possessor of suit schedule – A property, and consequentially grating perpetual injunction against the defendants and all the persons claiming through them from in anyway interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule A & B properties. Further, the registered sale deeds in document numbers 21898 of 2006 dated 22-09-2006, 25730 of 2006

dated 06-11-2006, and 5699 of 2010 dated 26-06-2010, are

declared as null void to the extent of suit schedule – A property.

Typed and corrected by me in laptop. The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 26 th day of December, 2018, under the hand and seal of this court.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For plaintiff: P.W.1: G. Buchi reddy.

For defendants: -None- Documents marked: For plaintiff: Ex.A.1: C.C of Form No.1 of R.O.R for the year 1979-80

dated 05-05-2016.

Ex.A.2: C.C of registered sale deed in document number 2334 of 1998 dated 02-06-1998. Ex.A.3: C.C of Form No.1 of R.O.R for the year 1989-90

dated 05-05-2016.

Ex.A.4: C.C of pahani for the year 2000-01 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.5: C.C of pahani for the year 2002-03 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.6: C.C of pahani for the year 2003-04 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.7: C.C of pahani for the year 2004-05 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.8: C.C of pahani for the year 2005-06 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.9: C.C of pahani for the year 2006-07 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.10: C.C of pahani for the year 2007-08 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.11: C.C of pahani for the year 2008-09 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.12: C.C of pahani for the year 2009-10 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.13: C.C of pahani for the year 2010-11 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.14: C.C of pahani for the year 2011-12 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.15: C.C of pahani for the year 2012-13 dated 05-05-2016. Ex.A.16: C.C of Registered Agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A in document number 21898 of 2006 dated 05-04-2006. Ex.A.17: C.C of registered sale deed in document No.25730 of 2006 dated 06-11-2006. Ex.A.18: C.C of registered rectification deed in document number 5699 of 2010. Ex.A.19: C.C of representation submitted to R.D.O dt:-29-03-2016 for correction of revenue entries.

For defendants: -Nil-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT SANGAREDDY.

Present: Sri.D. Vijaya saradhi raju, LL.M., Prl. Junior civil judge, Sangareddy.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of December, 2018.

O.S. No. 5 of 2016.

Between:-

Kummari Narsimulu, S/o. K. Venkaiah, A/o. 46 yrs, O/o. Agriculturist, R/o. Indrakaran village, Sangareddy mandal. . . .Plaintiff.

And

G. Punna Rao, S/o. Laxminarayana, A/o. 60 yrs, O/o. Business, R/o. Ameerpet, Hyderabad. . . .Defendant.

-o0o-

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. M. Giridhar, Learned counsel for the plaintiff, and none on behalf of defendant, as he was set exparte, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and 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 suit filed under section 26 r/w Order VII rule 1 of C.P.C for grant of perpetual injunction, and to award costs.

[2.] Briefly stated the averments of plaint are like this; that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in survey number 104/A1, and land to an extent of Ac.3.24 guntas in survey number 104/A2, and land to an extent of Ac.3.24 guntas in survey number 104/AA, and land to an extent of Ac.2.39 guntas in survey number 104/E1, totaling land to an extent of Ac.12.07 guntas situated at

Indrakaran village, which was more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaint. That the plaintiff has purchased the suit property in the year 2014 through different registered sale deeds, and since the date of purchase the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant is stranger and unconcerned to the suit property, and even then the defendant is interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit property.

Hence the plaint.

[3.] The defendant set exparte.

[4.] To substantiate his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1, and exhibited Ex.A.1 to A.8 documents, and those are Ex.A.1 is C.C of registered sale deed in document number 16747 of 2014, Ex.A.2 is C.C of registered sale deed in document number 16759 of 2014, Ex.A.3 is C.C of registered sale deed in document number 16760 of 2014,

Ex.A.4 is C.C of registered sale deed in document number 16762 of 2014, Ex.A.5 is C.C of R.O.R (4 sheets), Ex.A.6 is

C.C of pahani (4 sheets), Ex.A.7 is Market valuation certificate (4 sheets), and Ex.A.8 is E.C of property (4 sheets).

[5.] Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for plaintiff.

[6.] Now the point that arises for consideration is that; “ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed.?” [7.] POINT:- In his chief affidavit P.W.1 reiterated pleading in plaint. Since the defendant set exparte, the version claimed by plaintiff/P.W.1 remains unchallenged and unrebutted. The documents marked and relied upon by the plaintiff are showing his right, interest and possession over the suit property. The plaintiff with his oral and documentary evidence has substantiated his version, and hence the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed. The point is decided in affirmative.

[8.] In the result, suit is decreed with costs, by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and all the persons claiming through him from in anyway interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property.

