J Syam Kumar

Page 1 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: Sri J.Syam Kumar,

IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Wednesday, the 17 th day of December, 2025

O.S . No. 1001 of 2017

Between:-

Nomula Vimala, W/o. Malla Reddy, Aged 56 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o. H.No.16-1-506, Reddy Basti Saidabad, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

And

1. Gummi Karuna, W/o. Late Anji Reddy, Aged 48 years,

2. Gummi Vishwanath Reddy, S/o. Late Anji Reddy, Aged 23 years, Both are R/o.H.No.8-2-55/6, New Maruthi Nagar, Karmanghat, R.R. District. ….Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day 24.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. D. Anand, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri. P. Achutham Reddy, Advocate for Defendants and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,63,723/- along with future interest and costs from the defendants.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as under:

The husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2 Late Sri Gummi

Anji Reddy during his life time had borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 11.08.2015 to meet his urgent, personal and family necessities and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on

Page 2 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

demand in the presence of attestors A.Bhimarjun Reddy and Mahender Reddy, but inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff late Sri. Gummi Anji Reddy did not choose to pay any amount; but has been dodging the matter on one pretext or other.

While so, on 08.12.2025 Late Sri Gummi Anji Reddy died intestate leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. Subsequent to the death of Late

Sri Gummi Anji Reddy, the plaintiff approached the defendants and informed about the loan transaction. The defendants, who initially promised to repay the same but they also dodged the matter on one pretext or the other. Finally, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants on 09.05.2017 and the defendant No.2 received the said legal notice; but the defendant No.1 refused to receive the said notice and thereafter they neither gave any reply nor repay the amount due to him. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest of Rs.3,63,723/- totally Rs. 11,63,723/- from the defendants. Hence, this suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendants filed written statement admitting their relationship with Late Gummi Anji Reddy and also that he died intestate on 08.12.2015 leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs, but denied other plaint averments and refuted the contention made by the plaintiff as under.

(i)The defendants stated that Late Gummi Anji Reddy prior to the alleged date of suit transaction was admitted in the hospital due to cardiac problem and since then he was not in a position to move from the bed alone and therefore, the question of approaching the plaintiff and availing loan does not arise. Therefore, once, Gummi Anji Reddy did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff, the question of executing the alleged demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same along with interest @24% p.a. is also does not arise.

Page 3 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

(ii)It is further stated that Late Gummi Anji Reddy had alienated the land at Panthangi Toll Gate at Choutuppal, Nalgonda District in the month of June-July, 2015 itself and received substantial amount from the prospective purchasers.

Therefore, the question of approaching plaintiff requesting to arrange a sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- to meet his urgent personal family necessities etc., are all invented and created for the purpose of present suit. Further, the said Gummi Anji Reddy had allegedly borrowed the amount on 11.08.2015; but he died on 08.12.2015 and there is a time gap of only three and half months in between the alleged borrowing amount and demise of Anji Reddy then how the plaintiff made several demands with the deceased to repay the said amount and the plaintiff had created the story taking advantage of demise of Anji Reddy and created the promissory note by forging his signature and filed this suit.

(iii)The defendants denied that plaintiff approached them and informed about the loan transactions and demanded to repay the amount and also their promising to repay the same in short time. The defendants also denied the issuance of legal notice dated 09.05.2017 and also its refusal by the defendant No.1 and received by defendant No.2 and stated that when both the defendants are residing in one roof, the question of defendant No.1 refusing to receive legal notice does not arise. The defendants finally stated that the plaintiff has created the promissory note as if executed by Anji Reddy in her favour to harass the defendants and therefore, the question of paying the suit amount to the plaintiff does not arise and sought for dismissal of suit with costs.

4.On the basis of above rival contentions, the following issues are settled for trial:

Page 4 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount with

interest against the defendants who are legal heirs of Late Gummi Anji

Reddy as prayed for ?

(ii) To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 documents. The plaintiff also examined the attestors

Bheemarjun Reddy as PW2 and S.Mahender Reddy as PW3. On the other hand, the defendants examined the defendant No.2 as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B9 documents. They also examined one independent witness i.e., Sri Muthyala

Prashanth Kumar as DW2.

6.Heard the submissions of both counsel. The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon the decisions reported in the case of K. Saraswathi vs. G.

Munilakshmamma 1 and Nalla Venkateshwarlu vs. Portse Pullamma and another 2 .

Issue No.(i):

7.It is the case of the plaintiff that due to alleged acquaintance Late Gummi

Anji Reddy during his lifetime had approached her on 11.08.2015 and borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1/promissory note in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the principal amount along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum in the presence of PWs2and 3, but he died intestate without paying the amount due under Ex.A1 and the defendants who are the legal heirs of

Late Gummi Anji Reddy did not choose to repay the amount due under Ex.A1 inspite of got issuing Ex.A2/legal notice dated 09.05.2017.

12024 SCC OnLine AP 199 2AIR 1994 AP 87

Page 5 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

8.On the other hand, it is the specific case of the defendants that

Ex.A1/promissory note is a forged and fabricated document and same was got created by the son-in-law of the plaintiff. It is also their case that there was no acquaintance with the plaintiff and also that Late Gummi Anji Reddy was financially sound as he was doing real estate business and was also running a School in the name of Krishnaveni at Chilkanagar and further, he alienated some of his landed properties just before his death on 08.12.2015 and received substantial amount and therefore, the question of borrowing an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff does not arise. They also contended that Late Gummi Anji Reddy was suffering with ill-health and from 26.05.2015 onwards Late Gummi Anji Reddy was frequently admitting in hospitals as in-patient and is unable to move from the bed without the assistance of any of the family members and therefore, the question of borrowing the amount on 11.08.2015 from the plaintiff does not arise and the Ex.A1/promissory note is a forged and fabricated document and sought for dismissal of the suit.

9.As seen from the contentions of the defendants, they have totally denied the

Ex.A1 transaction and took a plea of forgery. Therefore, initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove her case. PW1 in her chief examination affidavit reiterated the plaint averments and got marked on Exs.A1 to A7 documents. Ex.A1 is demand promissory note dated 11.08.2015 for Rs.8,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dated 09.05.2017. Ex.A3 is two postal receipts. Ex.A4 is postal acknowledgment card of defendant No.2. Ex.A5 is unserved postal cover of defendant No.1. Ex.A6 is certified copy of pahani for the fasli year 1426. Ex.A7 is certified copy of form 1-B abstract.

10.PW1 also examined two attestors Sri A. Bheemarjun Reddy as PW2 and

S.Mahender Reddy as PW3. Both PWs2 and 3 deposed in the lines of PW1 that Ex.A1

Page 6 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

transaction took place in their presence and they acted as attestors to Ex.A1 promissory note. They also deposed that PW3 scribed the Ex.A1 promissory note.

Thus, both PWs2 and 3 corroborated with the evidence of PW1. As seen from the

PWs1 to 3 evidence coupled with Exs.A1 to A7 documents that Late Gummi Anji

Reddy approached the plaintiff on 11.08.2015 and borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- and in the evidence of said borrowing, Late Gummi Anji Reddy executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the principal amount along with interest @ 24% per annum; but he failed to repay the same inspite of demands made by the plaintiff and after his death, the defendants also failed to repay the amount due under Ex.A1 inspite of got issuing Ex.A2 legal notice dated 09.05.2017. Thus, the plaintiff with the evidence of PWs1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A7 has discharged her initial burden that the Late Gummi Anji Reddy borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- on 11.08.2015 from the plaintiff, but he failed to repay the same.

11.Now, the burden shifts on to the shoulders of the defendants to disprove the case of the plaintiff and prove their case that the Ex.A1 is a forged and fabricated document and also that Late Gummi Anji Reddy was financially sound and also there is no necessity for him to borrow the huge amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff that too he was unable to move from the bed without the assistance of any of his family members.

12.To prove their case, the defendants cross examined PWs1 to 3 at length. In the cross examination of PWs1 to 3, the defendants tried to elicit their acquaintance with Late Gummi Anji Reddy and also the relationship between PWs1 to 3. PWs1 to 3 in one voice deposed that they are related to each other and also that both plaintiff and wife of Late Gummi Anji Reddy i.e., defendant No.1 hails from same village and therefore, they are having relations. However, the PWs1 to 3 failed to state the

Page 7 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

names of the children of Late Gummi Anji Reddy including the name of defendant

No.2. But, the defendants did not deny that both the plaintiff and defendant No.1 hails from same village and also they have got acquaintance with each other.

Therefore, merely the PWs1 to 3 failed to state the names of children of Late Gummi

Anji Reddy and also how the plaintiff got relation with Late Gummi Anji Reddy it cannot be held that both have no acquaintance with each other and it also cannot be held that there was no acquaintance between them that too when both the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 hails from the same village.

13.The defendants also cross-examined the PWs1 to 3 that Late Gummi Anji

Reddy was financially sound and there was no necessity for him to borrow huge amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff. It was suggested to PWs1 to 3 that he allegedly alienated properties at Gundrampally village, Nalgonda District in the year 2014 and also Choutuppal village in the month of August or September, 2015. PWs1 to 3 deposed that they are unaware of the said transactions. To prove the said contentions, the defendants relied upon Exs.B1 to B4 documents. Exs.B1 to B3 are certified copies of registered sale deeds bearing documents No.5575/2015, 5576/2015 and 5577/2015 all dated 16.09.2015. Under Exs.B1 to B3 documents,

Gummi Anji Reddy along with three others sold Ac.5-00 gts, Ac.2-30 gts and Ac.5-00 gts of land situated at Panthangi Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District to different persons and they have received sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-,

Rs.8,25,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- and of them Late Gummi Anji Reddy was having 1/4th share. Thus, Late Gummi Anji Reddy appears to have received Rs.9,56,250/- towards his share in the above landed properties on 16.09.2015. Under Ex.B4 certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 3696/2014 dated 29.09.2014, Late Gummi Anji Reddy alienated Ac.4-35 gts at Gundrampally village for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,25,000/-.

Page 8 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

14.The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that though in Ex.B1 to B4 the book value amount was mentioned but infact the property was sold more than the book value. However, the defendants did not choose to produce any evidence like agreement of sale/s or bank transactions to prove what was the actual amount that was received by Late Gummi Anji Reddy towards his share. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence as to the actual amount received by Late Gummi Anji Reddy under Exs.B1 to B4 sale deeds it cannot be held that Late Gummi Anji Reddy had received more than the sale consideration amount mentioned in Exs.B1 to B4 documents. Therefore, the said contention of the defendants is not acceptable under law. Further, Ex.B4 transaction took place on 29.09.2014 i.e., 11 months much prior to Ex.A1 transaction on 11.08.2015. Further, the Exs.B1 to B3 transactions took place subsequent to Ex.A1 transaction and therefore, the Ex.B1 to B4 documents are no way helpful to the case of the defendants.

15.The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that late Gummi Anji Reddy due to ill-health he was not in a position to move from the bed without the assistance of any of his family members, therefore the question of he alone approaching the plaintiff and borrowing the huge amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executing Ex.A1 promissory note does not arise and relied upon Exs.B5 to B9 documents. Since the defendants came with the said specific plea of ill-health and also assistance of his family members the burden lies on the defendants to prove the said contention. PWs1 to 3 in their evidence while admitting that late Gummi

Anji Reddy died due to ill-health they denied that late Gummi Anji Reddy was not in a position to move anywhere without assistance of any of his family members.

16.I have gone through the Exs.B5 to B9 documents. Ex.B5 is duplicate copy of discharge summary of Kamineni Hospital. Exs.B6 to B8 are duplicate copies of

Page 9 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

discharge summary of KIMS Hospital and Ex.B9 is death summary of late Gummi Anji

Reddy issued by Kamineni Hospital. Exs.B5 to B9 shows that late Gummi Anji Reddy was admitted in Kamineni and KIMS Hospitals and took treatment as inpatient. As per

Ex.B5 to B9 he was admitted in hospital from 26.05.2015 to 30.05.2015, 19.09.2015 to 23.09.2015, 03.10.2015 to 06.10.2015, 14.10.2015 to 07.11.2015 and 26.11.2015 to 08.12.2015. All these documents shows that late Gummi Anji Reddy was suffering with cardiac problem and he underwent treatment for coronary artery disease-triple vessel disease and finally he died on 08.12.2015. However, as on the date of Ex.A1 i.e., on 11.08.2015 late Gummi Anji Reddy was not admitted in any of the above hospitals. Furthermore, the Exs.B5 to B9 documents no where show that Late Gummi

Anji Reddy could not move anywhere without the assistance of any of his family members. Since, as on 11.08.2015, Late Gummi Anji Reddy was not admitted in the hospital and therefore, it cannot be held that he was not moving anywhere and as such, he could not borrow Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff and execute the Ex.A1 in her favour. Further, the Exs.B1 to B3 documents which took place on 16.09.2015 clearly shows that late Gummi Anji Reddy attended the offices of Joint-Sub-Registrar,

Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District and executed Exs.B1 to B3 documents in favour of the purchasers. Though Exs.B1 to B3 show that defendant No.1 accompanied Late Gummi Anji Reddy; but the defendants did not choose to examine the defendant no. 1 or any of the medical officers as witness in this case. Therefore, just because the defendant No.1 or DW1 choose to accompany Late Gummi Anji

Reddy it cannot be held that Late Gummi Anji Reddy did not move anywhere without the assistance of any of his family members. Therefore, basing on Exs.B5 to B9 documents alone it cannot be held that Late Gummi Anji Reddy was not moving any where without the assistance of any of his family members and the defendants failed to bring any cogent evidence before the court to believe their case.

Page 10 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

17.The defendants also took the plea that the Ex.A1 is a forged and fabricate document and the signature thereon does not belong to Late Gummi Anji Reddy and infact the son-in-law of the plaintiff allegedly forged the signature of Late Gummi

Anji Reddy and got filed this case. Since the defendants came with a specific plea of forgery, the burden lies on them to prove the said contention. PWS1 to 3 while admitting the presence of son-in-law of plaintiff at the time of Ex.A1 transaction they denied the allegation of forging the signature of Late Gummi Anji Reddy. On the other hand, DW1 in his cross-examination admits that the signatures that are appearing on Ex.A1 and Exs.B1 to B4 are similar. But the DW1 while denying the signature on Ex.A1 did not choose to take any steps to send the Ex.A1 to the

Handwriting Expert to ascertain the expert report so as to prove his contention that signature on Ex.A1 was not belonged to Late Gummi Anji Reddy that too when he was having Exs.B1 to B4 registered documents. Further, this court has also gone through the signature of Late Gummi Anji Reddy appearing on Exs.B1 to B4 documents and all the signatures appears to be similar with the signature that appearing on Ex.A1 and this court did not find any variation or difference that the signature on Ex.A1 was not belonged to Late Gummi Anji Reddy. Since the burden lies on the defendants mere giving suggestion of forgery of Ex. A1 does not amount to proof of their case and therefore, without there being any cogent and scientific evidence, it cannot be held that the signature of Late Gummi Anji Reddy was forged by the plaintiff and her men and got filed this case.

18.Though in the cross examination of PWs1 to 3, it was suggested to them that the son-in-law of PW1 allegedly forged the signature of Late Gummi Anji Reddy and filed this case but the said contention of the defendants is not supported by any pleading in the written statement and for the first time the defendants came with

Page 11 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

the said plea that too in the cross examination of PWs1 to 3. It is settled principle of law that in the absence of any pleading, no amount of evidence can be looked into and therefore, the said contention of the defendants which was brought in the cross examination of PWs1 to 3 cannot be looked into. Moreover, the defendants have not placed any evidence as to the alleged transactions with the son-in-law of plaintiff and also the alleged enemity with him to forge the signature of Late Gummi Anji

Reddy.

19.PW2 in his cross-examination deposed that first time he met Anji Reddy i.e., 4 to 5 days prior to his death in hospital. Basing on this evidence of PW2 the learned counsel for the defendants contended that PW2 never met Late Gummi Anji Reddy on 11.08.2015 and as such, his acting as one of the attestor to Ex.A1 does not arise.

Though PW2 deposed that for the first time he met Anji Reddy 4 or 5 days prior to his death at hospital but basing on said stray evidence of PW2 his entire evidence cannot be doubted as the PW2 categorically deposed about the Ex.A1 transaction and he did not deviate from his chief-examination and he put forth his stand as deposed in his chief examination affidavit. Moreover, PW2 in his cross examination deposed his acquaintance and also that on the request of plaintiff he went to her house on the date of lending amount to Late Gummi Anji Reddy and also on the request of Late

Gummi Anji Reddy and he reached the house of plaintiff. PW3 also deposed that on 11.08.2015, both plaintiff and late Gummi Anji Reddy requested him through phone to plaintiff’s house and he alone went to plaintiff’s house and deposed the presence of PW2, Late Gummi Anji Reddy and one Malla Reddy and also that Late Anji Reddy brought the Ex.A1 bond paper. All these evidence of PWs2 and 3 were not denied by the defendants and therefore, basing on such stray evidence of PW2, the total evidence of PW2 and PW3 cannot be disbelieved. Even if evidence of PW2 is doubted

Page 12 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

still the plaintiff could able to prove her case with the evidence of PW3 who did not deviate from his chief examination affidavit as the defendants did not elicit anything to disbelieve her case.

20.The learned counsel for the defendants also contended that the daughter of

Late Gummi Anji Reddy is not added as a party to the suit, therefore the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and relied upon the decision reported in the case of Nalla Venkateshwarlu case stated supra. Nalla Venkateshwarlu case is relating to a partition suit, therefore Hon’ble High Court held that daughter is necessary and proper party to partition suit. In the present case, the daughter of Late Gummi Anji

Reddy is not added as party to the suit. According to the defendants she is staying at

USA. Therefore, it appears that the plaintiff who has filed money recovery suit has not added her as party defendant to the suit as it is not possible for the plaintiff to secure her presence before the court. Since daughter is only one of the legal heir of

Gummi Anji Reddy and other legal heirs are already on record as defendant nos. 1 and 2, therefore, she cannot be held as a necessary party and at the most she can be held as proper party to the suit and in her absence, who is a proper party, the present suit can be decided finally and therefore, the present suit is maintainable against the defendants.

21.From the above discussions, this court opines that PWs1 to 3 have put forth their stand as deposed in their respective chief examination affidavits and they have not deviated from the version as deposed by them in their chief examination affidavits. Though the defendant choose to bring evidence as to the ill health of Late

Gummi Anji Reddy and also presence of son-in-law of plaintiff, but the said contentions are not helpful to the case of defendants and further this court has not found any material to disbelieve the evidence of PWs1 to 3. Thus, with the evidence

Page 13 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

of PWs1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A7 documents, the plaintiff has discharged her initial burden of proof of proving the averments made in the plaint and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument

Act. Therefore in view of presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument

Act are going in favor of the plaintiff, it must be held that the plaintiff has made out her case against the defendants that Late Gummi Anji Reddy borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 11.08.2015 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favor of the plaintiff promising to repay the same with interest @24 p.a. either to the PW1 or to her order on demand; and therefore the burden shifts onto the shoulders of the defendants to revert the said presumption.

22.The presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act is a rebuttable presumption and the defendants can rebut the same by producing oral, documentary, circumstantial, preponderance of possibility or presumption of law or fact. To rebut the same, the defendants relied upon the evidence of DWs1 and 2 and also Exs.B1 to B9 documents. DW1 in his chief-examination affidavit reiterated his defence. The DW2 deposed that Late Gummi Anji Reddy suffered with ill-health and died due to health problems. However, in view of the discussion made supra, Exs.B1 to B9 documents and the oral evidence of DWs1 and 2 is no where helpful to the case of the defendants. Further, the defendants did not choose to seek any expert opinion to prove that Ex.A1 is a forged document. On the other hand, the signatures appearing on Ex.A1 and the signatures on Exs.B1 to B4 are similar and there is no difference and variation in between them. Therefore, it can be held that the defendants failed to rebut the presumption drawn against them.

23.From the above discussions, this court opines that the defendants not only failed to disprove the case of plaintiff they also failed to prove their case and as

Page 14 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

such, the contention of the defendants that the Ex.A1 is a forged and fabricated document and that the son-in-law of the plaintiff allegedly got filed this case is not believable and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendants as inspite of issuing Ex.A2/legal notice, they failed to repay the amount with interest thereon and as such, they are liable to pay the suit amount with interest thereon. Therefore, K. Saraswathi case relied upon by the defendants is not helpful to them; as the defendant therein not only disproved the case of the plaintiff, but also proved her case.

24.Admittedly, the defendants are not the executants of Ex.A1 and as such they are not personally liable to pay the suit amount. However, they are liable to pay the suit amount from the estate of Late Gummi Anji Reddy. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue No.(ii):

25.In the result, the suit is decreed in part with costs directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.11,63,723/- to the plaintiff along with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from out of the estate of Late Gummi Anji Reddy which is lying in the hands of the defendants.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of December, 2025.

IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Page 15 of 15 O.S.No. 1001/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1 – Nomula Vimala PW2 – A.Bheemarjuna Reddy PW3 – S.Mahender Reddy

For Defendants:

DW1 – Muthyala Prashanth Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Demand promissory note dated 11.08.2015 Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 09.05.2017 Ex.A3: Postal receipts (2) dated 09.05.201744 Ex.A4: Postal served acknowledgment card dated 08.05.2017 Ex.A5: Unserved cover dated 08.05.2017 Ex.A6: Certified copy of pahani dated 01.07.2017 Ex.A7: Certified copy of ROR dated 01.07.2017

For Defendant:

Ex.B1: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.5575/2015 dated 16.09.2015 Ex.B2: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.5576/2015 dated 16.09.2015 Ex.B3: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.5577/2015 dated 16.09.2015 Ex.B4: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.3696/2014 dated 29.09.2014 Ex.B5: Attested copy of Kamineni hospital discharge summary dated 30.05.2015 Ex.B6: Duplicate copy of KIMS hospital discharge summary dated 23.09.2015 Ex.B7: Duplicate copy of KIMS hospital discharge summary dated 06.10.2015 Ex.B8: Attested copy of Kamineni hospital discharge summary dated 07.11.2015 Ex.B9: Attested copy of Kamineni hospital death summary dated 08.12.2015

IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Page 1 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: J. SYAM KUMAR,

IV Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge, R.R.District, L.B.Nagar.

SESSIONS CASE No. 630 OF 2023

(Monday, the 15th day of December, 2025)

(P.R.C.No.113/2021 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-

cum-VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

in Crime No. 93/2021 of P.S. Meerpet)

_____________________________________________________________________ ProsecutionAddl., Public Prosecutor :L.B. Nagar, R.R. District. Accused: Cheruku Rahul Goud, S/o.Cheruku Venkatesham, Aged 26 years, Occ:Real EstateBusiness,R/o.H.No.5-37, Abdullapurmet(V)and(M), R.R.District. :(Sri Ch.Ravinder,Advocate defended the accused) Offence under :U/Sec. 452, 307 IPC. section Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence or order: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 452, 307 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO1/ Axe shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO2/VIVO phone and unmarked Activa Motorcycle shall be returned to its owners under proper receipt and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

IV.A.S.J

Page 2 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 10.12.2025 having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of police, PS Meerpet charge sheeted the accused in Cr.No.93/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 452 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

2.The case of the prosecution is that :

Due to sending the accused into jail in Cr.No.908/2020 of PS

Meerpet for the offence under Section 354-D and 506 of IPC, the accused bore grudge against the victim/PW2 for filing case against him and has decided to eliminate PW2 and accordingly, on 01.02.2021, he made house trespass after preparation of hurt and attempted to commit murder of PW2 with Axe and attacked on PW2 with Axe and stabbed on her right shoulder, right elbow and right arm with an intention to kill her. After the incident, PW2 was taken to Naveena Multi Specialty Hospital, Hasthinapuram for treatment.

Basing on the report submitted by her husband/PW1, the police took up the investigation and during this process, PW15 examined the witnesses, conducted panchanama and later, PW16 apprehended the accused and recorded his confession statement in the presence of panchas. After obtaining medical certificate of PW2 and sending

IV.A.S.J

Page 3 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

the material objects to FSL and obtaining the FSL report, PW16 submitted report in accordance with Section 173 (2) of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) against the accused.

3.The Learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-VI

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar took the cognizance of the offence under sections 452, 307 of IPC vide PRC no.113/2021. As the case was triable by

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Accordingly, the Court of

Sessions took cognizance vide SC No.630/2023 and made over the

case to this Court for disposal in accordance with the law.

4.The accused was supplied with the copies under section 207 of

Cr.P.C.

5.After hearing both sides and on examination of the accused, charge under sections 452, 307 of IPC was framed, the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26 documents and MOs1 and 2 material objects.

IV.A.S.J

Page 4 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

7.After the prosecution reported its evidence as closed, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating evidence that appeared in the prosecution evidence against him. The accused denied the prosecution evidence as false and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under sections 452,

307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 16.

Husband of PW2-cum-defacto complaintant as PW1, injured as PW2, eye witnesses as PWs3 to 6, circumstantial witnesses as PWs7 to 9, panch witnesses to CDF as PWs10 and 11, panch witness for confession panchanama as PWs12 and 13, the person who issued

CCTV footage and 65-B certificate as PW14 and two investigating officers as PWs15 and 16.

11.PW2 deposed that she knows the accused as family friend acquainted through the neighbours for the last 1 to 2 years. Accused used to visit her house and harass her demanding to talk with him.

Accused used to call her over phone and threaten her if she do not talk to him. Accused also used to follow her when she went for milk.

IV.A.S.J

Page 5 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

When she blocked his number, he used to threaten her to call him.

Due to the said harassment, she informed her husband and filed complaint before PS Meerpet against the accused and same was registered. Keeping the same in mind, the accused developed grudge and came to her house on 01.02.2021 in the evening hours between 6.30 and 6.45 PM on a white Activa bike. At that time, herself and

LW3/T.Ankitha were talking to each other in front of the gate of her house. Accused went there and attacked her with an Axe on her right shoulder and right palm. Due to which, she sustained cut injuries on right shoulder and right palm. Herself, LW3 and some others who are nearby raised cries. On that the accused fled away with the Axe on the Activa motro bike and LWs5 and 6 came there and shifted her in 108 ambulance to Naveena Hospital. PW2 further deposed that as she filed complaint against the accused, the accused attacked her and she had life threat from the accused.

12.PW1 who is husband of PW2 deposed in the lines of PW2 stating that after coming to know about the incident, he rushed to the hospital and found his wife with injuries and thereafter, he went to police station, Meerpet and lodged Ex.P1/complaint with the police.

IV.A.S.J

Page 6 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

13.PWs3 and 4 deposed that upon knowing that PW2 was admitted in the hospital, they went to hospital to see her. PWs5 to 8 who are cited as circumstantial witnesses did not support the prosecution case and their respective Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Exs.P4 to P7.

14.PW9 deposed that on the request of one person, he fixed stick to the iron part of the Axe and handed over to him, but he failed to identify him. The prosecution marked his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P8.

15.The panchas to scene of offence panchanama and confession- cum-seizure panchanama who are examined as PWs10 to 13 turned hostile and their respective signatures are marked as Exs.P9 to P16.

16.The prosecution also examined one Aleti Sireesh Kumar as

PW14 and he deposed that at the request of the police he collected the CCTV footage of the scene and issued Ex.P17 65-B certificate to the police.

17.The two Investigation officers are examined as PWs15 and 16 and they deposed in the lines of investigation done by them and got marked Ex. P18 to P26 and MO1 and MO2.

18.As seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses both PWs1 and 2 deposed incriminating evidence against the accused in their

IV.A.S.J

Page 7 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

respective chief examination. The other witnesses more particularly the eye witnesses i.e., PWs3 to 6 did not support the prosecution case. However, in the cross examination, PW2 deposed that she sustained self injuries due to skidding from the motorcycle while she was learning motor cycle riding. She also deposed that first time she is seeing the accused in the court hall and without contacting her, her husband i.e., PW1 directly went to police station and lodged

Ex.P1/report with police.

19.PW1 in his cross examination deposed that without contacting the PW2, he directly went to police station and police scribed the report and he affixed his signature thereon. He also deposed that for the first time he is seeing the accused in the court hall. However,

PW1 deposed that he did not know that PW2 sustained self injuries due to skidding from the motorcycle or not. PWs1 and 2 in one voice deposed that police did not examine them and police did not record their respective statements. Thus, both PWs1 and 2 in their respective cross-examination deposed that accused is innocent and that he did not attack PW2 with Axe and that PW2 allegedly sustained self injuries due to skidding from the motorcycle.

20.Thus, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses goes to show that initially they supported the prosecution case during their examination in chief. However, in their cross-examination, they

IV.A.S.J

Page 8 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

deposed that accused did not harass PW2 and that accused did not attempt to murder the PW2. Although the prosecution conducted re- examination of PWs1 and 2, but except suggesting that both have compromised with the accused, nothing was elicited from their cross examination. As seen from the above evidence of PWs1 and 2 it is noticed that there are two contradictory statements present in the evidence of PWs1 and 2. One version is detrimental to the accused during the chief examination while the other supports the accused during cross examination. At this juncture, a reference can be made to the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between Sharad Vs.

State of Maharastra AIR 1984 (SC) 1622 and Pohalya Motya Valvi Vs.

State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1979 SC 1949. In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid a dictum that “where the circumstances are yielding to two equally possible inferences, the court should accept the inference which favours the accused rather than an inference which goes in favour of prosecution.

21.In the present case, as stated supra, the prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs1 and 2 supported the prosecution case in their respective chief examination however in their cross-examination they gave different version and not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, in view of the above dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court this court is not inclined to accept the evidence of PWs1 and 2 depose in their

IV.A.S.J

Page 9 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

respective chief examination and accept the evidence in cross examination which establishes that the accused in this case is innocent. Moreover, PW2 when she was taken to Naveena Multi

Specialty Hospital, Hasthinapuram, did not state the name of the person who attacked PW2 and infact she stated to the doctor one unknown person allegedly assaulted her and same is evident from

Ex. P23 wound certifcate. In the present case, the doctor examined the PW2 immediately i.e., within one hour of the incident. However,

PW2 did not choose to state the name of the person who assaulted her. Thus, Ex.P23 also corroborates with the cross examination of

PWs1 and 2 who deposed that they are firstly seeing the accused in the court hall.

22.Besides this, the investigating officer/PW15 registered the

Ex.P1 complaint at 21.30 hours on 01.02.2021, secured the clues team, visited the scene of offence at 21:45 hours and seized the material objects and also prepared rough sketch of the scene. But in the cross examination, PW15 deposed totally different version that it took half an hour time to register the Ex.P1/complaint and issue

Ex.P18/FIR and it took another half an hour time to examine and record the statements of PWs1 and thereafter it took another half an hour time to secure clues team and thereafter it took 10 minutes time to secure panchas and after registering the FIR; he went to the

IV.A.S.J

Page 10 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

scene of offence. Thus, the evidence of PW15 clearly goes to show that it took about 2 hours time to go to scene of offence but whereas

Ex. P19 CDF shows that within15 minutes he visited the scene of offence and collected the CCTV footage and also examined the witnesses. Thus, it is highly impossible for PW15 to complete all the above investigation process that too in a case under Section 307 of

IPC and it appears that PW15 has not done proper investigation and he did table investigation. Therefore, this court is not inclined to accept the version of PW15 also.

23. Though PW16 who is the another investigation officer and recorded the confessional statement of accused in the presence of panchas deposed the recording of confession of accused and recovery of MO1 and MO2; but the panchas PW12 and PW13 turned hostile, his evidence is inadmissible in view of bar under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore, this court is not inclined to accept the evidence of PWs15 an 16. Besides this the prosecution failed to produce the CCTV footage of incident allegedly collected from PW14. Thus seen from any angle there is no incriminating material against the accused.

24.From the above discussions and also in view of deposing different version by PWs1 and 2 in their respective cross examination

IV.A.S.J

Page 11 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

which establishes that the accused in this case is innocent, it must be concluded that the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the accused for the charge under Sections 452 and 307 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt in his favour. Therefore, the point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

25.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sections 452, 307 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO1/Axe shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO2/VIVO phone and unmarked Activa

Motorcycle shall be returned to its owners under proper receipt and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of December, 2025).

IV ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1LW1Bollepally Ravi KumarComplainant and Husband of injured

IV.A.S.J

Page 12 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

PW2LW2Bollepally VimalaInjured PW3LW5Bollepally JhansiEye Witness PW4LW6Bollepally VenuEye Witness PW5LW4Alijala ShankarEye Witness PW6LW7Gouraka SwapnaEye Witness PW7LW10Anthati ShivaCircumstantial Witness PW8LW11Solanki Dasarth Circumstantial Witness PW9LW12Rayapuram YakkaihCircumstantial Witness PW10LW13Koter Venkat ReddyPanchforobservation panchanama of scene of offence PW11LW14Jekkidi Sriram ReddyPanchforobservation panchanama of scene of offence PW12LW15Thalari SrisailamPanch for confession-cum-seizure panchanama and seizure report PW13LW16Gaddam RaviPanch for confession-cum-seizure panchanama and seizure report PW14LW20Aleti Shirish KumarIssued 65-B certificate PW15LW24P.Anantha RamuluIssued FIR and 1st IO PW16LW25M.Mahender Reddy2nd IO and Filed charge sheet

FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL-

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1Complaint Ex.P-2Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P-3Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P-4Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P-5Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P-6Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P-7Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8 Ex.P-8Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9 Ex.P-9Signature of PW10 on CDF panchanama Ex.P-10Signature of PW11 on CDF panchanama Ex.P-11Signatures (4) of PW12 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-12Signature of PW12 on seizure report of motorcycle Ex.P-13Signature of PW12 on seizure report on Axe with wooden stick Ex.P-14Signatures (4) of PW13 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-15Signature of PW13 on seizure report of motorcycle Ex.P-16Signature of PW13 on seizure report on Axe with wooden stick Ex.P-1765-B certificate

IV.A.S.J

Page 13 of 13 SC NO. 630 OF 2023

Ex.P-18First Information Report Ex.P-19Crime Details Form Ex.P-20Relevant marked portion in confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused Ex.P-21Seizure report of Honda Activa Ex.P-22Seizure report of Axe Ex.P-23Wound Certificate Ex.P-24FSL report along with DNA reports Ex.P-25Two DVDs Ex.P-26(2) photographs of white colour Honda Activa

FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1Axe MO-2VIVO smart phone

IV ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IV.A.S.J

Page 1 of 9 OS NO. 519 OF 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: Sri. J. Syam Kumar, IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Monday, the 15 th day of December, 2025

O.S . No. 519 of 2025

Between:-

1. Pothireddy Thejaswi Reddy, S/o.Late P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ:Private Job

2. Pothireddy Tapasvi Reddy, S/o.Late P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ:Business

Both are R/o.H.No.5-2-423/AVN/P, 5MP, Plot No. 5M/Part, Anathaveni Nagar, Sahebnagar Kalan, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 500 070.

.........Plaintiffs

A N D

1. The Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District At Hayathnagar 501 505.

2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Markapur, at Markapur, Prakasam District – 523 316.

3.All concerned.

...........Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day 10-12-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Ravinder,advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri B.Thirumal Reddy, Government Pleader for defendants No.1 and 2 and that the defendant No.3 having been set exparte and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

IV ASCJ

Page 2 of 9 OS NO. 519 OF 2025

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

1.The plaintiffs filed this suit for declaration that they are the legal heirs of Late Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani, W/o.Late Pothireddy Pandu Ranga

Reddy D/o.Late C.Poli Reddy in respect of the suit schedule A to C properties.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as under :

(i)The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the children of Late

Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani and Late Pothireddy Pandu Ranga Reddy who predeceased Late Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani on 27-04-2016. The said

Chegireddy Jhansi Rani, during her lifetime, had purchased suit schedule A property i.e., newly constructed semi-finished house constructed on Plot

No.5 (Middle part) admeasuring an area of 165.33 Sq.yards or its equivalent to 138.23 Sq.mtrs having plinth area 1896 Sft with RCC roof ground floor 948 Sft and first floor 948 Sft in Sy.Nos.56, 58, 59 and 68, Ward No.5,

Block No.2 situated at Ananthaveni Nagar, Sahebnagar, Kalan Village,

Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, under L.B.Nagar Circle – 2, GHMC, Ranga

Reddy District under a registered sale deed bearing document

No.8256/2019 dated 24-06-2019 from its original vendor M.Narahari represented by his Registered AGPA holder Thouta Sreeshailam and delivered the possession to her. Later the said house was assessed to tax and the municipal authorities also allotted H.No.5-2-423/AVN/P 5 MP vide

PTI No.103051680.

(ii)The said Chegireddy Jhansi Rani during her life time, purchased residential house plot (10/104/6-1 as per document) admeasuring 211 2/3

Sq.yards or equivalent to 177.87 Sq.mtrs situated at Jawahar Nagar Colony,

IV ASCJ

Page 3 of 9 OS NO. 519 OF 2025

Markapur Municipality, Prakasam District under a registered sale deed bearing document no.269/2000 dated 17-02-2000 from its original vendor

Chinna Obula Reddy and delivered the possession to her. Later, the

Chegireddy Jhansi Rani constructed house consisting of ground plus first floor and the municipal authorities assessed the house tax and allotted

H.No.10-103-3-C1 (10/104/6-1) and the said property is hereinafter referred to as suit schedule B property.

(iii) The said Chegireddy Jhansi Rani, during her lifetime purchased suit schedule C property i.e., land bearing Plot No.7 north part admeasuring 126 Sq.yards and plot No.8 admeasuring 180.44 Sq.yards totally admeasuring 306.44 Sq.yards or 256.22 Sq.mtrs, in Sy.No.227/A situated at Turkyamjal village, now Abdullapurmet Mandal, (Erstwhile

Hayathnagar Mandal), Ranga Reddy District under a registered sale deed document bearing No.15874/2003 dated 10-12-2003 and delivered the possession to her.

(iv)While so, on 02-02-2025, the said Chegireddy Jhansi Rani died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs as his sole legal heirs and successors.

After her death, the plaintiffs approached the defendants No.1 and 2 authorities for issuance of legal heir certificate, for which the defendant

No.1 authorities issued family members certificate vide certificate

No.FAMC02501722895 dated 22-04-2025 and advised the plaintiffs to obtain legal heirs certificate from court of law. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have approached the defendants No.1 and 2 authorities on 23-05-2025 and 29-05-2025; but the defendants No.1 and 2 authorities refused to issue legal heir certificate and directed the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court and the plaintiffs having no other remedy, approached this court seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of Late

IV ASCJ

Page 4 of 9 OS NO. 519 OF 2025

Chegireddy Jhansi Rani in respect of the suit schedule A to C properties.

Hence, this suit.

3.The Defendants no. 2 filed written statement and same was adopted by the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 2 stated that as per the G.O.Ms. NO.

145 Revenue (Ser.II) department dt: 25-04-2025 and G.O.Ms.No. 200

Revenue (Services-II) Department, dated : 12-06-2017 issued by the

Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Tahsildar is competent authority to issue Family Member Certificate only; and accordingly, they have issued the

Family Certificate to the plaintiffs on 16-05-2025 since they are only the family members of their parents; and sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.As against the defendant no. 3, a notice was published in Telugu Nela

Telugu Daily Newspaper, but no one come forward to make any claim or objection against the plaintiffs’ claim. Hence, this court set the defendant

No.3 exparte.

5.Upon perusing the pleadings and documents of both the parties, the following issues are settled for trial :

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are

legal heirs and successors of Late Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani W/

o.Late Pothireddy Pandu Ranga Reddy D/o.Late Polireddy in respect

of suit schedule A to C properties as prayed for ?

(ii) To what relief ?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiffs examined the plaintiff No.2 as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17 documents. The defendants nos. 1 and

IV ASCJ

Page 5 of 9 OS NO. 519 OF 2025

2 did not choose to adduce any evidence and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard the submissions of both counsel.

Issue No.(i):

8.Perused the material on record. The plaintiff No.2/PW1 in his evidence has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and he got marked Exs.A1 to A17 documents. PW1 in his evidence deposed that the plaintiffs are the sons of Late Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani and Late Pothireddy Pandu Ranga

Reddy and during her life time, Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani purchased suit schedule A to C properties; later she died intestate on 02-02-2025 leaving the plaintiffs as her sole legal heirs to succeed her estate as their father

Late Pothireddy Pandu Ranga Reddy predeceased her on 27-04-2016. and thereafter, the plaintiffs approached the defendants no. 1 and 2 officials for issuance of legal heir certificate, but the defendants nos.1 and 2 authorities refused to issue legal heir certificate and advised them to approach competent court for issuance of legal heir certificate.

8.In support of their contention, PW1 got marked Exs.A1 to A17 documents. Ex.A1 is certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document no.8256/2019 dated 24-06-2019. Ex.A1 shows that Late Smt.Chegireddy

Jhansi Rani had purchased suit schedule A property from its original owner

M.Narahari represented by his Registered AGPA holder Thouta Sreeshailam and delivered the possession to her. Ex.A2 is certified copy of registered sale

IV ASCJ

Page 6 of 9 OS NO. 519 OF 2025

deed bearing document no.269/2000 dated 17-02-2000. Ex.A2 shows that

Late Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani had purchased suit schedule B property house plot from its original owner Chinna Obula Reddy and delivered the possession to her. Ex.A3 is certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document no.15874/2003 dated 11-12-2003. Ex.A3 shows that Late

Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani had purchased suit schedule C property from its original owner and delivered the possession to her. Ex.A4 is the original death certificate of Late Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani which shows that Late

Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani died on 02-02-2025. Ex.A5 is the original death certificate of Late Sri.Pothireddy Pandu Ranga Reddy which shows that Late Sri.Pothireddy Pandu Ranga Reddy died on 27-04-2016. Ex.A6 is the original family members certificate dated 22-04-2025 issued by the defendant no. 1 which shows that the plaintiffs are the children and family members of Late Chegireddy Jhansi Rani. Exs.A7 and A8 are the Aadhar

Cards of plaintiffs. Ex.A9 is the PAN card of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A10 is the encumbrance certificate of schedule A property which shows Ex.A1 transaction. Ex.A11 is the encumbrance certificate of schedule B property which shows Ex.A2 transaction. Ex.A12 is the encumbrance certificate of schedule C property which shows Ex.A3 transaction. Exs.A13 and 14 are the property tax receipts of schedule A and B properties. Exs.A15 to A17 are the market value certificates of schedule A to C properties.

IV ASCJ

Page 7 of 9 OS NO. 519 OF 2025

9.Thus, Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 shows that Late Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani was the original owner of the suit schedule A to C properties and she died intestate on 02-02-2025 leaving the plaintiffs as her sole legal heirs to succeed her estate. It is the evidence of the plaintiffs that they have approached the Defendants no. 1 and 2 officials for issuance of legal heir certificate; but the Defendants no. 1 and 2 authorities did not issue legal heir certificate which resulted into filing of this case for declaring them as legal heirs of Late Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani.

10. The above evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A17 documents remained unchallenged as the defendants no. 1 and authorities though appeared and filed written statement but did not choose to cross-examine the PW1. Further, this court did not receive any claims or objections from the defendant no. 3 (all concerned) inspite of calling claims or objections from the general public by way of causing paper publication.

11. From the above unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to

A17 documents, the plaintiffs have successfully established that Late

Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani was the absolute owner of the suit schedule A to C properties and she died intestate on 02-02-2025. As per Section 15 of

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if any Female Hindu dies intestate, firstly her husband and children become Class-I legal heirs to succeed her estate. In the present case, the plaintiffs being the children are the only surviving

IV ASCJ

Page 8 of 9 OS NO. 519 OF 2025

legal heirs of Late Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani and therefore, they alone are required to be declared as legal heirs to succeed to the estate of Late

Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani who died intestate on 02-02-2025.

12. In the present case, the defendants no. 1 and 2 authorities refused to issue legal heir certificate thereby denied the legal status of plaintiffs, which has resulted into effecting their rights over the suit schedule property and therefore, this court opines that the plaintiffs are deprived to be the legal heirs of Late Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani who died intestate on 02-02-2025 and as such they are entitled for the declaration as prayed for. Further, the defendant nos 1 and 2 authorities did not choose to enter into witness box and adduce their side evidence. Therefore, this Court opines that the defendants no. 1 and 2 authorities refused to issue legal heir certificate thereby denied the legal status of plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

13.In the result, this suit is decreed declaring the plaintiffs as legal heirs of Late Smt.Chegireddy Jhansi Rani in respect of the suit schedule A to C properties. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of December, 2025.

IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

IV ASCJ

Page 9 of 9 OS NO. 519 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1 – P.Tapasvi Reddy NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.8256/2019 dated 24-06-2019

Ex.A2Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.26/2000 dated 17-02-2000

Ex.A3Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.15874/2003 dated 11-12-2003

Ex.A4Original death certificate of Chegireddy Jhansi Rani dated 18-03-2025

Ex.A5Original death certificate of Pothireddy Pandu Ranga Reddy

dated 17-05-2016

Ex.A6Original Family members certificate dated 22-04-2025

Ex.A7Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.1

Ex.A8Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.2

Ex.A9PAN card of plaintiff No.1

Ex.A10 Encumbrance certificate of schedule A property

Ex.A11 Encumbrance certificate of schedule B property

Ex.A12 Encumbrance certificate of schedule C property

Ex.A13 Property tax receipt of schedule A property

Ex.A14 Property tax receipt of schedule B property

Ex.A15 Market value certificate of schedule A property

Ex.A16 Market value certificate of schedule B property

Ex.A17 Market value certificate of schedule C property

For Defendants:

NIL

IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

IV ASCJ

Page 1 of 7 OS NO. 706 OF 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: Sri. J. Syam Kumar, IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Wednesday, the 17 th day of December, 2025

O.S . No. 706 of 2025

Between:-

1. Rajendra Karyakarte, S/o.Late Madhav Rao, Aged 61 years, Occ:Teacher, R/o.H.No.4-7-740, Esamiya Bazar, Hyderabad – 500 027.

2. Nikhil Karyakarte, S/o.Rajendra Karyakarte and Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte, Aged 34 years, Occ:Pvt.Employee, R/o.H.No.4-7-740, Esamiya Bazar, Hyderabad – 500 027.

3. Smt.Vrushali Karyakarte, W/o.Harshal Kulkarni, D/o.Rajendra Karyakarte and Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte, Aged 34 years, Occ:Pvt.Employee, R/o.H.No.4-7-740, Esamiya Bazar, Hyderabad – 500 027.

.........Plaintiffs

A N D

1. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. All concerned.

...........Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day 15.12.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Sudharkar Rao Kulkarni, advocate for plaintiffs and that the defendants having been set exparte and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

IV ASCJ

Page 2 of 7 OS NO. 706 OF 2025

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

1.The plaintiffs filed this suit for declaration that they are the legal heir of

Late Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte in respect of the suit schedule property.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as under :

(i)The plaintiff No.1 is the husband and plaintiff No.2 is son and plaintiff No.3 is daughter of Late Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte. The said Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte, during her lifetime, had purchased suit schedule property i.e., All that piece and parcel of house bearing

H.No.3-10/1 on Plot No.375 in Sy.Nos.42 and 43 admeasuring 311 Sq.yards or 260.02 Sq.mtrs having plinth area of 411 Sq.feet of RCC situated at

Prashanthi Hills of Meerpet village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District under Meerpet Gram Panchayath, Registration Sub-District,

Champapet under a registered sale deed bearing document No.7168/2002

dated 19-09-2002 from its original vendor Neelam Maha Lakhsmi and

delivered the possession to her.

(ii)While so, on 30-07-2009, the said Smt.Neelam @ Surekha

Karyakarte died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs as her sole legal heirs and successors. After her death, the plaintiffs approached the defendant

No.1 authorities for issuance of legal heir certificate in the first week of

October, 2025, but the defendant No.1 authority refused to issue legal heir certificate and directed the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court and the plaintiffs having no other remedy, approached this court seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of Late Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, this suit.

IV ASCJ

Page 3 of 7 OS NO. 706 OF 2025

3.The Defendant no.1 did not choose to file written statement and reported no written statement. As against the defendant no. 2, a notice was published in Vijay Kranthi Teulgu Daily Newspaper, but no one come forward to make any claim or objection against the plaintiff’s claim. Hence, this court proceeded with the exparte proceedings.

4.During the course of enquiry, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.1 as

PW1 and he got marked Exs.A1 to A11 documents.

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

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as

prayed for ?

7.POINT: Perused the material on record. The plaintiff/PW1 in his evidence has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and he got marked Exs.A1 to A11 documents. PW1 in his evidence deposed that the plaintiff No.1 is the husband and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the children of

Late Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte and during her life time,

Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte purchased the suit schedule property; later she died intestate on 30-07-2009 leaving the plaintiffs as her sole legal heir to succeed her estate and thereafter, the plaintiffs approached the defendant no. 1 officials for issuance of legal heir certificate, but the defendant no.1 authorities refused to issue legal heir certificate and advised them to approach competent court for issuance of legal heir certificate.

IV ASCJ

Page 4 of 7 OS NO. 706 OF 2025

8.In support of his contention, PW1 got marked Exs.A1 to A11 documents. Ex.A1 is the original death certificate of Smt.Neelam @ Surekha

Karyakarte which shows that Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte died on 30-07-2009. Ex.A2 is certified copy of registered sale deed document bearing No.7168/2002 dated 19-09-2002 which shows that Smt.Neelam @

Surekha Karyakarte purchased the suit schedule property from its original vendor Smt.Neelam Lakshmi and delivered the possession to her. Ex.A3 is the original encumbrance certificate which show that except Ex.A2 transaction there are no other transactions over the schedule property.

Ex.A4 is the original market value certificate. Exs.A5 to A7 are the original

Aadhar Cards of plaintiffs No.1 to 3. Exs.A8 and A9 are the original birth certificates of plaintiffs No.2 and 3. Ex.A10 is the household card and

Ex.A11 is the SBI Bank passbook. Exs.A8 to A11 shows that plaintiff No.1 and Late Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte are husband and wife and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are their children.

9.Thus, Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 shows that Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte was the original owner of the suit schedule property and she died intestate on 30-07-2009 leaving the plaintiffs as her sole legal heirs to succeed her estate. It is the evidence of the plaintiffs that they approached the

Defendant no. 1 officials for issuance of legal heir certificate; but the

Defendant no. 1 authorities did not issue legal heir certificate which

IV ASCJ

Page 5 of 7 OS NO. 706 OF 2025

resulted into filing of this case for declaring the plaintiffs as legal heirs of

Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte.

10. The above evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A11 documents remained unchallenged as the defendant no. 1 authorities did not choose to contest the matter. Further, this court did not receive any claims or objections from the defendant no. 2 (all concerned) inspite of calling claims or objections from the general public by way of causing paper publication.

11. From the above unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to

A11 documents, the plaintiffs have successfully established that

Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she died intestate on 30-07-2009. As per Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if any Female Hindu dies intestate, firstly her, husband and children become Class-I legal heirs to succeed her estate.

In the present case, the plaintiffs being the husband and children are the only surviving legal heirs of Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte and therefore, they are required to be declared as legal heirs to succeed to the estate of Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte who died intestate on 30-07- 2009.

12. In the present case, the defendant no. 1 authorities refused to issue legal heir certificate thereby denied the legal status of plaintiffs, which has resulted into effecting their rights over the suit schedule property and

IV ASCJ

Page 6 of 7 OS NO. 706 OF 2025

therefore, this court opines that the plaintiffs are deprived to be the legal heirs of Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte who died intestate on 30-07- 2009 and as such they are entitled for the declaration as prayed for.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

13.In the result, this suit is decreed declaring the plaintiff as legal heirs of Late Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte in respect of the suit schedule property. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of December, 2025.

IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1 – Rajendra Karyakarte NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1Original death certificate of Late Smt.Neelam @ Surekha Karyakarte dated 19-08-2009

Ex.A2Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.7168/2002 dated 19-09-2002

Ex.A3Original encumbrance certificate dated 07-10-2025

Ex.A4Original market value certificate dated 08-10-2025

IV ASCJ

Page 7 of 7 OS NO. 706 OF 2025

Ex.A5Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.1

Ex.A6Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.2

Ex.A7Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.3

Ex.A8Original birth certificate of plaintiff No.2 dated 05-04-2022

Ex.A9Original birth certificate of plaintiff No.3 dated 05-04-2022

Ex.A10 Household card

Ex.A11 SBI passbook

For Defendants:

NIL

IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

IV ASCJ

Page 1 of 5 IA No. 313 of 2025

in O.S.No.28 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: Sri J. SYAM KUMAR, IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Wednesday, this the 17th day of December, 2025

IA.No. 313 of 2025

in

O.S. No. 28 of 2018

Between:-

1. Manemma, W/o.Yarlagadda Krishna, D/o.Late Chakali @ Devagoni Sattaiah, Aged about 72 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.3-4-913, Sathya Nagar, Kachiguda, Himayathnagar, Stn Kachiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State – 500 027.

2. Uppunuthala Sujatha, W/o.Uppunuthala Anthaiah, D/o.Late Chakali @ Devagoni Sattaiah, Aged about 59 years, Occ:Hosue wife, R/o.5-199, Thukkuguda, Mankhal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State 501 359.

3. Lingala Manemma, W/o.Balaiah, D/o.Late Chakali @ Devagoni Sattaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.5-2, Pillaipally Bhoodan Pochampally, Nalgonda 508 284.

4. Kukatpalli Jangamma, W/o.Kukatpalli Ramulu, D/o.Late Chakali @ Devagoni Sattaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.3-41, Passumamula, Kuntloor, Hayathnagar Mandla, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State – 501 505. ….Petitioners/ Proposed defendants No.3 to 6

AND

1. Chakali @ Devagoni Laxmaiah, S/o.Late Sattaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Washerman,

2. Chakali @ Devagoni Shankaraiah, S/o.Late Sattaiah, Aged abuot 43 years, Occ:Washerman,

3. Chakali @ Devagoni Darshan, S/o.Late Sattaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ:Washerman,

4. Chakali @ Devagoni Srinivas, S/o.Late Sattaiah, Aged abotu 37 years, Occ:Washerman,

All are R/o.Gunthapally Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal

......Respondents/Plaintiffs

Page 2 of 5 IA No. 313 of 2025

in O.S.No.28 of 2018

This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Srikanth, Advocate for Petitioners/Proposed defendants No.3 to 6 and Sri.N.Bhujanga Rao, Advocate for Respondents/Plaintiffs and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

:: ORDER ::

1.The petitioners, who are third parties to the suit, filed this application under

Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC and r/w Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of

Practice stating that they are also legal heirs of Late Chakali @ Devagoni Sattaiah are having respective share in the suit schedule property and recently they come to know about the pendancy of above suit and therefore, for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case they sought for their impleadment to the main suit as party defendants Nos.3 to 6.

2.The counsel for respondents/plaintiffs reported no counter and prayed to pass orders on merits.

3.The respondents/defendants no. 1 and 2 filed counter opposing the petition stating that the respondents/plaintiffs are filing the petitions one after the other with baseless grounds and now the petitioners filed the present petition in collusion with the respondents/plaintiffs to drag the suit proceedings. Even if the petitioners are added as party defendants to the suit, it would not serve any purpose except delaying the suit proceedings further and therefore, the petitioners will not get any reliefs in the present suit. Therefore, the petitioners are not necessary parties to the present suit and sought for dismissal of the petition.

4.Heard both sides. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Page 3 of 5 IA No. 313 of 2025

in O.S.No.28 of 2018

5.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the petitioners/proposed defendant Nos.3 to 6 are permitted to

be impleaded as party defendant Nos.3 to 6 to the main case OS No.28/2018 as

prayed for?

6.POINT: Perused the material on record. The respondents no. 1 to 4/plaintiffs filed OS No.28/2018 for declaring that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.94 and 95 situated at Gunthapally village, Hayathangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and consequently sought for delivery of possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiffs stating that the respondents/defendants by creating and fabricating some documents got mutated their names in the revenue records and illegally occupied the suit schedule property.

The respondents No.4 and 5/defendants filed written statement stating that both

Devagoni Yadaiah and Sattaiah jointly sold away the entire land in Sy.Nos.94 and 95 admeasuring Ac.2-25 gts to one Smt.Ranga Laxmamma under two separate sale deeds vide document Nos.4054/1983 dated 22.06.1983 to an extent of Ac.1-09 gts and vide document No.7477/1986 dated 17.06.1986 to an extent of Ac.1-16 gts and delivered the physical possession to said Smt.Ranga Laxmamma and thereafter, she got mutated her name in the revenue records. Later, the said Smt.Ranga Laxmamma alienated the said land to M/s. Abhinandana Housing Private Limited under registered sale deed bearing document No.9326/2006 dated 24.04.2006 who inturn alienated Ac.1-09 gts in Sy.No.94 to the defendant No.1 under registered sale deed bearing document No.27784/2006 dated 22.11.2006 and Ac.1-16 gts in Sy.No.95 to the defendant No.1 under registered sale deed bearing document No.27785/2006

dated 22.11.2006 and delivered the possession to them and thereafter, the

defendants got mutated their names in the revenue records and accordingly, their

Page 4 of 5 IA No. 313 of 2025

in O.S.No.28 of 2018 names are recorded as pattedars and possessors of the said land of their respective extent in all their revenue records and thus, they have become owner, pattedar and possessors of their respective extent of land, but, plaintiffs suppressed the above transactions and filed this false case.

7.On the basis of above rival contentions, both plaintiffs and defendants adduced their respective evidence and when the matter is posted for arguments, the petitioners, who are third parties to the suit, filed this petition to implead them as party defendants to the suit as they being the legal heirs of Late Chakali @ Devagoni

Sattaiah are also having respective share in the suit schedule property and sought for their impleadment to the main suit. As per the plaint averments, the respondents no.1 to 4/plaintiffs are children of Late Chakali @ Devagoni Yadaiah and sought for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession from the defendants. The petitioners claiming to be the daughters of Late Chakali @ Devagoni Sattaiah have filed the present application to implead them as party defendants to the suit.

However, the respondents/defendants did not deny the relationship of petitioners with Late Chakali @ Devagoni Sattaiah and they have contended that the present petition is filed to delay the proceedings further. Though the present petition is filed at the belated stage of arguments but in view of the petitioners being the legal heirs of Chakali @ Devagoni Sattaiah, they are required to be added as party defendants to the suit. However, the plaintiffs knowing fully well that Chakali @ Devagoni

Sattaiah also left behind him the petitioners as his legal heirs did not choose to add them as party plaintiffs or party defendants to the suit and proceeded with the trial of the case in their absence. Now, the petitioners filed the present petition for their impleadment and in case they are not added as parties to the suit, it will lead to multiplicity of litigation and which will cause irreparable loss and injury to both the

Page 5 of 5 IA No. 313 of 2025

in O.S.No.28 of 2018 parties. Moreover, the property rights are involved in this case. In the said circumstances, this court opines that the petitioners are proper and necessary parties for proper adjudication of the matter.

8.From the above discussions, this court opines that the petitioners being the legal heirs of Late Chakali @ Devagoni Sattaiah are also having right over the suit schedule property and in order to avoid multifarious of litigation and also to protect the rights of the petitioners over the suit schedule property, this court opines that they are required to be impleaded as party defendants to the suit. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed impleading the petitioners/proposed defendant Nos.3 to 6 as party defendant Nos.3 to 6 to the main case. No costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer through, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of December, 2025.

IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar