Ms. G.Akhila Goud

1 of 11 OS.No.650 of 2021

Dt: 05.05.2026.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM SPECIAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 5th day of May, 2026 Present: Smt.G.Akhila Goud, V Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Prohibition & Excise Court,

Khammam.

O.S. No. 650 of 2021

BETWEEN: Shaik Nizam Saheb, S/o Khasim Saheb, Age: 58 yrs, occ: Agriculture, R/o Bopparam, H/o Pandillapalli, Chithakani Mandal, Khammam District. … Plaintiff. A N D Shaik Masthan Saheb, S/o Saida Saheb, Age: 35 yrs, occ: Agriculture, R/o Bopparam village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District. … Defendant. This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Madiraju Hanumantha Rao, learned counselfor plaintiff and Sri Kanneboina Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for defendant and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his men, relatives, his servants or any other person claiming though him from interfering into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property viz., wet land to an extent of

Ac.0.14 ½ gts in Sy.No.42/A1 of Pandillapalli village of Chinthakani

Mandal, Khammam District and for costs of the suit.

2. The plaint averments, in brief, are as follows:-

The plaintiff purchased the agricultural land to an extent of

Ac.0.14 ½ gts in Sy.No.42/A1 of Pandillapalli village of Chinthakani

Mandal, Khammam District through Sada sale deed from original 2 of 11 OS.No.650 of 2021

Dt: 05.05.2026.

pattadar by name Shaik Hussain Saheb, S/o Meera Saheb in the year 2013 and since then he is the possessor and enjoydar of the suit schedule property. In the year 2016, the defendant obstructed him in cultivating the suit schedule property and as per the advice of the village elders the defendant agreed the sale of suit schedule property by his father and again executed an agreement dt:22.03.2016 for sale of suit schedule property in favour of him on Rs.50/- stamp paper. He approached the Tahsildar and got regularized the sada sale deed under the provision of ROR Act. The Tahsildar issued pattadar passbook and title deed vide No.T26020040083 with khata No.163 on 19.04.2018 in his favour. Since he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The defendant having greedy eye on the land of him and tried to grab the suit schedule property by interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of him.

Accordingly, on 08.05.2021, the defendant along with his henchmen and unsocial elements came to suit schedule property and tried to interfere into the possession of plaintiff by creating nuisance and threatened him with dire consequences, but he resisted the defendant with the help of the neighbours, defendant and his henchmen went away by stating that they will come again with more force and will forcibly grab the suit schedule property. The acts of the defendant in this regard is quite illegal and high handed. The plaintiff could not resist the high handed activities of the defendant without the aid of the Court. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit 3 of 11 OS.No.650 of 2021

Dt: 05.05.2026.

for grant of perpetual injunction.

3.The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement.

Their case, in brief, is as follows:-

The allegations made by the plaintiff in plaint are false. In fact, the plaintiff is not the owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.14 ½ gts in Sy.No.42/A1 of Pandillapalli village of

Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District. It is specifically denied that plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from its owner

Sk.Hussain Saheb and again the owner executed the agreement on 22.03.2016. The Defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.1.05 gts in Sy.No.42/A and Ac.1.15 gts in

Sy.No.91/A1, total Ac.2.20 gts situated at Pandillapalli revenue village,

Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District. The defendant inherited the said land from his father towards his share and since then the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land.

The said Sk.Hussain Saheb who is alleged vendor of the plaintiff is having Ac.0.13¾ gts in Sy.No.42 and after the death of the original owner, his son Sk.Khasim Saheb came into possession of Ac.0.13¾ gts and he has been cultivating the same. The said land is situated towards the eastern side of the defendant’s land. The plaintiff never in possession of alleged suit schedule property and as per the survey conducted by the plaintiff basing on his pattadar passbook, it found that the land exists Ac.0.13¾ gts in Sy.No.42 of Pandillapalli and the same belongs to Sk.Khasim Saheb. The defendant never tried to grab 4 of 11 OS.No.650 of 2021

Dt: 05.05.2026.

the land of plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.On the above pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues for trial :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual

injunction against defendant as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are the documents marked on behalf of plaintiff. In support of PW.1, PW.1 examined one Sk.Adam Saheb as PW.2.

Ex.A1 is sale agreement (sada sale deed)dt: 22.03.2016. Ex.A2 is original pattadar passbook vide No.T26020040083, vide patta

No.163. Ex.A3 is certified copy of adangal and pahani for the Fasli year 1425.

6.To prove his case, defendant examined himself as DW.1 and

Ex.B1 document marked on behalf of defendant.

Ex.B1 is attested copy of location sketch.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides.

ISSUES No.1 and 2:

8. These two issues are inter-related to each other and as such, taken-up together for discussion.

9.I have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for injunction simplicitor against the defendant and therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove his possession and enjoyment over the suit 5 of 11 OS.No.650 of 2021

Dt: 05.05.2026.

schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

10.To establish his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and filed his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit in which he reiterated the plaint averments. Therefore, the evidence of

PW.1 is nothing but replica of plaint averments. The plaintiff in support of his oral evidence also relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 documents.

Ex.A1 is sale agreement (sada sale deed)dt: 22.03.2016 and it shows that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property for valid consideration of Rs.36,000/-. Ex.A2 is original pattadar passbook vide No.T26020040083, vide patta No.163 and it shows that the pattadar passbook was issued in the name of plaintiff for the land to an extent of Ac.0.1450 gts in Sy.No.42/A2/1/2 and land to an extent of Ac.1.1100 gts in Sy.No.48/4. Ex.A3 is certified copy of adangal and pahani for the Fasli year 1425 and it shows that plaintiff is the enjoydar of the suit schedule property.

11.During the cross examination of PW.1, he stated that his vendor is Hussain Saheb and defendant belongs to same family. He stated that he purchased the property from him in Sy.No.42 in

Pandillapally village in the year 2013 but he does not know the sub survey number of the same. He cannot say the exact date when he purchased the land and on which date it is registered. He stated that he does not know the defendant has an extent of land Ac. 01.05 gts in

Sy.No.42/A and Ac. 01.15 gts in Sy.No.91/A1, total Ac.02.20 gts. PW.1 admitted that the defendant filed criminal case against plaintiff 6 of 11 OS.No.650 of 2021

Dt: 05.05.2026.

alleging that he is interfering with the possession vide

Cr.No.218/2021 dt: 18.12.2021. PW.1denied some suggestions posed by the learned counsel for defendant.

12.PW.1 in support of his case he also examined one Sk.Adam

Saheb as PW.2 by filing his examination-in-chief in the form of chief- affidavit in which he supported the evidence of PW.1 by stating that the plaintiff purchased the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.14 ½ gts in Sy.No.42/A1 of Pandillapalli village of Chinthakani Mandal,

Khammam District through Sada sale deed from original pattadar by name Shaik Hussain Saheb, S/o Meera Saheb in the year 2013 and since then he is the possessor and enjoydar of the suit schedule property. PW.2 further stated that in the year 2016, the defendant obstructed him in cultivating the suit schedule property and as per the advice of the village elders the defendant agreed the sale of suit schedule property by his father and again executed an agreement

dt:22.03.2016 for sale of suit schedule property in favour of plaintifff

on Rs.50/- stamp paper. Basing on the said agreement plaintiff got regularized the sada sale deed and on 19.04.2008 with Khata No.163,

Tahsildar issued pattdar passbook and title deed vide

No.T26020040083. Defendant with greedy eye obstructed the plaintiff in cultivating the suit schedule property and on 08.05.2021 defendant along with his henchmen came to the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintiff for cultivating the same.

Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 is nothing but replica of evidence of 7 of 11 OS.No.650 of 2021

Dt: 05.05.2026.

PW.1 and plaint averments.

13.During the cross-examination of PW.2, he stated that his land is in Sy.No.42 and the defendants has two brothers. PW.2 further stated that the vendor of plaintiff has land to an extent of Ac.0.14 ½ gts in

Sy.No.42 and he does not know the defendant filed criminal cases against plaintiff as he is interfering with the possession of defendant over his property. He stated that he does not know mandal surveyor issued report to the land to an extent of 13 ¾ gts in Sy.No.42 and denied some regular suggestions posed by the defendant’s counsel.

14.The above said Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 documents would clearly goes to shows that the plaintiff name was mutated in revenue record as pattadar and enjoydar of suit schedule land and he has been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule land. The evidence of

PW.1, PW.2 and the documentary evidence produced by PW.1 would clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule land.

15.To rebut the case of plaintiff, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 by filing his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit and re-iterated the averments of written statement. As per DW.1, he is absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.1.05 gts in Sy.No.42/A and Ac.1.15 gts in Sy.No.91/A1, total Ac.2.20 gts situated at Pandillapalli revenue village, Chinthakani Mandal,

Khammam District. The defendant inherited the said land from his father towards his share and since then the defendant is in peaceful 8 of 11 OS.No.650 of 2021

Dt: 05.05.2026.

possession and enjoyment of the said land. The said Sk.Hussain Saheb who is alleged vendor of the plaintiff is having Ac.0.13¾ gts in

Sy.No.42 and after the death of the original owner, his son Sk.Khasim

Saheb came into possession of Ac.0.13¾ gts and he has been cultivating the same. The said land is situated towards the western side to his land. The plaintiff never in possession of suit schedule property and as per the survey conducted by the plaintiff basing on his pattadar passbook, it found that the land exists Ac.0.13¾ gts in

Sy.No.42 of Pandillapalli and the same belongs to Sk.Khasim Saheb. It is further evidence of defendant that he never tried to grab the suit schedule property and never threatened the plaintiff.

16.It is the evidence of DW.1 that suit schedule property belongs to him. But, DW.1 did not file any pahani to show that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. In cross- examination, DW.1 stated that he does not know whether the plaintiff purchased the land from Hussain Sahed on which date. DW.1 stated that he does not know whether the survey was conducted or not by the plaintiff at the time of purchase. This version of DW.1 in his cross-examination creating shadow on the entire story mentioned in written statement about suit schedule land. DW.1 in his cross- examination stated that Hussain Saheb, Saidulu Saheb who are natural brothers effected the partition of the properties including suit schedule property at about 25 years ago and he cannot say how many survey numbers were surrounded the suit schedule property.

9 of 11 OS.No.650 of 2021

Dt: 05.05.2026.

The learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined PW.1, but, nothing could be extracted in favour of the defendant. DW.1 only filed Ex.B1 which shows that the map of survey of land in Sy.No.42 and its sub divisions. The defendants did not file any scrap of paper to show that the suit schedule property was cultivating by him and did not file any documentary evidence to show that he is possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Whereas, Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 the documents which were filed by the plaintiff clearly shows that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

17.Now, the grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendant without having any manner of right or interest over the suit schedule property interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands. It is clear from the evidence of PW.1 that the defendant try to interfere into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is to be protected his possession over the suit schedule property from the defendant.

18.On consideration of the material placed before this Court, it is clearly of the view that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant miserably failed to prove his contention that he is in possession of the suit schedule property.

The possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property is legal.

Therefore, the defendant has no right to interfere with the 10 of 11 OS.No.650 of 2021

Dt: 05.05.2026.

possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The defendant also cannot disturb the possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff has got every right to sue the defendant.

19.In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the plaintiff has established his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and he also established the interference of the defendant over the suit schedule property. In the circumstances, this

Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction as prayed to protect his possession over suit schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction against the defendant and these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE No.3:

20.In view of my finding on issues 1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed. I held the issue accordingly.

21. In the result, the suit is decreed. There shall be a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 5th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

V Addl. Junior Civil judge cum

Prohibition And Excise Court,

Khammam.

11 of 11 OS.No.650 of 2021

Dt: 05.05.2026.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: PW.1: Sk.Nizam Saheb. PW.2: Sk.Adam Saheb.

For Defendant: DW.1: Shaik Masthan Saheb.

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Sale agreement (sada sale deed)dt: 22.03.2016. Ex.A2: Original pattadar passbook vide No.T26020040083, vide patta No.163. Ex.A3: Certified copy of adangal and pahani for the Fasli year 1425.

For Defendant: Ex.B1: Attested copy of location sketch.

Sd/-

V Addl. Junior Civil judge cum

Prohibition And Excise Court,

Khammam.

1 of 7 OS.No.575 of 2024

Dt:01.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM SPECIAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 1st day of May, 2026 Present: Smt.G.Akhila Goud, V Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Prohibition & Excise Court,

Khammam.

O.S. No. 575 of 2024

BETWEEN: Venkaganti @ Yanaganti Govardhan Rao, S/o Late Narayana, Age: 70 yrs, Occ: RTD employee, R/o H.No.15-13-200/1, Bank Colony, Khammam Town and District. … Plaintiff. A N D

1. Venaanti Rajeswari, W/o Late Guravaiah, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Home maker, R/o H.No.5-3-255/B, Block-3, Pakabanda Bazar, Khammam City and District.

2. Venkaganti @ Yanaganti Veerabadra Rao, S/o Late Narayana, Age: 72 yrs, Occ: Painter, R/o opposite Sai Baba temple, Sai Nagar, Bandarugudem, Manuguru, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Musini Nagaraju, learned counselfor the Plaintiff, and the defendants set exparte, and upon hearing the argument and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is suit filed for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property viz., land measuring Ac.2.27 gts in Sy.No.338/34/2, 338/34/3 and 338/33/1/1 situated at Manchukonda village,

Raghunathapalem Mandal, Khammam District and for costs of the suit.

2. The plaint averments, in brief, are as follows:-

The plaintiff, defendant No.2, and one Guravaiah (husband of 2 of 7 OS.No.575 of 2024

Dt:01.05.2026

defendant No.1) are the sons of late Narayana, who was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The said property was assigned in favour of late Narayana by the Government in the year 1965, and patta was issued accordingly.Late Narayana died in the year 1998 leaving behind his wife Seethamma, the plaintiff, and

Guravaiah as his legal heirs. Subsequently, Guravaiah died in the year 2012, leaving behind defendant No.1 as his legal heir. It is further stated that though no partition was effected by metes and bounds, based on oral understanding among the parties, mutation entries were made in the revenue records as follows:

Plaintiff: Ac.0.36 gts in Sy.No.338/34/2 (Khata No.1292)

Defendant No.1: Ac.0.35 gts in Sy.No.338/34/3 (Khata No.1293)

Defendant No.2: Ac.0.36 gts in Sy.No.338/33/1/1 (Khata No.1295)

The plaintiff submits that the said mutation does not amount to partition and the properties continue to be joint. It is further averred that defendant No.1, taking advantage of the mutation entries, filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.1319/2022 against the plaintiff and defendant No.2, which is pending before this Court, and attempted to encroach upon the plaintiff’s share. The plaintiff also contends that though the revenue records show an extent of Ac.3.27 guntas, the actual extent available on ground is only about Ac.2.10 guntas. Despite demands made in November, 2022 for partition, the defendants refused to effect the same and attempted to deprive the 3 of 7 OS.No.575 of 2024

Dt:01.05.2026

plaintiff of his rightful share. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons served on defendant No.1 and inspite of conditional order defendant No.2 did not turn up to appear before the court and hence the defendant No.1 and 2 set exparte.

4. To prove their case, the plaintiff examined plaintiff No.1 as

PW.1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 documents.

Ex.A1 is served true copy of plaint and documents. Ex.A2 is pass book of defendant No.1. Ex.A3 is online Dharani pahani in

Sy.No.338/34/3. Ex.A4 is online Dharani pahani in Sy.No.338/34/2.

Ex.A5 is online Dharani pahani in Sy.No.338/33/1/1. Ex.A6 is market value certificates in above three Survey numbers.

5. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for consideration is, Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for or not?

POINT:

7. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property into three equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff by passing preliminary decree. To establish his case, the plaintiff examined as PW.1 and filed his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit and in which he re- iterated the plaint averments. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is nothing but replica of plaint averments. Hence, there is no need to 4 of 7 OS.No.575 of 2024

Dt:01.05.2026

discuss the same for the sake of avoiding repetition.

8.According to PW.1, the defendants colluded with each other and trying to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff in support of his oral evidence also relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 documents.

Ex.A1 is served true copy of plaint and documents and it shows that the plaintiff served the necessary documents to the defendants.

Ex.A2 is pass book of defendant No.1 and it shows that Ac.0.3500 gts in Sy.No.338/34/3 is in the name of the defendant No.1 vide passbook

No.T26140030854 and Khata No.1293. Ex.A3 is online Dharani pahani in Sy.No.338/34/3, Ex.A4 is online Dharani pahani in Sy.No.338/34/2.

Ex.A5 is online Dharani pahani in Sy.No.338/33/1/1 and they shows that are the online copies of the Dharani pahanies of the suit schedule property. Ex.A6 is market value certificates in above three

Survey numbers and it shows that the value is Rs.4,50,000/-.

9. PW.1 in his evidence stated that Late Narayana was father to himself, husband of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, who is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property which is assigned by Government in the year 1965 and he enjoyed the same till his death. After the death of his father, himself and defendants succeeded the suit schedule property as his legal heirs and in the year 2014 there was an oral family arrangement and mutated their names in the revenue records and got pattadar passbooks. However, there is 5 of 7 OS.No.575 of 2024

Dt:01.05.2026

no partition by metes and bounds till date and the mutation entries do not reflect the actual physical availability of land and extent available on ground is less than that shown in revenue records.

Despite repeated demands defendants failed and refused to effect partition of the suit schedule property and he is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and accordingly PW.1 filed the suit for partition and separate possession.

10. The evidence of PW.1 goes unchallenged and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 documents clinchingly establishes that plaintiff is eligible for his legitimate share in the suit schedule property. This Court do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW.1 and also the documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 clearly supported the case of the plaintiff with regard to his right over the suit schedule property. It is also clear from the evidence of PW.1 that the defendant No.1 is trying to grab the suit schedule property and deprive the share of the plaintiff with collusion of defendant No.2 as the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of the defendant

No.1.

11.The entire evidence of PW-1 has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted, as the defendants have chosen to remain exparte.

The documents filed by the plaintiff, particularly the pahani extracts and mutation records, clearly establish that the suit schedule property originally belonged to late Narayana. It is well settled that 6 of 7 OS.No.575 of 2024

Dt:01.05.2026

mutation entries in revenue records do not confer title nor do they amount to a valid partition. In the absence of a registered partition deed or division by metes and bounds, the property retains its character as joint family property. The plaintiff and defendants by the oral understanding followed by mutation does not constitute a legally recognized partition. Further, there is no material on record to show that the plaintiff has relinquished his share. From the evidence available, it is clear that the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant

No.2 are entitled to equal shares. Therefore, each is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. The discrepancy between the revenue extent and actual physical extent is a matter to be adjudicated during final decree proceedings, wherein a Advocate

Commissioner can be appointed for measurement and division. Thus, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, this point answered.

12. IN THE RESULT, the suit is preliminarily decreed by dividing suit schedule property into three equal shares and by allotting 1/3rd share to plaintiff and 1/3rd share each to defendant No.1 and 2 with metes and bounds. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 1st day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class,

Prohibition And Excise Court,

Khammam.

7 of 7 OS.No.575 of 2024

Dt:01.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1: Venkaganti @ Yanaganti Govardhan Rao. - Nil -

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 is served true copy of plaint and documents. Ex.A2 is pass book of defendant No.1. Ex.A3 is online Dharani pahani in Sy.No.338/34/3. Ex.A4 is online Dharani pahani in Sy.No.338/34/2. Ex.A5 is online Dharani pahani in Sy.No.338/33/1/1. Ex.A6 is market value certificates in above three Survey numbers.

For Defendant: - Nil -

Sd/-

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class,

Prohibition And Excise Court,

Khammam.

O.S. No.892 / 2025

Dt. 06.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

PROH AND EXCISE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 06th day of May, 2026

Present:: Smt. G.AKHILA GOUD,

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Proh And Excise Court, Khammam.

O.S.No. 892 / 2025

Between:-

1. Keloth Davali, w/o Late Mangya, Age 65 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. Ramkya Thanda, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Keloth Paparao, S/o. Late Mangya Age: 48 Years, Occ: Agril, R/o Ramkya Thanda, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District.

…….Plaintiff No.1 & 2.

And

1. Vadithya Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, D/o Late Mangya, Age: 38 Years, Occu: Household, R/o Bode Thanda, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.

2. T o whom so ever it may concern. …….Respondents.

This suit is coming up before me on 06.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Potlapalli Viplavakumar, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 & 2 has Set Exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and 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 under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are the legal heirs and successors of late Keloth

Bujji, D/o late Mangya and award costs of the suit.

O.S. No.892 / 2025

Dt. 06.05.2026

2.The averments of the plaint in brief as follows:-

Plaintiff No.1 is the mother, Plaintiff No.2 is the brother and

Defendant No.1 is the sister of late Keloth Bujji, who died on 12.01.2025, leaving behind the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 as her only legal heirs and successors. The death certificate issued by the

Registrar of Births and Deaths, Ramkya Thanda, Raghunadhapalem

Mandal, Khammam District confirms her death. The father of the deceased, namely Keloth Mangya, had predeceased her on 15.10.2019.

It is contended that the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 constitute the only surviving legal heirs of the deceased under Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act. There are no other legal heirs in existence.

The plaintiffs approached the Tahsildar, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, for issuance of a legal heir certificate, but were advised to obtain a declaration from the competent Court. Hence, the present suit.

3.After receiving the summons, the defendant No.1 did not appear

before the Court, hence, the defendant No.1 was set exparte. Paper

publication was given against Defendant No.2, but no one appeared

before the Court to contest the case against the Plaintiffs. Hence, the

Defendant No.2 was set ex-parte.

4.In order to prove the suit claim, plaintiff No.1 herself was examined as PW.1 and got exhibited Ex.A.1 to A.4 documents.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the record.

O.S. No.892 / 2025

Dt. 06.05.2026

6.Now the points for consideration are:

1) “Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are entitled for the declaration as legal heirs and successors of late Keloth Bujji, as prayed for”?

2) To what relief?

7. P O I N T No.1 &2:-

The learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiff No.1 is the mother, plaintiff No.2 is the brother and defendant No.1 is sister of late Keloth Bujji, as such, they are the legal heirs of late Keloth Bujji, who died on 12.01.2025.

In order to declare plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as legal heirs of deceased Keloth Bujji, the relationship between plaintiffs and defendant

No.1 and deceased Keloth Bujji must be proved.

To prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 herself was examined as P.W.1 by filing her examination in chief in the form of chief affidavit and reiterated the contents of plaint and marked exhibited

Ex.A.1 to A.4 documents,

8.On perusal of the record shows that Ex.A1 (Death Certificate) establishes that Keloth Bujji died on 12.01.2025. Ex.A2 (Death

Certificate of Keloth Mangya) shows that the father of the deceased

Keloth Bujji died on 15.10.2019. Ex.A3 (Family Members Certificate issued by Tahsildar) indicates that the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are the family members of the deceased. Ex.A4 (Aadhaar Cards) supports the identity of the parties.

O.S. No.892 / 2025

Dt. 06.05.2026

9.The testimony of PW.1 clearly establishes that the plaintiffs and

Defendant No.1 are the only surviving legal heirs of the deceased. Her evidence has remained unchallenged, as the defendants failed to contest the suit. The documentary evidence coupled with the uncontroverted oral testimony of PW.1 proves the relationship between the parties and the deceased. There is no material on record to disbelieve the case of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are the legal heirs and successors of late Keloth Bujji.

10. Therefore, in view of above discussion, this Court opines that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are entitled for the declaration as legal heirs and successors of late Keloth Bujji as prayed for. Accordingly, the point No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

11. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs, declaring that the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are the legal heirs and successors of late Keloth Bujji in their respective capacities as mother, brother and sister respectively. However, it is made clear that, as per Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, this declaration is binding only on the parties of the suit and not on third parties.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH AND EXCISE,

KHAMMAM.

O.S. No.892 / 2025

Dt. 06.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants: PW.1: Keloth Davali. -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1:Death certificate of deceased Keloth Bujji, dated 12.01.2025

Ex.A2:Death certificate of deceased Keloth Mangya, dated 15.10.2019

Ex.A3:Family Members certificate issued by Tahasildar, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District, dated 15.09.2025

Ex.A4:Xerox copy of Aadhar Cards of plaintiffs.

Defendants: Nil.

Sd/-

V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH AND EXCISE,

KHAMMAM.

O.S. No.892 / 2025

Dt. 06.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

PROH AND EXCISE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 06th day of May, 2026

Present:: Smt. G.AKHILA GOUD,

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Proh And Excise Court, Khammam.

O.S.No. 892 / 2025

Presented on : 04.11.2025. Filed on:07.11.2025.

Between:-

1. Keloth Davali, w/o Late Mangya, Age 65 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. Ramkya Thanda, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Keloth Paparao, S/o. Late Mangya Age: 48 Years, Occ: Agril, R/o Ramkya Thanda, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District.

…….Plaintiff No.1 & 2.

And

1. Vadithya Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, D/o Late Mangya, Age: 38 Years, Occu: Household, R/o Bode Thanda, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.

2. T o whom so ever it may concern. …….Respondents. CLAIM FOR:

This suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are the legal heirs and successors of late Keloth Bujji, D/o late Mangya who died on 12.01.2025 and award costs of the suit.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

The cause of action arose on 12.01.2025 when the deceased Keloth Bujji died and when the plaintiffs approached the Tahsildar, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District. The court is having pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND COURT FEE:

This suit is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/-, upon which a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid U/Sec. 24(d) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

O.S. No.892 / 2025

Dt. 06.05.2026

DECREE:

This suit is coming up before me on 06.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Potlapalli Viplavakumar, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 & 2 has Set Exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record having heard and stood over for consideration, this court doth order and decree:

1.That the suit be and is hereby decreed without costs.

2.That the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are the legal heirs and successors of late Keloth Bujji in their respective capacities as mother, brother and sister respectively.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2026.

V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH AND EXCISE,

KHAMMAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

S.No.For Plaintiffs For Defendants 1Stamps on plaintE 2Stamps on power X 3Stamps on process P 4Stamps on petitionsA 5Publication chargesR 6Stamps on documentsT 7Advocate fee E 8Misc. & type charges

Total

V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH AND EXCISE,

KHAMMAM.

1 of 5 O.S.No.57 of 2026

Dt: 06.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PROH AND EXCISE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 06th day of May, 2026

Present:: Smt. G.AKHILA GOUD,

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Proh And Excise Court, Khammam.

O.S. No. 57 of 2026

Between:

1. Chekuri Srinivas, S/o Late Nageswara Rao, Age: 52 yrs, Occ: Private job, R/o H.No.11-4/12, Shiridi Sainagar, Green hills, Near TNGO’s Colony, Pedda Thanda village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Kolikonda Krishna Veni, W/o Ajay Babu, D/o Late Ch. Nageswara Rao, Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Home maker, R/o H.No.15-8-204, 5th lane, opposite to electrical sub-station, Srinagar colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam City and District. … Plaintiff No.1 and 2.

AND

1. The Tahsildar, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District.

2. To whom so ever may it concern. … Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

This case coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri SVR Purushothama Rao,learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and the defendants remained ex-parte and having been heard and stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to declare them as the legal heirs and successors of deceased Chekuri

Nageswara Rao, S/o Late Seetharamaiah and for costs.

2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

The Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2 are brothers and are the sons of late Chekuri Nageswara Rao and Ramana. The said Chekuri

Nageswara Rao died intestate on 02.06.2024 due to ill-health, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only surviving legal heirs and successors to 2 of 5 O.S.No.57 of 2026

Dt: 06.05.2026

his estate. It is submitted that the wife and parents of Chekuri

Nageswara Rao predeceased him, and except the plaintiffs, there are no other legal heirs entitled to succeed to his estate. It is further submitted that on 01.12.2025, the Plaintiff No.1 approached the

Tahsildar, Khammam Rural Mandal (Defendant No.1), seeking issuance of a legal heir certificate in respect of the deceased Chekuri

Nageswara Rao. However, the Defendant No.1 refused to issue the said certificate on the ground that the deceased was not a

Government employee but an farmer and therefore the office is not competent to issue such certificate. The plaintiffs were advised to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. Therefore, having no other efficacious remedy, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit seeking declaration that they are the legal heirs and successors of late Chekuri Nageswara Rao.

3.Summons served to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 failed to appear before the Court and he remained ex-parte. Paper publication filed for Defendant No.2 and no one appeared before the Court on behalf of defendant No.2. Hence, defendant No.2 set ex-parte.

4.To establish their case, the plaintiff No.2 herself examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A2.

Ex.A1 is Death certificate of Chekuri Nageswara Rao,

dt:02.06.2024. Ex.A2 is Xerox copies of Aadhar Cards of plaintiff No.1

and 2 (Compared with original).

5.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiffs.

3 of 5 O.S.No.57 of 2026

Dt: 06.05.2026

6. Now the point for consideration is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as prayed for ?

POINT:

7. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seeking for relief of declaration that they are the legal heirs of Chekuri Nageswara Rao, S/o Late Seetharamaiah as the defendant No.1 failed to give legal heir certificate and also advised them to approach the Court. To establish their case, the plaintiff No.2 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A2.

The plaintiff No.2 filed her evidence in the form of chief-affidavit and in her chief examination, she reiterated the plaint averments. In support of their case, plaintiffs filed Ex.A1 and A2 documents. A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that the said Chekuri Nageswara Rao, S/o Late

Seetharamaiah died on 02.06.2024. Ex.A2 is the aadhar cards of the plaintiffs which shows their identity. The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Chekuri Nageswara Rao,

S/o Late Seetharamaiah. According to plaintiffs, after death of

Chekuri Nageswara Rao, S/o Late Seetharamaiah, they approached the defendant No.1 for legal heir certificate, but the defendant No.1 not issued legal heir certificate to the plaintiffs. As already noticed, the defendant No.1 remained exparte and did not choose to file any written statement. Further, no one appeared before the Court objecting the claim of the plaintiffs after paper publication was filed.

4 of 5 O.S.No.57 of 2026

Dt: 06.05.2026

Thus, the sole testimony of PW.1 is unchallenged and un-rebutted.

There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1.

8.On a careful consideration of the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs are satisfactorily established that they are the legal heirs of late

Chekuri Nageswara Rao, S/o Late Seetharamaiah. Accordingly, they are entitled for the declaration as prayed for. Point is answered accordingly.

9.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs, declaring that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs and successors of late Chekuri

Nageswara Rao, S/o Late Seetharamaiah in their respective capacities as son and daughter. However, it is made clear that, as per Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, this declaration is binding only on the parties to the suit and not on third parties.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH AND EXCISE,

KHAMMAM.

5 of 5 O.S.No.57 of 2026

Dt: 06.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW.1: K.Krishnaveni. -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Death certificate of Chekuri Nageswara Rao, dt:02.06.2024. Ex.A2: Xerox copies of Aadhar Cards of plaintiff No.1 and 2 (Compared with original).

Defendants: Nil.

Sd/-

V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH AND EXCISE,

KHAMMAM.

1 of 4 O.S. No.694 of 2025

Dt: 06.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

PROH AND EXCISE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 06th day of May, 2026

Present:: Smt. G.AKHILA GOUD,

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Proh And Excise Court, Khammam.

O.S.No. 694 of 2025

Between: Kakumanu Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o Subbaiah, Age: 44 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Nachepalli village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District. …Plaintiff.

AND

Kurapati Tiruppaiah @ Tirupathi, S/o Pichaiah, Age: 48 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Nachepalli village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District. …Defendant.

This case coming before me on 04.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Sk. Riyazuddin, learned counsel for plaintiff and the defendant remained ex-parte and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.25,750/- being the

principal amount along with interest due on a promissory note, dated

19.07.2022 and for costs.

2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

Plaintiff and defendant belongs to same village and are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.07.2022 for his family necessities at his house Nachepalli village, Nelakondapalli

Mandal, Khammam District and on the same day, the defendant executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the same along with interest @ 24% per annum on demand. Subsequently, in- 2 of 4 O.S. No.694 of 2025

Dt: 06.05.2026

spite of several demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the debt. The defendant was due an amount of Rs.25,750/-. Hence, he filed the suit.

3.The defendant remained ex-parte.

4.To establish his case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

Ex.A1 is original promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff, dated:19.07.2022 and Ex.A2 is the Xerox copy of aadhar card of plaintiff (compared with original).

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.The point for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for ?

POINT:

7.I have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.25,750/- basing on Ex.A1/promissory note, dated 19.07.2022. In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1. The plaintiff filed his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit and re-iterated the plaint averments in verbatim. According to him, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from plaintiff on 19.07.2022 at his house and on the same day, the defendant executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the same along with interest 3 of 4 O.S. No.694 of 2025

Dt: 06.05.2026

@ 24% per annum. It is further evidence of PW.1 that the defendant failed to repay the said amount despite repeated demands. Ex.A1 is pronote, dated:19.07.2022. Ex.A1 clinchingly goes to show that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff and Ex.A2 shows the identity of plaintiff. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in support of the suit and there is no material before the Court to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. As already noticed, the defendant remained ex-parte and did not choose to contest the matter and thus, the evidence of PW.1 remains intact and goes unchallenged. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Ex.A1 Ex.A2 clinchingly proves the suit claim and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim. The point is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.25,750/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.15,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 6th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH AND EXCISE,

KHAMMAM.

4 of 4 O.S. No.694 of 2025

Dt: 06.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants: PW.1: K.Mallikarjuna Rao. -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff, dated:19.07.2022. Ex.A2: Xerox copy of aadhar card of plaintiff (compared with original).

Defendants: Nil.

Sd/-

V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH AND EXCISE,

KHAMMAM.