Smt. Gedam Swathi

Page 1 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BHONGIR

PRESENT: SMT. G.SWATHI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Friday on the 30 th day of January, 2026

I.A.No.121 of 2025

IN

O.S. No.104 of 2025

BETWEEN:

Rampally Mahesh, S/o. Bixapathi, Aged about 33 years, Occ: business, R/o. H.No.1-10-242/21, Shivasai Nagar Colony, Kushaiguda, ECIL Medchal-Malkajgiri District. …PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF // A N D //

Rampally Dhanamma, W/o.Bixapathi, Aged about 55 years, Occ: housewife, R/o. Medipally Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

This Petition is coming on 05-01-2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner/Plaintiff andSri R.Govindu, learned Counsel for the

Respondent/Defendant and upon hearing the arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is an Interim Application filed by Petitioner/Plaintiff under Order-

XXXIX Rule-1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C., for the sake of brevity] for granting of ad-interim injunction against Respondent/Defendant restraining the

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 2 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

Respondent/Defendant from making further construction in the house bearing

No.1-56 admeasuring to an extent of 157 square yards, ground floor in ACC consisting of four rooms and open place and having bounded by North: House of Rampally Narsimha, South: House of Yade Reddy, East: House of Ragiru

Bixapathi and Rachakonda Yadagiri and West: 33’ wide road, situated at

Medipally Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District which is hereinafter to be referred as ‘Petition Schedule Property’.

The brief facts of the case of Petitioner/Plaintiff

2.It is the case of the Petitioner/Plaintiff that the he is the absolute owner and possessor of the Petition schedule property.

2.1Originally the petition schedule property belongs to the father of the petitioner/plaintiff by name Sri Rampally Bixapathi. He registered a registered sale deed in favor of the petitioner vide document No.6825/2021 dated: 22-06- 2021. since the date of the said sale deed the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same.

2.2While things stood thus, on 25-06-2025, the petitioner visited the petition schedule property and discovered that the respondent/defendant had illegally occupied the petition schedule property. The respondent has illegally dismantled the existing structures in the petition schedule property and she is attempting to raise unauthorized construction on the petition schedule property.

The respondent is trying to create third-party rights, causing irreparable harm to the petitioner. Further petitioner informed the same to the Grampanchayath

Secretary and M.P.D.O. Bommalaramaram Mandal but they did not respond to the same.

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 3 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

2.3As matter of fact the respondent is the first wife of father of the petitioner and there are financial disputes between them regarding the same. The respondent has filed criminal cases against his father and the cases were disposed by the Court as acquittal. After acquittal of the said cases the respondent filed an application to the Grampachayath for grant of "INDIRAMMA ILLU" scheme which was provided by the Telangana

Government to the poor people. The respondent does not having any title or right in and over the petition schedule property. She illegally occupied and dismantled the existing house and trying to raise illegal constructions in the petition schedule property by taking advantage of non locality of the petitioner.

2.4On 25-06-2025, petitioner demanded the respondent that not to raise any illegal structures and to handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner. But the respondent/defendant put a deaf ear. The petitioner also informed the same to the Village Secretary

Grampanchayath Office, Medipally Village. But the officials did not taken any steps. However on 29-06-2025 the petitioner once again demanded the defendant to stop the illegal structures and to handover the possession of the same to him. But the respondent bluntly refused to do so.

2.5In such circumstances, petitioner approached the Police PS

Bommalaramaram. But the police also did not take any action against the respondent and on the other hand advised him to approach the Civil court.

2.6The Petitioner got a prima-facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and if this Hon’ble Court will not restrain the illegal activities of the

Respondent by granting temporary injunction in his favour by restraining the

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 4 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

Respondent from making further construction in the Petition Schedule Property, he would be put to great irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any terms.

2.7Hence, the Petitioner/Plaintiff filed the main suit for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction and this application for granting of ad interim injunction to restrain the Respondent/Defendant from making further construction in the Petition Schedule Property.

3.On receipt of notice, the Respondent/Defendant made her appearance through her learned Counsel and filed Counter.

The brief facts of the case of Respondent/Defendant

4.The Respondent/Defendant denied all the allegations made in the application specifically.

4.1The real facts of the case that the said property is an ancestral property of the husband of Respondent namely Rampally Bixapathi. The marriage of respondent with said Rampally Bixapathi was performed about forty seven (47)

Years ago and the respondent was blessed with only one daughter out of said wed lock. But the husband of respondent had left her and her daughter several years ago i.e., thirty (30) years ago. He got second marriage in illegal manner and settled at Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajigiri District along with his second wife family by neglecting the respondent and her daughter.

4.2Consequently the Maintenance case, Domestic Violence Case and

Criminal Cases were filed against him. Since the date of marriage the

Respondent has been residing in the Petition Schedule Property which is her matrimonial house. As per the Orders of Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-JFCM,

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 5 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

Bhongir in D.V.C.No.3/2016 dated: 02.05.2019 the Respondent is having lawful rights in respect of the said house.

4.3In fact the said registered sale deed is not a valid document because it was executed in an illegal manner. The actual physical possession of the said property was not delivered to the purchaser i.e., petitioner. As such the alleged sale transaction under the said deed is not a bonafide transaction. The said alleged registered sale deed is a false document in respect of the suit schedule property.

4.4The said house was in dilapidated condition and as per the legal procedure it was demolished and under the Indiramma illu scheme, the respondent started the new construction in place of the old house. Except the suit schedule property she has no other property and no other option for her shelter.