Typed and corrected by me in laptop. The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 26 th day of December, 2018, under the hand and seal of this court.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For plaintiff: P.W.1: K. Narsimulu. For defendant: -None- Documents marked: For plaintiff: Ex.A.1: C.C of registered sale deed in Doc.No.16747 of 2014. Ex.A.2: C.C of registered sale deed in Doc.No.16759 of 2014. Ex.A.3: C.C of registered sale deed in Doc.No.16760 of 2014. Ex.A.4: C.C of registered sale deed in Doc.No.16762 of 2014. Ex.A.5: C.C of R.O.R (4 sheets). Ex.A.6: C.C of pahani (4 sheets). Ex.A.7: Market valuation certificate (4 sheets). Ex.A.8: E.C of property (4 sheets).

For defendant: -Nil-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AT SANGAREDDY.

Present: Sri.D. Vijaya saradhi raju, LL.M., Prl. Junior civil judge, Sangareddy.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of December, 2018.

O.S. No. 194 of 2015.

Between:-

K. Srinivas, S/o. Rajaiah, A/o. 38 yrs, R/o. Pothireddipally village, Sangareddy mandal. . . .Plaintiff.

And

(1.) Sattar, M.R.I, Sangareddy mandal. (2.) Kola Shivakumar, S/o. Pandurangam, A/o. 35 yrs, Pothireddypally village, Sangareddy mandal. (3.) The State of Telangana, Rep., by District Collector, Medak district. . . .Defendants no.1 & 2.

-o0o-

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. P. Jaipal reddy, Learned counsel for the plaintiff, and none on behalf of defendants, as they were set exparte, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and 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 suit filed under section 26 r/w Order VII rule 1 of C.P.C with a prayer to declare the action of defendants in invoking Revenue Recovery Act against the plaintiff is illegal and invalid, and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and all the persons claiming through them from in anyway attaching movables and immovable properties of plaintiff under

Revenue Recovery Act, and to award costs.

[2.] The brief averments of plaint are that; the plaintiff is a news reporter, and he is vigilant in reporting the discrepancies in the public works, and for that defendant no.2 bore grudge against him. Defendant no.1 is subordinate to defendant no.2, and the defendant no.2 got implicated the plaintiff in a false case in Cr. No. 112 of 2015 and got remanded the plaintiff to judicial custody. That on 27-04-2015 the defendant no.1 served a notice of destrain on plaintiff under Revenue Recovery

Act. That the plaintiff is not liable to pay any amount to the defendant no.3 which can be recoverable under

Revenue Recovery Act. The defendant no.1 and 2 by misusing their official capacity initiated the proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is apprehending illegal arrest and attachment of his properties. Hence the plaint.

[3.] The defendants set exparte.

[4.] To substantiate his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1, and exhibited Ex.A.1 Notice dated 27-04-2015 issued by defendant no.1.

[5.] Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for plaintiff.

[6.] Now the point that arises for consideration is that;

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief

prayed.?” [7.] POINT:- In his chief affidavit P.W.1 reiterated pleading in plaint. The defendants did not choose to contest the suit proceedings and that they were set exparte, and however irrespective of the fact that whether the defendants contested the suit or not it is for the plaintiff to prove his case with cogent and reliable material. Herein this case the plaintiff is seeking the relief to declare the proceedings initiated against him under Revenue Recovery Act by the defendants as illegal and invalid. The plaintiff instead of challenging Ex.A.1 notice before appropriate forum straight away approached this court for relief. The plaintiff failed to show any lapses or violation of procedure in issuance of

Ex.A.1 notice to him. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief prayed. The point is decided in negative.

[8.] In the result, suit is dismissed. Under the circumstances there is no order as to costs.

Typed and corrected by me in laptop. The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is

pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 26 th

day of December, 2018, under the hand and seal of this court.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For plaintiff: P.W.1: K. Srinivas.

For defendants: -None- Documents marked: For plaintiff: Ex.A.1: Notice dated 27-04-2015 issued by defendant no.1 For defendants: -Nil-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

TSSN030010662015

Presented on : 13-07-2015 Registered on : 13-07-2015 Decided on : 24-12-2018 Duration : 3 years, 5 months, 11 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sangareddy AT SANGAREDDY,SANGAREDDY

EP/152/2015

Exhibit No.:

: ms s.c.u.f ltd Age: 0 Occupation : Address: ms s.c.u.f.ltd

VERSUS :

P.SANJEEVAIAH

Age: 0 Occupation : Address: PLOT NO 202 SAI RESIDENCY P.R PALLY SANGAREDDY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : CH.BHOOPATHI Advocate for : appearing for P.SANJEEVAIAH: Advocate appearing for respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 24-12-2018 )

ORDER

Order pronounced in the open court Vide separate Order. In the results, Execution Petition is dismissed without costs.

Date : 24-12-2018

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy

SANGAREDDY,SANGAREDDY

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

{JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

SANGAREDDY,SANGAREDDY

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