Dr. G.radha Rani

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum-PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: Smt. G.RADHA RANI, Chairman, MACT-cum-PDJ, Ranga Reddy District.

Friday, the 8th day of October, 2021

M.V.OP. No. 33 of 2017

BETWEEN:

1.P.Vinodha W/o.late Dasharath, Aged 43 years, Occ: Housewife,

2.P. Ravi S/o.late Dasharath, Aged 23 years, Occ: Student,

3.P.Karthik S/o.late Dasharath, Aged 20 years, Occ: Student,

4.P.Mallamma W/o.late Jejalu, Aged 65 years, Occ: Nil, … Petitioners

All are R/o.H.No.75F, Nandanavanam, Meerpet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

AND

1.Medaramatla Ravindar S/o.M.Singaiah, Aged: Major, Occ: Owner of Car bearing No.AP 29TV 1329, R/o.4-7-15/13, 2nd Floor, Raghavendranagar, Nacharam, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.National Insurance Company Limitted, Rep.by its Manager, T.P.Claims Hub, Jubilee Building, 1st Floor, Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

3.Maryada Saidulu S/o.Jogaiah, Aged 21 years, Occ: Driver of Car Bearing No.AP 29TV 1329, R/o.Parsaipally Village, Aravapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. … Respondents

Policy No.25331031130150012328/25331031130420006931 Valid from 12.05.2013 to 11.05.2014

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 2 of 17

This Petition is coming before me for final hearing on 16.09.2021 in the presence of Sri M.Madhusudhan Reddy, counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.R.B,.Chary, counsel for the respondent No.2, respondents 1 and 3 remained exparte, upon hearing the learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.2 and on perusal of the material on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners, the wife, sons and mother of late P.Dasharath (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’), u/Sec.166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

2.The case of the petitioners in brief was that, the deceased was aged 45 years, working as a supervisor cum part time driver in Peg House,

Karmanghat and was earning Rs.16,000/- per month. On the intervening night of 2/3-9-2013 at about 00.00 hours, while the deceased was coming from the place of his work i.e., Karmanghat to Nandanavanam on a motor cycle bearing No.MH 02 GA 2484 and while taking ‘U’ turn near Bawarchi

Hotel, Karmanghat, Saroornagar, the driver of the Car bearing No.AP 29TV 1329 driving the car with high speed in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle of the deceased from its behind, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and other multiple injuries and fractures and was shifted to Jeevan Hospital, Karmanghat and was later shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment on 06.09.20013 and succumbed to the injuries at Gandhi Hospital on the same day.

2.2 The petitioners submitted that, police of Saroornagar Police

Station registered a case in Cr.No.612/2013 u/S.337 IPC, which was later altered to Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the Car bearing No.AP 29TV 1329 (hereinafter referred as ‘crime vehicle’).

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 3 of 17 2.3 The petitioners submitted that, respondent No.1 was the owner, respondent No.2 was the insurer and respondent No.3 was the driver of the crime vehicle, as such, all the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioners with interest @18% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

3.The respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte.

4.The respondent No.2/insurer filed counter denying the petition averments and called for strict proof of the same. The respondent No.2 filed an additional counter submitting that as per the crime records, the vehicle involved in the accident was bearing No.AP 29TB 1329 but the petitioners filed the case on the vehicle bearing No.AP 29TV 1329. It was a clear cut case where the insured vehicle was implicated for claiming wrongful compensation. The crime records filed before the court were tampered to suit the needs of the petitioners’ case. The driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving license i.e., LMV

Transport Driving License. The crime vehicle was a Motor Cab but the driver was having LMV Non-Transport Driving License, with which he was not authorized to drive the Motor Cab, which was a Transport class of vehicle and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial :

1)Whether the accident that occurred on 03.09.2013 at about 00.00 hours near Bawarchi Hotel, Karmanghat, was due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of Car bearing No.AP 29 TV 1329, by its driver?

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 4 of 17

2)Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what quantum and from whom?

3)To what relief?

6.The petitioners got examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A9 on their behalf. The respondent No.2 got examined RW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B8. Ex.X1 was marked through the Advocate

Commissioner. The Investigating Officer, who filed charge sheet, was examined as CW1.

7.The respondent No.2 filed a petition in I.A.No.812/2017 u/S.170(B) of M.V.Act to permit the insurance company to take all the defenses that are available to the respondents No.1 and 2, owner and driver of the crime vehicle. As they remained exparte, the said petition was allowed on 11.04.2017

8.The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 filed their written arguments.

ISSUE No.1 :

9.As per the contention of the petitioners, the deceased died due to the accident that occurred on 03.09.2013 at about 00.00 hours near Bawarchi

Hotel, Karmanghat, due to the rash, negligent and high speed driving of the driver of the Car bearing No.AP 29 TV 1329. As per the respondent

No.2, the vehicle involved in the accident was AP 29 TB 1329 as per the crime records but not AP 29 TV 1329 as claimed by the petitioners and the said vehicle was implicated in the case for claiming wrongful compensation.

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 5 of 17

10.The petitioners got examined the petitioner No.1, the wife of the deceased, as PW1. Admittedly, PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident.

The petitioners got examined an eye witness to the accident by name

A.Kiran Kumar as PW4. He stated that, he was a cab driver. On the date of accident i.e., on 2/3.09.2013 at about 00.00 hours he was proceeding on his car from L.B.Nagar towards Santhoshnagar and on the way he stopped his car at Bawarchi Hotel, Karmanghat for taking tea, in the meanwhile, he observed the deceased proceeding on a motorcycle from Green Park Colony side, at that time, the driver of TATA Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP 29TV 1329 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and other multiple injuries and fell down on the road. Immediately he went to the deceased along with others and shifted him to Jeevan Hospital, Karmanghat for treatment. After one week, he came to know that the deceased died while undergoing treatment in

Gandhi Hospital. He stated that the accident was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP 29TV 1329. In his cross examination, he stated that he had seen the victim only at the time of accident and the accident occurred between 11.30 P.M to 12.00 in the midnight. The road on which the accident took place was a wide road. There was no road divider. He was drinking tea outside the hotel. After the accident the driver fled away from the scene leaving the vehicle on the road. He denied that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased and stated that he did not know on whose negligence the accident had taken place. He admitted that his name was not mentioned in the charge sheet and he had not received any notice

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 6 of 17 through court for giving the evidence. He stated that he came to the court at the request of the son of the deceased and denied that he was not an eye witness to the accident and was giving false evidence to benefit the petitioners.

11.The petitioners got marked Exs.A1 to A4 in support of their contention. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the FIR along with the complaint, which would disclose that the son of the deceased by name Karthik i.e., petitioner No.3 herein lodged the complaint before the police on 03.09.2013 at about 7.15 P.M. He stated that his father was working as a waiter in Peg House Bar & Restaurant and after the Bar was closed, while he was returning by walk, the Car bearing No.AP 29TV 1329 Indica Vista hit his father in a rash and negligent manner from his behind, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. He requested the police to take action against the driver of the Car No.AP 29 TV 1329. Basing on the said complaint, the police of Saroornagar Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No.612/2013 u/S.337 IPC. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the Charge

Sheet filed by the police, which would disclose that the police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet against the respondent No.3, the driver of the Indica Vista Car, holding him responsible for the accident. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the Inquest Report, which would disclose that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the Postmortem Examination Report, which would disclose that the cause of death of the deceased was due to “Head

Injury”. The name of PW4 was not cited as an eye witness by the police in the Charge Sheet marked as Ex.A2. However, the police need not cite the names of all the eye witnesses in the Charge Sheet and they could examine

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 7 of 17 one or two whoever they considered fit. The same itself could not be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW4 that he was not an eye witness.

Nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PW4 to disbelieve his evidence. No relationship between PW4 and the deceased or the petitioners was established to believe that he was giving false evidence to benefit the petitioners.

12.However, the main contention of the respondent No.2 was that the crime records were tampered. The respondent No.2 got examined the

Dy.Manager of their company as RW1. He filed his evidence affidavit stating that the petitioners filed the crime records before the court and marked them as Exs.A1 to A4 but the said records were all fabricated and created for the purpose of the case. The petitioners had not filed the MVI

Report wontedly, as they intended to suppress the vehicle which was involved in the accident. In all the crime records filed by the petitioners, the vehicle number was changed from AP 29TB 1329 to AP 29TV 1329. He obtained certified copies of the crime records from the concerned court, which would establish that the vehicle involved in the accident was AP 29TB 1329 and got marked the same as Exs.B3 to B8. In his cross examination he admitted that their company issued policy for TATA Indica

Vista Car bearing Registration No.AP 29TV 1329. As per the FIR, the vehicle which caused the accident was mentioned as TATA Indica and the name of the insured as M.Ravinder. He admitted that the policy was in force as on the date of accident. He stated that he was not aware that the

MVI would not conduct inspection of the crime vehicle in the cases registered u/S.337 IPC and as the case was registered initially u/S.337

IPC and later converted to 304-A IPC, the MVI report was not obtained. He

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 8 of 17 admitted that the insurance company did not file any record pertaining to the vehicle bearing No.AP 29TB 1329. He denied that at the time of registering the complaint, due to similarity in pronunciation, the number of the vehicle was registered as AP 29TB 1329 and the said error had been corrected by the police after seeking clarification from the owner of the crime vehicle. He stated that the insurance company did not issue any notice to the owner and driver of the crime vehicle with respect to the registration number of the crime vehicle. He denied that it was a genuine error in recording the registration number of the crime vehicle by the police and they were deliberately taking the defense of manipulation of crime records.

13.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Saroornagar, who filed the charge sheet, was summoned before the court and was examined as CW1. He stated that the charge sheet was filed by him and it was filed against the driver of the TATA Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP 29TV 1329. He was confronted with the certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and was asked whether he filed the charge sheet against the vehicle No.AP 29TB 1329. He denied and stated that the vehicle was bearing No.AP 29TV 1329. It was suggested to him by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that he tampered the court record by erasing the vehicle number and by putting a different vehicle number in it without obtaining the permission of the court and without filing additional charge sheet and the witness denied the same. He stated that he made corrections in the crime records and put his initials at the place of corrections and he filed the charge sheet before the court after making the corrections. He admitted that Ex.B8 certified copy of the charge sheet

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 9 of 17 would not show the corrections and initials made by him. In the cross examination by the counsel for petitioners he stated that he collected the vehicle documents like RC, Insurance papers and Driving Licence of the driver from the owner of the vehicle. The RC collected by him was containing the vehicle No.AP 29TV 1329. The name of the owner of the vehicle was one Metharamatla Ravinder (Respondent No.1 herein). The name of the driver was Mariyada Saidulu (Respondent No.3 herein). The

Insurance Policy collected by him was issued by National Insurance

Company and it was valid at the time of accident. He stated that he gave a requisition to the MVI but the MVI rejected the same due to the delay. He admitted that the case was initially registered u/S.337 IPC and was later altered to 304-A IPC, due to which delay occurred. He stated that the deceased was riding a two wheeler at the time of accident. The vehicle involved in the accident was a TATA Indica Vista Car and he recorded the statement of the owner of the vehicle Sri M.Ravinder and there was no suspicion on the involvement of the vehicle. He stated that CD file also contained the corrections made in the charge sheet with regard to the number of the crime vehicle. He admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was bearing No.AP 29TV 1329.

14.Thus, the evidence of the Investigating Officer would make it clear that the vehicle involved in the accident was only AP 29TV 1329 but not AP 29TB 1329. He also recorded the statement of the owner of the vehicle and collected the documents like RC, Insurance papers and Driving

Licence of the driver from the owner. The complaint also would disclose not only the number of the vehicle but the description of the vehicle as

TATA Indica Vista. If the vehicle involved in the accident was AP 29TB

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 10 of 17 1329 as contended by the respondent No.2 insurance company, they would have collected and filed copy of the RC of the said vehicle, which would show the kind of the vehicle i.e., whether it was a TATA Indica Vista car or not. When the Investigating Officer himself appeared before the court and stated that the vehicle involved in the accident was AP 29TV 1329 and it was he who made the corrections in the charge sheet and it was only a typographical mistake which crept in the crime records earlier, there is no need to suspect that an insured vehicle, which was actually not involved in the accident, was falsely implicated in the case by the petitioners.

15.The complaint would also disclose that the complainant had stated the date of accident as 3.08.2013 instead of 03.09.2013 and that his father was coming by walk at the time of accident, which was against the crime records, wherein the Investigating Officer had shown that the deceased was proceeding on a motor bike at the time of accident. The complainant in his 161 Cr.P.C Statement recorded by the police marked under Ex.A7 stated that it was a mistake committed by him while lodging the complaint, as he was in a state of anxiety. The certified copies of the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch of the scene of offence filed by the respondent No.2 marked under Exs.B4 and B5 would disclose that police found the motorcycle and the TATA Indica Vista car at the place of accident and basing on their positions, drafted the sketch showing the manner of accident. As such, I found no reason to disbelieve the investigation conducted by the police with regard to the vehicles involved in the accident, the manner of accident and no motives could be attributed to the independent Investigating Agency in implicating the vehicle, which

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 11 of 17 was not involved in the accident, by showing it as the one which was involved. Thus, the evidence of PW4 and CW1 would prove beyond doubt that the vehicle involved in the accident was TATA Indica Vista bearing

No.AP 29TV 1329 and the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said car.

16.As such, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent No.2.

ISSUE No.2:

17. As issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners holding that the deceased died due to the rash, negligent and high speed driving of the driver of the Car bearing No.AP 29TV 1329, the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the untimely death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident.

18.To decide the quantum of compensation, it was discussed under various heads as follows:

A.Loss of dependency: Though it was stated by the petitioners in the petition pleadings and also in the evidence affidavit of PW1, the wife of the deceased (petitioner No.1 herein) that the deceased was aged 45 years, no evidence was filed in proof of the same. Hence, the age of the deceased as found in the certified copies of Inquest and Postmortem Examination

Reports marked under Exs.A3 and A4, which was shown as 48 years, is considered.

PW1 contended that her husband was working as a Supervisor in

Peg House Bar and Restaurant and also as a part time driver and was

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 12 of 17 earning Rs.16,000/- per month. She filed the Salary Certificate of the deceased issued by the proprietor of Peg House Bar and Restaurant marked as Ex.A9, which would disclose that the proprietor issued the said certificate stating that the deceased worked as a supervisor in their organization for the past one year and he was paid a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. As the compliant and the crime records filed by the petitioners would disclose that the complainant had also mentioned that his father worked in Peg House Bar and Restaurant at the time of accident, which was lodged immediately after the accident and the salary stated by the proprietor also was not abnormal or excessive, the same is believed and the actual monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs.10,000/-.

Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National

Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Pranay Sethireported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, wherein it was held that “in case the deceased was a self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income is warranted where the deceased was below the age of 40 years and addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years”, an addition of 25% is considered towards his future prospects. As such, an amount of

Rs.10,000 + 2,500 = Rs.12,500/- is considered as income of the deceased per month including his future prospects.

`1 As the age of the deceased is considered as 48 years, the multiplier ‘13’ is taken as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla

Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298. Considering the number of dependents being four in number, 1/4th is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 13 of 17

Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.12,500 x 12 x 13 x 3/4 =

Rs.14,62,500/-.

B.Loss of estate, loss of consortium & funeral expenses: As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.

C. Medical Expenses: The petitioners got examined the doctor who treated the deceased at Jeevan Hospital immediately after the accident from 03.09.2013 to 06.09.2013 as PW3. They got marked Ex.X1, the MLC of the deceased issued by Jeevan Hospital, through the Advocate

Commissioner, which would prove the admission of the deceased at the said hospital on 03.09.2013 at 12.30 A.M. The evidence of PW3 would show that the injured was in a state of irritable, semi conscious, coherent and non-cooperative at the time of his admission and he was kept on ventilator and due to the financial constraints of the family, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital on 06.09.2013. The Billing Manager of the said hospital was examined as PW2 and both PWs.2 and 3 admitted that the petitioners paid an amount of Rs.52,400/- towards the treatment of the deceased at the said hospital. Ex.A5 was the Final Bill got issued by the Jeevan Hospital for an amount of Rs.52,400/-. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to claim an amount of Rs.52,400/- actually incurred by them towards the treatment of the deceased at the said hospital due to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident prior to his death.

Hence, the compensation awarded to the petitioners under various heads is as follows:

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 14 of 17

1. Loss of dependency Rs.14,62,500/-

2. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-

3. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-

4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-

5. Medical Expenses Rs. 52,400

TOTAL Rs.15,84,900/-

19.The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- only. As there is no bar to the Tribunal toward more than the amount claimed, if it is considered as just compensation in the circumstances of the case as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. reported in [AIR (2003) Supreme Court 674] and recently in

Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2018 SCC

Online SC 2616 , it is considered fit to award the compensation more than the amount claimed. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the court fee on the amount awarded.

20.The compensation is apportioned among the petitioners as follows:

Petitioner No.1 (wife) : Rs. 4,84,900/- Petitioner No.2 (son) : Rs. 4,00,000/- Petitioner No.3 (son) : Rs. 4,00,000/- Petitioner No.4 (mother) : Rs. 3,00,000/-

21.From whom: The respondent No.2 contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not possessing valid driving license, the vehicle involved was a Motor Cab but the driver was holding only a LMV Non-Transport

Driving License and he was not authorized to drive a Motor Cab with the said license, as such, the owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy by handing over the vehicle to the driver who was not qualified to drive the same and the insurance company was not liable to pay the

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 15 of 17 compensation due to the violation of the policy conditions. But, the respondent No.2 failed to file the Driving License of the driver. They failed to even summon the respondents 1 and 3 or the RTA officials to prove their contention. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the respondent

No.2, their contention as to the violation of the policy conditions by the respondent No.1 cannot be accepted.

21.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental

Insurance Co.Ltd reported in 2017 ACJ 2011, wherein it was held that “the driver holding license to drive light motor vehicle can drive transport vehicle of that class without any endorsement to that effect”.

21.3 But, however, as the respondent No.2 failed to file the license of the respondent No.3 and failed to establish that the respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the said contention of respondent No.2 is not accepted.

22.As the attested copy of the policy marked under Ex.B2 would disclose that it was issued for the vehicle bearing No.AP 29TV 1329 belonging to the respondent No.1 and the same was valid for the period from 12.05.2013 to 11.05.2014 covering the date of accident on 03.09.2013, the policy is found to be valid and effective. As such, the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

23.Issue No.2 is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners as against the respondents.

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 16 of 17

ISSUE No.3 :

24.In the result, the petition is allowed awarding compensation of

Rs.15,84,900/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Nine

Hundred only) with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. They are directed to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of this award. On such deposit, Rs.4,84,900/- is apportioned to petitioner No.1 and she is entitled to costs, Rs.4,00,000/- is apportioned to petitioner No.2 and

Rs.4,00,000/- is apportioned to petitioner No.3 and they are permitted to withdraw only 50% of the amount awarded to them with accrued interest thereon and their balance 50% amount with accrued interest thereon is directed to be kept in Fixed Deposits in any Nationalized Bank in their individual names for a period of 3 years. The petitioner No.4 is apportioned an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded to her with accrued interest thereon. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,500/-.

The office is directed to issue decree only on payment of deficit court fee.

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

the Open Court on this the 8th day of October, 2021. 11th

CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : P.Vinoda RW1 : K. Narayana

MVOP 33 of 2017 Page 17 of 17

PW2 : K. Srinivas PW3 : Dr.Saib Kumar PW4 : A.Kiran Kumar

ON BEHALF OF COURT:

CW1 : P.Bhasker Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1 : C.C of FIR Ex.A2 : CC of Charge Sheet Ex.A3 : C.C of Inquest Report Ex.A4 : C.C of Postmortem Examination Report Ex.A5 : Final Bill for Rs.52,400/- issued by Jeeval Hospital, Karmanghat Ex.A6 : Attested copy of Death Certificate of deceased issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad dt.06.09.2013 (marked subject to proof and relevancy) Ex.A7 : C.C of 161 Cr.P.C Statements (4 in number) Ex.A8 : C.C of Scene of offence Panchanama Ex.A9 : Salary Certificate of deceased issued by Peg House Bar and Restaurant, Karmanghat (marked subject to proof and relevancy)

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1 : Authorization letter issued to RW1 by respondent No.2 Ex.B2 : Attested copy of Insurance Policy of crime vehicle Ex.B3 : C.C of FIR in Cr.No.612/2013 of P.S.Saroornagar Ex.B4 : C.C of Scene of Offence Panchanama Ex.B5 : C.C of Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.B6 : C.C of Report u/S.174 of Cr.P.C Ex.B7 : C.C of Postmortem Examination Report Ex.B8 : C.C of Final Result (Charge Sheet)

Ex.X1 : Medico Legal Certificate issued by Jeevan Hospital dt.06.09.2913 (marked through Advocate Commissioner)

CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT L.B.NAGAR

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Smt.G.Radha Rani,

Principal District Judge.

Monday, the 11th day of October, 2021

G.O.P.No. 479 of 2021

Between :

1.Abraar Ismail Hussain Sharief, S/o.late Mohd.Ismail Sharief, Aged about 15 years, Occ: Student,

2.Saara Mohammed Ismail Hussain Sharief, D/o.late Mohd.Ismail Sharief, Aged 13 years, Occ: Student,

3.Zaara Mohammed Ismail Hussain Sharief, D/o.late Mohd.Ismail Sharief, Aged 11 years, Occ: Student,

4.Saana Mohammed Ismail Hussain Sharief, D/o.late Mohd Ismail Sharief, Aged about 10 years, Occ: Student,

5.Hashir Mohammed Ismail Hussain Sharief, S/o.late Mohd Ismail Sharief, Aged about 8 years, Occ: Student,

6.Khairunnisa Naheed, W/o.late Mohd Ismail Sharief,

Aged about6 43 years, Occ: Household, ... Petitioners

All are R/o.H.No.10-2-289/24, Opp: Mahaveer Hospital, Shanti Nagar, Hyderabad – 500028.

Petitioners 1 to 5 being minors represented By their natural mother & guardian/petitioner No.6

AND

All concerned ... Respondents

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 04.10.2021 in the presence of Sri B. Srinivas, counsel for petitioners, no objections received from the respondent/All concerned, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

GWOP.479 of 2021

Page 2 of 6

JUDGMENT

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 7 to 10 of the

Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, to appoint the petitioner No.6 as guardian to the minor petitioners 1 to 5 and to permit her to sell the shares of the minors in the petition schedule property.

2.The petitioners submitted that, the petitioners 1 to 5 were the minor children of the petitioner No.6. They were under the custody of the petitioner No.6. The father of the petitioners 1 to 5 by name Mohd Ismail

Sharief died due to ill health on 09.05.2017 leaving behind the petitioners 1 to 6 as his legal heirs and lineal descendants. The husband of the petitioner

No.6 Sri late Mohd Ismail Sharief during his life time acquired an open plot bearing No.31 in part of Sy.No.4, admeasuring 198 Sq.Yds or 165.52

Sq.Mtrs, situated at “Sirimalle Homes”, Hyderguda Village, Rajendranagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of registered Sale Deed

Doc.No.4260/2004 dated 20.05.2004 from Syed Hameeduddin and another, registered at S.R.O, Rajendranagar (hereinafter called as ‘petition schedule property’). The petitioner No.6 with great difficulty was bringing up her children. She was facing difficulties for providing good education to them, as she had no sufficient means. She made some debts for the maintenance of petitioners 1 to 5. The petitioner No.1 was studying Intermediate 1st year in

Avinash College, petitioners 2, 4 & 5 were studying 9th Class, 5th Class and

UKG respectively in Vidiyadhani School, Santosh Nagar and petitioner No.3 was studying 7th Class in Sri Chaitanya Techno School. The petitioner No.6 was not having sufficient means to afford for the further education and maintenance expenses of the petitioners 1 to 5. As such, she intended to

GWOP.479 of 2021

Page 3 of 6 sell the petition schedule property. The schedule property was an open plot. It was becoming difficult for her to visit the said plot periodically.

There was every chance to grab the property. She had no other go except to sell the property. The proposed sale was for the benefit of the minors and the sale proceeds would be utilized for the wellbeing of the petitioners 1 to

5. As such, prayed to allow the petition.

3.Notice was issued to the general public by way of publication in ‘Mana

Telangana’ Telugu daily newspaper circulated in Ranga Reddy District.

Notice was also affixed on the Notice Board. Publication filed. No objections received.

4.The petitioners got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A13 on their behalf.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6.Now the point for consideration is “whether the petitioner No.6 can

be appointed as guardian to the person and property of the minor

petitioners 1 to 5 and whether she can be permitted to alienate the

shares of the minors in the petition schedule property?”.

POINT :

7. The petitioner No.6 was examined as PW1. She filed her evidence affidavit on the same lines of the petition. She got examined her brother

Mirza Maohamood Ali Baig as PW2 and a distant relative of her by name

Mohammed Ayoob as PW3. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed

Doc.No.4260/2004 dated 20.05.2004. It would disclose that Sri Mohd.Ismail

Sharief purchased the petition schedule property on 20.05.2004 from Sri

Syed Hameeduddin represented by his GPA Holder Mohd.Aijaz Hussain for a

GWOP.479 of 2021

Page 4 of 6 valuable sale consideration. Ex.A2 is the Death Certificate of late Mohd

Ismail Sharief, which would disclose that he died on 09.05.2017 at Mahavir

Hospital and Research Centre, Hyderabad. Ex.12 is the Aadhar Card of petitioner No.1, Exs.A3 and A4 are the Aadhar Cards of petitioners 2 and 3,

Ex.A5 is the photostat copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.4 and Ex.A7 is the Aadhar Card of petitioner No.6. Ex.A9 is the Birth Certificate of petitioner No.2, Ex.A10 is the Birth Certificate of petitioner No.1 and Ex.A13 is the Birth Certificate of petitioner No.3. Ex.A6 is the Bonafide Certificate of petitioner No.5 and Ex.A8 is the Bonafide Certificate of petitioner No.4.

Ex.A11 is the Encumbrance Certificate of the petition schedule property.

8. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A13 would disclose that Mohd Ismail Sharief was the husband of the petitioner No.6 and the petitioners 1 to 5 are their minor children and Mohd

Ismail Sharief died on 09.05.2017 and during his life time, he purchased the petition schedule property vide Ex.A1 in the year 2004 and on his death, the schedule property was devolved upon the petitioners 1 to 6 as his legal heirs. The evidence affidavit of PW1 would disclose that after the death of her husband, she was facing difficulty in educating her children and in maintaining them. As such, she intended to sell the schedule property.

9. As the evidence affidavits of PWs.1 to 3 would disclose that the petitioner No.6 is none other than the natural mother of the minor petitioners 1 to 5, having no adverse interest against the interest of the minors, it is considered fit to appoint her as guardian to the person and property of the minor petitioners 1 to 5.

GWOP.479 of 2021

Page 5 of 6

10.As the evidence affidavits of PWs.2 and 3 would disclose that the petitioner No.6 was not having any other source of income and the proposed sale was for the benefit of the minors for educating them and maintaining them, it is considered fit to permit the petitioner No.6 to sell the shares of the minors in the petition schedule property.

11. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners.

12. In the result, the petition is allowed appointing the petitioner No.6 as guardian to the person and property of the minor petitioners 1 to 5 and permitting her to alienate the shares of the minors in the petition schedule property. However, she is directed to deposit the sale proceeds pertaining to the shares of the minors in the schedule property in any Nationalized

Bank by way of Fixed Deposit in the names of the minors, till they attain the age of majority. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw only the accrued interest on such Fixed Deposits, from time to time, to meet the educational and welfare expenses of the minors.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of October, 2021.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNSSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : Khairunnisa Naheed NIL PW2 : Mirza Maohamood Ali Baig PW3 : Mohammed Ayoob

GWOP.479 of 2021

Page 6 of 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A1 20.05.2004 C.C of Sale Deed Doc.No.4260/2004

Ex.A2 03.08.2021 Death Certificate of late Mohd Ismail Sharief

Ex.A3 Aadhar Card of petitioner No.2

Ex.A4 Aadhar Card of petitioner No.3

Ex.A5 Photostat copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner No.4

Ex.A6 30.07.2021 Bonafide/Conduct Certificate of petitioner No.5

Ex.A7 Aadhar Card of petitioner No.6

Ex.A8 24.08.2021 Bonafide Certificate of petitioner No.4

Ex.A9 06.08.2021 Birth Certificate of petitioner No.2 issued by GHMC

Ex.A10 06.08.2021 Birth Certificate of petitioner No.1 issued by GHMC

Ex.A11 30.09.2021 Encumbrance Certificate of petition schedule property

Ex.A12 Aadhar Card of petitioner No.1

Ex.A13 17.08.2021 Birth Certificate of petitioner No.3 (Ex A5 is marked on verification with the original)

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT L.B.NAGAR

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Smt.G.Radha Rani,

Principal District Judge.

Monday, the 11th day of October, 2021

G.O.P.No. 478 of 2021

Between :

Chanavally Mamatha, W/o.Hailesha, D/o.late P.Srisailam, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.1-83, Yethabarpally, Nakkalapally, Kethireddypally Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, T.S. ... Petitioner

AND

All concerned. ... Respondents

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 04.10.2021 in the presence of Sri A. Srinivas Kumar, counsel for petitioner, no objections received from the respondent/All concerned, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner, the elder sister of the minor

Pentala Shivalingam, under Section 7 to 10 r/w Sec. 29 of Guardian and

Wards Act, 1890, to appoint her as guardian of her minor brother, aged 12 years and to permit her to alienate the minor’s property shown in the schedule.

2.The petitioner submitted that, she was the natural elder sister of

Pentala Shivalingam, S/o.late Pentala Srisailam, who was aged 12 years and was a student. The minor was presently residing with her under her care

GWOP.478 of 2021

Page 2 of 5 and guardianship. Their father Pentala Srisailam expired on 17.01.2020.

Their mother Smt.Pentala Lalitha also pre-deceased him on 05.09.2017 leaving behind them their children (1) P.Mamatha (petitioner herein) (2)

P.Madhavi (3) M.Manasa (4) P.Manju and (5) P.Shivalingam (minor) as their legal heirs and successors. Their father Pentala Srisailam during his life time acquired Ac.1-04 guntas of land i.e., Ac.0-18 Gts in Sy.No.71/U, Ac.0-06 Gts in Sy.No.71/A1, Ac.0-03 Gts in Sy.No.140/AA3 and Ac.0-17 Gts in

Sy.No.138/AA3, situated at Ameerpet Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District, in the name of his minor son Pentala Shivalingam. The land was mutated in the name of the minor and a Patta Passbook was also issued by the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal. The minor was studying and the petitioner was trying to take all possible steps to provide all amenities for his higher education and to secure his better future at her level best. But, the petitioner was not well enough to meet the educational expenditure of the minor. She had no source left, except to alienate part of the above property. As such, she intended to alienate Ac.0-24 Gts in the above property i.e., Ac.0-18 Gts in Sy.No.71/U and Ac.0-06 Gts in Sy.No.71/A1.

The property was also situated at the nook of Ameerpet Village,

Maheshwaram Mandal. It was becoming difficult for her to protect it from unsocial elements and land grabbers. The property was located far from the residence of the petitioner. The schedule property was not fetching any considerable income. As such, she intended to dispose the said property and to utilize the sale consideration for the higher education of the minor.

She had no adverse interest to alienate the property. It was only for the welfare and future career of the minor, she proposed to sell part of the property and prayed to allow the petition.

GWOP.478 of 2021

Page 3 of 5

3.Notice was issued to the general public by way of publication in ‘Nava

Telangana’ Telugu daily newspaper circulated in Ranga Reddy District.

Notice was also affixed on the Notice Board. Publication filed. No objections received.

4.The petitioner examined herself as PW1. Exs.A1 to A8 are marked on her behalf.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.Now the point for consideration is “whether the petitioner can be

appointed as guardian to the person and property of the minor and

whether she can be permitted to alienate part of the property i.e.,

the schedule property herein?”.

POINT :

7. The petitioner examined as PW1 filed her evidence affidavit on the same lines of the petition. She also got filed third party affidavits in support of her evidence. Ex.A1 is the Death Certificate of the father of petitioner namely Pentala Srisailam, which would disclose that he died on 17.01.2020.

Ex.A2 is the copy of the Patta Passbook in the name of the minor Pentala

Shivalingam and it would disclose that the minor was holding Ac.1-04 guntas of land in Ameerpet Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Ex.A3 is the Bonafide and Conduct Certificate of the minor Pentala

Shivalingam issued by the Headmaster of ZPHS Boys School, Ameerpet,

Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R.District. It would disclose that the minor studied from VI to VIII Class in English Medium in the said school and his date of birth as per the records was 05.07.2009. Ex.A4 is the copy of the Aadhar

Card of the petitioner and Ex.A5 is the copy of the Aadhar Card of the minor.

GWOP.478 of 2021

Page 4 of 5

Ex.A6 is the copy of the Aadhar Card of their deceased father Pentala

Srisailam and Ex.A7 is the copy of the Aadhar Card of their mother Pentala

Lalitha. Ex.A8 is the copy of the Death Certificate of their mother Pentala

Lalitha, which would disclose that she died on 05.09.2017. Exs.A2, A4 to A8 are marked on verification with the originals.

8.The evidence of PW1 is supported by the third party affidavits of her sisters Madhavi, Manasa and Manju and of two others by name Sri M.Balraj and P.Rayappa (MPTC Member). These affidavits would disclose that the petitioner was having no adverse interest against the interest of the minor and the minor was under her care and custody and she was looking after his education and was taking care of his welfare. As the evidence of PW1 would disclose that she was having no other means to look after him and as such intended to sell part of the property standing in the name of the minor, it is considered fit to appoint her as guardian to the person and property of the minor and to permit her to sell the petition schedule property standing in the name of the minor.

9. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed appointing the petitioner as guardian to the person and property of the minor Pentala Shivalingam and permitting her to alienate the petition schedule property standing in the name of the minor. However, she is directed to deposit the sale proceeds of the petition schedule property in any Nationalized Bank by way of Fixed

Deposit in the name of the minor, till he attains the age of majority. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw only the accrued interest on such Fixed

GWOP.478 of 2021

Page 5 of 5

Deposit, from time to time, to meet the educational and welfare expenses of the minor.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of October, 2021.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNSSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : Chnavelly Mamatha NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A1 18.01.2020 Death Certificate of late Pentala Srisailam

Photostat copy of Pattadar Pass Book of minor Pentala Ex.A2 Shivalingam

Bonafide & Conduct Certificate of minor Pentala Ex.A3 18.08.2021 Shivalingam issued by the Headmaster, ZPHS Boys School, Ameerpet, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R.District

Ex.A4 Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner

Ex.A5 Copy of Aadhar Card of minor P.Shivalingam

Ex.A6 Copy of Aadhar Card of late P.Srisailam

Ex.A7 Copy of Aadhar Card of late P.Lalitha

Ex.A8 18.09.2017 Copy of Death Certificate of late Pentala Lalitha (Exs.2, 4 to 8 are marked on verification with the originals)

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT L.B.NAGAR

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Smt.G.Radha Rani,

Principal District Judge.

Tuesday, the 12th day of October, 2021

G.O.P.No. 480 of 2021

Between :

1.Smt.Lingala Sabitha, W/o.late Lingala Madhusudan Goud, Aged 43 years, Occ: Housewife,

2.Baby Lingala Sahasra, D/o.late Lingala Madhusudan Goud,

Aged about 9 years, Occ: Student, ... Petitioners

Petitioner No.2 being minor represented By her natural mother and guardian.

Both are R/o.H.No.7-4-12, Plot Nos.35, 36 & 41, Flat No.202, Roma Arcade, Road No.2, Tirumala Colony, Beside Alpha School, Chintalakunta, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad 500 074.

AND

All concerned. ... Respondents

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 05.10.2021 in the presence of Sri K.P.Saradhi, counsel for petitioners, no objections received from the respondent/All concerned, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 8(2) of Hindu

Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 r/w Section 29 of Guardian and Wards

Act, 1890, seeking permission to sell the petition schedule property including the share of the minor in it.

GWOP.480 of 2021

Page 2 of 5

2.The petitioners submitted that, the petitioner No.1 was the mother of the minor petitioner No.2. The father of the minor Lingala Madhusudan

Goud died on 27.04.2021. During his life time, Lingala Madhusudan Goud acquired 150 Sq.Yds or 125.419 Sq.Mtrs shown as Plot No.27 in the layout named as “Sri Sai Balaji township” in Sy.Nos.56/P & 57/P, situated at

Koheda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred as ‘petition schedule property’) under Turkayamjal Municipality, vide registered Sale Deed Doc.No.1141/2021 dated 23.01.2021, registered

before the Sub-Registrar, Pedda Amberpet. The petitioner No.1 and her

minor daughter (petitioner No.2 herein) were having half share over the said property as legal heirs of late Lingala Madhusudan Goud. The petitioner

No.1 was a housewife. She was not having regular income. Keeping the interest of the minor child, to meet her educational needs and to provide her good education, the petitioner No.1 was intending to sell away the petition schedule property including the share of the minor petitioner No.2 in it. The minor was studying IV Class in St.Anns, Secunderabad. The petitioner No.1 had no adverse interest against the interest of the minor. The minor petitioner No.2 was under the care and custody of the petitioner No.1 after the death of her husband and prayed to allow the petition.

3.Notice was issued to the general public by way of publication in ‘Vaartha’ Telugu daily newspaper circulated in Ranga Reddy District. Notice was also affixed on the Notice Board. Publication filed. No objections received.

4.The petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1. Exs.A1 to A5 are marked on her behalf. A third party affidavit was also filed by her brother by name Naran Satish Goud.

GWOP.480 of 2021

Page 3 of 5

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6.Now the point for consideration is “whether the petitioner No.1 can

be permitted to alienate the petition schedule property including the

half share of the minor in it?”.

POINT :

7. The petitioner No.1 examined as PW1 filed her evidence affidavit on the same lines of the petition and relied upon Exs.A1 to A5 in support of her contention. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the sale deed. It would disclose that Lingala Madhusudan Goud purchased the petition schedule property vide Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.1141/2021 on 23.01.2021. Ex.A2 is the

Death Certificate of late Lingala Madhusudan Goud. It would disclose that he died on 27.04.2021. Ex.A3 is the copy of the Birth Certificate of the minor petitioner No.2, which would disclose her date of birth as 10.12.2012.

Exs.A4 and A5 are the Encumbrance Certificate and Market Value Certificate of the petition schedule property.

8.The evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A5 remained unchallenged.

9.PW1 also filed a third party affidavit her brother Naran Satish Goud.

He stated that, petitioner No.1 was the natural mother of the minor petitioner No.2, having no adverse interest against the interest of the minor and she was intending to sell the petition schedule property as she was unable to meet the educational needs of the minor.

10.Considering the evidence of PW1 and the third party affidavit of her brother, as the petitioner No.1 is none other than the natural mother of the minor petitioner No.2, having no adverse interest against the interest of the minor and as she is intending to sell the petition schedule property as she

GWOP.480 of 2021

Page 4 of 5 was having no other source of income after the death of her husband to meet the educational expenses of the minor, it is considered fit to allow the petition permitting the petitioner No.1 to sell the petition schedule property including the half share of the minor petitioner No.2 in it.

11. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners.

12. In the result, the petition is allowed permitting the petitioner No.1 to sell the petition schedule property including the half share of the minor petitioner No.2 in it to prospective purchasers. However, the petitioner No.1 is directed to deposit the sale proceeds pertaining to the share of the minor in the petition schedule property in any Nationalized Bank by way of Fixed

Deposit in the name of the minor, till she attains the age of majority. The petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw only the accrued interest on such

Fixed Deposit, from time to time, to meet the educational and welfare expenses of the minor.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of October, 2021.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNSSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : L. Sabitha NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A1 23.01.2021 C.C of Sale Deed vide Doc.No.1141/2021

GWOP.480 of 2021

Page 5 of 5

Ex.A2 02.06.2021 Death Certificate of late Lingala Madhusudan Goud

Ex.A3 10.12.2012 Photostat copy of Birth Certificate of Lingala Sahasra

Ex.A4 15.06.2021 Encumbrance Certificate

Ex.A5 15.06.2021 Market Value Certificate (Ex.A3 is marked on verification with original)

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT L.B.NAGAR

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Smt.G.Radha Rani,

Principal District Judge.

Tuesday, the 12th day of October, 2021

G.O.P.No. 258 of 2021

Between :

1.Ahammad Ibrahem, S/o.Mahammad Jahangeer, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Smt.Farida Begum, W/o.Mahammad Ibrahem, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Housewife,

3.Mahammad Ishak, S/o.Mahammad Ibrahem,

Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student, ... Petitioners

All are R/o.H.No.5-162/1, Bangarigadda Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Now Yadadri Bhongir District.

AND

All concerned. ... Respondents

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 05.10.2021 in the presence of Sri V. Venugopal Reddy, counsel for petitioners, no objections received from the respondent/All concerned, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners 1 to 3 under Section 7 to 10 r/w

Sec.29 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking permission to sell the share of the minor in the petition schedule property.

GWOP.258 of 2021

Page 2 of 4

2.The petitioners submitted that, the petitioners 1 and 2 were the natural parents of the petitioner No.3 and the minor Mahammad Ismail. The minor was born on 10.04.2002. He was aged 16 years and was under the care and custody of the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 inherited a demolished house bearing No.2-63 in Grama Kantam (old Village) open place, admeasuring 325 Sq.Yds or equivalent to 271.73 Sq.Mtrs, situated at

Arutla Village, Manchal Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter called as ‘petition schedule property’) from his ancestors. He gifted the schedule property in favour of his natural sons i.e., petitioner No.3 herein and the minor Mahammad Ismail vide registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Doc.No.1875/2017 dated 01.04.2017. The petitioners were having no other source of income except the petition schedule property. The petitioners were in need of money to meet the educational expenses of the petitioner No.3 and the minor Mahammad Ismail. The petitioners were also not in a position to protect the petition schedule property from land grabbers. As such, they intended to sell away the schedule property including the half share of the minor in it. The petitioners were having no adverse interest against the minor Mahammad Ismail and prayed to allow the petition.

3.Notice was issued to the general public by way of publication in ‘Vaartha’ Telugu daily newspaper circulated in Ranga Reddy District. Notice was also affixed on the Notice Board. Publication filed. No objections received.

4.The petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW1. Exs.A1 to A7 are marked on behalf of the petitioners.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

GWOP.258 of 2021

Page 3 of 4

6.Now the point for consideration is “whether the petitioners can be

permitted to alienate the petition schedule property including the

half share of the minor in it?”.

POINT :

7. The petitioner No.1 examined as PW1 filed his evidence affidavit on the same lines of the petition and relied upon Exs.A1 to A7 in support of his contention. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the registered Gift Settlement

Deed bearing Doc.No.1875/2017 dated 01.04.2017. Ex.A2 is the Aadhar

Card of the minor Mahammad Ismail. Exs.A3 to A5 are the Aadhar Cards of the petitioners 1 to 3 herein. Ex.A6 is the Encumbrance Certificate and

Ex.A7 is the Market Value Certificate of the petition schedule property.

8.The evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 remained unchallenged.

9.Considering that the petitioner No.1 is none other than the natural father of the minor, having no adverse interest against the interest of the minor and he himself gifted the petition schedule property to his sons i.e., petitioner No.3 herein and the minor and the petitioners 1 and 2 are intending to sell the same to meet the educational expenses of their children i.e., petitioner No.3 herein and the minor, it is considered fit to allow the petition permitting them to sell the petition schedule property including the half share of the minor in it to the third party purchasers.

10. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners.

11. In the result, the petition is allowed permitting the petitioners to alienate the petition schedule property including the half share of the minor in it to prospective purchasers. However, the petitioners are directed to deposit the sale proceeds pertaining to the share of the minor in the petition

GWOP.258 of 2021

Page 4 of 4 schedule property in any Nationalized Bank by way of Fixed Deposit in the name of the minor, till he attains the age of majority. The petitioners 1 & 2 being parents are permitted to withdraw only the accrued interest on such

Fixed Deposit, from time to time, to meet the educational and welfare expenses of the minor.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of October, 2021.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNSSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : Mahammad Ibrahem NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS

01.04.2017 C.C of Registered gift Settlement Deed Ex.A1 Doc.No.1875/2017

Ex.A2 Aadhar Card of minor Mahammad Ismail

Ex.A3 Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.1

Ex.A4 Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.2

Ex.A5 Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.3 14.09.2021 Encumbrance Certificate of the petition schedule Ex.A6 property 14.09.2021 Market Value Certificate of the petition schedule Ex.A7 property

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT