Smt. G.kalarchana

Page No.1 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT WANAPARTHY

Dated, the 6th day of April, 2026

Present:- Smt.Gogi Kalarchana, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

O.S.No.484 of 2025

Between: Boya Padma, W/o. Niranjan, D/o. Late Boya Chinna Balaiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kethepally village, Pangal mandal, Wanaparthy district.

...Plaintiff.

AND

1. Boya Ramachandraiah, S/o. Late Boya Chinna Balaiah, Age: 40 years,

2. Boya Ramesh, S/o. Late Boya Chinna Balaiah, Age: 38 years,

3. Boya Laxmidevamma, W/o. Late Chinna Balaiah, Age: 70 years, All are Occ: Agriculture and R/o. Kethepally village Pangal mandal Wanaparthy district.

4. Shashirekha, W/o. Ramachandraiah, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 6-338/2, Nehru Nagar, Murvakonda, Kurnool District Andhra Pradesh State, presently residing with her husband i.e., defendant No.1 at Kethepally village Pangal mandal Wanaparthy district. …Defendants. Sub: Suit for partition and separate possession.

* * *

This case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S.Baleeshwaraiah, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Defendants remained exparte; and the matter having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendant Nos.1 to 4

Page No.2 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025

(i)To pass preliminary decree for partition and separate possession in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule properties, entitling 1/4th share to plaintiff over the suit schedule properties by fixing metes and bounds.

(ii)Cancellation of registered sale deed document

No.7157/2017 dated 06.07.2017 executed by Late Boya Chinna

Balaiah in favour of defendant No.4 along with costs.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that-

(i) Plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the daughter and sons of late Boya Chinna Balaiah, S/o. Gokaram R/o. Kethepally village

Pangal mandal. Defendant No.3 is the widow of the said late Boya

Chinna Balaiah. Defendant No. 4 is the daughter-in-law of late Boya

Chinna Balaiah and wife of defendant No.1. All the parties are Hindus by religion and constitute a Hindu undivided joint family and governed by the Hindu Succession Act. One Hanumanthu the common ancestor of the parties has died long back leaving behind him his son

Gokaram as his legal heir. The said Gokaram also died long back leaving behind him Boya Chinna Balaiah as his son. The said Boya

Chinna Balaiah has died intestate about 15 years ago leaving behind him the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 as his legal heirs i.e., sons and daughter and the defendant No.3 as his wife who is also the legal heir.

(ii) That the land bearing Sy.Nos. 166 of an extent of Acs.0- 0½ gts, in Sy.No.165 of an extent of Acs.0-01 gts, in 477 of an extent of 0-01 gts, 583 of an extent of Acs.0-02 gts, 165 of an extent of Acs.0-03 gts, 476 of an extent of Acs.0-03 gts, 163 of an extent of Acs.0-19 gts, 583

Page No.3 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025 of an extent of Acs.0-21 gts, 288 of an extent of Acs.1-02 gts all are situated in the limits of Kethepally village Pangal mandal Wanaparthy district including one well called as Boyavani bavi was originally owned by Late Hanumanthu and after his demise devolved on his son

Gokaram and after his demise devolved on Boya Chinna Balaiah the father of the plaintiff and the defendants Nos.1 and 2 and husband of defendant No.3. The said Boya Chinna Balaiah was doing agriculture in the said ancestral property. The patta was also standing in the name of the said Boya Chinna Balaiah. The said Boya Chinna Balaiah gave the above said lands to one Raghunatham S/o. Chandraiah R/o.

Kethepally in exchange orally and got the land bearing Sy.No. 442 of an extent of Acs.7-00 gts situated in the limits of Kethepally village.

The said Sy.No. 442 is mutated in the name of the said Boya Chinna

Balaiah. Further submitted that out of the 7-00 acres of land Ac.1-09 gts was acquired by the Government for digging the Bheema canal and

Boya Chinna Balaiah has received the compensation amount about 7 years ago. The remaining Ac.5-31 gts in Sy.No.442 is the subject matter of the suit and it is called as the suit land and particularly described in the plaint schedule. After acquisition the revenue officials have assigned the sub-division to the said land as 442/3 of an extent of

Acs. 5-31 gts. The said property is the joint family and ancestral property of the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 3 and each of them has got 1/4th share each. The plaintiff has several times demanded the defendants No.1 to 3 for partition of the suit land and allotment of 1/4th share to her. The defendants No.1 to 3 went on postponing the mater for one or the other reasons. Finally, the defendants No.1 to 3 have refused to arrange for partition of the suit land on or about 01-06-

Page No.4 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025 2020. The plaintiff is entitled to claim 1/4th share in the suit schedule property.

(iii)Recently it is learnt by the plaintiff that, about 40 days ago i.e., on 1-6-2020 the defendant No.4 has obtained a registered sale deed to the effect that Boya Chinna Balaiah has sold the entire Acs.7-00 acres of land to her vide registered sale deed document No. 7157/2017 Dt.

6-7-2017. In fact, by that date the Acs.7-00 was not available since the

Government has acquired Ac. 1-09 gts for Bheema canal and the available land was only Ac. 5-31 gts. As such the sale deed is illegal and void and Boya Chinna Balaiah was not having any right over the suit land to sell the same to the defendant No.4 who is his own daughter-in-law created document.

(iv)It is further case of plaintiff that the defendant No.1 played fraud on Boya Chinna Balaiah and obtained the above said registered sale deed in the name of his wife defendant No.4. As such the said document is illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiff and it is liable to be cancelled. On 1-7-2020 the plaintiff through her Advocate got issued the legal notice to defendants No.1 to 4 herein for partition and allotment of 1/4th share to her in the suit schedule property and also for cancellation of the above said sale deed. The defendants refused to receive the said notice. Hence, the plaintiff is seeking the relief of the cancellation of the said sale deed also to avoid legal complications. Hence, the suit.

3.Defendant Nos.1 to 4 refused to receive summons hence deemed to be sufficient service. Called absent no representation, Hence, set exparte.

Page No.5 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025

4.During the course of enquiry plaintiff /Boya Padma examined as

Pw.1 filed her evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and marked Exs.A1 to A13. One third party to the suit by name Gujjula

Kotaiah S/o. Gujjula Balaswamy examined as Pw.2. Plaintiff closed her evidence.

5.The Points for consideration are -

1. Whether the suit schedule property is joint family property and liable for partition?

2. Whether plaintiff entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed executed by late Boya Chinna Balaiah in favour of defendant No.4 as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6.Heard learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the entire record.

POINT NO.1:

7.The present suit filed by plaintiff to pass preliminary decree for partition and separate possession with metes and bounds and also to cancellation of registered sale deed document No.7157/2017 dated 06.07.2017 executed by Late Boya Chinna Balaiah in favour of defendant No.4.

8. As seen from the record, plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in suit schedule properties which is joint family property and she being legal heir entitled for partition so burden of proof is on plaintiff to establish suit property is joint family property liable for partition and she entitled for ¼ th share as prayed.

9.Defendants though received summons but refused the same not attended the court and contested the suit. To substantiate case of plaintiff she herself examined as Pw1 filing her chief affidavit

Page No.6 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025 reiterated plaint averments and marked Exs.A1 to A13 and in her support she examined one third party by name Gujjula Kotaiah stating that plaintiff and defendants are his relatives and he know all the facts about the suit dispute.

10.As seen from the plaint it is the main case of the plaintiff that one late Hanumanthu was the common ancestor of plaintiff and defendants his son was Late Gokaram, who is father of the Late Boya

Chinna Balaiah father of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and husband of defendant No.3 and father-in-law of defendant No.4, defendant No1 and 4 are husband and wife. Further contention of the plaintiff that actually land bearing Sy.No’s.166 an extent of Acs.0-1/2 gts,165 of an extent of Acs.0-01 gts, 477 of an extent of 0-01 gts, 583 of an extent of Acs.0-02 gts, 165 of an extent of Acs.0-03 gts, 476 of an extent of Acs.0-03 gts, 163 of an extent of Acs.0-19 gts, 583 of an extent of Acs.0-21 gts, 288 of an extent of Acs.1-02 gts all are situated in the limits of Kethepally village Pangal mandal Wanaparthy district including one well called as Boyavani bavi was originally owned by

Late Hanumanthu and after his demise devolved on his son Gokaram and after his demise devolved on Boya Chinna Balaiah father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 2 and husband of 3. The said Boya

Chinna Balaiah was doing agriculture in the said ancestral property, patta was also standing in the name of Boya Chinna Balaiah to show that properties above standing in the name of Late Hanmanthu plaintiff filed Ex.A13 Khasra Pahani.

11.It is the specific case of plaintiff that during his life time of Boya

Chinna Balaiah gave the above lands to one Raghunatham S/o.

Page No.7 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025

Chandraiah, R/o. Kethepally in exchange orally and got the land bearing Sy.No.442 of an extent of Acs.07-00 gts situated in the limits of Kethepally village. The said Sy.No.442 is mutated in the name of

Boya Chinna Balaiah. So it is the main contention of the plaintiff that

Boya Chinna Balaiah in exchange of ancestral properties acquired suit schedule property from Raghunatham S/o. Chandraiah so same is ancestral joint family property liable for partition. To support her contentions she filed Exs.A1 is the 1-B ROR on perusal of same which is “showing that an extent of Acs.07-00 gts were mutated in

the name of Boya Chinna Balaiah from the name of Raghunatham

S/o. Chandraiah. The mode of acquisition property is showing ‘sada

kagitham”, said ‘sada kagitham’ not filed before the Court so as per

Ex.A1 it is clear that the suit property was mutated in the name of

Boya Chinna Balaiah vide No.I/117/97, dated 02.05.1997 so the mutation is showing basing on “Sada Kagitham” but not for exchange. which is contrary to the plaintiff contention that Boya

Chinna Balaiah acquired land in exchange of ancestral properties which are stated above in different survey numbers to Ragunandan. To support the exchange no documentary proof filed. Though she examined one third party by name Gujjula Kotaiah S/o. Gujjula

Balaswamy he deposed in favour of plaintiff as pleaded by her in her chief affidavit, but he is not the person in whose presence the exchange of property was taken place and no documentary proof to support the transfer through exchange filed before Court.

12.Even if we peruse the further documentary proof on record

Ex.A2 is pahani for the year 1999-2000 showing in the name of Boya

Chinna Balaiah S/o. Gokaram property for an extent of Acs.7-00 gts in

Page No.8 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025

Sy.No.442 as pattedhar and possessor. Even if we consider the further documents in the name of Boya Chinna Balaiah. Ex.A3, Ex.A4 are pahani for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 supporting property in the name of Boya Chinna Balaiah S/o. Gokaram. Ex.A5 is the Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 for Sy.No.442 (Suit land) showing an extent of Ac.13-00 gts in the name of one Janardhan who is vendor of

Late Boya Chinna Balaiah from whose name property mutated to Late

Balaiah’s name.

13.Ex.A6 computerized 1-B of ROR in the name of Boya Chinna

Balaiah showing all the survey numbers pleaded in plaint which are ancestral properties acquired by Chinna Balaiah from his ancestor Late

Hanmanthu still continuing in his name. Which is contrary to pleadings that Late Chinna Balaiah exchanged the said ancestral properties for suit properties from said Raghunatham. The pleadings are not clear what is the extent of land in the survey numbers pleaded by the plaintiff in plaint are total extent of land exchanged for the suit schedule property by Boya Chinna Balaiah and on behalf of whom the exchange was done and no oral and documentary proof produced.

Though Pw.2 examined as discussed supra he is not the person in whose presence the alleged exchange was taken place. So plaintiff failed to prove the alleged exchange of properties and suit property acquired under exchange for ancestral property so is also ancestral joint family property. So as per discussion supra plaintiff failed to establish suit property is joint family property and liable for partition.

As per Ex.A1 it is showing Late Chinna Boyanna acquired the suit property in his life time so it showing self acquired property of Late

Page No.9 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025

Boya Chinna Balaiah. Point No.1 answered accordingly against plaintiff.

Point No.2:

14.It is further contention of the plaintiff that out of Acs.7-00 gts in

Sy.No.442 government acquired Acs.1-09 gts for digging Bheema canal and late Boya Chinna Balaiah has received the compensation amount about 7 years ago. To that extent also she has not filed any oral or documentary evidence in which year it was acquired and what is the compensation amount and who received the same no details pleaded in plaint. Ex.A7 is I-B ROR issued on 20.07.2018, Ex.A8

Meea seva pahani for the year 2017 showing an extent of Ac.7-0gts in

Sy.No.442 in the name of Boya Chinna Balaiah S/o Gokaram. But

Ex.A9is the Mee seva I-B ROR for the year 2020 issued on 07.07.2020 showing an extent of land in Sy.no. 442/3 is Ac.5-31 gts.

Basing on the Ex.A9 plaintiff counsel contended that Ex.A9 clearly supporting that an extent of Ac.1-09 gts of land acquired by

Government and available land is only Ac.5-31gts but defendant No.1 illegally created Registered sale Deed in favour of his wife Defendant

No.4 for an extent of Ac.7-00 gts which itself establishes fraud. But as seen from Ex.A9 is not clear whether the government acquired the land and when it was acquired after execution of sale deed or before not revealing.

15.It is the main allegation of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is ancestral property and during the life time of Boya Chinna

Balaiah, his son defendant No.1 illegally got created Ex.A10

Registered Sale Deed in favour of his wife i.e. defendant No.4 without

Page No.10 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025 any consideration which is illegal document created only to usher up the suit schedule property without partition and Boya Chinna Balaiah has no right to execute the same being the ancestral property. It is further contention of the plaintiff that the registered sale deed document No.7157/2017, dated 06.07.2017 is created document not

Bonafide played fraud on Boya Chinna Balaiah and obtained the said registered sale deed without consideration in the name of D4 by D1.

As such the said document is illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiff. It is the main allegation of the plaintiff that actually the suit schedule property an extent of Acs.7-00 gts acquired by Boya Chinna

Balaiah in exchange of ancestral property so property is also ancestral property and out of that Acs.1-09 gts was acquired by government, after that, only remaining land is Acs.5-31 gts is in existing how the sale deed for Acs.7-00 gts is executed by Boya Chinna Balaiah so it clearly proves is a created document to usher up the suit schedule property. The contentions of the plaintiff is not tenable as seen from

Ex.A10/Registered sale deed in the name of defendant No.4 was executed on 06.07.2017 in support of the sale transaction and right of vendor i.e. Boya Chinna Balaiah annexed Form I-B ROR to the registered sale deed which clearly showing an extent of Acs.7-00 gts in Sy.No.442 is in the name of vendor for the year 2017. To support her contentions plaintiff mostly relies on Ex.A9 1-B ROR for the year 2020 in the name of Boya Chinna Balaiah for Sy.No.442/3 showing an extent of Acs.5-31 gts land as discussed there are no pleadings when

Ac.1-09 gts acquired vaguely pleaded that about 7 years before, no proof filed which shows as on the date of execution of sale deed the property is not acquired if really it was acquired prior to Ex.A10 sale

Page No.11 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025 deed the document may not be registered as property acquired by the government.

16.Plaintiff filed one Genealogy along with plaint, in said

Genealogy showing “that Boya Chinna Balaiah has three sons i.e.

defendant Nos.1 and 2 and another son by name Abdulla, D3 is the

widow of Boya Cinna Balaiah and plaintiff shown as daughter of

said Abdulla and the plaint pleadings are not tallying. Plaint is silent with regard to Abdulla. As seen from the overall pleadings in plaint there is no mention that Boya Chinna Balaiah has three sons and

Abdulla is one of the son and she is daughter of said Abdulla and to support either her pleadings or her genealogy no documentary proof filed as it is creating doubt about the relationship between defendants and her and there are no details mentioned about her father Abdulla when he died and who are the other legal heirs of said Abdulla.

Further Ex.A11/legal notice issued by the plaintiff on 01.07.2020 to defendant Nos.1 to 4. In that “she stated that some of the lands were purchased by Boya Chinna Balaiah from the income of agriculture made in the remaining ancestral property. The said Chinna Balaiah has died about 1 ½ years ago leaving behind him 4 sons i.e. defendant

Nos.1 to 3 and one Abdulla as his legal heirs. Abdulla has died leaving behind him plaintiff as his legal heir. She is the daughter of Abdulla.

Hence, she inherited 1/4th share in suit properties. The plaint is not reflecting said statements mentioned in legal notice both are contrary.

17.As seen from the overall evidence on record and documents plaintiff fails to prove that late Boya Chinna Balaiah is blessed with three sons and she is the legal heir of late Boya Chinna Balaiah either

Page No.12 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025 she is daughter of late Abdulla or Boya Chinna Balaiah as pleaded by her. Though defendant Nos.1 to 4 refused the summons and not appeared before the Court but the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove her case and her entitlement. To show that she is legal heir of late Boya Chinna Balaiah except filing the revenue record she has not filed any documentary proof, and to show that she is the daughter of

Abdulla and Abdulla is son of late Boya Chinna Balaiah and Boya

Chinna Balaiah acquired the land either in exchange of ancestral property or by selling ancestral property no documentary proof filed.

Mere doing agriculture in an ancestral property with that income if a person purchased or acquires the other properties it is not deemed to be an ancestral property. If a person is sold the ancestral property and with that income he purchased then it is presumed to be part of joint family property. The plaintiff utterly fails to show that late Boya

Chinna Balaiah purchased the property by exchanging the ancestral properties or selling the ancestral properties with the income of sad sale he purchased suit property. As per Ex.A1 it is showing that he acquired the property through saada kaagithamu and implemented his name which shows that he is the owner of the property. During his lifetime executed registered sale deed and not examined any of the witness to the document Ex.A10 that it was executed without consideration except self serving statements there is no documentary proof and oral evidence except Pw.2 who is not the witness to Ex.A10 to support the plaintiff case that the Ex.A10 was executed without consideration. Hence plaintiff fails to establish Ex.A10 sale is created and liable to be cancelled. So Point No.2 answered accordingly against plaintiff. As per overall discussion plaintiff fails to prove her right

Page No.13 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025 over the suit schedule property. Hence, I am inclined to dismiss the suit.

POINT NO.2:

18.In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

-Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 6th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: P.W.1:Boya Padma P.W.2:Gujjula Kotaiah

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1:Certified copy of old ROR. Ex.A2:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000. Ex.A3:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-2009. Ex.A4: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-2010. Ex.A5:Certified copy of khasra pahani for the year 1954-1955. Ex.A6:Computerized form No.1-B of ROR, dated 02.07.2017. Ex.A7:Computerized form No.1-B of ROR, dated 20.07.2018. Ex.A8:Computerized pahani for the year 2017, dated 20.07.2018. Ex.A9:Computerized form No.1-B of ROR, dated 07.07.2020. Ex.A10:Certified copy of registered sale deed document No.7157/2017, dated 06.07.2017. Ex.A11:Office copy of legal notice with unserved postal covers,

dated 01.07.2020.

Ex.A12:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1984-85.

Page No.14 of 14 O.S.No.484 of 2025

Ex.A13:Certified copy of khasra pahani for the year 1954-1955.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Nil

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Page No.1 of 10 OS No.738 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT WANAPARTHY

Dated, this the 27th day of April, 2026

Present: Smt. Gogi Kalarchana, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Original Suit Number 738 of 2025

(Old OS No.111 of 2022 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Wanaparthy)

Between: Middi Laxmi Devamma, W/o. M.Maheshwaram, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture and Household, R/o. Banda Ravipakula village of Revally village of same mandal.

…Plaintiff. AND

1. The District Collector, Wanaparthy

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy

3. The Tahsildar, Revally.

4. G.Pedda Swamy, S/o. Saraiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Rajapur village of Kodair mandal.

5. M.Ramulu, S/o. Kistaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Field Assistant and Agriculturist, R/o. Banda Ravipakula village of Revally mandal.

6.Jalle Ramulu S/o. Balaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Banda Ravipakula village of Revally mandal.

…Defendants. Sub:- Suit for perpetual injunction *** This suit came up for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Md. Niranjan Pasha, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. S.Harshavardhan Rao, learned counsel for defendant No.4, Sri.Babu Pears Perike, learned counsel for defendant No.5 and Sri.Shivva Sreenivasulu, learned counsel for defendant No.6 and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants, and perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

Page No.2 of 10 OS No.738 of 2025

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to distribute the compensation amount in respect of the suit schedule property to defendant Nos.4 to 6 and also restrain the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 from receiving the compensation amount in respect of suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 to 3 with costs.

2.Brief facts of the plaint:

(i)Plaintiff submits that she is the original owner and possessor of suit land bearing No.104/36 an extent of Acs.1-00 gts and

Sy.No.104/35 an extent of Acs.0-30 gts and Sy.No.223/1A an extent of 1-30 gts, total Acs.3-20 gts situated within the limits of Bandaravi pakula village of Revally mandal. Plaintiff further submits that plaintiff being the owner and possessor enjoying the suit schedule property without any interference or objections from any corner while so Government of Telangana have acquired the said land under

Palamuru Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Project Scheme Reservoir at

Bandaravipakula village of Revally mandal. Plaintiff land was proposed to acquire and notified in the proceedings of defendants 1 to 3 vide Sl.No.A/521/18 pertaining to the suit schedule property.

Defendants 4 to 6 who are nothing to do with the suit property not having any kind of interest but with false claim trying to make illegal interference over the suit schedule property with illegal claim.

Defendants 4 to 6 are not entitled to make any objections with their illegal interference to deprive the rights of the plaintiff.

(ii)Plaintiff further submits that plaintiff being the pattedar and possessor approached to defendants 1 to 3 on 20.03.2018 to receive the

Page No.3 of 10 OS No.738 of 2025 compensation amount for the proposed acquired suit schedule property but defendants 4 to 6 without having any right or any entitlement making obstruction and interfere in receiving the compensation of the suit schedule property with malafide intention trying to make loss to the plaintiff hence this suit to prevent illegal interference of defendants

Nos.4 to 6.

3. Summons served to defendants 1 to 6, Learned Assistant

Government Pleader filed memo of appearance for defendants 1 to 3 but fails to file the written statement even after ample opportunities hence right to file W.S of defendants 1 to 3 forfeited. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 appeared through their counsel. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 not filed

W.S and hence their right to file W.S forfeited. Defendant No.6 filed

W.S.

4. Brief facts of the written stated filed by the defendant No.6:

Defendant No.6 denied the material allegations which are not specifically admitted and claimed to put strict proof of all allegations which are not admitted. Defendants No.6 admits that the government of Telangana acquired the suit land under Palamuru Rangareddy Lift

Irrigation Project Scheme Reservoir at Bandaravipakula village of

Revally mandal vide proceeding No. A/521/18 but denied that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and defendants 4 to 6 are nothing to do with the suit schedule property and they have no interest.

Defendant submits that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No.104 an extent of Acs.1-30 gts situated within the limits of Bandaravipakula village of Revally mandal which is part of suit schedule property. That defendant have purchased the said land in the name of his wife by name Lingamma from Midde Chinnaiah S/o.

Page No.4 of 10 OS No.738 of 2025

Edanna who is none other than uncle of plaintiff on 09.05.1989 after death of defendant No.6 wife the defendant No.6 has got implemented the above said land in his name in revenue records. Since the date of purchase of above said land the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoying over the same as absolute owner. Plaintiff approached the

Court with unclean hands by suppressing the real facts as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence prays to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the rival contentions the following issues were settled for trial by the Predecessor officer in the office:

1. Whether the plaintiffs is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for? 3.To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 filed her chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief reiterated the plaint averments and marked Exs.A1 to A18. In her support plaintiff examined one third party by name Gangasani Rajavardhan Reddy S/o.

Buchi Reddy as PW.2 and no documents marked. After completing the chief examination of plaintiff No.1 defendants 5 and 6 counsels were not turn up to cross-examine PW.1 so they were set exparte. Learned

AGP cross examined PWs.1 and 2 and closed the plaintiff evidence.

During the course of defendants evidence as defendant 4 to 6 set exparte and defendants 1 to 3 whose right to file the W.S forfeited reported no defendants evidence hence, defendants evidence closed.

7.Heard both learned counsels for plaintiff and AGP for D1 to D3.

Perused entire record.

Page No.5 of 10 OS No.738 of 2025

ISSUE NO.1 and 2:-

8.It is the case of plaintiff that she is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property and has been enjoying the same and the Government was proposed and notified suit property for acquisition under Palamuru Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Project Scheme

Reservoir at Bandaravipakula village of Revally mandal in which the suit schedule property was acquired vide Sl.No.152/2018. It is the main case of the plaintiff that defendants 4 to 6 obstructed illegally her from getting the compensation amount which was paid by the defendants 1 to 3 for the suit land hence she filed the present suit.

9.As seen from the Written Statement filed by the defendant No. 6 though he fails to cross-examine PW.1 he contending that actually father in law of plaintiff sold away suit property in the name of his wife on 09.05.1989 since then his wife is in possession and after demise of his wife the said land was implemented in his name and he has been in possession till the Government acquire his part of land so contending that the plaintiff is not owner and possessor of suit property he is the owner and possessor entitled for the compensation amount.

10.To support plaintiff case that she is the owner and possessor of suit property as on the date of acquisition of land by Government and she entitle for compensation she examined herself as Pw1 and filed

Ex.A1 to A18 in her support. And also examined one third party in her support as Pw2.

11.As can be seen from documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff as Pw1, she marked Ex.A1 pahani for the year 2009-10 in the name of

Midde Maheshwaram S/o. Bichaiah who is the husband of plaintiff in

Page No.6 of 10 OS No.738 of 2025

Sy.No.104/11 an extent of Acs.0-30 gts Sy.No.104/20 in Acs.1-00 gts and in Sy.No.223 Acs.1-30 gts total extent of land Ac.3.20gts the extent of land claimed by plaintiff as suit schedule property. Ex.A2 to

A9 are the Mee seva pahanies for the fasli year 1420-1427 i.e. from the year 2010-2017 pahanies are showing pattadar name as Midya Laxmi

Devamma W/o. Midde Maheshwaram plaintiff herein for

Sy.No.104/36 an extent of Acs.1-00 gts. And Ex.A10 to A16 mee seva pahani from fasli year 1420-1427 i.e. from 2010 2017 for the

Sy.No.104/35 for an extent of Acs.0-30 gts in the name of Midde

Laxmi devamma W/o. Maheshwarama I.e. Pw.1 herein. Ex.A17 total 9 copies of pahanies for the Sy.No.223/1/R an extent of Acs.1-30 gts for fasli year 1420-1427 in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A18 is 1-B ROR in the name of plaintiff dated 18.11.2017 for the suit survey numbers standing in the name of plaintiff.

12.Exs.A1 to A18 supporting plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property till 2017. It is admitted fact that in the year 2018 government proposed and acquired suit property for its project and deposited the compensation amount so above documents supports plaintiffs claim. Though the defendant No.6 specifically claimed that the part of land in Sy.No.104 belongs to him and he is entitled for claim in compensation and plaintiff is not at all entitled for any amount and actually plaintiff’s father-in-law was alienate the suit property to him. To support his contentions defendant No.6 not turn up either to cross examine PW1 to disprove the plaintiff case or to support his case by leading his evidence.

13.It is settled law that if party puts his defence through his pleadings and fails to substantiate the same by entering into witness

Page No.7 of 10 OS No.738 of 2025 box an adverse inference can be drawn that the case set-up by him is false. In this case on hand “ Even though defendants taken so many pleas that plaintiff is not owner and possessor of land in-turn he is the owner and possessor of suit land as he purchased suit land from father-in-law of plaintiff and plaintiff has no right and entitlement over suit property and on compensation amount, but not proved by entering into witness box hence adverse inference can be drawn against defendants under section 114 g of Evidence Act’. Further, It isheld in Vidyadhar Vs Manik Rao

AIR 1999 SC 1441 “Where a party to the suit does not enter into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. Hence, defendant fails to discharge his onus of proof.

14.But Learned AGP though his right to file written statement is forfeited but to impeach the credibility of Pw1 he cross-examined her, but nothing specific elicited to disprove her case. Pw.1 deposed during cross examination that suit schedule property owned by her, admitted that government has acquired suit property from her and paid compensation to her. The very suggestion showing that the compensation amount was deposited in her name. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 have no right and no claim over the suit property as she is the only person who is entitled to claim compensation as such the compensation amount must be given by government only to her for the acquired suit property. Further admitted that she has knowledge that in case if the government find any false claim made by her in near future pertaining to compensation claim the government can claim any action against her.

15.During the cross examination of PW.2, learned AGP elicited that suit schedule property is mutated in the name of plaintiff Government acquired the land and deposited compensation in the name of plaintiff.

Page No.8 of 10 OS No.738 of 2025

Admitted that defendants 4 to 6 have no share in acquired land and they have no objection for depositing the compensation in the name of plaintiff. Plaintiff is absolute owner of suit property she only entitled for compensation deposited in her name he was deposing true facts he know the consequences of deposing false.

16.As seen from the oral and documentary evidence on record plaintiff claiming she is the owner and possessor of suit schedule property, to support her claim she filed Exs.A1 to A18. Though defendant No.6 filed the WS contending that he purchased the suit property from father in law of plaintiff but not turnup to prove his case.

The very pleadings of defendant that the property belongs to father in law of plaintiff supports that it is her family property and after demise of her father in law it was succeeded by his son by name Midde

Maheshwaram who is husband of plaintiff to support the same Ex.A1 filed to show that the plaintiff’s husband name was implemented in revenue record and after him it was implemented in the name of plaintiff. Admittedly property was acquired by the Government and deposited the compensation amount in the name of plaintiff. PW2 supported that D4 to D6 have no right and share in suit schedule property and Plaintiff alone entitled for compensation. As per relief claimed by plaintiff this suit filed only to restrain defendants 1 to 3 who are Government authorities, District collector Wanaparthy, The

Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar Revally Restraining to distribute the compensation amount to defendants 4 to 6 and also to restraining the defendant Nos.4 to 6 in receiving the compensation amount in respect of suit schedule property. As per the overall evidence on record the plaintiff established basing on documentary

Page No.9 of 10 OS No.738 of 2025 evidence vide Ex.A1 to A18 and through oral testimony of Pw1 and

Pw2 that as on the date of acquiring suit schedule property in the years 2018 plaintiff is in possession and defendants 4 to 6 interfering with her right to receive benefits against suit land so she entitled for relief of permanent injunction as claimed for. Issue no.1 and 2 answered accordingly.

Issue No.3:-

17. In the result, the suit is decreed without costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendants, restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to distribute the compensation amount to defendant Nos.4 to 6 and restraining defendant Nos.4 to 6 in receiving the compensation amount in respect of suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 to 3 without due process of law.

-Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: P.W.1:Midde Laxmi Devamma P.W.2:Gangasani Rajavardhan Reddy

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10 for the suit Sy.Nos dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A2:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1420 (Fasli) in Sy.No.104/36, dated 18.11.2017.

Page No.10 of 10 OS No.738 of 2025

Ex.A3:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1421 (Fasli) in Sy.No.104/36, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A4: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1422 (Fasli) in Sy.No.104/36, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A5:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1423 (Fasli) in Sy.No.104/36, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A6:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1424 (Fasli) in Sy.No.104/36, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A7:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1425 (Fasli) in Sy.No.104/36, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A8:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1426 (Fasli) in Sy.No.104/36, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A9:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1427 (Fasli) in Sy.No.104/36, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A10:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1420 (Fasli) in Sy.No.223/1A, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A11:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1421 (Fasli) in Sy.No.223/1A, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A12:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1422 (Fasli) in Sy.No.223/1A, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A13:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1423 (Fasli) in Sy.No.223/1A, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A14:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1424 (Fasli) in Sy.No.223/1A, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A15:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1425 (Fasli) in Sy.No.223/1A, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A16:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1426 (Fasli) in Sy.No.223/1A, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A17:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1427 (Fasli) in Sy.No.223/1A, dated 18.11.2017. Ex.A18:ROR of the suit Survey numbers.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Nil

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Page No.1 of 7 OS No.50 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT WANAPARTHY

Dated, this the 28th day of April, 2026

Present: Smt. Gogi Kalarchana Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Original Suit Number 50 of 2026

(Old OS No.193 of 2022, on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Atmakur.A)

Between: Gouni Bucha Reddy, S/o. Late G.Basi Reddy, Age: 64 years, Occ: Government Employee, R/o. Kothakota town, Wanaparthy district.

…Plaintiff. AND

Gouni Saralamma, W/o. Late G.Venugopal Reddy, Age: 59 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Near Government High School Kothakota town, Wanaparthy district. …Defendants. Sub:- Suit for perpetual injunction.

*** This suit came up for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Shashibhushan, learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant having remained exparte, and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed for perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining her, her men and agents etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property situated in the limits of Khanayapally village of

Kothakota mandal, Wanaparthy district along with costs.

Page No.2 of 7 OS No.50 of 2026

Initially this suit was filed before Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court Wanaparthy registered as O.S. 39 of 2021 later it was transferred to Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur.A vide proceedings of Hon'ble

Principal District and Sessions Judge Mahabubnagar, and further it

was transferred to Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Wanaparthy vide proceedings of Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge Wanaparthy, vide Dis.No. 17 dt.08.01.2026 re-registered as O.S. 50 of 2026.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are-

(i)Plaintiff submitted that he is the owner and possessor of lands in

Sy. No. 379/A4 to an extent of Acs.0-15gts situated in the limits of

Khanayaplly village of Kothakota mandal Wanaparthy district which is bounded by East: Land of Jayasunder Reddy, West: Land of Yerumala

Krishnaiah, North: Land of Defendant and South: Land of the defendant, herein after referred it as suit schedule property. The land in

Sy. No. 379 to an extent of Acs.1-21gts was partitioned among the brothers of plaintiff long back, accordingly plaintiff got the suit schedule property. Plaintiff's elder brothers late G. Venugopal Reddy got Acs.0-15gts, G. Konda Reddy got Acs.0-15gts and G. Shesha

Reddy got Acs.0-16gts in Sy. No. 379 of Khanayapalli village of

Kothakota mandal. Plaintiff's elder brother D. Shesha Reddy sold his extent to the defendant who is wife of brother of plaintiff by name late

G. Venu Gopal Reddy. Plaintiff's another brother G. Konda Reddy sold his extent to Golla Krishnaiah. Since the date of partition plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property without interruption of anybody. Plaintiff name was implemented in the revenue record as pattadhar for the suit schedule property, revenue authority issued pattadhar pass book in his favour.

Page No.3 of 7 OS No.50 of 2026

(ii)Plaintiff further submits that defendant is not concern either with the plaintiff or with the suit schedule property but due to hike in the values of the surrounding lands, defendant forced the plaintiff to dispose the suit schedule property to her in cheaper rate but as plaintiff refused to dispose the suit schedule property to her, with a jealous hike in the land values defendant has started to create troubles to the plaintiff and made attempts to occupy the suit schedule property. On 05.02.2021 while plaintiff is attending agriculture works in the suit schedule property, defendant and her henchmen rushed there and tried to interfere into peaceful possession of the plaintiff and made attempts to dispossess him from the suit schedule property. Plaintiff resisted their attempts with support of his men but while leaving the suit schedule property, defendant threatened that she will come with more support to occupy the suit schedule property. Defendant is influenced person and she is able to change her threatens into actions, as such having no other option to protect the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property plaintiff has approached the

Court. Hence this suit.

3.Summons served to defendant personally, called absent, no representation hence set exparte.

4.During the course of enquiry, plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief reiterating the plaint averments and marked Exs.A1 to A5 and closed his evidence.

5.Heard counsel for the plaintiff and perused entire record.

Page No.4 of 7 OS No.50 of 2026

6. Point for consideration is:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual in- junction restraining defendant from interfering with his peace- ful possession and enjoyment over suit land as prayed for?

2. If so to what relief?

POINT NO.1

7.As seen from the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that the land in Sy. No. 379 to an extent of Acs.1-21 gts was partitioned among the brothers of plaintiff long back, accordingly plaintiff got the suit schedule property i.e. Sy. No. 379/A4 to an extent of Acs.0-15gts situated in the limits of Khanayaplly village of Kothakota mandal

Wanaparthy district. Plaintiff's elder brothers late G. Venugopal Reddy got Acs.0-15gts, G. Konda Reddy got Acs.0-15gts and G. Shesha

Reddy got Acs.0-16gts in Sy. No. 379 of Khanayapalli village of

Kothakota mandal. Plaintiff's elder brother D. Shesha Reddy sold his extent to the defendant who is wife of one of the brother of plaintiff by name late G. Venu Gopal Reddy. Plaintiff's another brother G. Konda

Reddy sold his extent to Golla Krishnaiah. Since the date of partition plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property without interruption of anybody. The defendant is no way concerned to suit land illegally interfering with his possession and trying to dispossess him.

8.To support his case, that plaintiff is owner and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit land, plaintiff filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and reiterated plaint averments and marked documents Exs.A1 to A5. On perusal of exhibits it is showing that Ex.A1 is the pattadar passbook in the name of plaintiff

Page No.5 of 7 OS No.50 of 2026 for Sy.No.379/A4 of an extent of Acs.0-15 gts. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of ROR issued on dated 22.02.2024 on perusal of same clearly showing that Sy.No.379 was partitioned/divided among brothers and an extent of Ac.0-15gts implemented in the name of plaintiff showing succession Ex.A3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1984-85 showing land an extent of Ac.1-21 gts in the name of Basireddy father of plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2009- 2010 showing an extent of Ac.0-15gt in Sy.No.379/A4 in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A5 is the specimen copy of ROR under Bhoobharathi also showing suit land in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A1 to A5 clinchingly supporting plaintiff’s case his acquiring land and his possession as on the date of filing suit.

9.Further plaintiff filed sketch map along with plaint clearly showing location of plaintiff property bounded by south and north defendants property. It is the allegation of plaintiff that defendant taking advantage of hike in land in and around suit property pressurizing plaintiff to sell the same to her as plaintiff refused to sell she illegally trying to interfere and in this regard she along with her hench men rushed to suit land on 5.2.2021 when plaintiff attending his agricultural works and tried to dispossess him. He resisted her illegal acts with support of his neighbours. But she went hurling threatens against him that she will come with more force and dispossess him.

10.Plaintiff by examining himself as Pw1 and documentary evidence filed by him supports his lawful possession as on the date of filing suit. Though suit summons served to defendant not choose to appear before court and challenge the plaintiff case. So

Page No.6 of 7 OS No.50 of 2026 uncontradictory and unchallenged testimony of plaintiff supports that defendant admitting her illegal interference into suit property so balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiff if injunction is not granted plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Hence plaintiff entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. Point no. 1 answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff.

POINT NO.2:

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant restraining her, her men, agents etc from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

-Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: P.W.1: Gouni Bucha Reddy

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Pattedar Passbook. Ex.A2:Certified copy of ROR. Ex.A3:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1984-85. Ex.A4:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-2010. Ex.A5:Specimen copy of ROR under Bhoobharathi.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

Page No.7 of 7 OS No.50 of 2026

Nil

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Page No.1 of 6 HMOP No.3 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT WANAPARTHY

Dated, this the 7th day of April, 2026

Present:- Smt. Gogi Kalarchana, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

HMOP No.3 of 2026

Between: G.Parameshwar, S/o. G.Srisailam, Age: 41 years, Occ: Daily wages, R/o. H.No.1-84, backside of MPP school Budharam village, Gopalpet mandal, Wanaparthy district. …Petitioner.

And

G.Chandrakala, W/o. G.Parameshwar and D/o. Saudari Veeranna, Age: 41 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-84, backside of MPP school Budharam village, Gopalpet mandal, Wanaparthy district, present R/o. Gopalpet village and mandal, Wanaparthy district. …respondent.

Sub:- Petition filed under Section (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. *** This petition is coming up for final hearing in the presence of Smt.S.Pushpalatha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. G.Bal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of his marriage performed with the respondent on 06.05.2015 and to grant a decree of divorce along with costs.

2.The brief averments of petition as under :-

(i) It is the case of the petitioner that respondent is the legally wedded

Page No.2 of 6 HMOP No.3 of 2026 wife of petitioner and their marriage was performed on 06.05.2015 at petitioner home at Budharam village, Gopalpet mandal as per rites and customs prevailing under Hindu marriage Act by petitioner parents.

Petitioner and respondent profess Hindu religion. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent both lived at Budharam village. Only after few days petitioner understood that the respondent parents have deceived him about the respondent health issues i.e., the respondent is mentally ill.

Respondent's parents hide the fact that the respondent is mentally ill and conducted their marriage. Petitioner informed the respondent's parents about the respondent erratic behaviour. Respondent's mother came to the petitioner's house and tried to convince the petitioner that it is still early stages of marriage and things will settle down eventually and took the respondent back along with her. After two months respondent's mother brought the respondent back to the petitioner's home. But even after that there is no change in the respondent's erratic behaviour, attitude towards marriage/marital life. Because of her mental illness, respondent started behaving even more cruelly than before. Respondent's mother came and took the respondent back for treatment and taking medicine for 3-4 months. But they maintained silence on the respondent's treatment procedure, place of treatment, doctor involved. Everything related to respondent's mentally ill health treatment was secret and was never revealed anything to the petitioner. Again, there was no change in the erratic behaviour in the respondent. Respondent also started beating & scratching the petitioner. Petitioner to preserve his pride have never notified anyone outside of the physical assault on him. For the last 10 years, "erratic behaviour of the respondent, petitioner informed respondents parents about her behaviour, respondent mother used to take respondent for treatment and bringing the respondent back to the

Page No.3 of 6 HMOP No.3 of 2026 petitioner's house after 3-4 months saying that treatment is done & respondent will behave normally" has been repeating in cycle. In 2021, petitioner complained against the respondent at Sakhi Centre Wanaparthy stating that respondent is torturing him. The personnel of Sakhi center called upon them and counselled.

(ii)In the year 2021, petitioner took respondent to the Gynecologist in the hope that at least with the birth of children the behaviour of the respondent will change. The Gynecologist said that they cannot treat the respondent as she is having mental illness and they can treat the respondent only when her mental illness is cured. After that petitioner took the respondent to the Erragadda hospital for treatment, but the respondent was not cooperative towards the treatment i.e., not taking the prescribed medicine instead the respondent started beating, pinching, scratching the petitioner who was giving the necessary medicine to the respondent.

Again, in the year 2024 petitioner took the respondent to the Erragadda hospital for treatment. Respondent didn't take any prescribed medicines and went to her maternal home in November 2024. In January 2025 respondent's mother died. In February 2025 respondent came back to the petitioner's home and when petitioner told the respondent to behave normally and not to do things like before, respondent went back to maternal home to her brother. Respondent along with her brother complained against the petitioner in Sakhi Centre Wanaparthy in February 2025 and a complaint to S.P Wanaparthy on 13-03-2025. S.P summoned both the parties and counselled them. S.P ordered the respondent's brother to provide treatment for the respondent and to bring the respondent back in three months. Respondent's brother took the respondent. Respondent always listens to only her brother and mother and never listens to anyone else. In the August 2025, elders of both petitioner and respondent held a

Page No.4 of 6 HMOP No.3 of 2026 panchayath at Wanaparthy Polytechnic College ground. Elders convinced the petitioner to take the respondent back with him and if there is no change in the behaviour of the respondent after 2-3 months then the elders & brother of the respondent will take her back with them. As there is no change in the respondent's behaviour, petitioner informed the respondent's brother who then came to the petitioner's home and seeing there is no change in respondent's behaviour, respondent's brother took the respondent back with him to their home in November 2025. From the last 10 years petitioner suffered a lot from the erratic behaviour, mental illness and cruelty of the respondent. Petitioner endured the respondent for the last 10 years because of the hope that the respondent will change and to preserve his honour in society. Petitioner have not enjoyed any conjugal life in his marriage and his whole marriage life is filled with suffering.

Petitioner firmly believes that the change in the respondent is impossible.

Thus, there is no possibility of reunion between the Petitioner and the

Respondent and also the Petitioner can't tolerate the mental and physical harassment of the respondent. As such having no other possibility the

Petitioner is approaching the court for his redressal.

3Notice served personally to the respondent. Respondent appeared through her counsel and both parties referred to Mediation Center for reconciliation under section 23 (3) of Hindu marriage act.

4.Both parties appeared before mediation center after mediation by trained mediator matter settled between both parties. This court received report from Mediation center that mediation was successful.

5.After that both parties appeared before this court and terms of mediation report read over and explained to both parties. Both parties gave consent and admitted terms of settlement. As per terms of

Page No.5 of 6 HMOP No.3 of 2026 settlement both petitioner and respondent agreed to dissolve their marriage under the terms of compromise as follows 1). Petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakhs only) to respondent as permanent alimony 2). Petitioner agreed to give gold of 1 ¼ tulas or equivalent cash to respondent as per market value 3). Petitioner accepted to relinquish his right in joint Registered Plot in favour of respondent under Sale Deed Doc No. 3370/2015 dt16.04.2015.

4). Petitioner accepted to return all house hold articles to respondent which presented at the time of their marriage.

5). Respondent accepted above towards her permanent alimony and agreed not to claim any maintenance from petitioner in future.

6.On 4.4.2026 both parties present before Court and petitioner paid cash an amount of Rs.2,78,250/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Two

Hundred and Fifty only) to respondent before Court towards permanent alimony of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,78,250/- towards gold of 1 ¼ tulas. To that extent respondent executed receipt and said receipt was filed before Court. As per the terms all the household articles as agreed handed over to respondent and a relinquishment deed was executed vide document No.3574 of 2026 relinquishing petitioner rights over a joint registered plot in favour of respondent and joint registered sale deed N0.3370 of 2015 (link document),

dated 16.04.2015 handed over to respondent before the Court. Respondent

agreed not to claim any type of maintenance from the petitioner in future.

7.Heard both parties on terms and both counsels, both consented for terms with their own volition and all the term of compromise were fulfilled by petitioner hence, basing on the mediation report and consent of both parties H.M.O.P allowed.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce

Page No.6 of 6 HMOP No.3 of 2026 by dissolving marriage solemnized between petitioner G.Parameshwar with the respondent G.Chandrakala on dated 06.05.2015with immediate effect from the date of this order. In the circumstances stated above there are no order as to costs.

-Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Nil

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Page No.1 of 6 OS No.373 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT WANAPARTHY

Dated, this the 6th day of April, 2026

Present: Smt. Gogi Kalarchana Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Original Suit Number 373 of 2025

(Old OS No.568 of 2022, on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Wanaparthy)

Between: Chenamoni Venkatamma, W/o. Chandraiah, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Dondaipally village, Pangal mandal, Wanaparthy district.

…Plaintiff. AND

1. Golla Godha Galenna, S/o. Kistaiah, Age: 60 years,

2. Golla Godha Seenu, S/o. Venkataiah, Age: 30 years,

3. Golla Godha Raju, S/o. Galenna, Age: 35 years,

4. Golla Godha Pedda Galenna, S/o. Chandraiah, Age: 65 years,

5. Golla Godha Venkataiah, S/o. Savari, Age: 50 years,

6. Golla Godha Mallaiah, S/o. Kistanna, Age: 40 years,

7. Golla Godha Thirupathaiah, S/o. Savari, Age: 40 years,

8. Golla Godha Ravi, S/o. Chinna Galenna, Age: 30 years,

9. Golla Godha Venugopal, S/o. Nadipi Galenna, Age: 35 years,

10. Golla Godha Chinna Galenna, S/o. Chandraiah, Age: 58 years,

All are Occ: Agriculture and R/o. Dondaipally village, Pangal mandal, Wanaparthy district.

Page No.2 of 6 OS No.373 of 2025 …Defendants. Sub:- Suit for perpetual injunction.

*** This suit came up for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Baleeshwaraiah, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri P.Govind, learned counsel for defendants and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants and perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed for perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them, their heirs, agents and workmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property situated in the limits of Dondaipally village of

Pangal mandal, Wanaparthy district along with costs.

Initially this suit was filed before Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court Kollapur registered as O.S. 141 of 2019 later it was transferred to I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kollapur vide proceedings of

Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge Mahabubnagar, and

further it was transferred to Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Wanaparthy re-registered as O.S. 568 of 2022 and made over to II Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Wanaparthy vide proceedings of

Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy vide Dis

No.1299 of 2024, dated 14.08.2024 and later transferred to Principal

Senior Civil Judge’s Court vide proceedings of Hon'ble Principal

District and Sessions Judge Wanaparthy, vide Dis.No. 989 of 2025 dt.02.07.2025 re-registered as O.S. 373 of 2025.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are-

(i)Plaintiff submitted that the dry land bearing Sy.No.112 of

Dondaipally village of Pangal mandal having waste extent was belongs

Page No.3 of 6 OS No.373 of 2025 to the Government. The Government has assigned 2-00 acres of land in the above said Sy.No.112 to the plaintiff herein and issued assignment patta certificate vide file No. A/334/06 Dt. 19-11-2006. The possession was also delivered to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The patta of the said land is also implemented in the name of the plaintiff in the ROR and the pahanies and title deed pass book has been issued to her.

Subsequently, at the time of computerization and purification of revenue records the sub-division number 112/8 is allotted to the above said 2-00 acres of land and the Government of Telangana has issued the new pattedar cum title deed pass book and also the computerized

ROR and pahani to her. Thus, the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit dry land bearing Sy.No. 112/8 (old 112) extent 2-00 acres situated in the limits of Dondaipally village Pangal mandal

Wanaparthy district. The said land herein after called as the suit land.

(ii)The plaintiff further submits that defendants have no right or authority over the suit land, but due to political rivalry and pressure of the opposite group the defendants have started obstructing the plaintiff from ploughing the suit land. On 15-7-2019 all the defendants came over the suit land and tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and obstructed her from sowing the seeds. The plaintiff could resist them with great difficulty. The defendants went away stating that they will come with more members and occupy the suit land. If the defendants succeed in their illegal attempts, the plaintiff will be put to grave and irreparable loss which cannot be compensated. The plaintiff is being the woman and law abiding citizen having no alternative

Page No.4 of 6 OS No.373 of 2025 except to approach the court of law for perpetual injunction. Hence this suit.

3.Summons served to defendant Nos.1 to 10 through RPAD but refused, called absent, hence set exparte.

4.During the course of enquiry, plaintiff examined herself as Pw.1 filed her evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief reiterating the plaint averments and marked Exs.A1 to A5 and closed her evidence.

5.Heard counsel for the plaintiff and perused entire record.

6. Point for consideration is:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual in- junction restraining defendants from interfering with her pos- session over suit land as prayed for?

2. If so to what relief?

POINT NO.1

7.As seen from the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that

Government has assigned 2-00 acres of land in Sy.No.112 to the plaintiff and issued assignment patta certificate vide file No. A/334/06

Dt. 19-11-2006. The possession was also delivered to the plaintiff and

since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The defendants are no way concerned to suit land illegally interfering with her possession and trying to dispossess her.

8.To support her case, that plaintiff is owner and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit land, plaintiff filed her evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and reiterated plaint averments

Page No.5 of 6 OS No.373 of 2025 and marked documents Exs.A1 to A5. On perusal of exhibits it is showing that Ex.A1 is the original patta certificate, dated 19.11.2006 which shows an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.112 of Dondaipally village of Pangal mandal issued in the name of plaintiff and delivered possession to her. Ex.A2 is the old title deed and passbook in the name of plaintiff for Sy.No.112 of an extent of Acs.2-00 gts. Ex.A3 is the new pattadar passbook cum title deed passbook in the name of plaintiff for Sy.No. 112/8 of an extent of Acs.2-00 gts. Ex.A4 is the computerized form No.1-B of ROR, dated: 15.07.2019. Ex.A5 is the

Computerized pahani for the year 2017, dated 22.07.2019, Exs.A2 to

A5 clinchingly showing after assignment of land and granting patta along with possession she implemented patta and basing on same her name was mutated as patedhar and possessor in ROR issued patedhar pass book and Title deed and 1-B ROR showing her possession and new patedhar pass book showing plaintiff is in possession as on the date of filing suit. Ex.A1 to A5 prima facie showing plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of suit property.

9.It is the case of plaintiff that defendant are no way concerned to suit property illegally obstructed plaintiff from sowing the seeds in her land on 15-7-2019 though she resisted with help of neighbours but they threatened that they will come again with more members and dispossess her. Even after serving of summons through Registered post having knowledge about filing suit against them refused the post shows they are admitting the possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property and interference and obstruction of plaintiff in enjoyment of suit property. Hence unchallenged testimony of plaintiff supports

Page No.6 of 6 OS No.373 of 2025 balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiff if injunction is not granted plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss hence entitled for equitable relief of injunction as prayed for. Point No.1 answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff against defendants.

POINT NO.2:

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendants restraining them, their heirs, agents and workmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

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

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: P.W.1: Venkatamma

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Original patta certificate, dated 19.11.2006. Ex.A2:Old title deed passbook. Ex.A3:New pattadar passbook cum title deed passbook Ex.A4:Computerized form No.1-B of ROR, dated: 15.07.2019. Ex.A5:Computerized pahani for the year 2017, dated 22.07.2019.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Nil

Page No.7 of 6 OS No.373 of 2025

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.