Sri. K.B. Gangeyudu

ORIGINAL

V९.8

8

INTHECOURTOFTHEJUDGE,FAMILYCOURT-CUM-IVADDL.DISTRICT

ANDSESSIONSJUDGE::ADILABAD.

Friday,thistheI4'*dayofMarch,2024.

Present:Smt.ArunaSarika,

Judge,FamilyCourt-Cum-IVAddl.

DistrictandSessionsJudge, Adilabad. A.S.No./20I2 Between: ShaikChandS/o.LateShaikMohammed, Age:55years,Occ;RTCDriverofAdilabaddepot, R/o.H.No.4-9-497/,rickshawcolony,Adilabad, MandalandDistrictAdilabad. >>Appellant //And// .ShaikAhammedAliS/o.LateShaikMohammed, Age:40years,Occ:RTCDriverR/o.NewBusstand, Gudihathnoor,MandalGudihathnoor,Dist.Adialbad.

2.ShaikIbraheemS/o.LateShaikMohammed, Age:38years,Occ:RTCDriver,R/o.NewBusstand, Gudihathnoor,MandalGudihathnoor,Dist.Adilabad.

3.Smt.AlimBee,W/o.LateShaikMoha:nmed, Age:70years,Occ:Nil,R/o.NewBusStand, Gudihathnoor,MandalGudihathnoor,DistrictAdilabad. (DiedbyL.RsRespondentNo.4to6)

4.Smt.QursheedBeeW/o.ChaousAhmedbinAli, Age:42years,Occ:Housewife,R/o.H.No.4-8-845, Waddarcolony,WardNo.3I,Adilabad.

5.ShaikYousuf,S/o.LateShaikMohammed, Age:42years,Occ:RTCDriverR/o.H.No.C-4-6-359, NearFatimaMasjieed,SanjayNagar,Adilabad.

6.Smt.Sulthana,W/o.MahammadArif,Age:37years, Oce:Housewife,R/o.Mokhra(B)ofMandalIchoda, DistrictAdilabad.

..Respondents

(Onappealagainsttheorderdated2.2.20ImadeinO.S.No.27/20I]on thefileofthecourtofSeniorCivilJudgeatAdilabad).

Between: ShaikChand .Plaintiff //And// ShaikAhammedAliandothers t.Defendants ThisAppealcomingon2-02-20I4forfinalhearingbeforemeinthe presenceofSriP.MohanSingh,AdvocateforappellantandSriA.Amarender Reddy,Advocateforrespondents९०.,2,4and6,therespondentNo.3wasdied aiidtherespondentNo.5wassetexparteandthematterhavingstoodoverto thisdayforconsideration,thiscourtdeliveredthefollowing:

ORIGINAL

253200540

JUDGMENT

iThisappealbytheunsuccessfulappellant/plaintiff(‘theplaintiff’fod

short)isdirectedagainsttheJudgmentanddecreedated2-2-20ofthe learnedSeniorCivilJudgeatAdilabadmadein05.00.27/2002filedfor declarationoftitleandrecoveryofpossessionofsuitscheduleproperty.

2.ThiscourtoffirstAppealisthelastcourtoffact.Hence,itisnecessaryto adverttothepleadingsofboththesides.Thepartiesarebeingreferredtoas‘the plaintiff’and‘thedefendant’forconvenienceandclarity.

oeTheavermentsintheplaint,inbrief,areasfollows:-“Theplaintiffisthe elderbrotherofthedefendantsNo.land2andsonofthedefendantNo.3an anotherbrotheroftheplaintiffbynameShaikYousufisalsoworkingasdriverin

APSRTCDepot,Adilabadandresidingseparatelyandnothingtodowiththe suitproperty.TheplaintiffpurchasedthehousebearingNo.3-40old correspondingtoNewH.No.3-6/measuring48’X34’includingopenplace situatedatGudihathnoorvillageandmandalthroughAgreementofsale

executedon5-I0-976fromoneDaveedS/o.Rajannaforasaleconsiderationof

Rs.,00/-(RupeesOnethousandonehundredonly).Theplaintiffwasworking

ascleaneronthelorrybelongstoAhmedChaush,subsequentlybecamethe driverworkingundersaidAhmedChaushatJainoor.Earlierthefamily membersoftheplaintiffwereresidingatHasnapurandthereaftershiftedto

Gudihathnoorandresidinginarentedhouseforaperiodofoneyearand thereafterintheyear976hepurchasedthesuitproperty.Thedefendants०.। and2areagedabout6and4yearsrespectivelyatthetimeofthepurchaseofthe houseandhe६3.00theearningmemberinthefamilyandoutofhisown४2.5

earningshepurchasedthesuitpropertyandwasmaintainingthefamily.He

i

shiftedtoAdilabactheyear99IsincehegotjobasdriverinAPSRTC

5५..AdilabadDepotleavingthesuithouseinthepossessionofthedefendantNo.3

ORIGINAL

९+2.-

७३

anddeceasedfather.ThedefendantNo.2wasminoratthetimeandthe

defendantNo.wasstayingwithmotherinthesaidhouseforsomeperiodtill

thedeathoffather,whoexpiredin200।andsubsequentlydefendantNo.I

purchasedoneoldhousenearthesuithouseandresidingseparatelywithhis

familymemberssince2002.HehasgotserviceinAPSRTCasdriverandthe

defendantNo.2alsogotserviceasdriverinAPSRTCAdilabad.Butintheroad

wideningofN.H.No.7road,thehouseofthedefendantऐ०.]iseffectedandthe

RDOAdilabadpaidcompensationofRs.,30,000/-(RupeesOnelakhthirty

thousandonly)tohim.AfteracquisitionofhishousethedefendantNo.!shifted allhisbelongingsintothesuithouseabout2yearsbackwiththepermissionof theplaintiffandwiththeunderstandingtillhemakesthealternatearrangement.

Theplaintiffistheownerofthesuithouseonthebasisofthepurchasethrough agreementofsaleexecutedon5-0-976.TheGramPanchayathGudihathnoor enteredthenameoftheplaintiffintheofficerecordasowneronthebasisofthe agreementofsale.Atthetimeofpurchaseitwasaoldhuthencetheplaintiff appliedandobtainedpermissiontoconstructnewhouseandaccordinglythe

SarpanchofG.P.Gudihathnooraccordedpermissionbyapprovingplanofopen siteandhouseoftheplaintiffon3-05-98,theXeroxcopyofthesaidapproved planissuedinthenameoftheplaintiffisfiledherewith,sincetheoriginalisnot

availableinspiteoftracemadebytheplaintiff.Theplaintiffusedtopay

propertytaxfromtimetotimetill986-87.Theplaintiffappliedforandobtained

ServiceconnectionsfromtheelectricitydepartmentinhisnamevideS.C.No.98.

InordertojoininAPSRTCAdilabadDepot,heshiftedtoAdilabadwiththe understandingthattheparentswillresideinthesuithouseduringtheirlife

periodandperinittedthedefendantsNo.and2tostayinit.Buthecameto

knowकहरihendighbourson09-06-200thatthedefendantsNo.land2

colludedandपिलाthedefendantNo.3andplanningtodisposeofthe

suithouseandwhen.heplaintiffquestionedthedefendants,theyhavedenied

ORIGINAL

infavoourofthedefendantsthecourtmiserablefailedto applyits mindanddismissedthesuitresultinginjusticetotheplaintiff’.

TeInthepresentappealsuitnoticeswereservedandinitiallySri

A.AmarenderReddy,Advocate filedvakalathforrespondentsNo.Iand2.As therespondentNo.3diedtherespondentsNo.4to6hereinwerebroughton recordaslegalheirsandSriA.AmarenderReddy,Advocatefiledvakalathfor respondentsNo.4and6.TherespondentNo.5namelyShaikYousuf,though receivednoticeinpersonon2-2-20I2wassetexpartefornonappearanceon 27-2-20I2.TherespondentsNo.I,2,4and6didnotfiletheircounter.

8.Ihaveheardthesubmissionofthelearnedcounselforboththesides.

Ihavecarefullyperusedthematerialonrecordincludingtheimpugneddecree andjudgmentandgroundsofappealurgedbytheplaintiff.

epNowthepointsthatarisefordeterminationinthisAppealareasfollows:

i)Whethertheplaintiffisentitledtoadecreeagainstthedefendantsfor declarationoftitleandrecoveryofpossessionofthesuitschedule property? ii)Whetherthedecreeandjudgmentofthetrialcourtcannotbe sustainedunderfactsandlaw?

iii)Towhatrelief?

0.POINTSNO.IAND2

a)ThefactsleadingtothepresentAppealandthepleadingsoftheplaintiff arealreadystatedsupra,indetail.Hence,thesamearenotrestated.

b)Theplaintiff'scontentionsareasunder:“Theplaintiffistheelderbrother

oftheजाNo.land2andsonofthedefendantNo.3ananotherbrother

;oftheplaintiffbynameShaikYousufisalsoworkingasdriverinAPSRTC

Depot,Adilabadand“residingseparatelyandnothingtodowiththesuit

property.Theplaintiff-purchasedthehousebearingNo.3-40oldcorresponding:ae

ORIGINAL

quis.

toNewH.No.3-I6/lmeasuring48’X34’includingopenplacesituatedatia

|GudihathnoorvillageandmandalthroughAgreementofsaleexecutedon5-0-

4976fromoneDaveedS/o.RajannaforasaleconsiderationofRs.I,00/-

(RupeesOnethousandonehundredonly).Theplaintiffwasworkingascleaner

onthelorrybelongstoAhmedChaush,subsequentlybecamedriverand

workingundersaidAhmedChaushatJainoor.Earlierthefamilymemberofthe

plaintiffwereresidingatHasnapurandthereaftershiftedtoGudihathnoorand

residinginarentedhouseforaperiodofoneyearandthereafterintheyear976

hepurchasedthesuitproperty.ThedefendantsNo.Iand2areagedabout6and

4yearsrespectivelyatthetimeofthepurchaseofthehouseandhewasonlythe

earningmemberinthefamilyandoutofhisownearningshepurchasedthesuit

propertyandwasmaintainingthefamily.HeshiftedtoAdilabadintheyear

99]sincehegotjobasdriverinAPSRTCAdilabadDepotleavingthesuithouse

inthepossessionofthedefendantNo.3anddeceasedfather.Thedefendant

No.2wasminoratthetimeandthedefendantNo.wasstayingwithmotherin

thesaidhouseforsomeperiodtillthedeathoffather,whoexpiredin200]and

subsequentlydefendant४०.]purchasedoneoldhousenearthesuithouseand

residingseparatelywithhisfamilymemberssince2002.Hehasgotservicein

APSRICasdriverandthedefendantNo.2alsogotserviceasdriverinAPSRTC

Adilabad.ButintheroadwideningofN.H.No.7road,thehouseofthe

defendantNo.liseffectedandtheRDOAdilabadpaidcompensationof

Rs.,30,000/-(RupeesOnelakhthirtythousandonly)tohim.Afterरा,

ofhishousethedefendantि०.]shiftedallhisbelongingsintothesuithouse

about2yearsbackwiththepermissionoftheplaintiffandwiththe

understandingtill.hemakesthealternatearrangement.Theplaintiffistheowner

ofthesuitजिonthesbasisofthepurchasethroughagreementofsaleexecuted

on5-I0-976.-TheGramPanchayatGudihathnoorenteredthenameofthe

plaintiffintheofficerecordasowneronthebasisoftheagreementofsale.At

ORIGINAL

the timeofpurchaseitwas a old huthence the plaintiffappliedandobtained

permissiontoconstructnewhouseandaccordinglytheSarpanchofcp”

Gudihathnooraccordedpermissionbyapprovingplanofopensiteandhouseof

theplaintiffon3-05-98l.Theplaintiffusedtopaypropertytaxfromtime to

timetill986-87.Theplaintiffappliedforand obtainedServiceconnections fromtheelectricitydepartmentin hisnamevideS.C.No.98.Inordertojoinin

APSRTCAdilabadDepot,heshiftedtoAdilabadwiththeunderstandingthatthe parents will reside in the suit houseduring their lifeperiodandpermitted the defendantsNo.and2tostayinit.Buthecametoknowthroughtheneighbours on09-06-20I0thatthedefendantsNo.]and 2colludedandprevaileduponthe defendantNo.3andplanningtodisposeofthesuithouseandwhentheplaintiff questionedthedefendants,theyhavedeniedthetitleoftheplaintiffand informedthathehasnorightinrespectofthesuithouse.Onverificationofthe recordinthePanchayathofficetheplaintiffcametoknowthatthedefendant

No.land2gotmutatedthehouseinthenameofdefendantNo.3asagainsthis name withillmotiveandtoexcludehimfromhislegalrightwithouthis knowledgeandinformationhencewhichhasnobindingeffectonhim.Hegot issuedthelegalnoticestothedefendantsthroughregisteredpostdated0-II- 2020callinguponthemto deliverthepossessionofthesuitproperty.Thesaid noticesare receivedbyallthedefendantson5--200,but neither gaveany replynorvacatedanddeliveredthepossessionofthesuithouse. Thedefendants areunderthelegalobligationtodeliverthepossessionofthesuithouse tohim afterreceiptofthenoticesincetheyhavenorightto continuetheirpossession.

Thereforetheplaintiffisentitledfordeclarationoftitleandrecoveryof possessionof.thesuitscheduleproperty”.

fo)No.land2thoughremainedexpartefornonfilingof काot

“writtenstatementinthmainsuitO.S.No.27/20hadnotevenchosento

22कपi _submittheircontentions’beforethiscourtbywayofcounterandtherespondents

ORIGINAL

9WwS

Ee

No.4and6whowerebroughtonrecordinthepresentappealaslegalheirsof therespondentNo.3,hadalsonotchosentosubmittheircontentionsbeforethis courtbywayofcounter.HoweverthelearnedcounselfordefendantsNo.I,2,4 and6hadarguedatlength.Hehassubmittedthattheplaintiffisnottheowner ofthesuitschedulepropertyandtheallegationsmadebyhimareallfalseand furtherurgedthatthesuitisnotmaintainableasthesuitschedulepropertyfalls

underAgencyArea,hencethesuitpropertyisnotlegallyenforceableor

transferable.HehasdrawntheattentionofthiscourttotheexhibitA6,thelegal noticeparaNo.I,thedateofagreementofsalehasbeenmentionedas30-08-976 andatparaNo.5ofplaintithasbeenmentionedasdated5-0-976,which showsthattheplaintiffhasnoknowledgeonwhatdatehepurchasedthesuit schedulepropertyandtheveryfactwasnoticedbythetrialcourtinit’s judgmentatparaNo.4.Hefurtherarguedthatalltransactionsmadeafter

03-02-970wouldeffectandcomesundertheAgencyActandhencequestionof

gettingtitlebywayofagreementofsaledated30-08-976or5-0-976donot ariseandtheplaintiffbycreatingthedocumenthasfiledthepresentsuit.He alsofurtherarguedthatmerecollectionoftaxbycompetentauthoritydonot createorconfertitleaslawlaiddownbytheHon’bleSupremeCourt.Thesuit schedulepropertyissituatedinGudihathnoorwhichisaAgencyArea.The learnedcounselfinallyresthisargumentsbyconcludingthatthepresentsuit mayredirecttothetrialcourtforfreshhearing.

d)Thelearnedcounselforplaintiffinreplytotheargumentssubmittedby thelearnedcounselfordefendantsNo.i,2,4and6hadurgedthatthedefendants

wantonlyremainedexpartefornonfilingofwrittenstatementthoughmade

appearancethroughtheircounselSriB.Chandramoulihavenowraised

objectionswithregatdtothejurisdictionofthiscourtonthegroundthatthesuit

schedule28.20,8॥situatedatGudihathnoorfallsinaAgencyAreaisnot

४४४८

iT

properandacceptabléatthisstageofcase.Hefurtherarguedthatthetrialcourt od

ORIGINAL

0 didnotframeanypointorissuefordeterminationthatwhetherthecourthas

jurisdictionornotand withouttherebeinganymaterialandमे,

materialtheobjectionraisedbythedefendantscannotbesustained.Thelearned counselforplaintiffsubmittedthattheargumentofthelearnedcounselfor defendantsisnotcorrectwithregard totheverypurchaseisagainstSection3of

RegulationAct and furthersubmittedthatthematterisbetweenthefamily membersandpossessionoftheplaintiffanddefendantstillthisdatehas not beenquestionedandnoproceedingswereinitiatedagainstthemandthereforeit hastobeseentowhatextentthesaidlawthatisRegulationActisapplicableto thefactandcircumstancespertainingtothesuitscheduleproperty.Thelearned counselfor plaintiffdrawtheattentionofthiscourttothedocumentsexhibited onbehalfoftheplaintiffbeforetrialcourtthatisexhibitsAltoA9.Itis necessary to discussthedocumentsfiledonbehalfoftheplaintiffandexhibited forcomingtoa properandjustifiable decision.AperusalofexhibitAl,would showthatthisisaownershipcertificateissuedbyG.P.Secretary,5.7.

Gudihathnoorcertifyingthat theplaintiffistheownerofthesuithousefrom 960-77to98]asperthepropertytaxregister,and as pertherevisionregister 982-83to20I0-,theplaintiff'smothernamelySmt.HaleemaBee’s(Defendant

No.3)nameisrecorded.AperusalofexhibitA2,wouldshowthatitis theGram

PanchayathTaxReceipt,dated3-0I-987issuedinthenameoftheplaintifffor housetax,L.Cessfortheyear986-87. AperusalofexhibitA3wouldshowthat thisistheGramPanchayathTaxReceipt,dated08-03-995issuedinthenameof theplaintiffforhousetax,L. CessH.No.3-05fortheyear994-95. Aperusalof exhibitA4,wouldshowthatthisisdemandnoticeoftaxfromGP.

Gudihathnooraddressedtotheplaintiff.Aperusalof exhibit A5,wouldshow 4 thatthisisa-Market’valuecertificatepertainingtosuitscheduleproperty.A perusalofexhibitAG,A‘ouldshowthatthisisthecopyoflegalnoticedated

0--200gotissuedby:the plaintiffto the defendantsNo.to3andwherein

MIq¥

thecontentsoftheplaintwerementionedandfinallycalleduponthemtovacate ’ anddeliverthepossessionofthehousethatissuitschedulepropertytothe

plaintiffwithinaperiodof5daysfromthedateofreceiptofthenoticeand

addresseeNo.3(thedefendantNo.3)requestedtocomeandjoininthecompany offamilymembersoftheplaintiffatAdilabadtillherlifeperiod,otherwisethe plaintiffisconstrainedtotakelegalactionagainstthem.AperusalofexhibitA7 andA8,wouldshowthatthesearepostalreceiptsandacknowledgements.

AperusalofexhibitA9,wouldshowthatthisistherepresentationgivenbythe plaintifftotheGramPanchayath,Secretary,G.P.Gudihathnoorwitharequestto issueownershipandpossessioncertificatewithregardtohouseNo.3-6/(Old), 3-07(New)thatissuitschedulepropertyinfavouroftheplaintiffwhereinhe narratedthesamecontentsasstatedintheplaint.Theplaintiffhimselfexamined asPW,inhisaffidavitwhichisfiledinlieuofhisexaminationinchiefhad reiteratedhispleadedaverments,whichwerenotrebuttedasthedefendants

00.to3wereremainedexparteandnotevenchosentocrossexaminePW.

ThereforetheevidenceofPWIhadremainedunchallengedandun-refuted.

e)Oncarefulperusalofpleadings,evidenceandsubmissionsofboththe sides,itistonotethatthepartiesarebrothersandsistersandtheexhibitsAlto 34primafacieshowsthattheplaintiffattimesthatis960-77to98]hadtreated asownerofthesuitschedulepropertyandinpossessionofthesameandentered hisnameasownerinGramPanchayathrecordspertainingtopropertytax register.Thoughmeretheentriesinpropertytaxregisterwouldnotconfertitle tothepersonwhosenamehasbeenenteredasownerinthesaidregisters, howevertaking.intoconsiderationofthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase particularlythedefendants९०.]to3remainedexparteinthemainsuitfornon filingofwrittenstatementwhenthespecificpleaoftheplaintiffthatoriginal documentspertainingtothesuitschedulepropertyarewiththedefendants४०.] to3,itappearsthattheyhavewantonlyavoidedthetrialandfurtherthevery

ORIGINAL

]2 submissionoflearnedcounselforplaintiff isthatifthedefendantscontestedthe

suittheplaintiffwouldhavebring thetruth ofhistitleoverthesuitजब्त

propertyfromthemouthofthedefendants.Furtherthelearnedcounselfor defendantshadraisedissuespertainingtojurisdictionofthecourtandtitleofthe plaintifftothesuitschedulepropertywithoutevensubmittingwritten submissionsbeforetrialcourt,thustheselegalissuesalsotobeframedand decidedbased onfactsandlaw.Andso,thesuitoftheplaintiffcan notbe dismissedwithoutprovidingonemorefairopportunitytotheplaintiff.In the factsand circumstancesofthecaseboththepartiesdeserveafairdealand therefore,nofindingsonthemeritsofthematterarerecordedinthisappealsuit asboththepartiesdeserveonemorereasonableandfairopportunityto substantiatetheirrespectivecontentionsandhencethiscourtisoftheviewthat thisisafit casetoremitthematterto thetrialcourtforfreshadjudicationwith necessarydirectionstomeettheendsofjustice.ThepointsNo.land2are accordinglyanswered.Inviewofmyfindings on thepointsNo.Iand2it followsthatthedecreeandjudgmentcannotbesustainedunderfactsandlaw.

Thereforeitfollows thatthe decree andjudgmentofthetrialcourtcanbeset asideforconductingfreshtrialforthepurposeofremittingthemattertothetrial court.Remittingofthemattertothetrialcourtinthefactsandcircumstancesof themattersubservestheendsofjustice.Thepointsareaccordinglyanswered.

ll.POINTNO.3

Intheresult,theAppealsuitisallowed and thedecreeandjudgment

dated2I-2-20passedinO.S.No.27/202]ofthelearnedSeniorCivil Judge,

Adilabadishereby,setasideandthesuitisremandedtothetrialcourtforfresh

fdisposalinaccordancewiththeprocedureestablishedibylawaftergivingan

iY ~/opportunityto’theplaintiffanddefendantstoadduceoral and documentary evidenceeitherbyrecallingwitnessesorexaminingfurtherwitnesses.Itis :Reich aOy; Yd

ORIGINAL

3is.

gi)

needlesstosaythatifthedefendantswhoweresetexpartefornonfilingof 4writtenstatementinthemainsuitfiledapplicationforsetasidealongwith writtenstatementthatshallbeallowed.Thetrialcourtshalldisposeoffthesuit asexpeditiouslyaspossible,onmeritsandasperthedirectionsinthisjudgment inthisappeal-suitanduninfluencedbyanyoftheobservationsmadebythis courtasthesaidobservationsaremadetentatively.Thecostsofthisappealshall \

:“abidébytheresultofthesuit.

’)OD Typedbythetypist,‘tomydictation,correctedandpronouncedbymeintheopen ~court,onthis00447dayofMirch,2024.

Ny=fen'yaieशर्ट,MW

232केकह2Judge,a॥/॥|

DistrictandSessionsJudge, Adilabad.

Dt: 30-04-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100349/20121 / 1

TSAD000004532012

IN THE COURT OF THE I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge:

Present: I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Dt: 30-04-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100349/2012

Between:

Bandarakanti Muthaiah @ Muthyalu Address: So. Posham, AGe 40 years, Caste. Madiga, Occ. Coolie, Ro. S.C. colony, Chennur, Dist. Adilabad.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

State of A.P. through P.S. Chennur. Address: P.S. Chennur.

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : K. Emaji,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Heard. Order pronounced in open court vide separate typed one. In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000-00 with two sureties

Dt: 30-04-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100349/20121 / 1 each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 30-04-2012 I Addl. District and Sessions

Judge

Dt: 30-04-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100347/20121 / 1

TSAD000006192012

IN THE COURT OF THE I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge:

Present: I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, 30-04-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100347/2012

Between:

Egam Suresh Address: So. Bheemaiah, Aged about 20 years, Ro. Konampet, Mdl. Nennel, Dist. Adilabad.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

State of A.P. through Police, Nennel Address: P.S. Nennel … Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : V. Sanjay kumar,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Heard. Order pronounced in open court vide separate typed one. In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000-00 with two sureties

Dt: 30-04-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100347/20121 / 1 each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 30-04-2012 I Addl. District and Sessions

Judge

Dt: 28-04-2012

AS/2/20121 / 1

TSAD000004392012

IN THE COURT OF THE I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge:

Present: I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, 28-04-2012

AS/2/2012

Between:

Suresh Chandra Address: So. Veeranna Patil, Age 46 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Ro. Muthole, Adilabad.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Lala Bai Address: Wo. Tukaram, Age 72 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Ro. Elerala village, Hedgoan, Dist Nanded, M.S.

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : Narender R. Chowdary,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

Dt: 28-04-2012

AS/2/20121 / 1

ORDER

This case is suomoto advanced to this day and transfer to the Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. District and Sessions Court, Adilabad as per Proc.Dis.No.2282/2012 dt 18.04.2012 of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 28-04-2012 I Addl. District and Sessions

Judge

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT-CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS COURT: ADILABAD.

Present: Sri. N. Ananda Rao I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. FAC:Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Monday the 30th day of April, 2012

MVOP 159/2011

Between:-

Bore Mohan Address - 40 yrs, Occ Linemen in APSEB H.No. 1-22008, Maruthinagar, Mancherial. Presently residing at Electric substation Indervelly.

…Petitioner // And //

1) Ms. Srinivasa Laxmi constructions co., and another Address - M. Ravinder Rao S/o. Agarao, 45 yrs, contractor, R/o. H.No. 18-4562, Innani colony Mancherial. Tipper b.no. AP- 01W-4568.

.…Respondents

ORDER

This case is suomoto advanced today. As per Dist.Court Proc.Dis.No.2170/2012 dated 16-04- 2012 this OP is transferred to Prl.District and sessions Court, Adilabad.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2012.

FAC:Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.