4.5The said Rampally Bixapathi is a Government employee worked in

Railway Department. Though he used to get good income, he neglected to maintain respondent and her daughter and not paid the maintenance amounts regularly in spite of the court order. Subsequently he had taken the VRS and received the service benefits in lump sum. During his service, he purchased a house property in the name his second wife i.e, mother of Petitioner but nothing was provided to the respondent i.e., first wife except permitting her to reside in the Petition Schedule Property. Thereafter the respondent came to know that the petition schedule property was also illegally alienated to the Petitioner.

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 6 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

4.6The Petitioner/Plaintiff failed to show his prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. If the interim orders passed in this Petition against the Respondent/Defendant, she will be put irreparable losses. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Petition with exemplary Costs.

5.During inquiry, no oral evidence is let in on either side. But, Ex.P-1 to

Ex.P-5 are marked on behalf of Petitioner/Plaintiff and in contra, to substantiate the case of Respondent/Defendant, Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked on her behalf.

6.On the date of hearing, both learned Counsels for both parties called present and argued the matter as per their pleadings.

7.Perused the material available on record.

8. Now the point germane for my determination is - “ Whether the Petitioner/Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of granting

ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondent/Defendant from making

further construction in the the Petition Schedule Property as prayed

for” ?

9. P O I N T:

9.1It is an undisputed preposition of law that in order to granting of temporary injunction, the Petitioner/Plaintiff has to establish prima-facie case and balance of convenience are in his favour and the injury that would be caused to him if the relief is not granted cannot be compensated in terms of money.

9.2To substantiate the case of the Petitioner/Plaintiff and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 on his behalf.

9.3When this Court peeps into the aspect of prima-facie case, this Court could see for that.

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 7 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

9.4On perusal of Ex.P-1, it is the certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.6825/2021, dated: 22.06.2021 executed by Rampalli Bixapathi in favor of Rampally Mahesh Kumar (Petitioner) in respect of petition schedule property, Ex.P-2, it is the original ownership certificate issued by Gram

Panchayath, Medipally Village in favor of Rampalli Bixapathi in respect of petition schedule property, Ex.P-3, it is the original Gram Panchayath receipt vide S.No.251 in respect of petition schedule property, Ex.P-4, it is the original

Gram Panchayath receipt vide S.No.301 in respect of petition schedule property, Ex.P-5, it is the original Gram Panchayath receipt vide S.No.302 in respect of petition schedule property.

On perusal of Ex.R-1, it is the certified copy of DVC.No.03 of 2016,

dated 02.05.2019 of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir in

favor of the Respondent in respect of petition schedule property, Ex.R-2, it is the original electricity bills of the respondent in respect of petition schedule property, Ex.R-3, it is the original house declaration certificate issued by the

Gram Panchayath Secretary, Medipally Village, Ex.R-4, it is the legal notice

dated: 05-02-2024 issued to the respondent.

10.At this juncture, I would like to mention the relevant rule position. Section 36 Specific Relief Act states that preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the Court. The relief of injunction is an equitable relief. The Court has to exercise discretion, based on sound judicial principles, in granting or refusing to grant the relief.

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 8 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

11.In M/s. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Coca Cola Company and others, AIR 1995 SC 2372, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court:

“Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame.

Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the ad- interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings.”

Trinity of Principles

12.The existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and suffering irreparable injury are known as trinity of principles essential to get the relief of injunction.

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 9 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

13.In “Dalpat Kumar and another Vs. Prahlad Singh and others, AIR 1993 SC 276: (1992) 1 SCC 719”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:

“It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the court satisfying that (1) there is a serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff/defendant; (2) the court's interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it.------- The phrases "prima facie case"; "balance of convenience" and "irreparable loss" are not rhetoric phrases for incantation, but words of width and elasticity, to meet myriad situations presented by man's ingenuity in given facts and circumstances, but always is hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice.

14.These principles were reiterated in umpteen number of rulings. Suffice to quote a recent ruling in “Seema Arshad Zaheer & Others Vs. Municipal

Corporation of Greater Mumbai & others, 2006 (5) ALD 1 (SC)”, where in it was observed:

The discretion of the Court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff : (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 10 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

protection of plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of defendant's rights or likely infringement of defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.

15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande Vs.

Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and Another 2019 SCC Online SC 135”

held that “In a suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, permanent injunction can be granted only to a person who is in actual possession of the property. The burden of proof lies upon the first respondent-plaintiff to prove that he was in actual and physical possession of the property on the date of suit”.

16.The burden lies on the Petitioner/Plaintiff to show his possession over the Petition Schedule Property within the boundaries shown in the petition absolutely. But, the Petitioner/Plaintiff failed to prove the fact of his actual physical possession over the petition schedule property clearly by any cogent evidence.

17.Hence, the documents relied upon by the Petitioner/Plaintiff i.e., Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 do not show the prima facie possession of the Petitioner/Plaintiff over the Petition Schedule Property. Hence, it shows that the Petitioner/Plaintiff failed to establish trinity of principles in his favour by any cogent evidence.

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 11 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

18.This is not the stage to decide about the rights of both parties and the scope of this petition is very limited to the extent of granting of temporary injunction till disposal of main suit.

19.Hence, it establishes that the documents relied upon by the

Petitioner/Plaintiff failed to show prima-facie case that the property involved is under the actual physical possession of Petitioner/Plaintiff at the time of filing of this suit by any cogent evidence.

20.Hence, the Petitioner/Plaintiff is not entitled for granting of temporary injunctionagainstRespondent/Defendantrestrainingthe

Respondent/Defendant from making further construction in the Petition

Schedule Property as prayed for.

The point is answered accordingly.

21. In the result, the Interim Application is hereby dismissed. No orders as to Costs. The ad-interim injunction order passed by this Court on 29.07.2025 is vacated.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30th day of January, 2026.

Sd/- (G.Swathi)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

NILNIL

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 12 of 12 Order in I.A.No.121/2025 in

O.S.No.104/2025, dated: 30.01.2026

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

Sl. No. Description of Document It is the certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.6825/2021, Ex.P-1

dated: 22.06.2021.

It is theoriginal ownership certificate issued by Gram Panchayath, Medipally Ex.P-2 Village in favor of Rampalli Bixapathi in respect of petition schedule property. It is the original Gram Panchayath receipt vide S.No.251 in respect of Ex.P-3 petition schedule property. It is the original Gram Panchayath receipt vide S.No.301 in respect of Ex.P-4 petition schedule property. It is the original Gram Panchayath receipt vide S.No.302 in respect of Ex.P-5 petition schedule property.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ::

Sl. No. Description of Document It is the certified copy of DVC.No.03 of 2016, dated 02.05.2019 of Additional Ex.R-1

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir.

It is the original electricity bills of the respondent in respect of petition Ex.R-2 schedule property. It is the original house declaration certificate issued by the Gram Ex.R-3 Panchayath Secretary, Medipally Village. Ex.R-4It is the legal notice dated: 05-02-2024 issued to the respondent.

Sd/- (G.Swathi)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 1 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.248/2018

Dated:09-01-2026

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BHONGIR

Present: Smt. G.SWATHI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Friday, on the 9 th day of January, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No. 248 /2018

(Crime No.131/2018 of P.S Bhongir Rural)

Between: The State represented by its

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhongir Rural. ...Complainant

And

Nalabala Sambaiah, S/o.Komaraiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Upparagudem Village, Peddavangara Mandal, Mahaboobabad District.…Accused * * * This case is coming before this Court for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. D.Chandu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri. M.Sathaiah,learned Counsel for Accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Bhongir Rural filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of Indian

Penal Code (In short “IPC in Crime No.131/2018 of P.S. Bhongir Rural.

2.The case of the Prosecution in brief is that on 10-06-2018 at evening hours the deceased/Panduga Maheshwar started his journey from Bibinagar to Tajpur

Village on his Hero Glamour bike bike bearing No.TS-30-B-1409. At About 6.40 PM when he reached at Pagidipally village bus stop on NH-163, at the meantime the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.TS-03-UC-2466 of Thorror depot stopped the bus at Pagidipally bus stop to leave the passengers and thereafter started the bus in a

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 2 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.248/2018

Dated:09-01-2026

rash and negligent manner by turning to sudden right. Due to which the right part of the bus dashed to the bike of the deceased. Then the deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries to his head and left leg. The deceased was shifted to

Government Area Hospital, Bhongir and then shifted to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad. While undergoing treatment on the same day the deceased was succumbed to injuries. Thus, the act of Accused attracts the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

3.On the strength of Report, a case was registered by LW13/B.Mallaiah, Head constable No.1744 of PS Bhongir Rural. During the course of investigation, he got examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch. Thereafter he conducted Inquest of the Deceased and sent requisition to LW12/Mala Srikanth/MVI to inspect the crime vehicle. Later PW4/K.Raghavender Goud, Sub-Inspector of Police Bhongir Rural collected all the necessary documents from concerned. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

4.The Case was taken on cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against the Accused.

5.On appearance of the Accused, the copies of documents, on which the

Prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished to Accused, in terms of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (In short ‘Cr.P.C.’).

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 3 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.248/2018

Dated:09-01-2026

6.The Accused got examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to him in Telugu language and having understood the same, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To prove its case, the Prosecution got examined PW-1/Panduga Ramesh-

Defacto-Complainant and got marked Ex.P-1 is the report. PW-2/Panduga Sathaiah-

Brother of deceased got examined and got marked Ex.P-2 is the Statement of PW-2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW-3/Panduga Lalitha-Wife of deceased got examined and got marked Ex.P-3 is the Statement of PW-3 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW-4/K. Raghavender Goud, Sub-Inspector of Police Bhongir Rural (Investigating Officer) got examined and got marked Ex.P-4 is the FIR, Ex.P-5 is the crime detail form along with rough sketch. Ex.P-6 is the section alteration memo.

Ex.P-7 is the inquest report of Deceased. Ex.P-8 is the PME report. Ex.P-9 is the

MVI report.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW-4 to

LW-13 since the matter was compromised out of the Court.

8.After closure of the Prosecution side evidence, the Accused got examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material evidence in the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 4 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.248/2018

Dated:09-01-2026

Arguments

9.Heard the oral arguments on both sides. During arguments, Sri. D.Chandu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the case is to be disposed off on merits since the material witnesses were turned hostile and did not support the

Prosecution story.

9.1On the other hand, Sri. M.Sathaiah, learned Counsel for the Accused vehemently argued that the Accused did not commit any of the offences as alleged by the Prosecution and the witnesses who deposed before the Court did not corroborate with each other to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused at relevant point of time as such they failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He prayed to acquit the Accused on benefit of doubt.

Point for Consideration

10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties, now the point for determination are:-

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the

Offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or

not ?

Appreciation of Evidence of Prosecution 11 .On perusal of evidence of PW-1 (Panduga Ramesh ) who is the Defacto-

Complainant and brother of the Deceased deposed that on 10-06-2018 at about 05- 30 PM to 06-00 PM he received a phone call from his brother’s phone by some unknown person and informed that his brother/deceased sustained injuries in a road accident by dashing a Bus at Pagidipally village while he was reached to such place

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 5 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.248/2018

Dated:09-01-2026

on his bike. The deceased was proceeding from Bibinagar to Tajpur. He also informed that the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on his head and also fractured his left leg. He also informed that his brother was shifted to Area Hospital,

Bhongir by Toll-gate persons. Immediately, he rushed to the Area Hospital, Bhongir and saw his brother/deceased who was in critical condition. Thereafter they shifted him to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. While undergoing treatment, his brother/deceased succumbed to injuries on 12-06-2018 at evening. On 12.06.2018 he lodged the present complaint after death of his brother. He came to know that the bus was taking turn and dashed to his brother’s bike, as such he fell down and sustained injuries. Ex.P1 is the Report. Police examined him.

He was cross-examined by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. He admitted he lodged Ex.P-1 on 11-06-2018.

During the cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused, he admitted that they compromised the matter out of the Court. He admitted he did not witness the accident.

12.On perusal of evidence of PW-2 (Panduga Sathaiah) who is the brother of the Deceased and PW-3 (Pandu ga Lalitha) who is the wife of the deceased deposed on 10-06-2018 they received a phone call stating that the deceased met with an accident and later he was shifted to Area Hospital, Bhongir and from there to

Gandhi hospital. The deceased died in Gandhi hospital. They had compromised the case out of the Court.

They were cross-examined by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor but nothing is elicited to doubt their evidence.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 6 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.248/2018

Dated:09-01-2026

13.On perusal of evidence of PW-4 (K.Raghavender Goud-SI of Police), he is the investigating officer deposed on 11.06.2018 at 16.00 hours, PW-1 came to police station and lodged complaint. Basing on which LW13 registered the case in

Cr.No.131/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 337 of IPC and issued

FIR. During the course of investigation LW13 examined and recorded statement of

PW-1. Thereafter, LW13 visited the scene of offence situated near Hanuman temple,

Pagidipally bus station and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of LW7 and LW8. He also recorded the statements of

LW2 to LW5. LW13 received death intimation of the deceased from Gandhi hospital who died on 11-06-2018. As such the section of law was added to the existing section. Thereafter, LW13 conducted inquest panchanama over the deceased dead body in the presence of LW9 and LW10. Thereafter the dead body was subjected to autopsy and later the dead body was handed over to their relatives. LW13 sent the crime vehicle bearing No.TS-03-UC-2466 to MVI for inspection. Accordingly LW12 inspected the crime vehicle and gave his report. While the investigation was in progress LW13 handed over the CD file to him for further investigation.

He served a notice under Section 41 (A) of Cr.P.C to the Accused and directed him to appear before the Hon’ble Court. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

During his cross-examination, he denied they made table investigation and filed false charge sheet against the accused. He denied that the accused is innocent and no way concerned with the alleged incident.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 7 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.248/2018

Dated:09-01-2026

14. In the instant case, the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 clearly shows nothing was elicited against the Accused. The only available evidence of PW-4 who is the

Investigating Officer shows the evidence of Investigating Officer is formal in nature.

PW-1 to PW-3 compromised the case out of the Court. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 clearly shows there is no clear, cogent and concrete evidence to establish the guilt of the Accused.

15.So, there is no concrete evidence on record to show the Accused has committed the said offence beyond all reasonable doubt and the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused and not proved any of the essential elements of alleged offences. So, the benefit of doubt should necessarily goes to the Accused.

16. Therefore, in the circumstances, as per the reasons stated above, this Court holds the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should necessarily goes to Accused. As such, the Accused is entitled to be acquitted.

17. In the result, the Accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C from the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and his bail bonds shall stand canceled after six Months under the provisions of Section 437A of

Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9th day of January, 2026.

Sd/- (G.Swathi)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 8 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.248/2018

Dated:09-01-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

PW-1/Panduga Ramesh-Defacto-Complainant PW-2/Panduga Sathaiah-Brother of deceased PW-3/Panduga Lalitha-Wife of deceased PW-4/K. Raghavender Goud, Sub-Inspector of Police Bhongir Rural (Investigating Officer)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

Ex.P-1 is the report. Ex.P-2 is the Statement of PW-2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-3 is the Statement of PW-3 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-4 is the FIR. Ex.P-5 is the crime detail form along with rough sketch. Ex.P-6 is the section alteration memo. Ex.P-7 is the inquest report of Deceased. Ex.P-8 is the PME report. Ex.P-9 is the MVI report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

Sd/- (G.Swathi)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 1 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.199/2022

dated: 30.01.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BHONGIR

PRESENT: SMT. G.SWATHI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Friday on the 30 th day of January, 2026

O.S.No.199 of 2022

BETWEEN:

(1) Girija Sriram, W/o.Sriram Padmanabhan, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. No.22, 7th Cross, 3rd Block Dasappa Layout, Ramamurthy Nagar, VTC, Bangalore North, PO, Doorvaninagar District, Bengaluru, Karnataka State.

(2) Aiswarya K, W/o.Karthick, D/o.Sriram Padmanabhan, Aged about 35 years, Occ: private employee, R/o.F-1, Plot No.45, 1st Cross Street, Sai Srivari Nagar, Singaperumalkoil, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu – 603204.

(3) Kirthika Sriram, W/o.Madhusudhan B, D/o.Sriram Padmanabhan, Aged about 31 years, Occ: private employee, R/o. No.225, 4th Main Road, 13th Cross, Vyalikaval, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560003. …PLAINTIFFS

// A N D //

(1) To whom it so ever concern.

(2) B.Vijaya Kumari, W/o.K.Ravi, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.3-10-106, Flat No.103, Sri Padmavathi Apartments, Gokhale Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. …DEFENDANTS

This Suit is coming on 18.12.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. O.Ramesh, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Sri. S.Janga

Reddy, learned Counsel for the Defendant No.2 and the Defendant No.1 remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:-

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 2 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.199/2022

dated: 30.01.2026

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

1.This is a Suit filed for Declaration of Plaintiffs by declaring them as the legal heirs of deceased Sriram Padmanabhan who died on 02.05.2016 in respect of Suit Schedule Property.

The brief facts of the case of the Plaintiffs:-

2.The Plaintiffs are the wife and children of deceased Sriram

Padmanabhan with regard to the Suit Schedule Property.

2.1The said deceased Sriram Padmanabhan died intestateon 02.05.2016 at Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital, AMS, Nallakunta, Hyderabad leaving behind the Plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

2.2During the life time of Sriram Padmanabhan, he purchased open Plot

No.68 in Sy.No.207/A, Sy.No.207, Sy.No.207/A/2 and Sy.No.206/Part admeasuring to an extent of 150 square yards, situated at Sri Padmavathi

Gardens, Kunoor Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District, presently

Yadadri-Bhongir District through registered sale deed vide document bearing

No.3837/2011, dated: 16-07-2011 and having bounded by East: 30’ wide road,

West: Plot No.63, North: Plot No.67 and South: Plot No.69 (herein after referred to it as “Suit Schedule Property”).

2.3After the death of said Late Sriram Padmanabhan, the Plaintiff No.2 and

Plaintiff No.3 shifted their residence to Bangalore. The marriage of Plaintiff

No.2 was performed on 24-01-2011 and the marriage of Plaintiff No.3 was solemnized on 04-12-2016.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 3 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.199/2022

dated: 30.01.2026

2.4Thereafter the Plaintiffs have entered into an agreement of sale in favor of the Defendant No.2 to sell the suit schedule property. On 14-05-2022 before execution of registration of sale deed, the defendant No.2 questioned the ownership rights of Plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule Property. Then the plaintiffs shown a certificate of “attestation of family tree” issued by Deputy

Tahsildar, Krishnarajapura, Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru District on 02-11-2020 i.e., Ex.A-7. In the said certificate, it is also stated that “attested for the purpose of inheritance case/dispute case/pension settlement and obtain survival certificate to be produced only before Revenue Department authorities for the above said purposes”.

2.5After the death of Late Sriram Padmanabhan the Plaintiffs also obtained family members certificate, dated: 15-07-2016 issued by Tahsildar, Amberpet

Mandal, Hyderabad.

2.6Even after showing these two certificates to the defendant No.2, she is objecting over the ownership of Plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property to execute the sale deed and demanded to get the Orders from Civil Court.

2.7Now, the Plaintiffs having no other remedy for the relief of declaration declaring the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased/Sriram Padmanabhan in regard of Suit Schedule Property. Hence, the Suit is filed.

3.After registering the Suit, paper publication was made for Defendant

No.1. But, nobody came forward to defend the Suit. Hence, the Suit was set exparte against the Defendant No.1. Summons were issued on Defendant

No.2. Having received Summons, the Defendant No.2 appeared through her learned Counsel and filed her Written Statement.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 4 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.199/2022

dated: 30.01.2026

The brief facts of the case of the Defendant No.2

4.The Defendant No.2 being an agreement holder to purchase the suit schedule property had questioned about the ownership of Plaintiffs as they are not having legal heir decree. Except this objection, the defendant No.2 is not disputing other contentions of the Plaintiffs.

5.During the course of Trial, Plaintiff No.1 (Girija Sriram, W/o.Sriram

Padmanabhan) herself got examined as PW-1 and got marked as Ex.A-1 to

Ex.A-13. Plaintiff No.3 (Kirthika Sriram, W/o.Madhusudhan B) herself got examined as PW-2.

6.Heard the arguments on both sides.

7.Perused the Record.

8.Now the point for determination is “Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for” ?

9. P O I N T:

9.1 The Plaintiff No.1/PW-1 (Girija Sriram, W/o.Sriram Padmanabhan) herself got examined and got exhibited Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-13 on her behalf.

Plaintiff No.2/PW-2 (Kirthika Sriram, W/o.Madhusudhan B) got examined. They reiterated the contents of Plaint in their chief-examination affidavits.

9.2On perusal of Ex.A-1, it is the original death certificate of deceased/P.Sri

Ram.

9.3On perusal of Ex.A-2, it is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.3837/2011, dated: 16-07-2011 in respect of suit schedule property.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 5 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.199/2022

dated: 30.01.2026

9.4On perusal of Ex.A-3, it is the original aadhar card of deceased/Sriram

Padmanabhan.

9.5On perusal of Ex.A-4, it is the original encumbrance certificate, dated:

25-05-2022 of the suit schedule property.

9.6 On perusal of Ex.A-5, it is the original market value certificate, dated:

25-05-2022 of the suit schedule property.

9.7 On perusal of Ex.A-6, it is the original family members certificate of

Plaintiff No.1 to 3, dated: 15-07-2016 issued by the Government of Telangana.

9.8 On perusal of Ex.A-7, it is the original family members certificate of

Plaintiff No.1 to 3, dated: 02-11-2020 issued by the Government of Karnataka.

9.9 On perusal of Ex.A-8, it is the original wedding card of Plaintiff No.1 with deceased/Sriram Padmanabhan.

9.10 On perusal of Ex.A-9, it is the original aadhar card of Plaintiff No.1.

9.11 On perusal of Ex.A-10, it is the original SSC Certificate of Plaintiff No.2.

9.12 On perusal of Ex.A-11, it is the aadhar card of Plaintiff No.2.

9.13 On perusal of Ex.A-12, it is the original SSC Certificate of Plaintiff No.3.

9.14 On perusal of Ex.A-13, it is the aadhar card of Plaintiff No.3.

10. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act reads as "Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right.- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiffs need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no Court shall

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 6 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.199/2022

dated: 30.01.2026

make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so".

11.In the instant case, the Plaintiffs are seeking declaration of status in respect of Suit Schedule Propertysince they are the legal heirs of deceased/Sriram Padmanabhan.

12.The unchallenged testimony of PW-1, PW-2 coupled with documents relied upon is consistent, cogent and trustworthy in respect of the declaration of status of the Plaintiffs. As per the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 coupled with Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-13, it is clear that the deceased/Sriram Padmanabhan died by leaving the Plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

13.The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 coupled with Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-13 clinchingly proves that the Plaintiffs herein are entitled to declare themselves as to legal heirs of deceased/Sriram Padmanabhan in respect of Suit Schedule Property.

14. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiffs is decreed by declaring the

Plaintiffs herein are the legal heirs of Deceased/Sriram Padmanabhan who was died on 02.05.2016 in respect of Suit Schedule Property. However, it is made it clear that as per Section 35 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 this Judgment is binding only on the parties to the Suit but not to the third parties. There shall be no order as to Costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30th day of January, 2026.

Sd/- (G.Swathi)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 7 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.199/2022

dated: 30.01.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1: Girija Sriram, W/o.Sriram Padmanabhan (Plaintiff No.1):: NONE :: PW-2: Kirthika Sriram, W/o.Madhusudhan B (Plaintiff No.3)

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS

Sl. No. Description of Document Ex.A-1 It is the original death certificate of deceased/P.Sri Ram. It is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.3837/2011, dated: 16- Ex.A-2 07-2011 in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.A-3It is the original aadhar card of deceased/Sriram Padmanabhan. It is the original encumbrance certificate, dated: 25-05-2022 of the suit schedule Ex.A-4 property. It is the original market value certificate, dated: 25-05-2022 of the suit schedule Ex.A-5 property. It is the original family members certificate of Plaintiff No.1 to 3, dated: 15-07- Ex.A-6 2016 issued by the Government of Telangana. It is the original family members certificate of Plaintiff No.1 to 3, dated: 02-11- Ex.A-7 2020 issued by the Government of Karnataka. It is the original wedding card of Plaintiff No.1 with deceased/Sriram Ex.A-8 Padmanabhan. Ex.A-9It is the original aadhar card of Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A-10 It is the original SSC Certificate of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A-11It is the aadhar card of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A-12It is the original SSC Certificate of Plaintiff No.3. Ex.A-13 It is the aadhar card of Plaintiff No.3.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS :: NIL ::

Sd/- (G.Swathi)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 1 of 6 Judgment in O.S.No.44/2024

dated: 09.01.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BHONGIR

PRESENT: SMT. G.SWATHI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Friday on the 9 th day of January, 2026

O.S.No.44 of 2024

BETWEEN:

(1) P.Aruna, W/o.Late P.Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ: household, (2) P.Sireesha, D/o.Late P.Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Private employee, (3) P.Shashidhar Reddy, S/o.P.Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Occ: private employee,

All are R/o.H.No.7-2-7/14, Durganagar Colony, Road No.3, Karmanghat, RR District. …PLAINTIFFS

// A N D //

(1) The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office Saroornagar, Represented by its Tahsildar, Saroornagar, R.R. District.

(2) P.Venkat Reddy, S/o.P.Bal Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-4-13/60, Anji Reddy Nagar Colony, Karmanghat, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.

(3) All concerned. …DEFENDANTS

This Suit is coming on 29.12.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. K.Rajeev Reddy, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the

Defendants remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:-

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 2 of 6 Judgment in O.S.No.44/2024

dated: 09.01.2026

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

1.This is a Suit filed for Declaration of Plaintiffs by declaring them as the legal heirs of deceased P.Srinivas Reddy who died on 24.12.2022 in respect of

Suit “A” and “B” Schedule Properties.

The brief facts of the case of the Plaintiffs:-

2.The Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the children of deceased P.Srinivas Reddy.The said deceased P.Srinivas Reddy died intestateon 24.12.2022 due to ill health leaving behind the Plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

2.1During the life time of late P.Srinivas Reddy, he purchased Plot No.141 admeasuring to an extent of 200 square yards equivalent to 167.2 square meters in Sy.No.130/A, Sy.No.130/Ruu, Sy.No.130/Ru, Sy.No.128/U,

Sy.No.128/A and Sy.No.114/E, situated at Jananie paradise, Wadaparthy

Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District and having bounded by East:

Plot No.125, West: 33 wide road, North: 33 wide road and South: Plot No.140 (herein after referred to it as “Suit “A” Schedule Property”) and Plot No.125 admeasuring to an extent of 200 square yards equivalent to 167.2 square meters in Sy.No.130/A, Sy.No.130/Ruu, Sy.No.130/Ru, Sy.No.128/U,

Sy.No.128/A and Sy.No.114/E, situated at Jananie paradise, Wadaparthy

Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District and having bounded by East:

33’ wide road, West: Plot No.141, North: 33 wide road and South: Plot No.126 (herein after referred to it as “Suit “B” Schedule Property”) through registered sale deeds vide documents bearing No.5154/2015, dated: 06-07- 2015 and 5155/2015, dated: 06-07-2015 respectively.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 3 of 6 Judgment in O.S.No.44/2024

dated: 09.01.2026

2.2After the purchase he was in possession and enjoyment till his demise.

After his death, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as his legal heirs.

2.3Due to financial necessity, plaintiffs intended to sell the suit schedule properties to the Defendant No.2. On 20-12-2023 the Defendant No.2 accepted to purchase the suit schedule propertiesand he verified all the documents pertaining the Suit Schedule properties. He enquired about the Legal heir

Certificate of late P.Srinivas Reddy. As the same is not available in the said documents, he denied to purchase the same and asked them to get the legal heir certificate.

2.4On 28-12-2023 the Plaintiff No.1 approached the Defendant No.1 to get the Legal heir Certificate and tried to make an application but the Defendant

No.1 refused to receive application and denied to issue the same. Defendant

No.1 advised the Plaintiffs to approach Civil Court.

2.5Now, the Plaintiffs having no other remedy for the relief of declaration declaring the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased/P.Srinivas Reddy in respect of Suit “A” and “B” Schedule Properties. Hence, the Suit is filed.

3.After registering the Suit, summons were served on Defendant No.1, 2 and paper publication was made for Defendant No.3. But, nobody came forward to defend the Suit for Defendant No.1 and 3. Defendant No.2 was appeared through his learned counsel and filed memo stating that no written statement in this matter. Hence, the Suit was set exparte against the

Defendants.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 4 of 6 Judgment in O.S.No.44/2024

dated: 09.01.2026

4.During the course of Trial, Plaintiff No.1 (P.Aruna, W/o.Late P.Srinivas

Reddy) herself got examined as PW-1 and got marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for Plaintiffs. He argued the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased/P.Srinivas Reddy.

6.Perused the Record.

7.Now the point for determination is “Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs of declaration as prayed for” ?

8. P O I N T:

8.1 The Plaintiff No.1/PW-1 (P.Aruna, W/o.Late P.Srinivas Reddy) herelf got examined and got exhibited Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9. She reiterated the contents of Plaint in her chief affidavit.

8.2On perusal of Ex.A-1, it is the certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.5154/2015, dated: 06.07.2015.

8.3On perusal of Ex.A-2, it is the certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.5155/2015, dated: 06.07.2015.

8.4On perusal of Ex.A-3, it is the original death certificate of P.Srinivas

Reddy who died on 24.12.2022.

8.5On perusal of Ex.A-4, it is the original LIC receipt of Plaintiff No.1 dated:

09.03.2017.

8.6 On perusal of Ex.A-5, it is the original bonafide certificate of Plaintiff

No.2 dated: 25.06.1998.

8.7 On perusal of Ex.A-6, it is the original bonafide certificate of Plaintiff

No.3 dated: 10.08.2001.

8.8 On perusal of Ex.A-7, it is the aadhar cards of plaintiffs.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 5 of 6 Judgment in O.S.No.44/2024

dated: 09.01.2026

8.9 On perusal of Ex.A-8, it is the valuation certificate dated: 14.02.2024.

8.10 On perusal of Ex.A-9, it is the Encumbrance Certificate dated:

14.02.2024.

9. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act reads as "Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right.- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiffs need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so".

10.In the instant case, the Plaintiffs are seeking declaration of status in respect of Suit Schedule Propertiessince they are the legal heirs of deceased/P.Srinivas Reddy.

11.The unchallenged testimony of PW-1 coupled with documents relied upon is consistent, cogent and trustworthy in respect of the declaration of status of the Plaintiffs. As per the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to

Ex.A-9, it is clear that the deceased/P.Srinivas Reddy died by leaving the

Plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

12.The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9 clinchingly proves that the Plaintiffs herein are entitled to declare themselves as to legal heirs of deceased/P.Srinivas Reddy in respect of Suit “A” and “B” Schedule Properties.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 6 of 6 Judgment in O.S.No.44/2024

dated: 09.01.2026

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiffs is decreed by declaring the

Plaintiffs herein are the legal heirs of Deceased/P.Srinivas Reddy who was died on 24.12.2022 in respect of Suit “A” and “B” Schedule Properties. However, it is made it clear that as per Section 35 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 this

Judgment is binding only on the parties to the Suit but not to the third parties.

There shall be no order as to Costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9th day of January, 2026.

Sd/- (G.Swathi)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1: P.Aruna, W/o.Late P.Srinivas:: NONE :: Reddy (Plaintiff No.1)

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS

Sl. No. Description of Document It is the certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.5154/2015, Ex.A-1

dated: 06.07.2015.

It is the certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.5155/2015, Ex.A-2

dated: 06.07.2015.

Ex.A-3It is the original death certificate of P.Srinivas Reddy who died on 24.12.2022. Ex.A-4It is the original LIC receipt of Plaintiff No.1 dated: 09.03.2017. Ex.A-5 It is the original bonafide certificate of Plaintiff No.2 dated: 25.06.1998. Ex.A-6It is the original bonafide certificate of Plaintiff No.3 dated: 10.08.2001. Ex.A-7It is the aadhar cards of plaintiffs. Ex.A-8It is the valuation certificate dated: 14.02.2024. Ex.A-9It is the Encumbrance Certificate dated: 14.02.2024.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS :: NIL ::

Sd/- (G.Swathi)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 1 of 5 Judgment in O.S.No.207/2024

dated: 29.01.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BHONGIR

PRESENT: SMT. G.SWATHI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Thursday on the 29 th day of January, 2026

O.S.No.207 of 2024

BETWEEN:

(1) Vootkuri Pandu, S/o.Late Balasetty, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Retired employee, R/o. 3-4-49, Jalalpuram, Bhuvanagiri Mandal & District.

(2) Vootkuri Lavanya, D/o.Vootkuri Pandu, Aged about 49 years, Occ: private employee, Occ: private employee, R/o. 3-4-49, Jalalpuram, Bhuvanagiri Mandal & District.

(3) Bairi Vani Sowjanya, D/o.Vootkuri Pandu, Aged about 48 years, Occ: private employee, R/o. 12-1-508/B/12, Sripuri colony, Lalapet, Secunderabad, Hyderabad District.

(4) Rampally Babitha, D/o.Vootkuri Pandu, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o.12-1-1/A/44, Indira nagar, Lalapet, Secunderabad, Hyderabad District.

(5) Karre Anitha, D/o.Vootkuri Pandu, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o.3-4-49, Jalalpuram, Bhuvanagiri Mandal & District.

(6) Vootkuri Chandrakanth, S/o.Vootkuri Pandu, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o.3-4-49, Jalalpuram, Bhuvanagiri Mandal & District. …PLAINTIFFS

// A N D //

(1) The Tahsildar, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

(2) All concerned. …DEFENDANTS

This Suit is coming on 09.01.2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. Y.Bharath, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the

Defendants remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:-

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 2 of 5 Judgment in O.S.No.207/2024

dated: 29.01.2026

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

1.This is a Suit filed for Declaration of Plaintiffs by declaring them as the

Class-I legal heirs of deceased Vootkuri Nirmala who died on 19.08.2020 in respect of Suit Schedule Property.

The brief facts of the case of the Plaintiffs:-

2.The Plaintiffs are the husband and children of deceased Vootkuri

Nirmala respectively in respect of the Suit Schedule Property.

2.1The said deceased Vootkuri Nirmala died intestateon 19.08.2020 leaving behind the Plaintiffs as her legal heirs.

2.2During the life time of Vootkuri Nirmala, she acquired Plot No.273 (Residential Zone) in Sy.No.760 and Sy.No.761 admeasuring to an extent of 204 square yards equivalent to 170.54 square meters, situated at Bhongir

Town and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District and having bounded by East: Plot

No.274, West: 30’ wide road, North: 40’ wide road and South: Plot No.272 (herein after referred to it as “Suit Schedule Property”).

2.3Subsequently, after the death of Vootkuri Nirmala, on 06-06-2024 the

Plaintiffs approached the Tahsildar, Bhongir Mandal (Defendant No.1) for obtaining legal heir certificate to sell the suit schedule property. The Defendant

No.1 refused to receive the application for issuing legal heirs certificate and stated that they have no authority to issue the legal heir certificate and advised to approach the Civil Court.

2.4Now, the Plaintiffs having no other remedy for the relief of declaration declaring the Plaintiffs are the Class-I legal heirs of deceased/Vootkuri Nirmala in respect of Suit Schedule Property. Hence, the Suit is filed.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 3 of 5 Judgment in O.S.No.207/2024

dated: 29.01.2026

3.After registering the Suit, summons were served on Defendant No.1 and paper publication was made for Defendant No.2. But, nobody came forward to defend the Suit. Hence, the Suit was set exparte against the Defendants.

4.During the course of Trial, Plaintiff No.1 (Vootkuri Pandu, S/o.Late

Balasetty) himself got examined as PW-1 and got marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A- 12.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for Plaintiffs. He argued the Plaintiffs are the

Class-I legal heirs of deceased/Vootkuri Nirmala.

6.Perused the Record.

7.Now the point for determination is “Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs of declaration as prayed for” ?

8. P O I N T:

8.1 The Plaintiff No.1/PW-1 (Vootkuri Pandu, S/o.Late Balasetty) himself got examined and got exhibited Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-12 on his behalf. He reiterated the contents of Plaint in his chief-examination affidavit.

8.2On perusal of Ex.A-1, it is the Death Certificate of deceased/Late

Vootkuri Nirmala who died on 19.08.2020.

8.3On perusal of Ex.A-2, it is the Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed vide document bearing No.4649/2003, dated: 22-10-2003 in respect of Suit

Schedule Property and having boundaries shown in the Plaint.

8.4On perusal of Ex.A-3, it is the encumbrance certificate of suit schedule property dated: 11-07-2024.

8.5On perusal of Ex.A-4, it is the market value assistance of suit schedule property dated: 11-07-2024.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 4 of 5 Judgment in O.S.No.207/2024

dated: 29.01.2026

8.6 On perusal of Ex.A-5 to Ex.A-10, these are the Original Aadhar cards of the Plaintiffs.

8.7On perusal of Ex.A-11, it is the original ration card.

8.8On perusal of Ex.A-12, it is the original pan card of Plaintiff No.3.

9. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act reads as "Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right.- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiffs need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so".

10.In the instant case, the Plaintiffs are seeking declaration of status in respect of Suit Schedule Propertysince they are the Class-I legal heirs of deceased/Vootkuri Nirmala.

11.The unchallenged testimony of PW-1 coupled with documents relied upon is consistent, cogent and trustworthy in respect of the declaration of status of the Plaintiffs. As per the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to

Ex.A-12, it is clear that the deceased/Vootkuri Nirmala died by leaving the

Plaintiffs as her Class-I legal heirs.

12.The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-12 clinchingly proves that the Plaintiffs herein are entitled to declare themselves as to Class-I legal heirs of deceased/Vootkuri Nirmala in respect of Suit Schedule Property.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 5 of 5 Judgment in O.S.No.207/2024

dated: 29.01.2026

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiffs is decreed by declaring the

Plaintiffs herein are the Class-I legal heirs of Deceased/Vootkuri Nirmala who was died on 19.08.2020 in respect of Suit Schedule Property. However, it is made clear that as per Section 35 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 this Judgment is binding only on the parties to the Suit but not to the third parties. There shall be no order as to Costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 29th day of January, 2026.

Sd/- (G.Swathi)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1: Vootkuri Pandu, S/o.Late:: NONE :: Balasetty (Plaintiff No.1)

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS

Sl. No. Description of Document It is the Death Certificate of deceased/Late Vootkuri Nirmala who died on Ex.A-1 19.08.2020. It is the Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed vide document bearing Ex.A-2 No.4649/2003, dated: 22-10-2003. Ex.A-3It is the encumbrance certificate of suit schedule property dated: 11-07-2024. Ex.A-4It is the market value assistance of suit schedule property dated: 11-07-2024. Ex.A-5 to These are the Original Aadhar cards of the Plaintiffs. Ex.A-10 Ex.A-11It is the original ration card. Ex.A-12It is the original pan card of Plaintiff No.3.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS :: NIL ::

Sd/- (G.Swathi)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir