Ms. Farheen Begum

1 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT

HAYATHNAGAR.

PRESENT: Smt. Farheen Begum, B.Com, LL.M

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT

HAYATHNAGAR

WEDNESDAY, DATED ON THIS THE 25 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

CC.No. 234 of 2018

Between:- A.Venugopal Reddy, S/o A.Narsimha Reddy, Age: 37 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.6-3-1518, Sachivalayanagar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District - 500 070. Telangana State. …Complainant AND

Dareddy Venugopal Reddy, S/o D.Bal Reddy, Age: 53, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.11-14-27, Haripuri Colony, Road No.1, Near Astalaxmi Temple, Kothapet, Hyderabad - 500 035. Telangana State. … Accused

Section of law : U/Sec.198 to 200 of Cr.P.C r/w Sec. 138, 141 & 142 of NI Act.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found guilty. In the result, accused is sentenced Sentence or Order : to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,51,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty one Thousand only) and in default of payment of such amount accused is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a 2 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018 period of two months.

Out of said fine amount a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) shall be payable as compensation to the complainant/prosecution i.e., A.Venugopal Reddy, S/o A.Narsimha Reddy, Age: 37 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.6-3- 1518, Sachivalayanagar, vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District - 500 070. Telangana State. Under section 357(3) of Cr.P,.C, and the remaining amount of Rs.1,000/- shall be payable to the State as fine amount.

Accused is informed about the right of filing appeal against the judgment within the limitation period of law. A copy of Judgment shall be given to the accused as per Sec.363 of Cr.P.C R/w.Rule 73 of Criminal Rules of Practice free of cost.

This case came before me for final hearing in presence of Sri.NV.Ramana Rao, advocate counsel for Complainant and Sri.Lingam, Counsel for Accused, hearing upon their arguments, and having stood over for determination till this day, the court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

1. The complainant filed complaint Under Section 200 Cr.P.C against accused alleging, that he committed an offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Brief contents of the complaint are: That the Accused approached the Complainant in the last week of February 2016 and requested a hand 3 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018 loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to meet his urgent financial needs. Considering their friendly relationship, the Complainant advanced Rs.10,00,000/- in cash on 02.03.2016. On the same day, the Accused executed a Demand

Promissory Note in favour of the Complainant and agreed to repay the amount with interest at 2% per month within a short period. That despite repeated demands, the Accused failed to repay the loan. After persistent requests, the Accused issued Cheque No.000499 dated 09.01.2018 drawn on Andhra Bank, Kothapet Branch, Hyderabad, for Rs.10,00,000/- towards discharge of the debt. However, when the Complainant presented the cheque through his account at State Bank of India, Vanasthalipuram

Branch, it was dishonoured on 11.01.2018 with the endorsement “Funds

Insufficient.” That the Complainant thereafter issued a statutory legal notice dated 25.01.2018 to the Accused, which was served on 27.01.2018.

Despite receipt of the notice, the Accused failed to make payment within the stipulated period of 15 days. Hence, the cause of action arose on 10.02.2018, and the present complaint was filed within the prescribed limitation period. This Hon’ble Court has territorial jurisdiction, as the cheque was presented and dishonoured within its jurisdiction, and the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against the Accused.

3. The complainant filed above complaint before this Court and after considering the contents of complaint, sworn statement of complainant and documents filed along with the complaint this Court has taken cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, copy of complaint and documents filed along with complaint are furnished to accused.

4 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018

5. The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C for which she denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and pleaded not guilty, for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6. The complainant in order to establish his case has got himself examined as PW1. Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked on behalf of the complainant through PW1.

7.After closure of complainant evidence, the accused was examined

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C by notifying her the incriminating material against her from the evidence of complainant witness for which the accused denied the same and reported evidence on her behalf but failed to lead any evidence on her behalf as such defence evidence was closed.

8. After closure of defence evidence both counsel submitted their respective arguments on their behalf.

9.The counsel for complainant by way of oral as well as written arguments reiterated the facts mentioned in the arguments that he deposed the same as the complainant.

10. Having been heard both the sides and upon considering contentions of both sides and material on record, the following points fell for determination:

11. Points for determination:

(i) Whether the mandatory requirements prescribed for an offence to be constituted Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are being satisfied in the present case?

(ii) If so, whether the accused could rebut the presumption Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

5 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018

(iii) To what order?

12. POINT (i):

For an offence to be constituted Under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, the section itself mandates certain conditions to be complied with, which if not satisfied, the offence under this section would not be constituted.

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, reads as here

under:

Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account:

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to

honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from

that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months (now three months as per circular of RBI vide circular RBI/2011- 12/251 DBOD AML BC No.47/14.01.001/2011-2012 dated 04.11.2011, with effect from 01.04.2012) from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier:

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by 6 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018 giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid: and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

13. The complainant as PW1 has filed evidence affidavit on his behalf in lieu of chief examination and reiterated facts as mentioned in his complaint and got marked Exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 i.e., documentary evidence to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt for which the accused issued a cheque and raised the presumption under Sec.200 of

Cr.PC for the offense punishable under Sec.138,141 and 142 of NI Act in his favor.

14. In the present case at hand, complainant examined himself as PW1 and filed chief examination affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and got exhibited P1 to P8 marked through PW1 and reiterated all the facts mentioned in his complaint. In cross-examination by the accused counsel,

PW1 deposed that he never visited the house of accused but he is having acquaintance with the accused because of the real estate officer situated at

Sachivalayam Nagar in Vanastalipuram. That the complainant denied his acquaintance with the accused cannot be denied because of there is age gap of 15 years between the accused and the complainant. And was having acquaintance relating to money transactions with the accused. PW1 deposed that he has given Rs. 10 lakhs to the accused for real estate business at his home in presence of one Narayana and Prasad. PW1 deposed that he got Rs. 10 lakhs from his agricultural income. And that 7 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018

Rs. 10 lakh was given on 2-3-2016 at his home between 11am to 12 noon.

The accused counsel questioned the PW1 regarding objection over the non- judicial stamp paper for which, the PW1 denied that he has not raised any objection with regard to the purchase date of non-judicial stamp paper as it was purchased by the accused himself and that there is only a gap of 14 months from the date of purchase of non-judicial stamp paper and date of execution of promissory note. Subsequent cross-examination of PW1 was deferred at the request of defense counsel and the defense counsel conducted the cross examination of PW1 on 22-08-2025 in which the PW1 deposed that accused is his friend since 15 years and that he advanced money out of his friendship to the accused. After closure of evidence of

PW1 the complainant counsel reported no further evidence therefore this court proceeded with the section 313 Cr.P.C examination in which the accused pleaded not guilty and requested for producing the evidence on his behalf.

15. Therefore DW1 (B. Balakrishna) was produced before this court. In chief examination DW1 mentioned that the complainant is the driver with

Janga reddy and that Janga reddy was supplier of BITI material to the accused and that the accused would clear the payment through cash and through cheque. DW1 also deposed that there was no financial transaction between the complainant and the accused at any point of time.

16. DW1 deposed that the accused has never given the cheque to the complainant instead it was given to one Janga Reddy who in turn gave it to the complainant for filing this case against the accused and that accused has no connection with the complainant and the cheque.

17. In cross examination by the complainant counsel DW1 mentioned that he is working as a supervisor for the accused and that he is always 8 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018 present with the accused and knows every transaction taking place between the accused and his business. DW1 mentioned that Janga reddy was a supplier and that the complainant was his driver. DW1 denied that the complainant is the landlord at Vikarabad and is holding agricultural land. He deposed that he does not know any financial transaction which has taken place between the Complainant and the Accused. And also,

DW1 failed to mention the complete address of the accused. But he deposed that he is residing at Kotapeta. This raise question regarding the acquitance of DW1 with the accused throughout 24/7 as contested by

DW1.

18. That on being confronted with the memo of appearance dated 2012- 2023, DW1 deposed that the address mentioned in the memo of appearance of the accused is Alkapuri Colony, R.K. Puram and also that the signature on the memo of appearance does not belong to the accused.

19. DW1 also deposed that the accused is into construction and road business. DW1 deposed that he does not know the cheque number i.e.,

Ex.P2 which is issued by the accused to the complainant. But he deposed that the accused is holding bank account in SBI Alkapuri and Andhra

Bank Bhuvanagiri. That DW1 is aware about all the financial transactions which the accused is taking on a day to day basis because the accused discuss all the transactions with the accused and DW1 is always present with the accused but when this case was filed the complainant issued a notice to the accused. However accused never informed DW1 about this case through DW1 is always present with accused and that it was only 2-3 years back that, the accused informed DW1 about this case. The DW1 also mentioned that he does not know whether the accused issued the cheque to Jangareddy and if obtained any acknowledgement against Ex.P2 because the exhibit P2 was issued to the complainant and not to Janga 9 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018

Reddy.

20. The complainant counsel confronted DW1 with Exhibit P2 that is the cheque and DW1 identified the signature on Exhibit P2 as the signature of the accused. That throughout the evidence of DW1, DW1 has never denied the execution of promissory note that is Ex.P1 dated 02.03.2016 and that there was a cheque issued in favour of a complainant by the accused i.e.,

Ex.P2 dated 0.9.01.2018 and that such cheque on being presented was returned by bank through cheque return memo dated 11.01.2018 as “Insufficient funds”. Therefore, it can be concluded that there exists a legally enforceable debt between the accused and the complainant. That the complainant failed to make the payment of the debt taken through promissory note dated 02.03.2016 due to which subsequently he issued

Exhibit P2 that is cheque bearing number 000499 dated 0.9.01.2018 to the complainant which the complainant presented and was returned by the bank being endorsed as insufficient funds dated 11.01.2018.

21. Subsequently, it can be further concluded that the complainant got the legal notice issued i.e., Exhibit P4 to the accused on dated 25.01.2018 which was never replied by the accused neither the accused made the payment within 15 days from the date of receiving of the legal notice dated 25.01.2018. Hence, all the requirements of the case, all the requirements under section 138 Cr.P.C are present in this present case in order to attract the punishment under section 138 CRPC.

22.Hence it is held that all the mandatory requirements under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are being satisfied in the present case. Hence Point No.(i) is answered accordingly in favor of the complainant.

10 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018

Point No.(ii)

23.Once the point No.(i) is answered in favor of the complainant herein i.e., all the mandatory requirements prescribed Under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act are being satisfied, presumption Under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, raises in favor of the complainant. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 reads as hereunder:

Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is as follows:

Presumption in favor of holder: It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

24.Hence in this case as all the mandatory requirements Under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are held to be satisfied, now a presumption under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is raised in favour of the complainant i.e., there existed legally enforceable debt or liability to be payable by the accused herein to the complainant herein and that the subject cheque pertaining to this case was issued by the accused to the complainant herein in discharge in part or in full of the said debt or liability. Now the burden is on the accused herein to rebut the presumption

Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.To rebut the presumption

Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the present case the accused relied only upon cross examination of PW1 as there is no defence evidence by way of witness on behalf of the accused.

25. Hence in view of the above discussion it can be said that the accused through cross examination of PW1 failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is in favor of the complainant. Therefore it can be said that in the present case the accused 11 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018 failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, which is in favor of the complainant and hence the accused is liable to be punished for the offence under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.

26. In the light of discussion supra, accused failed to raise the probable defence in his favor. Complainant through his oral and documentary evidence has proved the existence of legally enforceable debt for which cheques Ex.P1 was issued.

27. Therefore, this point is answered, in favor of complainant and against accused.

28. In the result, accused is found guilty for an offence U/Sec.200 of 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the said offence under Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

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

on this 25 th day of February, 2026.

FARHEEN.B.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

29. Accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him. Accused is bread earner of family and requested to take a lenient view.

30. Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence. After taking into consideration all the circumstances and nature of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the said circumstances are not mitigating in nature. This is not fit case to invoke the provisions of probation of offenders Act and also not case to take lenient view. As such, 12 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018 it is just and proper to award punishment to accused in the interest of justice and to meet ends of justice.

31. In the result, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.11,51,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty one Thousand only) and in default of payment of such amount accused is sentenced to undergo

Simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

Out of said fine amount a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven

Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) shall be payable as compensation to the complainant/prosecution i.e., A.Venugopal Reddy, S/o A.Narsimha

Reddy, Age: 37 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.6-3-1518,

Sachivalayanagar, vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District - 500 070.

Telangana State. Under section 357(3) of Cr.P,.C, and the remaining amount of Rs.1,000/- shall be payable to the State as fine amount.

Accused is informed about the right of filing appeal against the judgment within the limitation period of law. A copy of Judgment shall be given to the accused as per Sec.363 of Cr.P.C R/w.Rule 73 of Criminal

Rules of Practice free of cost.

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

Court on this 25 th day of February, 2026 .

FARHEEN.B.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

13 of 13 CC.No.234 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:

PW-1.A.Venugopal Reddy/Complainant

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.P1: is the promissory note dated 02-03-2016.

Ex. P2: is the Cheque bearing No. 000499, Andhra Bank, Kokapet dated 09-01-2018

Ex.P3: is the Cheque return memo dated 11.01.2018.

Ex.P4: is the office copy of Legal notice 25-01-2018.

Ex.P5: is the postal receipts dated 25-01-2018.

Ex.P6: is the speed post receipt dated 25-01-2018.

Ex.P7: is the letter addressed to Sub post master Vanasthalipuram dated 24-02-2018.

Ex.P8: is the postal track consignment.

For Defence -NIL- M.Os. Marked -NIL-

FARHEEN.B.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

Page 1 of 8 CC 770 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT HAYATHNAGAR.

PRESENT: Smt. Farheen Begum, B.Com, LL.M

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT

HAYATHNAGAR

THURSDAY, DATED ON THIS THE 26 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

C.C.No. 770 of 2017

(Cr.No.507/2017 of P.S Vanasthalipuram)

The State of Telangana rep., by S.H.O, Vanasthalipuram Police Station. …Complainant

AND

1. Kotha Adhi Narayana Murthy, S/o. Koteshwar Rao, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No 5-4-655, Kamalanagar, Central Bank Backside, Vanasthalipuram, R.R. Dist.,

2. Pasthuri Hari Kishan Goud S/o P. Anjaiah Goud, age: 54 yrs, occ: Bhargavi Gas agency distributor, R/o H. No. 17-1-383/27, Vinay Nagar Colony,

Saidabad, Hyderabad. .....Accused

This case coming before me on 26-02-2026 for final hearing, and upon hearing the learned A.P.P appearing for the State and Sri K.S.Jaideep, Advocate for Accused and having stood over till this today for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vanasthalipuram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.507/2017 for the offence U/sec.420 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Essential Commodities Act.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.07.2017 at 1730 hours, a complaint was lodged with PS Vanasthalipuram by Sri. Gampa Srinivas,

Page 2 of 8 CC 770 of 2017

s/o. Narayana, in which he stated that one Kotha Adinarayana Murthy, 5/o.

Koteswar Rao, Age: 50 years. Occ: Cylinders business, Rio. H.No. 5-4-655,

Kamalanagar, Vanasthalipuram, R.R. Dist., and Sri. P. Hari Kishan,

Proprietor of M/s. Bhargavi Gas Agencies, Kurmaguda, Madannapet,

Hyderabad for illegal supplying of Commercial and Domestic Cylinders to unauthorized and parked two vehicles loaded with following cylinders in open plots No. 8138 and 8139 at Kamalanagar and seized 96 Commercial

Cylinders 19 Kgs in that 35-Fulls of IOCL, 58-empties of IOCL and 03-BPCL empties, 14-Domestic 14.2 Kgs Cylinders (HPCL Fulls), 04-Domestic

Cylinders 14.2 Kigs (IOCL Fulls) along with Two Mahindra Bolero Pickup

Vehicles bearing NO. TS08 UB 5315 and TSOB UB 9130 and the seized cylinders and two vehicles were handed over to Sri. K. Srinivasulu,

Proprietor of M/s. Sri Srinivasa Gas Service IOCL), Hasthinapuram for safe custody under proper acknowledgment will further orders from the collector.

3. There by LW8/PW6 filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for committing an offence punishable U/sec.420 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Es- sential Commodities Act.

4. After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on U/sec.420 IPC and

Sec.7(1) of Essential Commodities Act against accused No.1 and 2.

5. On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, copies of case documents were furnished to them in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. and they are ex- amined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. explained and read over the charges to them in

Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 3 of 8 CC 770 of 2017

6. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1/LW1, PW2/LW2 &

PW3/LW6, PW4/LW3, PW5/LW4 & PW6/LW8 and Ex.P1 to P5 exhibit was marked through PW1.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Sec.313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and arguments were heard.

8. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution was able to prove the offence U/sec.420 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Essential Commodities

Act against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubts?

TRIAL:

9. During the Course of Trial prosecution produced five witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW6. PW1 deposed that on 11-07-2017 at about 8.00 am received a phone call from unknown person and informed that Plot No. 138 and 139 at

Kamalanagar some unknown persons are storing LPG cylinders in two vehi- cles, immediately he along with his senior checking inspector proceeded to the spot and procured two mediators, later they all of them verified two ve- hicles and found 96 commercial cylinders, 18 domestic cylinders. Upon en- quiry from nearby people that vehicles belongs to K. Adinarayana Murthy and he is residing at neighbouring plot. Thereafter we called the Narayana

Murthy upon inquiry he informed that he has purchased commercial cylin- ders from Bhargavi Gas Agencies, Madannapet and the same was selling to hotels, Dabas from Hayathnaçar to Choutuppal. Later upon further inquiry he stated that he bought the domestic cylinders from the colony people and the same was selling to hotels, mirchi bundies for a margin of Rs.50/- per cylinder. The said cylinders were seized along with two vehicles under cover of panchanama and filed a case Under Sec. 6 of EC Act, 1955 also filed

Page 4 of 8 CC 770 of 2017

criminal case before the SHO Vanasthalipuram for further investigation. The seized cylinders along with two vehicles and were handed over to Sri Srini- vasa Gas Service, Indian Gas Distributer Hastinapuram for safe custody under proper acknowledgment until further orders from the Collector Civil

Supplies, R.R.District.

10. PW2 deposed that he worked as Checking inspector civil supplied de- partment at Saroonagar from 2011 to 2018 till his retirement. On 11-07- 0217 in the morning hours PW1 called him and instructed to come to the

Kamalanagar Vanasthalipuram. Accordingly he went to Kamalanagar by that time PWI and task force team were present. They together proceeded to the plot No. 138 and 139 at Kamalanagar and noticed two Mahendra vehi- cles stationed with domestic and commercial full and empty cylinders 114 in total. On enquiry it is belongs to Adinarayana/ Accused. Further they en- quired the driver and another person of the vehicle and they did not produce any documents and bills. Hence we seized the same and the cylinders handedover Srinivasa Gas Agency for safe custody. PW1 submitted Sec. 6 A case before the joint collector Ranga Reddy District.

11. PW3 deposed that in the year, 2017 cylinders have been seized at the house of Adinarayana and also seized two autos containing domestic and commercial cylinders. In that 35 full commercial cylinders, 58 empty cylin- ders and other 3 empty cylinders weightage 14.02. Panchanama conducted in his presence and seized the above said cylinders from the Adhinarayana and obtained his signature along with one Chandra Reddy/LW5.

Page 5 of 8 CC 770 of 2017

12. PW4 deposed that he do not know PW1PW2 and he know EW4 as he was working along with him. He know Accused No.1 as he was working pre- viously with him. He do not know Accused No.2. On 10-07-2011 parked Bo- lero vehicle of Accused No.1 near Central Bank. Kamalanagar i.e., the house of Accused No.1 and next day i.e., 11-07-2017 he went to the house of Ac- cused No.1 and by the time he went to the house the Bolero vehicle was al- ready seized by PW1. He was driver of Accused No.1 and he used to drive for

Accused No.1 for commercial purpose. That by the time he went to the house of Accused No.1 the Bolero vehicle contain Gas Cylinder. He was working with Accused No.1 as driver to deliver Gas Cylinder to Hotels.

13. PW5 deposed that he do not know PW1, PW2. He know PW4 as he was working along with me as Driver. He know Accused No.1 as he was working previously with him for a period of four years and PW4 worked for a period of two years. He know Accused No.2. On 10-07-2017, he along with PW4 parked Bolero vehicle of Accused No.1 near the house of Accused No.1 and next day i.e., 11-07-2017 he went to the house of Accused No.1 at around 09:00 to 09:30 AM and by the time he went to the house the Bolero vehicle was already seized by PW1. He was driver of Accused No.1 and used to drive

for Accused No.1 for delivery Gas for Commercial purpose. That by the time

he went to the house of Accused No.1 the Bolero vehicle contain Gas Cylin- der. He was working with Accused No.1 as driver to deliver Gas Cylinders for

Commercial purpose.

14. PW6 is the Investing officer in this case who deposed the same as that of his charge sheet.

Page 6 of 8 CC 770 of 2017

Decision:

15. In the present case at hand, the prosecution examined PW1 i.e., On perusal of evidence PW1 i.e., the complainant deposed before this court that the two vehicles belonging to the accused No.1 were kept in open place and which is not within the custody of Accused No.1 to collaborate it the evidence of PW4 and PW5 is relied upon as PW4 in his chief examination deposed that he parked Bolero Vehicle belonging to Accused No.1 near central bank, Kamala Nagar on 10-07-2017 i.e., the previous night of the day of incident and the same was deposed by the PW5 in his chief examination. Therefore it can be concluded that the Bolero vehicle belonging to the Accused No.1 was packed in the place not in the custody of Accused

No.1, PW4 and PW5 (drivers) who parked the vehicle by himself in the place which is not within the custody of the Accused No.1. Therefore, it can be concluded that the (02) crime vehicles were not within immediate custody of the Accused No.1

16. PW1 deposed in his chief examination that Accused No.1 was selling the gas cylinders to Hotels and Mirchi bandies for a margin of profit of Rs.50/- per cylinder by taking cylinders from his colony people but however neither

PW1 or PW6 i.e., investigating officer examined the owners of Hotels, Mirchi bandies and the colony people from who it is alleged that the Accused No.1 procured the Gas Cylinders.

17. On perusal of case file police Vanasthalipuram through PW6 filed a tax invoice dt:10-07-2017 though not marked, it appears from the tax invoice

Page 7 of 8 CC 770 of 2017

that Accused No.1 being the distribution of Bhargavi gas agency belonging to Accused No.2 obtained 80 cylinders from Accused No.2 by depositing 66 empty cylinders. And immediately on the next day PW1 i.e., Assistant civil supply officer raided the scene of offence and seized 96 commercial cylinders and 18 domestic cylinders and PW1 also filed the custody receipt in which he mentioned that the total of 61 empty cylinders were seized from Accused

No.1 and handed over for safe custody to M/s.Srinivas Gas service. PW1 failed to mention regarding 80 cylinders which Accused No.1 received from

Accused No.2 for distribution on previous day of incident and did not mention whether the seized cylinder are from the one which he received from Gas agency or not.

18. Therefore from the depositions made before this court and the documents marked, the prosecution did not prove this case against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence committed by the accused No.1 and 2 with which they are charged and in such circumstances accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Hence Accused

No.1 and 2 found not guilty for committing the offence punishable

U/sec.420 Indian Penal Code and Sec.7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

19. In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.420 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Essential Commodities

Act, accordingly they are acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of Accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of

Page 8 of 8 CC 770 of 2017

appeal period. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this day of 26 th day of February, 2026).

FARHEEN .B.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: PW1 Gampa Srinivas -NIL-

PW2 P.Narender Reddy -NIL-

PW3 G.Dharma Reddy -NIL-

PW4 J.Paramesh -NIL-

PW5 G.Dasu -NIL-

PW6 D.Vijay -NIL- ::Exhibits Marked for::

Prosecution: Defence: Ex.P1 Report -NIL-

Ex.P2 Panchanama -NIL-

Ex.P3 Signature and statement -NIL-

Ex.P4 Signature and statement -NIL-

Ex.P5 FIR -NIL-

::Material objects marked for::

-NIL-

FARHEEN .B.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

OS.No.423/2025

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT HAYATHNAGAR.

PRESENT: Smt. Farheen Begum, B.Com, LL.M

I ADDITIONAL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VII ADDITIONAL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, AT HAYATHNAGAR

TUESDAY, DATED ON THIS THE 17 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

O.S. No. 423 of 2025

BETWEEN:

1. Sri. Gurnam Singh S/o. Late Tela Singh, Aged about: 79 years, Occ: Presently Nothing R/o. H.No.B-175, Near HUDA Complex, Phase-1, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana-Pincode: 500070.

2. Smt. Balvinder Kaur Balvinder Singh Bhullar W/o. Sri. Balvinder Singh Bhullar & D/o. Sri. Gurnam Singh, Aged about: 55 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Near Ambedkar Hospital, Room No.2434, Chawl No.137, Tagore Nagar, Gr. No.7, Vikhroll East, Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pincode: 400083 Represented by her brother Special Power of Attorney Holder – Sri Gurvinder Singh S/o. Gurnam Singh (Plaintiff No.3) vide Special Power of Attorney dated 25.04.2025.

3. Sri. Gurvinder Singh S/o. Gurnam Singh, Aged about: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.B-175, Near HUDA Complex, Phase-I, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana-Pincode: 500070.

4. Smt. Karam Jeet Kour Birdi W/o. Late Surender Singh Birdi, Aged about: 40 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.6-1-175, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. Pincode: 500070.

5. Sri. Jaspreet Singh Birdi S/o. Late Surender Singh Birdi, Aged about: 25 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o. H.No.6-1-175, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. Pincode: 500070.

OS.No.423/2025

2

6. Ms. Amar Preet Kaur D/o. Late Surender Singh Birdi, Aged about: 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.6-1-175, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. Pincode: 500070.

7. Daljeet Singh Birdi S/o. Late Surender Singh Birdi, Aged about: 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.6-1-175, vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District,

Telangana. Pincode: 500070. ... Plaintiffs

AND

1. The Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal Vijayawada Highway, RTC Supervisor Colony, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy district, Telangana-501505

2. All Concerned ...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 17-02-2026 in the presence of M/s.Girija Shankar, Advocate for plaintiffs and Defendants remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs No.1 to 7 praying this court to declare them as Legal heirs of the deceased Late Charanjeet Koer,

W/o.Gurnam Singh.

Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

2.That Smt. Charanjit Kaur allas Charanjeet Koer W/o. Gurnam Singh died on 06.10.2024 (6th October, 2024) in "Kamineni Hospital"

Mansoorabad, Ranga Reddy District, leaving behind her the Plaintiffs as her

OS.No.423/2025

3 surviving Legal Heirs. (The original Death Certificate of deceased Charanjit

Kaur alias Charanjeet Koer is annexed herewith for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Court). That the Plaintiff No.1 is the husband, Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter, Plaintiff No.3 is the son and Plaintiff No.4 is the Daughter-in- law, Plaintiff No.5 is the grandson, Plaintiff No.6 is the granddaughter and

Plaintiff No.7 is the grandson of the deceased Charanjit Kaur alias

Charanjeet Koer,

3.That Surender Singh Birdi S/o. Gurnam Singh, a younger son of deceased Charanjit Kaur alias Charanjeet Koer, died on 20.02.2018 in GGS

Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, leaving behind him the Plaintiff No.4 (Wife),

Plaintiff No.5 (Son), Plaintiff No.6 (Daughter) and Plaintiff No.7 (Son) as his legal heirs. That during the lifetime of charanjit Kaur alias Charanjeet Koer, the Plaintiff No.1 alongwith her, had performed the marriages of their above named children. The marriage of the Plaintiff No.2 was performed with Sri.

Balvinder Singh Bhullar and she has been living with her family in Mumbai.

The religion of the Plaintiffs is "Sikhism" and they are governed by the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956, amended up to date. Till the date of death, the deceased Charanjit Kaur alias Charanjeet Koer lived with the Plaintiffs.

4.That the proof of Legal Heirs of deceased Charanjit Kaur alias

Charanjeet Koer in favour of the Plaintiffs is just and necessary in their day to day life and for legal status purpose. The Plaintiffs are surviving legal

OS.No.423/2025

4 heirs and successors of deceased Charanjit Kaur alias Charanjeet Koer and except them none else are the legal heirs of Charanjit Kaur alias Charanjeet

Koer, as such the Plaintiffs approached the Defendant No.1, for issuance of legal heirs certificate but the defendant No.1 refused to issue the Legal Heir

Certificate, and to issue the same, and advised to approach the competent

Civil Court and as such there is no other alternative the Plaintiffs approached this Court to pass a decree, declaring them as the legal heirs of deceased Late Charanjeet Koer, W/o.Gurnam Singh.

5.That the Defendants No.1 is proforma party and the Plaintiffs are not claiming any relief against the Defendant No.1 and the Defendant No.2 is

Shown as a party, for calling objections with regard to granting of the legal heir certificate to them.

TRIAL:-

6. The Summons were served on Defendants No.1 and 2, vide paper publication in ‘Surya Paper Telugu daily news paper’ and there was no representation on behalf of Defendants No.1 and 2 and none appeared on behalf of Defendants, as such Defendants No.1 and 2 were set exparte. As no written statement filed by the defendants, therefore there is nothing on record on behalf of Defendants.

OS.No.423/2025

5

7. To prove the case of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.3 got examined himself as PW1, filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and got marked Ex.A1 to A10.

8. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiffs. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

I. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heir of

deceased/ Late Charanjeet Koer, W/o.Gurnam Singh as prayed for?

II. If so, to what relief?

POINT No. I:

10. During trial, Plaintiff No.3 filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and was examined as PW1. He reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief examination affidavit. During his chief examination, PW1 deposed that Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Charanjeet Koer,

W/o.Gurnam Singh, who died on 06-10-2024.

11. Plaintiffs got marked Ex.A1 to A10. Ex.A1 is the Original death certificate of Charanjeet Koer, W/o.Gurnam Singh, showing that deceased died on 06-10-2024 and on perusal of Ex.A2 to A9 it appears that the

Aadhar cards and pan card of Plaintiff No.1 to 7 which shows that they are the legal heris of the deceased Charanjeet Koer, W/o.Gurnam Singh.

12. The evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged and undisputed and there is no dispute regarding the relationship of the Plaintiffs as per the

Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-9. The unchallenged and unrebutted oral testimonies of PW1

OS.No.423/2025

6 coupled with documentary evidence of Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10 clinchingly proves the case of the Plaintiffs. Thus, by virtue of Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10, Plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heirs of deceased Charanjeet Koer,

W/o.Gurnam Singh. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of Plaintiff

No.1 to 7.

POINT No.II

13.Since Point No.1 is answered in favor of Plaintiffs and in view of the above circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heir of the deceased. Accordingly Point is answered in favor of Plaintiffs.

14. In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring the Plaintiffs No.1 to 7 as legal heirs of deceased Late Charanjeet Koer, W/o.Gurnam Singh. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Decree be prepared accordingly.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this day of 17 th day of February, 2026).

FARHEEN .B.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

OS.No.423/2025

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1 : Gurvinder Singh -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1 is the Original Death certificate of deceased Charanjit Kaur @Charanjeet Koer.

Ex.A2 is the original Aadhaar card of Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A3 is the original Aadhaar card of Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A4 is the original PAN card of Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A5 is the original Aadhaar card of Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A6 is the original Aadhaar card of Plaintiff No.4.

Ex.A7 is the original Aadhaar card of Plaintiff No.5.

Ex.A8 is the original Aadhaar card of Plaintiff No.6.

Ex.A9 is the original Aadhaar card of Plaintiff No.7.

Ex.A10 is the original Death certificate of deceased Surender Singh Birdi [younger son of deceased Charanjit Kaur @ Charanjeet Koer].

FOR DEFENDANTS: -NIL-

FARHEEN .B.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

1 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT:- MS. SALMA FATIMA, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, At Hayathnagar.

MONDAY THE 27 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

O.S. No.159 of 2026

Between

Maddi Sai Jeevan Reddy, S/o. Late M.Ravinder Reddy, Aged 20 years, student, R/o. H.No.1-38/1, Prabhath Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

…Plaintiff

A N D

1. Smt. Maddi Anitha, W/o. Late M.Ravinder Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-38/1, Prabhath Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District-60.

2. Maddi Meghana Reddy, D/o. Late M.Ravinder Reddy, Aged about 27 years, Student, R/o. H.No.1-38/1, Prabhath Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District-60.

3. The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. All Concerned …Defendants

2 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

This suit is coming on 27.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of M/s.Hemanth Praveen Kumar, counsel for the plaintiff and Learned AGP for defendant no.3 and defendant no.1, 2 and 4 remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivers the following:-

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

1. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration by declaring the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 as the legal heirs of deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy S/o. Maddi Narsimha

Reddy, who died intestate on 20.07.2022. The plaintiff further submitted that he is the natural son, defendant no.1 is the wife and defendant no.2 is the natural daughter of deceased Late.

Maddi Ravinder Reddy, who died intestate leaving the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs further submitted that the natural mother of the deceased namely Maddi

Laxmamma died on 30-01-2023.

2. The plaintiff further submitted that during the life time of late.

Maddi Ravinder Reddy, purchased the plot no.196 (West Part), admeasuring 180 sq.yds., or 150.49 sq.mtrs., in sy.nos. 280, 281,

3 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

282 & 324, situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, erstwhile

Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, presently Abdullapurmet Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, through a regd. AGPA vide doct.no.19073/2006, dated: 23-09-2006 and also purchased the plot no.471, admeasuring 200 sq.yds., or 167.23 sq.mtrs., in sy.no.663, situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, erstwhile

Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, presently Abdullapurmet Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, through a regd. AGPA vide doct.

no.24169/2006, dated: 08-11-2006.

3. The plaintiff further submitted that after the death of deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy, the defendant no.1 & 2 have executed a sale deed vide doct. no 456/2026, dated: 23-01- 2026 and sale deed vide doct.no. 459/2026, dated: 23-01-2026, in favour of Plaintiff herein by releasing their 1/3rd share each in and over the suit schedule properties, plaintiff due to his financial necessities intended to sell the suit schedule properties for a valuable consideration but on 11-02-2026, during the course of negotiations the intending purchasers demanded the legal heirs certificate of the deceased which is very much essential for the

4 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

alienation of the said plot and the plaintiffs could not produce the same to the intending purchasers, on 18-02-2026 they approached the defendant no.3 (Tahsildar) with an application for grant of legal heirs certificate but unfortunately the defendant no.3 orally refused to grant legal heirs certificate and suggested the plaintiffs to approach proper civil court of law, therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration. Hence this suit.

4. Learned AGP represented defendant no.3 and reported no written statement.The defendant no.1, 2 and 4 are called absent, no representation, hence defendant no.1, 2 and 4 were set ex- parte.

5.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as Pw-1 and Ex.A1 to A10 got marked.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

7. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 are

entitled for declaration to declare themselves as legal heirs

of deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

POINT NO.1:

8. The contention of the plaintiff is that he and defendant no.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder

Reddy, who died intestate on 20.07.2022 and during the life time of late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy, purchased of the suit schedule properties and after the death of deceased late. Maddi Ravinder

Reddy, the defendant no.1 & 2 have executed a sale deed vide doct. no 456/2026, dated: 23-01-2026 and sale deed vide doct.no. 459/2026, dated: 23-01-2026, in favour of Plaintiff herein by releasing their 1/3rd share each in and over the suit schedule properties, plaintiff due to his financial necessities intended to sell the suit schedule properties for a valuable consideration but on 11-02-2026, during the course of negotiations the intending purchasers demanded the legal heirs certificate of the deceased which is very much essential for the alienation of the said plot and the plaintiffs could not produce the same to the intending purchasers, on 18-02-2026 they approached the defendant no.3 (Tahsildar) with an application for grant of legal heirs certificate but unfortunately the defendant no.3 orally refused to grant legal heirs certificate and suggested

6 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

the plaintiffs to approach proper civil court of law, therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration to declare himself and defendant no.1 and 2 as legal heirs of deceased Late. Maddi

Ravinder Reddy.

9. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as Pw-1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 got marked.

EX.A1:is the certified copy of AGPA vide doc.no.19073/2006,

dt:23-09-2006, Ex.A2:is the certified copy of AGPA vide

doc.no.24169/2006, dt:08-11-2006, Ex.A3:is the certified copy of

Sale Deed vide do.no. 456/2026, dt:23-01-2026, Ex.A4:is the certified copy of Sale deed vide doc.no.459/2026, dt: 23-01- 2026, Ex.A5:is the death certificate of Maddi Ravinder Reddy,

dt:20-07-2022, Ex.A6: is the Encumbrance certificate dt: 17-02-

2026, Ex.A7: is the Encumbrance certificate, dt: 11-02-2026,

Ex.A8: is the Aadhar card of plaintiff, Ex.A9: is the Aadhar card of

Defendants No.1 and 2, Ex.A10: is the death certificate of M.

Laxmamma, dt: 30-01-2022.

7 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

10. The oral evidence of Pw-1 and the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 are remained unchallenged. Moreover, according to the plaintiff, himself and defendant no.1 and 2 are the only legal heirs of Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy, who died intestate on 20.07.2022 and he filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 in support of his case.

11. From the above said unrebutted testimony on record and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A10, it is clear that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of deceased

Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy, as such the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that himself and defendant no.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy. Therefore accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

POINT NO.2:

12. In view of the findings in point no.1, the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 are declared as legal heirs of deceased

Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy.

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs and the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 are declared as the legal heirs

8 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

of deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy S/o. Maddi Narsimha

Reddy, who died intestate on 20.07.2022.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27 th day of April,

2026.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiff: Defendants:

PW1: Maddi Sai Jeevan Reddy-Nil-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff :

EX.A1:is the certified copy of AGPA vide doc.no.19073/2006,

dt:23-09-2006,

Ex.A2:is the certified copy of AGPA vide doc.no.24169/2006,

dt:08-11-2006,

Ex.A3:is the certified copy of Sale Deed vide do.no. 456/2026,

dt:23-01-2026,

Ex.A4:is the certified copy of Sale deed vide doc.no.459/2026, dt:

23-01-2026,

Ex.A5:is the death certificate of Maddi Ravinder Reddy, dt:20-07- 2022,

Ex.A6: is the Encumbrance certificate dt: 17-02-2026,

Ex.A7: is the Encumbrance certificate, dt: 11-02-2026,

Ex.A8: is the Aadhar card of plaintiff,

Ex.A9: is the Aadhar card of Defendants No.1 and 2,

9 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

Ex.A10: is the death certificate of M. Laxmamma, dt: 30-01-2022.

For Defendants:

-Nil-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar.

OS.No.866/2025

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT HAYATHNAGAR.

PRESENT: Smt. Farheen Begum, B.Com, LL.M

I ADDITIONAL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VII ADDITIONAL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, AT HAYATHNAGAR

THURSSDAY, DATED ON THIS THE 13 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

O.S. No. 866 of 2025

BETWEEN:

1. Smt. Farhat Sultana, W/o. Late. Mirza Osman Baig, Aged 49 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.5/112, Kummara Basthi, Near, Raghavendra Theatre, Old Malkajgiri, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad 500006.

2. Mirza Mohammad Baig, S/o. Late. Mirza Osman Baig, Aged 37 Years, Occ: Pvt Employees, R/o. H.No. 5/113, Kummara Basthi, Near Raghavendra Theatre, Old Malkajgiri, Medical - Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad-47.

3. Mirza Mukarram Baig, S/o. Late. Mirza Osman Baig, Aged 36 Years, Occ: Pvt Employees, R/o. H No. 5/113, Kummara Basthi, Near Raghavendra Theatre, Old Malkajgiri,

Medical - Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad -47. ... Plaintiffs

AND

1. The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal Ranga Reddy district

2. All Concerned ...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 13-02-2026 in the presence of M/s.Junna Hanmant Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and Defendants remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

OS.No.866/2025

2

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 praying this court to declare them as Legal heirs of the deceased Late Mirza Osman Baig.

Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

2.That plaintiff No.1 is wife, Plaintiffs No.2 & 3 is sons of late Mirza

Osman Baig who died on 02-12-2014 at H.No.5-113, Kummara Basthi, Old

Malkajgiri, Medical Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad. leaving behind him, the plaintiffs as his only surviving legal heirs. Except the plaintiffs herein, there are no other legal representatives to the Deceased Mirza Osman Baig. That originally deceased late Mirza Osman Baig, who had purchased a house plot bearing No.15 in admeasuring 172.50 Sq. Yards, or 144.21 Sq. Mtrs, Survey

No. 295 & 296, situate at Kuntloor Village, Abdullahpurmet Mandal,

R.R.District, under a registered sale deed Vide Doc. No.6730/2001 dated 01-08-2001 on the file of SRO Hyderabad East.,

3.That Plaintiffs they intends to get transfer of the above said suit schedule house plot in their names, from the name of late Mirza Osman

Baig died but for the purpose of transfer of the above said property the

Plaintiffs is required to get legal heir certificate, as such the Plaintiffs approached the Defendant No.1 on 01-08-2025, for issuance of legal heirs certificate but the defendant No.1 refused to issue the Legal Heir Certificate, and to issue the same, and advised to approach the competent Civil Court

OS.No.866/2025

3 and as such there is no other alternative the Plaintiffs approached this

Court to pass a decree, declaring them as the legal heirs of deceased Late

Mirza Osman Baig.

4.That the Defendants No.1 is proforma party and the Plaintiffs are not claiming any relief against the Defendant No.1 and the Defendant No.2 is

Shown as a party, for calling objections with regard to granting of the legal heir certificate to them.

TRIAL:-

5. The Summons were served on Defendants No.1 and 2, vide paper publication in ‘Metro India Telugu daily news paper’ and there was no representation on behalf of Defendants No.1 and 2 and none appeared on behalf of Defendants, as such Defendants No.1 and 2 were set exparte. As no written statement filed by the defendants, therefore there is nothing on record on behalf of Defendants.

6. To prove the case of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1 got examined herself as PW1, filed her chief examination affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and got marked Ex.A1 to A6.

7. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiffs. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

I. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heir of

deceased/ Late Mirza Osman Baig as prayed for?

OS.No.866/2025

4

II. If so, to what relief?

POINT No. I:

9. During trial, Plaintiff No.1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and was examined as PW1. She reiterated the contents of plaint in her chief examination affidavit. During her chief examination, PW1 deposed that Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Mirza Osman Baig, who died on 02-12-2014.

10. Plaintiffs got marked Ex.A1 to A6. Ex.A2 is the Original death certificate of Mirza Osman Baig, showing that deceased died on 02-12-2014,

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.No.6730/2001, in which the name of deceased Mirza Osman Baig appears as purchaser, on perusal of Ex.A3 it appears that the Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.1 which shows that she is the wife of the deceased Mirza Osman Baig, Ex.A4 and A5 it appears that the Aadhar cards of Plaintiff No.2 and 3 which shows that they are the son’s of the deceased Mirza Osman Baig and Ex.A6 is the Encumbrance certificate in which the name of deceased Mirza Osman Baig is appearing as claimant.

11. The evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged and undisputed and there is no dispute regarding the relationship of the Plaintiffs as per the

Ex.A-3 to A-5. The unchallenged and unrebutted oral testimonies of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence of Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6 clinchingly proves the case of the Plaintiffs. Thus, by virtue of Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6, Plaintiffs are

OS.No.866/2025

5 entitled to be declared as legal heirs of deceased Mirza Osman Baig. Point

No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of Plaintiff No.1 to 3.

POINT No.II

12.Since Point No.1 is answered in favor of Plaintiffs and in view of the above circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heir of the deceased. Accordingly Point is answered in favor of Plaintiffs.

13. In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring the Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as legal heirs of deceased Late Mirza Osman Baig over the suit schedule property. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Decree be prepared accordingly.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this day of 13 th day of February, 2026).

FARHEEN .B.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

OS.No.866/2025

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1 : Farhat Sultana -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1 is the C.C of Sale deed Doc.No.6730/2001.

Ex.A2 is the original Death certificate of deceased Late Mirza Osman Baig.

Ex.A3 is the copy of Aadhaar card of Plaintiff No. 1.

Ex.A4 is the copy of Aadhaar card of Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A5 is the copy of Aadhaar card of Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A6 is the original Encumbrance certificate..

FOR DEFENDANTS: -NIL-

FARHEEN .B.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT