Sri.G.V.Subrahmanyam

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC, VIl-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE. AT: MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the 12th day of November, 2019

Present:- Sri G.V. Subrahmanyam, Pri. Sessions Judge, FAC, VI-Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Spl.S.C.No. 142 of 2017

Between: The State of Telangana through Police, P.,S. Gadwwal Rural.

.Complainant.

And

1. Ghouni Radhakrishna Reddy s/o Sarva Reddy, age: 45 years, occ: Agriculture & MPTC, r/o Beerelly village of Gadwal mandal.

2. D.Ayyapu Reddy s/o Chenna Reddy, age: 70 years, ocC: Agrl.,

r/o Lathipuram village of Gadwal manda.

.AccUsed.

u/Sec.420 of IPC and u/Secs.3(i) (f) and 3(1)(s) of

Nature of offences SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2016.

Pleaded not guilty. Plea of the gCCUSed

Found not guilty. Finding of the court In the result, A. l and A.2 are found not guilty for the Sentence or order offence under Sec.420 of IPC and u/SeCs.3(i) (f) and

3(1)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2016 and

thereby they are acquitted u/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

bail bonds of the aCCUsed shall stand The

2Dist. & cancelled after expiry of the appeal time.

-o00 This Case coming up before me for hearing on 08.11.2019 in the

prêsence of/Sri B.Bala Gangadhar Reddy, Public Prosecutor for the State and

Kumar, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the

rOf Sri.K.Prat�p

material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

court delivered the following:

JUDG MENT

This case is tried against the accUsed l and 2 for the offence u/Sec.420 1. of IPC and u/Secs.3(i) (f) and 3(1)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2016.

Brief facts of the case of prosecution as per the charge sheet are that 2. about 7-00 p.m., the defacto-complainant Smt. 24.01.2017 at on Eestharamma came to P.S., Gadwal Rural and submitted a written complaint stating that G.Radhakrishna Reddy (A.1) sold away Ac.l-00 of his land to

D.Ayyapu Reddy (A.2) without her knowledge. About four months back,

Ayyapu Reddy tried to cultivate the land but she stopped him. While leaving the place, he threatened that Radhakrishna Reddy sold away the said land to him and he asked the complainant to settle the matter with Radhakrishna

Reddy. At that on OL.01.2017 she went to Radhakrishna Reddy (A.1) and

asked him as to how he sold away Ac.1-00 of land to Ayyapu Reddy. On

that A.l and A.2 abused her as 'Madiga mundallara, na daggaraku vachi

nannu edirinchi adugutara, meeru nannem peekaleru'. Later he offered

money to the complainant and asked her not to disclose about the incident

to anybody. Since the matter is not settled, she gave the complaint to the

police.

Basing on the said complaint, the S.l of Police has registered a case in

3

Cr.No.13/2017 under Sec.3(1) (s) of SC/ST(POA) Act and sent the copy of the

FL.R., to the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal. The investigating

officer has taken up the investigation and visited the scene of offence and

conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two witnesses.

He has examined and recorded the statements of complainant and three

crcumstàrntial witnesses and four eye witnesses.

A.l and A.2 approached the Hon'ble High Court, as sUch the 4.

dçcUsed were not arrested as per the directions in W.P.No.6884/2017, dated:

28.02.2017.

The investigation made by the investigating officer reveal that the 5

sale which had taken place in favour of A.2 by A.l is deceitful act, hence

Tney are liable for conviction u/Sec.420 of IPC. Thus, charge sheet is filed

u/Sec.420 of IPC and u/Sec.3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

6. This court took the cognizance of the offence U/Sec.420 of IPC and

U/Sec.3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) ACt agginst the acCUsed 1 and 2. On the

appearance of the accused before the Court and upon the consideration of

all the material placed by the prosecution, the charges u/sec.420 of IPC and

U/Sec.3(i)(f) and 3(1)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Act were framed against the

accused by the Court and the said charges were read over and explained

to the accused and having understood the same, they denied the offence,

pleaded not gilty and claimed to be tried.

Now, the point for consideration is:

7.

Whether the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the offence u/Secs.420 of IPC and u/Secs.3()() and 3(1)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has chosen to

8. examine 9 witnesses. PW.1 is the defactO-Complainant. She has reiterated the contents of the complaint in her chief-examination. She added by

Saying that her family has got Acs.8-00 of land, out of which, Ac.1-00 has been wrongly sold by A.l in favour of A.2. She said that A.2 abused her in the name of caste as 'Madiga dana neeku yendukU polam'. A.l also abused her in the name of caste as 'Madiga dana neeku yenduku polam' and he also chalenged her to file a case against them at any place. The incident

was wifnessed by Pedda Kistanna and Boya Gopal. The complaint is marked

ias Ex.P]"

In the cross-examination, he stated that the total extent of land in 9 A.l has got Acs.6-00 of land in the same survey Sy.No.480 is Acs, 14-00. number. A.l had sold away Ac.1-00 of land to A.2. It is admitted by her thot 4

A.2 filed O.S.No.95 of 2012 for the relief of perpetual injunction on the file of

Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal against PW.T and one Raju. It was admitte her that eventually the said suit was decreed.

She admitted that there is a boundary dispute in between A.l gnd 10. A.2 on one hand and her family on the other. It is her contention that the property purchased by A.2 is part of Acs.8-00 of land owned by her whereas

A.2 claims that he purchased the said land in Sy.No.480 which is adjacent to

Sy.No.479. The land purchased by A.2 is on the northern side of the road

whereas the land belonging to A.l is on the southern side of the road.

11. She admitted that in the year 2010 also, she gave a complaint

against Pedda Kistanna under the provisions of SCs/STs (POA) Act. The said

case is compromised. In the present case, the incident lasted for about two

hours. Some neighbouring land owners also gathered there. She stated that

she gave the complaint to the police 10 days after the incident. One Mr.Raju had scribed Ex.P1.

12. An omission is elicited from her statement that she did not state to the police that A.l and A.2 abused her in the name of caste as 'Madiga

dana neeku enduku polam'.

PW.2 is an eye witness to the incident. She said that A.2 came to

13.

he land and claimed Ac.1-00 of land. He did not allow PWs.1 and 2 to

Cultivate the land and abused her as 'Madiga munda meeru yenduku

etlachestharu'. When they were resisting A.2 from cultivating the land, A.1

came there and abUsed her as 'Bosidi mundallara meeru yenduku bhoomi

meediki vastunnaru' and he also said that he had sold away Ac.1-00 of land

to A.2.

5

14. In the cross-examination, she stated that their land is situated

towards south of Gadwal - Beerelly Road and the land of A.1 is towards north

of the said road. An omission is elicited from her statement that she did not

state to the police that A.l abused as 'Bosidi mundallara meeru yenduku

bhoomi meediki vasthunnaru'. He denied the suggestion that with an

intention to grab the land of A.2, a false case is created.

PW.3 is a hearsay witness to the incident. He said that his family has 15. got Acs.8-00 of land and out of which Ac.1-00 of land was cultivated by A.1.

PWs.1 and 2 told him that when they asked to leave that place, he replied that PWs.1 and 2 belong to coolie families and they are not Supposed to have any land. If is he who took PWs.l and 2 to the police station and lodged the complaint. In the crOss-examination, he said that he came to know about the incident two or three days thereafter. The complaint is given nearly 15 days after the incident.

PW.4 is an eye witness who said that he has got land abutting to the 16. land of PWs.1 to 3 and that A.1 and A.2 tried to trespass into their land and when they questioned them, they abused them as 'Madiga mundalu

meekuyemi sambandamu'.

In the cross-examination, he said that the incident lasted for about 17. 10-rainutes. Police came to the scene of offence 10 days after the incident.

An omission is elicited from his statement that he did not state to the police thot 'Madigd mundalu meeku yemi sambandamu'. It is elicited that his brother-in-law is Ramesh Naidu. A.l has contested in MPTC elections and A.1

He denied the suggestion that because of the ityhe said elections. political rivalry, he is deposing falsehood. He admitted that PW.I ggve o complaint against him also under the provisions of SCs/STs (POA) Act and

PWs.1 and 2 have settled the matter outside the court.

witness and he said that he was doing PW.5 is another eye agicultural operations in his land, PWs.I and 2 were harvesting their cron 18.

On heonng some galata, he went to that place and saw A.l and A2 obusina PWs,l and 2 in the name of caste as 'Madigollu'. In the cross examination, an omission is elicited saying that he did not say to the police that A.1 and A.2 abused PWs.l and 2 as 'Madigollu'.

PW.6 is also an eye witness to the incident. He said that he has got 19. Acs.6-00 of land abutting the land of A.l and he had witnessed that when

PWs.l nd 2 were harvesting the paddy crop, A.l and A.2 came there and objected for cutting the paddy crop and claimed that the said land belongs to them. They also said that PWs.l and 2 can tell anybody about this. In the cross-examination, he said that PW.1 is his sister-in-law.

PW.7 is the panch for scene of offence. He said that his signature 20. Was obtained on scene of offence panchanama marked as Ex.P2, but he does not know the contents of the same.

PW.8 is the Revenue Inspector who has identified the land of A.1 21. ond A.2 and said that A.l has got Acs.6-00 of land in Sy.No.480, out of which he sold Ac.1-00 of land to A.2. In the cross-examination, he said that as per the directions of the Tahsildar, K.I. Doddi, he conducted survey but he could not fix the boundaries.

Pw.9 is the investigating officer who has reiterated the contents of

-22.

the chaNge sheet in his chief-examingtion, He collected the repOt gven Oy

V.R.O., Nagesb, which is rmarked as Ex P5 and the certificate issued by he 1ansildGr is norked as Ex.P6. Tthe registered sale deed under which A.I sold fne lond A.2 vide regi_tered sale deed No.347 |/2012, dated: 13.04.2012 is 7 marked as Ex.P7. The attested copy of the registered sale deed

No.5466/2010, dated: 26.07.2010 is marked as Ex.P8.

In the cross-examination, he stated that he has not collected any 23.

revenue documents to show that as to who is in posession of the disputed

land like pahanies and ROR. He said that he does not know whether V.R.O.

is Competent to certify about the ownership and possession of a particular land. He admitted that in Ex.P5 there is no clear mention that PWs.1 to 3 are

the pattedars of the disputed land.

During the course of investigation, he could not ascertain about the 24. pendency of 0.S.No.95 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal. He denied the suggestion that PWs.I and 2 were never in possession of the disputed Ac.1-00 of land. He did not examine and record the statement of

Venkatesh who was in pOssession of land in Sy.No.478 and another neighbour

DhanunjayaRao. The omissions which were elicited from the statements of

PWs.1 to 4 have been admitted by him.

In clear terms, he admitted that A.l has got Acs.5-00 of land 25. towards north of the road and he has Sold away Ac.1-00 of land to A.2. He denied the suggestion that with an intention to grab the land of A.2, a false case is Cooked up against the accused.

This is the evidence available on record to find out as to whether 26. ,fhe oròsecution could successful in bringing home the guilt of the accUsed beyondreasonable doubt.

Point:- When the evidence on behalf of the prosecution is carefully -andlyzed, the basic fact which emerges is that there is a land dispute in between the acCUsed and PWs.1 and 2. Thus, they have got enmity against each other. PWs.1 to 3 have categorically admitted in the cross-examination of culfivating land fowards SOUth the road where0s that they have been the of of of of north the road. Out ACs.6-00 A.l Acs.6-00 land towards has got to to by he of land adjacent the rogd A.l, sold Ac.l-00 land owned away by to of 2 land sold A.] A.2 that the said Ac.l-00 A.2, but PWs.l contend

and

of in is is dispute between them. road. This the crUX the far from the away

to 3 in of

It of

is

28. that they are possession fhe the contention PWs.l of a A.2, admittedly, filed suit for perpetual disputed Ac.1-00 land, but of on of file Junior Civl Judge, Gadwal. injunction vide O.S.No.95 2012 the in of of it trial suit, decreed favour A.2. This admission After the said has been to 3 in by to 3 clearly suggests that PWs.1 never possession PWs.1 were made of If established their possession, they the disputed land. they could have On Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal. the other got injunction from WOuld have established his possession over the disputed land, hand, A.2 who had in 2 he therefore, suit obtained injunction against PWs.1, suCceeded the and

4. to 3 lost their civil litigation also, obviously, they bore and Since PWs.1 against A.l A.2.

29. grudge and

to 3 to

different versions with regard the abusive PWs.1 have given

by as

A.2. PW.1 said that A.l abused 'Madiga words allegedly Used A.l and as that 'Bosidi yenduku polam', PW.2 said A.1 abused dana neeku meediki vastunnaru' PW.4 said that mundallara meeru yenduku bhoomi and

of

as If

really all 'Madiga mundalu meeku yemi sambandamu'. A.t abused

at if

really incident have taken place, place the would were one and hem in abusive words uftered stated parrot tone about the COrIa have one ney

of 2 4,

of

by

contradictory statements PWs.l, and Aij A.2. Because the

and

of of to be fhe fact taking place incident appears doubtfU.

in of If is

30. that filed imilar elicited cross-examination PW.I she has the in of or village the provisions SCs/STs Cases against twO persons the Under one

of

filed against PW.4 the said (POA) one sUch cases has been and Act and of it in by as a settled A.2 herein, resull which ended matter was A.l and 3 in to the said accused another case Compromise. Now, PWs.I have Used is in Os It a to a also elicited foist false agoinst this acCUsed. weapon case

of 4

contested M.P.T.C., elections against cross-examination that A.l the PW.

of in

elections. Therefore, that connection, A.I the the brother PW.4 and won

as

rivalry A.2, such his political against A.1 and obviously. PW.4 has got be to be evidence cannot accepted trUe.

on It is

lines. nobody's case that

31. investigation went unnecessary The by A. 1 to It is A.2. nobody's case that A.l and A.2 land the wTongly sold was As to 3. of the version the V.R.O., Nagesh, A.l has got cheated PWs.1 per in he of to of Sy.No.480 sold Ac.1-00 land A.2 Acs.6-00 land and had away is to a registered sale deed. dispute only with regard the under The of of to 3 on location the land PWs.1 one hand and the land boundaries and of on is to A.l the ofher. the dispute with regard A.2 purchased from When of prosecution that A.l A.2 cheated PWs.I the boundaries, the story the and

of of of

to 3 is

investigafion. the ingredients Sec.420 IPC not proper None of 2 4 statements PWs.1, others. have been out from the and and made to at Therefore, very inspection, the prosecution failed prove the the to be of ingredients Sec.420 against the accused they deserve IPC and acquited.

PWs.I, 2 of and 4, it can be From the cross-examination that seen 32.

by of

of

nature implicating the accUsed taking advantage PW.l has got the

of

provisions SCs/STs Act. this against only accUsed, but PW.I the (POA) Not several complaints against several others also. She has been using the jPove of as an lf this instrument. really the incident taken place provisions Aci had no for 24 on to 01.01.2017, there necessity tor the complainant wait days was

No by 4

in xplanation is 2 to as

lodging the cormplaint. offered PWs.I, and 10

or 24 in

there such inordinate delay giving comploint why was dayS the

in in

Neither the complaint nor STatement, her l61 Cr.PC she had explgined in be for what reason there delay lodging Complaint. was the Ihe delay can understood that PW.1 would negotiations have had with A.l and A.2 for

iS

if

taking some compensation settled, eventually, and when not she gave

in

the complaint. Since could explain PW.1 not the delay lodging the is to be complaint, the set into Ex.Pl law which motion under appears by in SUspicioUS. Since the abusive allegedly words uttered the accUSed the of by 2 name caste are also not clearly coroboratively stated and PWs.I, 4, of to be If is and the very taking place incident also appears doubtful. it settled that suspicion law however strong be, cannot take may the place of to truth. prosecution The has burden prove the case beyond reasonable In up in of doubt. this several case, doubts have cropped view the of 2 4. of l, is impeached evidence PWs. Therefore, this court the opinion

and

in of that the prosecution failed bringing the guilt accused, home the hence to be the are acUsed deserves acquitted.

In

33. the result, A.1 guilty for offence and A.2 are found not the under of of of Sec.420 IPC u/Secs.3()(() SC/ST u/Sec.3(1)(s) and (POA) Act and

SC/ST (POA) Act thereby they are acquitted u/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The

and

of is bail bonds the accUsed shall stand Cancelled after appeal fime Over. to by

Dictated by me in Stenographer, transcribed corrected

the of him, and

ideli.

pronounced, the open Court, this the 12th November, 2019.

day

Judge, Prl. Sessions

Mahabubnagar. Appendix of Evidence: examined for] [Witnesses Prosecufion: PW.1 Eesteramma, PW.3 PW.2 A.Mariyamma, H.Raju. PW.4 Kistanna, Pedda 11

PW.5 B.Gopal, PW.7 PW.6 Harijan Beesanna, Kistaiah, Chinna Manya PW.9 PW.8 K.Nagesh, A.Balakoti.

Defence: -None Exhibits marked for Prosecution: of to Ex.P1 Report the police, PW.1 Ex.P3 Ex.P2 Crime Details Form-cum-rough sketch, in order dt: of 24.01.2017, Appointment Ex.P5 Ex.P4 F.I.R., Cr.No.13/2017 P.S. Rural, Gadwal V.R.O., Report, verification certificate dt: 17.02.2017, Ex.P6 Caste of Ex.P8 Ex.P7 of registered sale deed No.3471/2012, Attested copy registered sale No.5466/20 10. Aftested copy deed

Defence EN -

marked:

iects

Prl. Judge, Se_sions Mahabubnagar.

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

FAC, VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE , MAHABOOBNAGAR.

Monday, the 11 th day of November, 2019

Present:- Sri. G.V. Subrahmanyam.

Prl. District Judge, FAC, VII Addl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

O.S.No.93 of 2012

Between:- 1] Peerampally Anjaiah s/o P. Papaiah , Age: 52 years 2] Peerampally Srinivasulu s/o P. Papaiah , Age : 45 years 3] Peerampally Venugopal s/o P. Papaiah , Age : 38 years 4] Peerampally Raghu Ramulu s/o P. Papaiah , Age : 31 years, All are r/o Kosgi village and mandal .

…Plaintiffs

And

1] Lingampally Punyavathi w/o L.Jayappa , age: 45 years 2] Lingampally Anusha d/o L.Jayappa , age: 25 years 3] Lingampally Sireesha d/o L.Jayappa , age: 22 years 4] Lingampally Manesha d/o L.Jayappa , age: 20 years 5] Lingampally Nitisha d/o L.Jayappa , age: 18 years All are r/o Kosgi village and mandal 6] Chennaiah s/o Yellaih , Age : 48 years (died LR added as defendant no. 16) r/o Kulakcherla village and mandal , Ranga reddy district. 7] Sirigiri Kishan Rao s/o S. Narayan Rao , age : 55 years r/o Kosgi village and mandal. 8] C. Saraswathi w/o C. Narsimulu , Age: 40 years r/o H.No. 20-128 , Kosgi village and mandal. 9] Sirigiri Ramulu s/o S. Narayan rao , age: 38 years r/o Kosgi village and mandal. 10] M. Satyanarayana s/o M. Hanmaiah , Age:37 years r/o Kosgi village and mandal. 11] Rathod Chander Naik s/o Balya Naik , age: 37 years , r/o R.B. Thanda , Lagcherla village of Bomraspet mandal. 12] Ghouse Khan s/o Sardar Khan , age: 50 years , r/o Malreddypally village of Kosgi mandal. 13] Lingampally Karunanidhi s/o Adivappa , Age: 42 years , r/o Kosgi village and mandal. 14]Sirigiri Venkat Rao s/o Laxman rao , age: 34 years r/o Kosgi village and mandal. 15] A. ram Reddy @ Sri Ramulu s/o Venkataiah , Age: 38 years , r/o Kosgi village and mandal. 16] G. Chandramma w/o G. Chandraiah , age: 40 years , Occ: Agrl., r/o H.No. 1-5 , Perampally village of Kulkacherla mandal. 17] R. Jagadeeshwar Reddy s/o R. Gurunath Reddy , Age: 45 years , Occ: Business , r/o Kosgi village and mandal. ….Defendants.

Sub:- Suit for Declaration and Perpetual Injunction.

2 ##### Cause of action :- The cause of action arose on 05-12-2012 situated at kosgi village and mandal. Valuation of the suit:- The suit is valued to the extent Acs. 3-03 gts at Rs. 76,87,500/- at the rate of Rs. 25,00,000/- per acre as per the valuation certificate and its half value comes to Rs. 38,43,750/- and a court fee of Rs. 40,926/- is paid u/s 24(b) of APCF and SV act .and total cort fee of Rs. 45,352/- is paid. Date of filing :13-12-2012 and 14-12-2012 Date of institution :14-12-2012

This suit having been heard by me in the presence of Sri V. Veera Brahma CharyAdvocatefor the Plaintiffsand Sri. K. Pratap Kumar Advocate for defendant no.s 1 to 5 ,13 and 17 and Sri. A. Hari Chandra Reddy Advocate for defendant no.s 7 to 11, 14 and 15 and the suit against D6 is dismissed as he died and the suit against D12 is dismissed for not taking steps and D16 set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration THE COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :-

1. That the suit of the plaintiffs is be and hereby dismissed .

2. No order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court , this the 11th day of November,2019.

PRL. DISTRICT

JUDGE,

FAC, VII-ADDL DISTRICT

JUDGE,

MAHABOOBNAG

AR.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

SI.N PARTICULARS FOR FOR DEFENDANTS

O PLAINTIFF

D1 to D7 to D12 and

S

5 ,13 and 11 , 14 D16 17 and 15 ( D6 died .LR s of D16 ) 1Stamp on plaint 45,352-00------ 2Stamp on vakalth 2-002-002-002-00 3Stamp on process730-00------ 4Stamp on petitions-------- 5Stamp on Documents-------- 6Advocate fee(cost memo not-------- filed) 7Miscellaneous-------- Total : 46,084-002-002-002-00 Note:1. Cost memo not filed by counsel for plaintiffs.

2. Cost memo not filed by counsel for defendants.

3

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC, VII-ADDL DISTRICT

JUDGE,

MAHABOOBNAGAR..

SUIT SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

Suit schedule property land bearing Sy. No. 1799/A to an extent of Ac.3- 03 gts, situated at Kosgi village and mandal, Mahaboobnagar mandal and district, as shown in red color of plaint sketch , covered by registered sale deed Doc .No. 1441/94 datedc 4-3-94. Boundaries: East: Dhanalaxmi Rice mill ; West: rest of land North : Thandur to Mahaboobnagar road , South : Water tank

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC, VII-ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABOOBNAGAR.

FORM No.8

1. S. I . no. And item of property : One

2. Regd. District and Sub-dist : Kodangal ,Mahaboob nagar district .

3. Sy.No and Sub division : Sy. No. 1799/A

4. Extent : Ac. 3-03 gts

5. Nature of land : Dry land

6. Rental value : --

7. Present market value : --

8. Tq. Village and where the property : situated at Kosgi village , mandal and mahaboob nagar district.

9. Value for the purpose of court fee. That the suit schedule land Ac. 3-03 gts in Sy. No. 1799/A acres valued at Rs.76,87,500/- at the rate of Rs. 25,00,000/- per acre, as per the valuation certificate issued by the sub-registration of office Kodangal . Its half value comes to Rs. 38,43,750/- u/s 24(d) of APCF and SV Act on 38,43,750/- the required court fee of Rs. 40,896/- is paid for relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit suit Ac. 3-03 gts covered by suit documents and for issue of permanent injunction. The second relief of declaration suit document is sham document, the same is valued at Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 24 (d) of APCF and SV Act , on which is separate court fee of Rs. 4,426-00 is paid and total court fee of Rs. 45,322/- is paid through challan no. in the bank of SBH extension counter , District court complex , mahaboobnagar in the a/c no. of this Hon’ble court and the original pay in slip dated issued by the bank is affixed to the plaint. The third relief of the declaration that the sale deed document no. 3659/12

dated 14-12-2012 as sham document, the same is valued as per the

document valuation of Rs. 6,15,000/- u/s 24(d) of APCF and SV act , on the bank of SBI , Mahaboob nagar and the original pay in slip dated issued by the Bank is affixed to the plaint ( As per the orders in IA No 73 of 2017 dated 03-01-2018 the said para was added) . 10.Remarks Nil 4

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC, VII-ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABOOBNAGAR..

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the 12th day of November, 2019

Present:- Sri G.V.Subrahmanyam, Prl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2019

Between:

Mudavath Hanmya Naik s/o M.Chandrya Naik, age: 35 years, occ: Agriculture, r/o H.No.2-99, Jinnaram thanda h/o Jinnaram village of Vennached mandal.

…Petitioner

And

To whomsoever it may concern … Respondent

Sub: Petition filed under Secs.7 and 10 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

This petition coming up before me for final hearing on 04.11.2019 in the presence of Sri V.Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Secs.7 and 10 of Guardian and Wards

Act read with Sec.29 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

2.The gist of the petition is that the petitioner is the father of the minor children Mudavath Pallavi, who is aged about 13 years,

Mudavath Nandini, who is aged about 12 years, Mudavath Sindhu, who is aged about 10 years, and Mudavath Vamsi, who is aged about 7 years. The wife of the petitioner namely Mudavath Devi Bai @ M.Devi

Bai has purchased two open plot Nos.28 and 29 in Sy.No.1184/A, 1184/RU, 1184/RRU and 1184/E, an extent of 150 sq.yards each totaling 2 to 300 sq.yards, situated at Kosgi village and mandal from T.Bheem

Reddy s/o Chandra Reddy, N.Jagadeeshwar Reddy s/o N.Venkat

Reddy, Mahesh Kumar s/o Veeresham and K.Hari Kumar s/o K.Kistaiah for valid sale consideration through registered sale deed No.3676/2015,

dated: 09.09.2015. The wife of the petitioner died on 12.09.2017 leaving

behind the petitioner and her four children as her legal heirs.

3.The petitioner being the father and guardian of minor children intended to provide better education to the minor children and there is no source of income for the petitioner. To meet the expenditure of their education, there is no other go, but to alienate the property. Since the children are the legal heirs of the deceased Mudavath Devi Bai, the petitioner though the father of the minors, cannot alienate the property without seeking prior permission from the court, hence the petition.

4.Since there are no contesting respondents in this petition, inviting objections from the general public a wide publication of notice was done. Insptie of wide publication of notice, objections have not come from any corner.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is appointed as guardian of minors, as prayed for by the petitioner?

6.Point:- To prove the case of the petitioner, he is examined as PW.1 and he submitted the chief-examination affidavit reiterating the averments made in the petition. In his evidence, Exs.A1 to A7 are marked. The original registered sale deed under Ex.A1 clearly shows that the mother of the petitioner has purchased the petition schedule 3 property. The petitioner being the husband becomes one shareholder and the children Mudavath Pallavi, Mudavth Nandini, Mudavath

Sindhu and Mudavath Vamshi being the children of the deceased

Mudavath Devi Bai @ M.Devi Bai, are also entitled for one share each.

So, if the petitioner wanted to alienate the entire property, he cannot alienate the property because the share of the minors in the said property. It is contended by the petitioner that he wanted to alienate the property to meet the education expenses of the children.

7.The petitioner has submitted the Bonafide certificates of the minor children marked as Exs.A3 to A7. As per the authenticated documents under Exs.A3 to A7, the children of the petitioner are still minors. The petitioner has submitted the death certificate of his wife marked as

Ex.A2, which clearly shows that the owner of the property as per the document is no more. The documents filed by the petitioner establish the fact that the petitioner is entitled to alienate the property to meet the education expenses of the minor children.

8.On examination of the minor petitioners also, the court felt that the petitioner, being the father, has no adverse interest against the minors.

The minors appeared before the court with an understanding and represented that they have no objection if their father alienates the property and they have no adverse interests against their father.

Because the act of the petitioner is in the larger interests of the minors and since the interests of the minors is paramount consideration, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to allow the petition as prayed for.

4

9.In the result, the petition is allowed with the following observations:- a.The petitioner Mudavath Hanmya Naik is appointed as guardian of minors Mudavath Pallavi, Mudavath Nandini,

Mudavath Sindhu and Mudavath Vamshi.

b.The petitioner is permitted to alienate the property to any prospective purchasers.

c.The sale consideration received by the petitioner shall exclusively be utilized for the welfare of the minors.

d.The accounts in respect of the amount spent for the welfare of the minors shall be submitted to the court once in six months.

e.No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of November, 2019.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW.1: M.Hanmya Naik. - Nil -

Exhibits Marked

Ex.A1: Original Registered Sale Deed No.3676/2015, dt: 09.09.2015, Ex.A2: Death certificate Mudavath Devi Bai, Ex.A3: Bonafide certificate of M.Usha Rani, Ex.A4: Bonafide certificate of M.Pallavi, Ex.A5: Bonafide certificate of M.Nandini, Ex.A6: Bonafide certificate of M.Sindhu, Ex.A7: Bonafide certificate of M.Vamshi.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the 12th day of November, 2019

Present:- Sri G.V.Subrahmanyam, Prl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

M.H.O.P.No.1 of 2019

Between:

Fatima Zeenath d/o late Abdul Hameed w/o Md.Moiz Ahmed, age: 45 years, occ: Govt. Employee (Teacher), r/o H.No.1-4-107/1, Arab Galli, Newtown, Mahabubnagar.

…Petitioner

And

To whomsoever it may concern … Respondent

Sub: Petition filed under Secs.52 and 53 of Mental and Health Act, 1987.

This petition coming up before me for final hearing on 11.11.2019 in the presence of Sri Md.Abdul Wahab, Advocate for the petitioner and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Secs.52 and 53 of Mental and Health

Act, 1987.

2.The gist of the petition is that the petitioner is the elder sister of

M.A.Haseeb, who is a mentally retarded person. Rafia Aijaz Siddiqua, the mother of the petitioner and M.A.Haseeb died on 23.11.2013 and the father of the petitioner and M.A.Haseeb also died on 24.02.2019.

3.It is further submitted that since the date of death of parents of the petitioner, she has been looking after the welfare of his mentally retarded brother. The parents of the petitioner are Retired Government 2

Teachers and the brother of the petitioner, who is a mentally retarded person, is entitled for the family pension, but he is not getting the same for want of Guardianship Certificate. Since the petitioner is the elder sister of the mentally retarded person is required to submit the

Guardianship Certificate to get the pensionary benefits of their late parents, hence the petition.

4.Since there are no contesting respondents in this petition, inviting objections from the general public a wide publication of notice was done. Insptie of wide publication of notice, objections have not come from any corner.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is appointed as guardian of mentally challenged person, as prayed for by the petitioner?

6.Point:- To prove the case of the petitioner, she is examined as PW.1 and she submitted the chief-examination affidavit reiterating the averments made in the petition. In her evidence, Exs.A1 to A6 are marked. The attested copy of the certificate with disability issued by the Government Medical Board dated: 09.03.2015 is marked as Ex.A1.

As per the said certificate, the younger brother of the petitioner i.e.,

M.A.Haseeb is suffering from permanent disability of mental retardation (moderate). The petitioner has also filed the attested copies of death certificates of her parents marked as Exs.A2 and A3. As per the said certificates, the mother of the petitioner died on 23.11.2013 and the father of the petitioner died on 24.02.2019. The family members certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mahabubnagar Urban marked as 3

Ex.A4 shows that the father of the petitioner i.e., Abdul Hameed died leaving behind the petitioner and her mentally chellanged brother

M.A.Haseeb as his legal heirs. The petitioner has also chosen to file the

Aadhar card of the petitioner and her mentally retarded brother marked as Exs.A5 and A6. As per the said documents, it is clear that the younger brother of the petitioner is a mentally retarded person and the petitioner is looking after his welfare. To meet the financial crisis, the petitioner is requires the certificate of guardianship to get the pensionary benefits of his late parents.

7.Apart from the oral evidence of PW.1, the petitioner has also chosen to file the 3rd party affidavit of one Mohammed Bin Abdullah who has stated that the mentally retarded person is under the care and custody of the petitioner and that the petitioner has no adverse interests against the mentally challenged person and that the present petition is filed for the benefit of mentally challenged person.

8.On examination of the mentally challenged person, the court felt that the petitioner, being the elder sister, has no adverse interest against the mentally retarded persons. The petitioner along with her brother appeared before the court and represented that she is looking after welfare of her mentally challenged brother. Since there is no adverse interest against mentally challenged person, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to allow the petition as prayed for.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed with the following observations:- a.The petitioner Fatima Zeenath is appointed as guardian of her mentally challenged brother M.A.Haseeb.

4 b.The petitioner is entitled to get the family pension of her parents.

c.The amount of pension received by the petitioner shall exclusively be utilized for the welfare of her brother.

d.The accounts in respect of the amount spent for the welfare of her brother shall be submitted to the court once in six months.

e.No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of November, 2019.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW.1: Fatima Zeenath. - Nil -

Exhibits Marked

Ex.A1: Attested copy of Disability Certificate dt: 09.03.2015, Ex.A2: Attested copy of death certificate of Rafia Aijaz Siddiqua, Ex.A3: Attested copy of death certificate of Abdul Hameed, Ex.A4: Attested copy of family members certificate, Ex.A5: Attested copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner, Ex.A6: Attested copy of Aadhar card of mentally retarded person.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the 12th day of November, 2019

Present:- Sri G.V.Subrahmanyam, Prl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

G.W.O.P.No.14 of 2019

Between:

Sunnam Venkat Ramulu s/o Sunnam Pentaiah, age: 41 years, occ: Private Employee, r/o H.No.7-1-59, New Prem Nagar, Mahabubnagar.

…Petitioner

And

To whomsoever it may concern … Respondent

Sub: Petition filed under Secs.7 and 10 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

This petition coming up before me for final hearing on 05.11.2019 in the presence of Sri N.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Secs.7 and 10 of Guardian and Wards

Act read with Sec.29 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

2.The gist of the petition is that the petitioner is the father of the minor children Sunnam Sri Hari, who is aged about 15 years, Sunnam

Pavan, who is aged about 13 years, and Sunnam Deepika, who is aged about 11 years. The wife of the petitioner namely S.Padmamma has purchased an open plot No.17 in Sy.No.211/1, an extent of 201.66 sq.yards, situated at Yenugonda village of Mahabubnagar mandal from M.A.Qayyum for valid sale consideration through registered sale 2 deed No.3893/2002, dated: 19.08.2011. The wife of the petitioner died on 19.08.2011 leaving behind the petitioner and her three children as her legal heirs.

3.The petitioner being the father and guardian of minor children intended to provide better education to the minor children and there is no source of income for the petitioner. To meet the expenditure of their education, there is no other go, but to alienate the property. Since the children are the legal heirs of the deceased Sunnam Padmamma, the petitioner though the father of the minors, cannot alienate the property without seeking prior permission from the court, hence the petition.

4.Since there are no contesting respondents in this petition, inviting objections from the general public a wide publication of notice was done. Insptie of wide publication of notice, objections have not come from any corner.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is appointed as guardian of minors, as prayed for by the petitioner?

6.Point:- To prove the case of the petitioner, he is examined as PW.1 and he submitted the chief-examination affidavit reiterating the averments made in the petition. In his evidence, Exs.A1 to A6 are marked. The original registered sale deed under Ex.A2 clearly shows that the mother of the petitioner has purchased the petition schedule property. The petitioner being the husband becomes one shareholder and the children Sunnam Sri Hari, Sunnam Pavan and Sunnam Deepika being the children of the deceased S.Padmamma, are also entitled for 3 one share each. So, if the petitioner wanted to alienate the entire property, he cannot alienate the property because the share of the minors in the said property. It is contended by the petitioner that he wanted to alienate the property to meet the education expenses of the children.

7.The petitioner has submitted the Bonafide certificates of the minor children marked as Exs.A3 to A6. As per the authenticated documents under Exs.A3 to A6, the children of the petitioner are still minors. The petitioner has submitted the death certificate of his wife marked as

Ex.A3, which clearly shows that the owner of the property as per the document is no more. The documents filed by the petitioner establish the fact that the petitioner is entitled to alienate the property to meet the education expenses of the minor children.

8.On examination of the minor petitioners also, the court felt that the petitioner, being the father, has no adverse interest against the minors.

The minors appeared before the court with an understanding and represented that they have no objection if their father alienates property and they have no adverse interests against their father.

Because the act of the petitioner is in the larger interests of the minors and since the interests of the minors is paramount consideration, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to allow the petition as prayed for.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed with the following observations:- 4 a.The petitioner Sunnam Venkat Ramulu is appointed as guardian of minors Sunnam Sri Hari, Sunnam Pavan and

Sunnam Deepika.

b.The petitioner is permitted to alienate the property to any prospective purchasers.

c.The sale consideration received by the petitioner shall exclusively be utilized for the welfare of the minors.

d.The accounts in respect of the amount spent for the welfare of the minors shall be submitted to the court once in six months.

e.No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of November, 2019.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW.1: Sunnam Venkat Ramulu. - Nil -

Exhibits Marked

Ex.A1: Attested copy of Aadhar card of S.Deepika, Ex.A2: Original Registered Sale Deed No.3893/2002, dt: 25.02.2009, Ex.A3: Death certificate S.Padmamma, Ex.A4: Bonafide certificate of S.Deepika, Ex.A5: Bonafide certificate of S.Srihari, Ex.A6: Bonafide certificate of S.Pavan.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.