DVR Tejo Karthik

Page 1 of 9

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.43 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT SANGAREDDY

Present: - D.V.R. Tejo Karthik

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

Friday, on this 01st day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 43 of 2026

Between:-

1. Smt.Talla Sangeetha, W/o.Late T.Srinivas Goud Age about 47 years, Occu:Home Maker

2. Talla Manas Goud, S/o.Late T.Srinivas Goud, Aged about 29 years, Occu:Pvt.Employee,

3. Talla Vardhan Goud, S/o.Late T.Srinivas Goud Aged about 26 years, Occu:Pvt.Employee,

4. Talla Dinesh Goud, S/o.Late T.Srinivas Goud Aged about 23 years, Occu:Student,

5. Talla Divya, D/o.Late T. Srinivas Goud Aged about 21 years, Occu:Student

All are R/o.H.No.3-57, Old Ramchandrapuram, Sangareddy District. ….PLAINTIFFS.

AND

1. To whom soever concern

2. The Tahsildar, Patancheru ….DEFENDANTS.

This suit is coming for disposal in the presence of Sri. K.Krishna Rao, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs; and the Defendants No.1 & 2 (set Ex-Parte) and upon hearing the both counsel, on perusal of the material on record and the matter

Page 2 of 9

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.43 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as legal heir of Late Talla Srinivas Goud.

2. Brief averments which are necessary for adjudication of the suit are :

(i) That the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased

Late Talla Srinivas Goud. The said Talla Srinivas Goud died on 23-08-2025 at Old Ramachadrapuram, Sangareddy

District, due to heart attack leaving behind the Plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

(ii) That during the life time of the deceased Talla Srinivas

Goud, he purchased a residential house No.7-25, admeasuring 118 sq.yards, situated at Isnapur (v),

Patancheru (M), Sangareddy District, under a Regd. Sale

Deed vide Doct.No.51155 of 2018, a residential house

No.7-19, admeasuring 150 sq.yards, situated at Isnapur

(v), Patancheru (m), Sangareddy District under a Regd.

Sale Deed vide Doct.No.47698 of 2021, and open plot in

Sy.No.246, 247 admeasuring 345 sq.yards, situated at

Page 3 of 9

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.43 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

Isnapur (v), Patancheru (m), Sangareddy District under a

Regd. Sale Deed vide Doct.No.24516 of 2016 and since the date of purchase he was in possession and enjoyment of the above said properties which are specifically items No.1 to 3 of the schedule property. After his death the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

(iii) That after the death of the Talla Srinivas Goud, the

Plaintiffs had approached the Defendant No.2 on 12-08- 2025 and requested the Tahsildar to issue Legal Heir certificate in order to effect mutation of the Schedule

Property in their name. The Defendant No.2 informed that as per the circular issued by the CCLA, the Tahsildar is not empowered to issued Legal Heir certificate and advised them to approach the competent civil court for Legal Heir declaration and as there is no alternative remedy the

Plaintiffs are before this this court seeking legal heir declaration. Except the Plaintiffs there are no other Legal

Heirs to the deceased Talla Srinivas Goud. Hence the suit.

Page 4 of 9

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.43 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

3.The plaint was presented in the Court by the plaintiffs on 31.12.2025 and it was taken on file and numbered as OS No.

43 of 2026. Paper publication against defendant No.1 was ordered and the paper publication was filed and none appeared raising any objection seeking legal heir declaration by the plaintiffs. Summons was served on the defendant No.2 and there was no representation and behalf of the defendant No.2 and as such the defendant No.2 was set exparte.

4.In the course of trial in order to establish their case, the plaintiff No.3 got himself examined as PW1 and exhibited

Exs.A1 to A6 as documentary evidence.

5. Ex-A1 is the computerized copy of death certificate of

T.Srinivas Goud, Ex.A2 is the computerized copy of Registered

Sale Deed bearing document No.47698/2021, dated 15.12.2021 obtained from Meeseva, Ex-A3 is the computerized copy of

Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.24516/2016, dated 17.10.2016 obtained from Meeseva, Ex-A4 is the computerized copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.51155/2018,

dated 27.12.2018 obtained from Meeseva, Ex-A5 is the photostat

copies of Aadhar Cards of the plaintiffs and the deceased (verified with the originals and originals were returned), Ex-A6 is the

Page 5 of 9

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.43 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

market value certificate(3 nos.)

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

7. Now the points for consideration are:

i. Whether the plaintiffs can be declared as legal heirs of Late Talla Srinivas Goud as prayed for ?

ii. To what relief?

POINT NO.1:-

8.It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they are the legal heirs of late Talla Srinivas Goud. That the deceased Srinivas

Goud died on 23.08.2025. That there are no legal heirs except the plaintiffs and therefore they had filed this suit to declare them as

Legal heirs of Talla Srinivas Goud. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiffs should substantiate their case. PW1 had reiterated the contents of the plaint in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination with out any incongruity.

9.It is contention of the plaintiffs that after the death of

Talla Srinivas Goud, they being the legal heirs had approached the defendant No.2 for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate but defendant No. 2 had refused to issue the legal heir certificate and

Page 6 of 9

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.43 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

advised them to obtain declaration/decree that they are the legal heirs of the deceased from the civil court.

10. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it may be proper to refer to Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and Sections 104 and 105 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides for the court's discretion to make a declaratory decree regarding a person’s legal status or right to property. It allows someone with a legal right or character to sue anyone who denies or is interested in denying that right or character, and the court can then declare the person's entitlement. This declaration can be sought independently, without requiring additional relief. However, the court won’t make such a declaration if the plaintiff could have sought further relief but did not. Section 104 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 addresses the burden of proof. It states that anyone seeking a court judgment based on facts they assert must prove those facts exist. Essentially, the party making a claim is responsible for providing evidence to support that claim. Section 105 of Bharatiya

Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the general principle of burden of proof. Specifically, it states that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on the person who would fail if no evidence

Page 7 of 9

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.43 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

at all were given on either side. This means the burden falls on the party asserting a claim or fact.

11. In order to substantiate their case, the plaintiffs had placed reliance on oral testimony of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A6. Ex.A1 is the Death certificate of Talla Srinivas Goud which would go to show that he died on 23.08.2025 at his house at

Sangareddy. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed which would go to show that the deceased Srinivas Goud had purchased Item No.2 of the suit schedule property from his vendors Patlolla Uma Rani, Patlolla Sampath Reddy and Patlolla

Sai Kiran Reddy. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed which would go to show that the deceased Srinivas Goud had purchased Item No.3 of the suit property from his vendors

S.Satyanarayana and S.Shyamala. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed which would go to show that the deceased Srinivas Goud purchased Item No.1 of the suit property from his vendor V.Chandrasekhar. Ex.A5 is the the photostat copies of the Aadhar Cards of the plaintiffs and the deceased which would go to show that they are the residents of H.No.3-57,

Old RC Puram, RC Puram Mandal. Ex.A6 is the Market Value

Certificates of Items No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property.

Page 8 of 9

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.43 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

12.The claim of the plaintiffs are that the suit property in the name of Late Talla Srinivas Goud is still standing in his name and plaintiffs being the wife and children are entitled for declaration as legal heirs of Late Talla Srinivas Goud, so that they can deal with the property. There is no specific rebuttal evidence by the defendant No.2 to rule out the contention of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Late Talla Srinivas Goud.

The evidence of the plaintiffs stood unrebutted and uncontroverted. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

POINT NO.2

13. In view of the findings in point No.1, the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as the legal heir of the deceased Talla

Srinivas Goud.

14. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiffs by declaring them as Class-I legal heirs of Late Talla Srinivas

Goud. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 01 st day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY.

Page 9 of 9

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.43 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

PW1: Talla Vardhan Goud.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:

- NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex-A1: computerized copy of death certificate of T.Srinivas Goud,

Ex.A2: computerized copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.47698/2021, dated 15.12.2021 obtained from Meeseva,

Ex-A3: computerized copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.24516/2016, dated 17.10.2016 obtained from Meeseva,

Ex-A4: Computerized copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.51155/2018, dated 27.12.2018 obtained from Meeseva,

Ex-A5: Photostat copies of Aadhar Cards of the plaintiffs and the deceased (verified with the originals and originals were returned),

Ex-A6: Market value certificate (3 nos.)

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:

- NIL-

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY.

Page 1 of 10

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.46 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT SANGAREDDY

Present: - D.V.R. Tejo Karthik

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

Friday, on this 01st day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 46 of 2026

Between:-

Smt.Chillapally Madhavi, W/o.Late Ch.Santosh Kumar Age about 30 years, Occu:Home Maker, R/o.H.No.5242, MAC Society, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy Dist,-502032.

….PLAINTIFF.

AND

1. To whom soever concern

2. The Tahsildar, Ramchandrapuram ….DEFENDANTS.

This suit is coming for disposal in the presence of Sri. K.Krishna Rao, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs; and the Defendants No.1 & 2 (set Ex-Parte) and upon hearing the both counsel, on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare her as legal heir of Late Chillapally Santosh Kumar.

Page 2 of 10

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.46 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

2. Brief averments which are necessary for adjudication of the suit are :

(i) That the plaintiff is the wife of late Chillapally Santosh

Kumar. That the plaintiff is the legal heir of the deceased

Late Chillapally Santosh Kumar. He died on 18-12-2024 at

Chillapally Santosh Kumar, Sadasivpet, due to ill health leaving behind the Plaintiff as his sole Legal Heir. No issues were born to them out of their wedlock. The mother of

Chillapally Santosh Kumar namely Smt.Mallishwari,

W/o.Chenbasappa died on 01-07-2006 at BEL Hospital. The father of Santosh Kumar namely Chenbasappa is alive and he is not the class-I Legal Heir to the deceased Chilapally

Santosh Kumar, as such he is not necessary party to the suit.

(ii) That during the life time of Santosh Kumar, his father

Chillapally Chambasappa, S/o. Mallapppa, executed unconditional Regd. Gift Settlement Deed in favour of husband of the Plaintiff Chillapally Santosh Kumar vide

Doct. No.5721 of 2020 dated 11-02-2020 in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., RCC H.No.14-115, (PTIN

No.1130310187) admeasuring 160 sq.yards, with plinth

Page 3 of 10

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.46 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

area in ground floor 546 sq.feets, and first floor 546 sq.feets, thus total plinth area 1092 sq.feets, roof covered withRCCsituatedatSrinivasnagarColony,

Ramachandrapuram, Municipality, Sangareddy District now in the limits of GHMC. The husband of the Plaintiff accepted the gift deed and the donor delivered the possession to the donee.

(iii) That, after death of the plaintiff’s husband namely

Chillapally Santosh Kumar, the plaintiff had approached the Municipal authorities, Ramachandrapuram for mutation of the Schedule Property in her name being the sole Legal

Heir, upon which the Municipal authorities had informed to the plaintiff to obtain Legal Heir certificate from the competent authority. Accordingly, on 14-08-2025 the plaintiffhadapproachedtheTahsildar,

Ramachandrapuram for issuance of Legal Heir certificate as the plaintiff is the sole Legal Heir of the deceased

ChillapallySantoshKumar.TheTahsildar,

Ramachandrapuram had refused to issue the Legal Heir certificate and informed to the plaintiff that the Chief

Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad has requested

Page 4 of 10

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.46 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

the Collectors to issue circular instructions to all the

Tahsildars, not be issue legal Heir/ Succession Certificate, vide Memo No.31346/Ser.11.2/2010, dated 25-10-2010.

Further, it is also clearly instructed to issue family member certificates to Government Employees/ members of public for receiving Government dues or for applying for

Government Welfare Programmes. Hence the Plaintiff was advised to approach the civil court to obtain the Legal Heir declaration.

(iv) Therefore having left with no other alternative the plaintiff is before this Court seeking the redressal. Hence the suit.

3.The plaint was presented in the Court by the plaintiff on 31.12.2025 and it was taken on file and numbered as OS No.

46 of 2026. Paper publication against defendant No.1 was ordered and the paper publication was filed and none appeared raising any objection seeking legal heir declaration by the plaintiffs. Summons was served on the defendant No.2 and there was no representation and behalf of the defendant No.2 and as such the defendant No.2 was set exparte.

Page 5 of 10

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.46 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

4.In the course of trial in order to establish her case, the plaintiff No.1 got herself examined as PW1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A5 as documentary evidence.

5. Ex-A1 is the computerized copy of death certificate of

Ch.Santosh Kumar, Ex.A2 is the certified true copy of Registered

Gift Deed bearing document No.5721/2020, dated 11.02.2020,

Ex-A3 is the Photostate copy of the Aadhar Card of the plaintiff (verified with the original and the original is returned), Ex-A4 is the Statement of Encumbrance on property, Ex-A5 is the market value certificate.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

7. Now the points for consideration are:

i. Whether the plaintiffs can be declared as legal heir of

Late Chillapally Santosh kumar as prayed for ?

ii. To what relief?

POINT NO.1:-

8.It is the contention of the plaintiff that she is the wife of Late Ch.Santosh Kumar. That the mother late Ch.Santosh

Kumar died on 01.07.2006 and there are no other class-I legal

Page 6 of 10

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.46 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

heirs except the plaintiff. That the deceased Ch.Santosh Kumar died on 18.12.2024. As there are no other legal heirs except the plaintiff and therefore she had filed this suit to declare her as

Legal heirs of Ch.Santosh Kumar. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiff should substantiate her case. The plaintiff as PW1 had reiterated the contents of the plaint in her affidavit filed in lieu of her chief examination with out any incongruity.

9.It is contention of the plaintiff that after the death of

Chillapally Santosh Kumar, she being the legal heir had approached the defendant No.2 for issuance of Legal Heir

Certificate but defendant No. 2 had refused to issue the legal heir certificate and advised her to obtain declaration/decree that she is the legal heir of the deceased from the civil court.

10. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it may be proper to refer to Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and Sections 104 and 105 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides for the court's discretion to make a declaratory decree regarding a person’s legal status or right to property. It allows someone with a legal right or character

Page 7 of 10

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.46 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

to sue anyone who denies or is interested in denying that right or character, and the court can then declare the person's entitlement. This declaration can be sought independently, without requiring additional relief. However, the court won’t make such a declaration if the plaintiff could have sought further relief but did not. Section 104 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 addresses the burden of proof. It states that anyone seeking a court judgment based on facts they assert must prove those facts exist. Essentially, the party making a claim is responsible for providing evidence to support that claim. Section 105 of Bharatiya

Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the general principle of burden of proof. Specifically, it states that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. This means the burden falls on the party asserting a claim or fact.

11. In order to substantiate her case, the plaintiff had placed reliance on her oral testimony coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.

Ex.A1 is the Death certificate of Ch.Santosh Kumar which would go to show that he died on 18.12.2024. Ex.A2 is the certified true copy of the registered gift deed executed by Ch.Chan Basappa

Page 8 of 10

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.46 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

who is the father of the deceased in favour of the deceased gifting the suit schedule property. Ex.A3 is the Photostat copy of the

Aadhar Card of the plaintiff which would go to show that she is the resident of RC Puram. Ex.A4 is the Statement of Encumbrance on property pertaining to the suit property. Ex.A6 is the Market Value

Certificate of the suit property.

12.The claim of the plaintiff is that the suit property in the name of Ch.Santosh Kumar is still standing in his name and plaintiff being the wife and class-I heir is entitled for declaration as legal heir of Late Ch.Santosh Kumar, so that she can deal with the property. There is no specific rebuttal evidence by the defendant

No.2 to rule out the contention of the plaintiff that she is the legal heirs of Late Ch.Santosh Kumar. The evidence of the plaintiff stood unrebutted and uncontroverted. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

POINT NO.2

13. In view of the findings in point No.1, the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the legal heir of the deceased

Chillapally Santosh Kumar.

Page 9 of 10

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.46 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

14. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff by declaring her as Class-I legal heirs of Late Chillapally Santosh

Kumar. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 01 st day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

PW1: Smt.Chillapally Madhavi.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:

- NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex-A1: is the computerized copy of death certificate of Ch.Santosh Kumar,

Ex.A2: is the certified true copy of Registered Gift Deed bearing document No.5721/2020, dated 11.02.2020,

Ex-A3: is the Photostate copy of the Aadhar Card of the plaintiff (verified with the original and the original is returned),

Ex-A4: is the Statement of Encumbrance on property,

Ex-A5: is the market value certificate.

Page 10 of 10

Judgment dt. 01.05.2026 in OS No.46 of 2026 of PSCJ, SANGAREDDY.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:

- NIL-

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY.

TSSN020004652022

Presented on : 24-03-2022 Registered on : 24-03-2022 Decided on : 01-05-2026 Duration : 4 years, 1 months, 8 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy AT ,Sangareddy Presided Over by DVR Tejo Karthik

OS/181/2022

Exhibit No.: : T. Konda Reddy Age: 47 Occupation : Address: Flat No. 402, Eldirtch Towers Road No 14 Panchavati Towers Manikonda Hyderabad

VERSUS : Gudisela Raju @ Markanji Raju Yadav Age: 55 Occupation : Address: R/o H.No. 18-69 C3-537 HUDA Colony, Gangaram Village, Chandranagar, Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : S Srinivas Rao Advocate for : appearing for Gudisela Raju @ Markanji Raju Yadav: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

ORDER

IA No.829/2026 is allowed and the suit is advanced from 30.06.2026 to

today. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed memo stating that the plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement to sell in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendant and subsequently during the pendency of the suit due to the intervention of the elders and the well-wishers as per their advice the plaintiff and the defendant had settled their dispute outside the court and in view of the settlement the plaintiff does not wish to prosecute the suit and therefore the instant memo is filed that the plaintiff is not pressing the suit. The plaintiff is present and he submitted that he had settled his dispute with the defendant outside the court and he does not wish to pursue the suit and he had also endorsed on the copy of the plaint that he is not pressing the suit. In view of the memo filed and the submissions made the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed as not pressed. The interlocutory applications if any shall stand closed. IA.No.829 and 830/2026 are allowed. IA.No.54/2022 - As suit is dismissed as not pressed. IA is closed.

Date : 01-05-2026 (DVR Tejo Karthik)

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-Assistant

Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(DVR Tejo Karthik) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME} Sangareddy

TSSN020005772025

Presented on : 17-02-2025 Registered on : 21-02-2025 Decided on : 01-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 2 months, 12 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy AT ,Sangareddy Presided Over by DVR Tejo Karthik

IP/3/2025

Exhibit No.:

: Yaramala Bala Chennaiah Age: 27 Occupation : Address: S/o.Y.Kondala Rao, Occ-Mestri, R/o.Plot No.174,Sariram Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District-502319

VERSUS : R1 Penumalla Ravi Kumar Age: 0 Occupation : Address: S/o.P.Narayanaiah, Occ-Business, R/o.H.No.7-66/1/283, Road No.6, Sairam Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District- 502319 CELL NO-9182219685 2:R2 Naikoti Machender Age: 36 Occupation : s/o N. Yadagiri Occ-Business R/O H. NO. 6-184

Naikoti basti Patancheru town and mandal Sangareddy dist-502319 cell no-9948059713 3:R3 Konam Nagender Age: 36 Occupation : S/O K. Yellaiah Occ-Business R/O H. NO.1-85 Naikoti basti Patancheru town and mandal Sangareddy dist-502319 cell no-9989885578 4:R4 Itti Venkateshwarlu Age: 37 Occupation : S/O Itti Nagaiah Occ-Business R/O H. NO.2-22-2 Khazipally vill Jinnaram mandal Sangareddy dist-502319 cell no-8179812160 5:R5 Gunda Battina Srinivasulu Age: 38 Occupation : S/O G. B. Kotaiah Occ-Business R/O H. NO.1-21/8 Muktha Miyapur Sherilingampally mandal R.R dist-50004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Anwar Ali Advocate for : appearing for R1 Penumalla Ravi Kumar: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively.

Claim :

ORDER

The petition is coming up for payment of process for issuance of notices to R1 to R5. The process fee is not deposited in the court. Despite granting sufficient time to deposit the process fee for issuance of notices to the respondents No.1 to 5 the petitioner did not evince interest to pay the process. The petitioner is called absent. Even when the petition was called at 3.45 PM, the petitioner was absent and the process fee was not deposited. Hence the petition is dismissed for non-payment of process.

Date : 01-05-2026 (DVR Tejo Karthik)

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-Assistant

Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(DVR Tejo Karthik) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME} Sangareddy

TSSN020006592024

Presented on : 05-12-2024 Registered on : 10-12-2024 Decided on : 01-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 27 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy AT ,Sangareddy Presided Over by DVR Tejo Karthik

H.M.O.P/232/2024

Exhibit No.:

: Patlola Sripath Reddy Age: 34 Occupation : Address: S/o.Venkat Reddy, Occ-Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.4-76, Ameenpur Municipality and Mandal, Sangareddy District.

VERSUS : Thummala Pravalika Age: 30 Occupation : Address: D/o.Krishna Reddy W/o.Patlolla Sripath Reddy, Occ-Business, R/o.H.No.12, Gaddampally village, Telakapally village, Mahaboobnagar District. 509385 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Venkatesham M Advocate for : appearing for Thummala Pravalika: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

ORDER

The Honourable High Court for the State of Telangana in Transfer

CMP.No.379/2025 vide its order dt.17.02.2026 had allowed the petition

and directed this court to transmit the entire original record duly indexed to the court of Honourable Family Court at Kalpataru Building, Hyderabad preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Though this court did not receive the order copy passed by the

Honourable High Court, however on verification in official website of the

High Court by this court, it is found that the Honourable High Court had passed order transferring the case and the order copy was also uploaded. Hence the office is directed to transmit the entire original record in the instant HMOP after duly indexing to the Court of Honourable Family Court at Kalpataru, Hyderabad.

Date : 01-05-2026 (DVR Tejo Karthik)

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-Assistant

Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(DVR Tejo Karthik) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME} Sangareddy