Sri. K. Jayaram Reddy

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 1-19

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB.NAGAR

PRESENT: K. JAYARAM REDDY

IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

-CUM-I ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Monday, this the 29thday of December, 2025

SC. No. 383 of 2022

Crime. No. 138 of 2019

of Police Station Balapur

1. Name of the ComplainantThe State represented by Inspector of Police, Police Station, Balapur. :

2. Name of the accused:Mahammad Abdullah-Bin Shareef @ Mohammad Abdullah, S/o: Mohammad Shareef, Age: 27 years, Occ: Labour, R/o:H.No: 6-14, Pahadishareef, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Date of offence:12.04.2019

4. Offence Under Section:Under section 302 of IPC

5. Date of Charge sheet:17.10.2019

6. Date of FIR:13.04.2019

7. Date of Framing of Charges:04.10.2023

8. Date of commencement of:18.07.2024 evidence

9. Date on which Judgment is:22.12.2025 reserved

10. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

11. Finding of the courtAccused is Found Not guilty

10. Date of the Judgment :29.12.2025 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 2-19

11. Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and he is acquitted of the said offence u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated u/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 to MO.6 shall be destroyed and MO. 7 shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal period.

12. Prosecution conducted by:Sri K.Venkateshwara Prasad

Additional Public Prosecutor

13. Accused defended by:Sri P.Sudharshan, learned counsel for accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22.12.2025 in the presence of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Sudharshan, learned counsel for accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:-

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

The Inspector of Police, Balapur police station has filed the charge-sheet in Crime No. 138 of 2019 for the offence punishable

Under Section 302 of I.P.C., against sole Accused.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 13.04.2019 at 0735 hours PW.9 the ASI of police, P.S Balapur recorded the statement of LW.1/Miraj Fathima, at the burns ward, Osmania

General Hospital, Hyderabad vide MLC No. 9855 and IP No. 14171 in which she stated that about 10 years back her marriage was 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 3-19

performed with the one Mukthar, native of Bihar State. Out of the wedlock, they blessed with two children. About three years ago, her husband left her society due to family disputes and went to their native place along with children. Since then, she is residing alone at

House No. 12-39, Osmannagar, Shaheennagar, Balapur Mandal. About one year back, she acquainted with one Abdullah at

Chandrayangutta, since then he frequently visited her house. On 12.04.2019 at about 1930 hours, the said Abdulla went to house of the complainant, after some time they picked up quarrel with each other, then the complainant poured kerosene on her body to threaten him. Then Abdullah/paramour, lit the matchstick and set fire to her with an intention to kill her, as a result she sustained burn injuries.

Due to unbearable pain, she raised hues and cries on listening her hues and cries her neighbours rushed to there, extinguished fire, and she was shifted to the hospital in 108 ambulance.

3.Basing on the above statement PW.13, Inspector of police,

PS. Balapur registered a case in crime No. 138 of 2019 for the offence under section 307 of IPC and entrusted investigation to PW.12/SI of police. During the course of investigation PW.12 rushed to the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW.2 and PW.3. At the time of the scene of offence 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 4-19

panchanama, he seized Kerosene stove, stove lid, Burka, burnt match sticks and match box, black hair (partially burnt) and broken beer pieces in the presence of same mediators. Subsequently, PW.12 examined the eye witnesses, PW.1 and LW2/Habeebunnisa.

Thereafter, he visited the Osmaina General Hospital and recorded the statement of the LW.1/Miraj Fathima. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by PW.8 the XIV Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Rajendranagar. Since the prima facie is established

against the accused Abdullah, PW.12 deputed LW.14/Police constable and LW.15/Head constable to apprehended the accused. Accordingly on 13.04.2019, the accused was apprehended at his residence, but as the accused also received burn injuries to his both writs, he was sent to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. Subsequently

PW.12 interrogated the accused and on interrogation the accused voluntarily admitted his guilt in the presence of PW.4 and PW.6.

Basing on the confession of accused, PW.12 recovered the Yellow colour shirt with red, pink and blue lines and Honda Activa motor cycle bearing No. TS 34 A6743 under cover of panchanama. On 20.04.2019 at 0645 hours PW.12 received information from the

Hospital that the injured Smt. Meraj Fathima was succumbed with burn injuries while undergoing treatment. On that PW.13 took up the further investigation. He visited the Osmania General Hospital, 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 5-19

collected the death summary, and conducted the inquest panchanama in the presence of PW.7 and PW.11. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected for PME. The PW.10 Doctor who conducted the

PME, issued PME report stating that the cause of death was due to burns. The PW.5 doctor who treated the accused, issued MLC stating that the injuries are simple in nature. Basing on inquest report PW.13 altered the section of law from 307 of IPC to 302 of IPC. After completion of the investigation PW.13 filed charge sheet for the offence under section 302 of IPC.

4. The learned V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate cum V

Additional Junior Civil Judge, cyberabad at LB.Nagar has taken

cognizance for the offence under section 302 of IPC against the sole accused.

5.On appearance of the accused the learned Magistrate furnished the copies of case documents as required u/s. 207 Cr.P.C. As the offence with which the accused is charged is exclusively triable by court of sessions, the learned Magistrate, after compliance of procedure u/s. 209 of Cr.P.C, committed the case against the accused to the Hon’ble Prl District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

LB Nagar vide PRC No. 141 of 2019.

7.The Hon’ble Prl District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at LB Nagar registered the case as SC.No. 383/2022 and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 6-19

8.Upon hearing both sides, the accused was examined under section 228 Cr.P.C. Charge under section 302 of IPC is framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to PW.13 and got marked Exs.P-1 to ExP-15 and MO.Nos. 1 to 7.

10. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined Under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution and reported no defence evidence.

11.Heard on both sides and perused the record.

12. Now the points for determination are

1. Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature?

2. Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

Accused for the charges Under Section 302 of I.P.C beyond all

reasonable doubt?.

13.The learned APP argued that the husband of the deceased went to his native place, leaving the deceased at Hyderabad and that taking advantage of the same, the accused developed acquaintance with the deceased. He further argued that on 12.04.2019 at about 1930 hours, the accused went to the house of the deceased and that at that time an altercation was taken place between them. He further 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 7-19

argued that the deceased poured kerosene on herself to threaten the accused, and that at that time the accused lit the match stick and set fire with an intention to kill her. He further argued that dying declaration of the deceased was recorded in which the deceased named the accused, and that the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence prayed to convict the accused. The learned APP has relied over the Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court Naeem Vs State of Uttar Pradesh.

14.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is an innocent person and that he is no way concerned with this alleged offence. He further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that that the accused developed acquaintance with the deceased and he used to visit the house of the deceased. He further argued that the prosecution has failed to examine the relatives of the deceased and that except stating that she had acquaintance with one

Abdullah, who lit the matchstick and set fire, the deceased did not state the descriptive particulars of the person who allegedly set fire.

He further argued that the in her dying declaration also except stating that one Abdullah lighted the match stick and thrown on her, the deceased did not reveal the descriptive particulars of the said

Abdullah and that the person who is named as Abdullah by the deceased and the accused are not one of the same. He further argued that the there is no evidence of any independent witnesses to connect 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 8-19

the accused with the alleged incident and that the prosecution has failed to confront the accused to the deceased. He further argued that the alleged eye witnesses did not reveal the vehicle number which was allegedly involved in the case and that identification of the accused is in dispute. He further argued that there is no corroborative evidence to show that the accused sustained burn injuries in the alleged incident and that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence prayed to acquit the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has relied over the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court between Irfan @ Naka Vs

State of Uttar Pradesh. Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

POINT No.1

15.The case of the prosecution is that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. According to the learned counsel for the accused the death of the deceased was suicidal in nature.

Therefore, to prove its version that due to burns the deceased succumbed to injuries, the prosecution has relied over the evidence of

PW.10, the doctor who said to have conducted the P.M.E. In view of the oral evidence of PW.10 coupled with the Ex.P-10 P.M.E report it is clearly established that the deceased died on 20.04.2019 at 12.30 AM due to burns. Since it is established that the cause of death of the deceased was due to burns, now it has to be seen whether the deceased herself set fire or any other person lit the match stick and 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 9-19

thrown on her. As per Ex.P-9 statement of the deceased, the husband of the deceased Meraj Fathima went to his native place leaving the deceased and thereafter, she developed acquaintance with one

Abdullah. On 12.04.2019 at about 1930 hours said Abdullah went to the house of the deceased and they picked up quarrel. Then the deceased poured Kerosene on herself to threaten the said Abdullah and then Abdullah lit match stick set her fire with an intention to kill her. While under going treatment, she succumbed to injuries. The prosecution could not examine the victim as she succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The alleged eye witness who is examined as PW.1 is turned hostile. However in his evidence PW.1 clearly testifies that in the year 2019, one day in the evening hours, the deceased/LW.1 came out from her house raising hues and cries as she was in flames and she was shifted to hospital in 108 Ambulance.

The case of the prosecution as per the PW.13 is that he conducted inquest panchanama which is marked as Ex.P-14 in the presence of

PW.7 and 11, but they are turned turned hostile. The panch witnesses for CDF who are examined as PW.2 and PW.3 are also turned hostile.

Thus the version of PW.12 regarding the preparation of CDF under Ex.

P-2 and recovery of MO.1 to MO.5 is not supported by the panch witnesses.

29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 10-19

16. The statement of the victim is marked as Ex.P-9 and The

ASI of police who said to have recorded the statement of the deceased is examined as PW.9. Since the victim is no more, the statement given by the deceased can be treated as Dying declaration and also Dying declaration of the deceased was also recorded by

PW.8. In his evidence PW.8 deposed about the recording of dying declaration of the deceased. The Dying declaration is marked as Ex.P-

8. In her Dying declaration, the deceased stated that when she poured a little bit of kerosene on herself, one Abdullah lit the match stick and thrown on her due to which she sustained burn injuries. In view of the dying declaration under Ex.P-8 and statement of the deceased under Ex.P-9, it is clearly established that one Abdullah set her fire and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to burn injuries. Thus in view of the Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10 this court has no hesitation to hold that the death of the deceased Meraj Fathima is homicidal in nature.

POINT No.2

17.According to the case of the prosecution, the accused killed the deceased by lighting the match stick and set the deceased on fire, due to which she succumbed injuries. The alleged incident was occurred in the house of the deceased and except the deceased and the alleged offender, no other person was present in the house of the deceased at the time of this alleged incident. According to the 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 11-19

case of the prosecution PW.1 and LW.2/Habeebunnisa heard the hues and cries from the house of the deceased on 12-04-2019 at about 7.30 PM and one person who used to visit the house of the deceased left the house of the deceased on Honda Activa motorcycle. But the prosecution has failed to examine the LW.2/Habeebunnisa as such the evidence of PW.1 alone is on record to prove that it was the accused who left the house of the deceased at the time of this alleged incident. But in his evidence PW.1 is turned hostile and did not co- operate with the case. Though in his cross examination by the learned

APP the PW.1 admitted that one person used to visit the deceased frequently, he failed to identify that the accused was the person who came out from the house of deceased. Thus there is no evidence to hold that it was the accused who developed acquaintance and he used to visit the house of the deceased frequently. Moreover in his evidence PW.1 clearly deposed that he does not know who is responsible for the incident, therefore his evidence is of no use to connect the accused to the alleged offence. The prosecution has also failed to examine the relatives of the deceased to prove that the husband of the deceased left to his native place leaving the deceased at Hyderabad. The case of the prosecution, as per PW.12 is that he apprehended the accused on 13.04.2019 and that on interrogation the accused confessed this offence in the presence of PW.4 and PW.6.

But in their evidence PW.4 and PW.6 deposed that no panchanama 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 12-19

was conducted in their presence and that when they went to police stationon their personal work, police obtained their signatures on some papers. Though PW.12 deposed that the accused confessed this office and that basing on his confession he recovered MO.6 yellow colour shirt with red, pink and blue lines and MO.7 Honda Activa Motor

Cycle bearing No. TS 34 A 6743, in view of the evidence PW.4 and

PW.6 it cannot be said that the alleged recovery of the case property as set up by the prosecution is proved.

18.Further case of the prosecution is that the accused sustained burn injuries to his hands in the alleged incident therefore it is the accused who set the deceased on fire for which the prosecution has relied over the evidence of PW.5. The evidence of PW.5 doctor who said to have treated the accused would goes to show that on 13.04.2019 at about 04.45 PM she examined the injured namely

Mohd. Abdullah and found burn injuries over both the hands involving 2% of total body surface area and to that extent she issued Ex.P5 MLC of accused. According to the Ex.P-5, the injured Mohd Abdullah sustained injuries while he was trying to save his wife on 12.04.2019 at about 6.00 PM. But the deceased herein is not the wife of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW.5 gave the medical certificate basing on the information of police as such no reliance can be placed on her testimony for which he relied over the cross examination of PW.5. As rightly stated by the learned 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 13-19

counsel for the accused, In her cross examination PW.5 admitted that the alleged history recorded in M.L.C is as per the information given by the police. Thus basing on the information given by the police only

PW.5 could issue the medical certificate with regard to the history of alleged burn injuries and there is no other material to corroborate the same. Even though it is believed that the accused sustained burn injuries, according to Ex.P-5 the accused sustained injuries while he was trying to save his wife but the deceased herein is not the wife of accused. The Ex.P-9 statement of the deceased is silent about the burn injuries of the offender and there is no evidence to hold that the accused sustained the burn injures in the alleged incident only.

Though it is alleged that the accused used to visit the house of the deceased and at the time of alleged incident the accused came out from the house of the deceased, the prosecution has failed to substantiate the same. Except the testimony of PW.5 who gave the certificate basing on the information of police, there is no other evidence to corroborate the case of the prosecution to prove that the accused sustained burn injuries in the alleged incident. Therefore, the version of the prosecution that the accused sustained burn injuries in the alleged incident is doubtful.

19.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence and that taking advantage of his name which is similar to the name of the 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 14-19

offender which is name by the deceased, police foisted this false case. Admittedly except naming the offender as Abdulllah, the deceased did not reveal the other particulars of the offender and as per the Ex.P-9 the deceased has no knowledge about the descriptive particulars of the offender. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined PW.12 and PW.13 at length. In his cross examination. PW.12 admitted that the descriptive particulars of the offender and other particulars are not mentioned by the witnesses. In his cross examination of PW.13 also admitted that as per Ex.P-9 statement, the deceased does not know any particulars about Abdullah. Thus, in view of the evidence of PW.12 and 13, it is clearly established that except the name of the offender as Abdullah, there is no other material to hold that the accused herein and the person named by the deceased are one and same. Except the similarity in names, there is no corroborative evidence to hold that the accused was the person who used to visit the house of the deceased and he was present at the time of this alleged incident.

20.The learned APP further argued that in her Dying declaration the deceased clearly stated that one Abdullah lit the match stick and thrown on her due to which she sustained injures and that the Ex.P.8 dying declaration is sufficient to record conviction against the accused for which he relied over the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court between Naeem Vs State of Uttar Pradesh which 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 15-19

was reported in 2024 Law Suit (SC) 201. In the citation relied upon by the learned APP the accused persons are the relatives of the deceased. But coming to the case on hand there is no relationship between the accused and deceased and as per the Ex.P-9 the deceased has no knowledge about the descriptive particulars of the person who lit the match stick and set her on fire. In her dying declaration also except stating that one Abdullah lit the match stick and thrown on her, the deceased did not state any other particulars of that person. Therefore the Ex.P-8 dying declaration of the deceased alone is not sufficient to connect the accused to the alleged offence.

Thus the facts and circumstances of the present case are different to the facts and circumstances of the citation relied by upon by the learned APP. Therefore, the great respect to the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, this court is of the view that the citation relied upon by the APP has no application to the case on hand.

21.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the dying declaration under Ex.P-8 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in the absence of any other evidence to corroborate the case of the prosecution for which he relied over the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court between Irfan @ Naka Vs State of

Uttar Pradesh which was reported in 2023 Law Suit (SC) 831. In para 64 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that “ It is unsafe to record the conviction on the basis of a dying declaration 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 16-19

alone in the cases where suspicion, like the case on hand is raised, as regards the correctness of the dying declaration. In such cases, the court may have to look for some corroborative evidence by treating the dying declaration only as a piece of evidence.” Coming to the case on hand, in her dying declaration except stating that one

Abdullah lighted match stick thrown on her, the deceased could not identify the accused. Thus the identification of the accused is in dispute. There is no evidence to hold that it was the accused who set the deceased on fire. Therefore this court is of the view that since the descriptive particulars of the offender are not available and since the identification of the accused is in dispute, it is not safe to keep reliance over the Ex.P-8 without any corroboration. As per Ex. P-8 and

Ex.P-9 the descriptive particulars of the offender are not available to connect the accused to the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed to confront the accused to the deceased while she was undergoing treatment to ascertain as to whether the accused was the person who set her on fire. The prosecution has also failed to conduct the Test identification Parade of the accused by the alleged eye witnesses to establish that the accused was the person who came out from the house of the deceased at the time of this alleged incident.

All these facts and circumstances would create an amount of suspicion cover the case of the prosecution for which benefit of doubt shall goes to the accused. In the light of above discussion, this court 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 17-19

is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 302 IPC, and he is acquitted of the said offence under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A

Cr.P.C. The MO.1 to MO.6 shall be destroyed and MO.7 shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 29thday of December, 2025

IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge,Ranga Reddy

District at LB Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses:

A. Prosecution:

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

LW.3/PW.1Sri Syed MohinEye witness LW.4/PW.2Sri Mohd Patan Panch witness for crime detail form LW.5/PW.3Sri Nasar Ali Panch witness for crime detail form Khan LW.6/PW.4Sri Silver Panch witness for confession cum Samba Shivaseizure of accused 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 18-19

LW.10/PW.5Dr SowmyaIssued MLC LW.7/ PW.6Sri V.RangaiahPanch witness for confession cum seizure of accused LW.8/PW.7Smt Praveen Panch witness for inquest Begum LW.12/PW.8Sri N.Santhosh Recorded dying declaration of LW1 Kumar LW.11/PW.9Sri P.Venkat Recorded the statement of LW1 Reddy LW.13/PW.10Dr Abhijit Conducted Autopsy on the dead body of SubhedarLW1 and issued Opinion LW.9/PW.11Smt Momina Panch witness for inquest Begum LW.16/PW.12Sri P.NagarajuInvestigation officer LW.17/PW.13Sri V.SaiduluInvestigation officer

B. Defence witnesses, if any:

- None -

C. Court Witnesses, if any: - None -

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

A. Prosecution :

Sr.No. Exhibits Description

1.Ex.P1:PW.1 Statement of 164 of CRPC

2.Ex.P2:Scene of offence panchanama cum rough sketch of scene

3.Ex.P3:Signature of PW3

4.Ex.P4:Signature of PW4

5.Ex.P5:MLC

6.Ex.P6:Signature of PW6

7.Ex.P7:Signature of PW7 on the inquest panchanama 29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 19-19

8.Ex.P8:Dying Declaration

9.Ex.P9:Statement of LW.1

10.Ex.P10:Post Mortem Examination report

11.Ex.P11:Signature of PW11 on the inquest panchanama

12.Ex.P12:Admissible Portion of confessional panchanama

13.Ex.P13:FIR

14.Ex.P14:Inquest panchanama

15.Ex.P15:Section Alteration Memo

B. Defence:

-NIL-

C. Court Exhibits:

-NIL-

D.Material Object:

Sr.No Material Object Description Number 1MO.No.1Kerosene stove 2MO.No.2Burka 3MO.No.3Burnt Match sticks with match box 4MO.No.4Black hair (partially burnt) 5MO.No.5Broken beet bottle pieces 6MO.No.6Yellow colour shirt with red,pink lines 7MO.No.7Honda Activa bike bearing registration No. TS 34 A 6743

IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at LB Nagar.

29.12.2025

IV ADJ

SC.No. 383 of 2022 Page 20-19

29.12.2025

IV ADJ

OS.No. 177 of 2025 Page 1-7

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM- I ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT

LB.NAGAR

PRESENT: K. JAYARAM REDDY

IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

-CUM-I ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Friday, this the 19th day of December, 2025.

OS.No. 177 of 2025

Between:

1. Smt. Puste Shashi Rekha, W/o: Late Sri. Puste Prahalad Rao, Age: 60 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: H.No: 16-1-486/B/4, Ekalavya Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabd-500059.

2. Smt. Meesala Raghavi, D/o: Late Sri.Puste Prahalad Rao, W/o: M.Sandeep Kumar, Age: 37 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: H.No: 4-1-107/1, Street No.2, Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-500076.

3. Smt.Puste Shruthi, D/o: Late Sri.Puste Prahalad Rao, W/o: Vikram Kyatham, Age: 36 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: H.No: 6-6-436/2, Gandhi Nagar, Behind Praga Tools, Secunderabad.

4. Smt. Puste Soumya, D/o: Late Sri.Puste Prahalad Rao, Age: 36 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: H.No: 4-1-107/1, Street No.2, Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-500076.

5. Sri. Puste Aditya, S/o: Late Sri.Puste Prahalad Rao, Age: 30 years, Occ: Employee, R/o: H.No: 16-1-486/B/4, Ekalavya Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad – 500059.

..Plaintiffs

19.12.2025 IV ADJ

OS.No. 177 of 2025 Page 2-7

And

1. Alandanda Pandu, S/o: Shanthaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No: 12-48 TRR Town Ship, Meerpet, Saroornagar, R.R.District -500097.

2. All concerned.

… Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. B.Bhaskar, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 is set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to declare the plaintiff

Nos. 1 to 5 as legal heirs of the deceased Late Sri Puste Prahalad Rao in respect of the suit schedule 1 to 146 properties.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the the plaintiff

No.1 is the wife and the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters and the plaintiff No.5 is the son of the deceased Late Sri Puste Prahalad Rao who died intestate on 30.06.2024 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only legal heirs. The mother of the deceased Smt P.Neelamma died on 17.01.2001. During his life time the deceased Late Sri Puste Prahalad

Rao, S/o: P.Adavaiah has purchased the suit schedule properties through registered sale deeds vide document Nos. 6318 of 1993, dated 28.06.1993, 11143 of 2016, dated: 10.05.2016, 2070 of 2022, dated

19.12.2025 IV ADJ

OS.No. 177 of 2025 Page 3-7

21.02.2022, 2069 of 2022, dated 21.02.2022, 4826 of 1997, dated 10.10.1997, 1485 of 2014, dated 29.01.2014, 1295 of 2002, dated 22.04.2002, 2106 of 2005, dated:09.06.2005, 2314 of 2005, dated 27.06.2005, 3365 of 2022, dated 28.03.2022, 20928 of 2018, dated 01.11.2018, 17286 of 2018, dated 17.09.2018, 33527 of 2019, dated 21.11.2019, 1326 of 2002, dated: 08.04.2002, 1188 of 2004,

dated:12.03.2004, 2932 of 2004, 10.06.2004, 1189 of 2004, dated

12.03.2004, 1325 of 2002, dated 08.04.2002, 3052 of 2003, dated 15.10.2003, 7125 of 2007, dated 25.06.2007, 7126 of 2007, dated 25.06.2007. After death of the deceased Late Sri Puste Prahalad Rao, the plaintiffs have inherited the suit schedule properties and have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs are intending to dispose of the suit schedule properties in favour of the third parties to meet their family and personal necessities, but the defendant No.1 is objecting for the ownership of the plaintiffs, after demise of the deceased Late Sri Puste Prahalad Rao. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant No.1 having received the summons, not appeared before the court, hence he is set exparte. Further a paper publication was given and no objections are received from the 3rd parties.

4.During the course of trial the plaintiff No. 1 is examined as

PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A30 are marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. On the other hand no oral evidence is adduced and no document is marked on behalf of the defendants.

19.12.2025 IV ADJ

OS.No. 177 of 2025 Page 4-7

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the

plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of legal heirs as prayed for?

Point :

7.This court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW.1 who filed affidavit in lieu of her chief examination reiterating the plaint averments. It has been brought on record through the evidence of PW.1 that she is wife and the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 are the daughters and son of the deceased Late Sri Puste Prahalad Rao, who died intestate on 30.06.2024 leaving behind the plaintiffs as legal heirs. During his life time, the deceased purchased the suit schedule properties through registered sale deeds and that after his death, the plaintiffs are intending to alienate the suit schedule properties to meet their personal and family needs, but the defendant No.1 is objecting their ownership.

8.Besides the oral evidence, the plaintiffs have filed Ex. A1 to

A30. Ex.A1 to A21 are the certified copies of the registered sale deeds through which the deceased Late Sri Puste Prahalad Rao purchased the properties, which are converted into plots. Ex.A24 is the bunch of

Encumbrance certificates and Ex.A30 is the lay out. As per Ex.A24 and

A30, the land purchased by the deceased was converted into plots

19.12.2025 IV ADJ

OS.No. 177 of 2025 Page 5-7

under the suit schedule 1 to 146 properties. As per Ex.A22 death certificate Late Sri Puste Prahalad Rao died on 30.06.2024. Ex.A23 is the bunch of Market value certificates. Ex.A25 to A29 are the Aadhar cards of the plaintiffs which reveals their identity particulars.

9.The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged, as the defendants never chose to proceed with the suit and to cross examine

PW.1. Further in spite of issuance of paper publication no objections are received from the third parties. Thus upon consideration of the unchallenged testimony of PW.1 coupled with ExA1 to A30, this court is of the view that the claim of the plaintiffs is proved. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered.

In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed, declaring the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 as legal heirs of the deceased Late Sri

Puste Prahalad Rao in respect of the suit schedule 1 to 146 properties.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to stenographer Grade-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of December, 2025.

IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge -cum-I Addl.

Family Court,Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

19.12.2025 IV ADJ

OS.No. 177 of 2025 Page 6-7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For defendants:

PW.1: Smt. Puste Shashi Rekha - Exparte -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 6318 of 1993 dated 28.06.1993 Ex.A2: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 11143 of 2016, dated 10.05.2016 Ex.A3:Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 2070 of 2022, dated 21.02.2022 Ex.A4:Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 2069 of 2022, dated 21.02.2022 Ex.A5:Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 4826 of 1997, dated 10.10.1997 Ex.A6: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 1485 of 2014, dated 29.01.2014 Ex.A7:Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 1295 of 2002, dated 22.04.2002 Ex.A8:Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 2106 of 2005, dated 09.06.2005 Ex.A9:Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 2314 of 2005, dated 27.06.2005 Ex.A10: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 3365 of 2022, dated 28.03.2022 Ex.A11: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 20928 of 2018, dated 01.11.2018 Ex.A12: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 17286 of 2018, dated 17.09.2018

19.12.2025 IV ADJ

OS.No. 177 of 2025 Page 7-7

Ex.A13: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 33527 of 2019, dated 21.11.2019 Ex.A14: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 1326 of 2002, dated 11.04.2002 Ex.A15: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 1188 of 2004, dated 12.03.2004 Ex.A16: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 2932 of 2004, dated 10.06.2004 Ex.A17: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 1189 of 2004, dated 12.03.2004 Ex.A18: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 1325 of 2002, dated 08.04.2002 Ex.A19: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 3052 of 2002, dated 15.10.2003 Ex.A20: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 7125 of 2007, dated 25.06.2007 Ex.A21: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 7126 of 2007, dated 25.06.2007 Ex.A22: Original death certificate of Late Puste Prahalad Rao, dated 30.06.2024 Ex.A23: Original bunch of market value certificates, schedule Nos. 1 to 146 Ex.A24: Original bunch of Encumbrance certificates, schedule Nos. 1 to 146 Ex.A25: Original Aadhar card of the plaintiff No.1 Ex.A26: Original Aadhar card of the plaintiff No.2 Ex.A27: Original Aadhar card of the plaintiff No.3 Ex.A28: Original Aadhar card of the plaintiff No.4 Ex.A29: Original Aadhar card of the plaintiff No.5 Ex.A30: Original Lay out (4 in Nos.)

For Defendants:

-NIL- IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge -cum-I Addl.

Family Court,Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

19.12.2025 IV ADJ

OS.No. 177 of 2025 Page 8-7

19.12.2025 IV ADJ

EP. No. 616 of 2018

Page 1 - 6

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE-CUM- I ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, RANGA REDDY

DISTRICT AT LB.NAGAR

PRESENT: K. JAYARAM REDDY

IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

-CUM-I ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Monday, this the 22nd day of December, 2025

E.P. No. 616 of 2018

IN

Arbitration Award No. 661 of 2012

Between:

M/s Shri Ram City Union Finance Pvt Ltd., Rep by its GPA holder Sri B.Bhasker Reddy, Vikarabad Branch ...Decree Holder/Claimant.

AND

1. J.Thukaram, S/o: Manikyam, Age: 32 years, R/o: 4-33, Subhya Naik Thanda, village Ghanapur, Kulakcherla Mandal, Vikarabad District.

2. M.Sathaiah, S/o: Ramaiah, Age: ……., R/o: 3-13-7/8/C, Veerannapet, Mahaboobnagar District. JDR-2.

Working as a panchayath Secretary in Kulakcherla Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District.

Salary Disbursing Officer, Mandal Development Officer Kulakcherla Village and Mandal Vikarabad District.

...Judgment Debtors/ Respondents.

This Execution petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Prabhakar, Counsel for the Decree Holder and Sri A.Raghavender, Counsel for the Judgment Debtor No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:

22.12.2025 IV ADJ

EP. No. 616 of 2018

Page 2 - 6

O R D E R

This is an Execution Petition filed under order 21 rule 48 of

CPC for attachment of the salary of JDR No.2 for realization of the EP amount.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the DHR has filed the claim petition against the JDRs/respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,37,891/- and an award was passed on 17.08.2013 for Rs. 1,37,891/- with interest 12% per annum from the date of claim petition and further interest 18% per annum from the date of filing of

EP till the date of realization. The JDRs/respondents did not choose for pay any amount passed as per award of the sole Arbitrator and did not file any appeal. Hence the EP.

3.The JDR No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments. The contention of the JDR No.2 is that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present EP against the JDR No.2 who is not working under the Jurisdiction of this court. The sole Arbitrator was disqualified to act as an Arbitrator, as per schedule V r/w 12(1)

(b), as he is appointed on the regular basis by the decree holder. The sole Arbitrator has not issued any notice of his acceptance of appointment as per the provision of section 12 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act 1996. The JDR No.2 had not received any notice from the Decree holder for appointing a sole arbitrator nor received any 22.12.2025 IV ADJ

EP. No. 616 of 2018

Page 3 - 6 notice from the sole arbitrator intimating that he had accepted such appointment and is conducting the arbitration. The sole arbitrator did not issue any notice for appearance of the case which is mandatory.

After passing of the award nor sole arbitrator or DHR has sent the award copy to the JDR No.2, as per section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The JDR No.2 has been working as

Panchayath secretary and drawing meagre salary after deductions.

The JDR No.2 having children and old age parents who are suffering with old age ailments and he has to meet the medical expenses of his parents and educational expenses of his children. Except the salaried income, the JDR No.2 having no other source of income. The JDR No.2 is only guarantor and the JDR No.1 is the Principal borrowed of the alleged loan. The JDR No.1 is having financial capacity to clear the loan and the DHR may recover the amount from the JDR No.1. Hence prayed to dismiss the EP with exemplary costs.

4.During the course of the enquiry, no oral evidence is adduced and no document is marked on either side.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the JDR No.2 and perused the record.

6. The arguments of the DHR are treated as heard as has no representation.

22.12.2025 IV ADJ

EP. No. 616 of 2018

Page 4 - 6

7.Now, the Point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the Decree holder is entitled for the attachment of

salary of the JDR No.2 as prayed for?

POINT:

8.This Court has carefully scrutinized the material available on record. Perusal of the record reveals that the DHR has filed the present EP against the JDR No.2 for attachment of his salary under

Order 21, Rule 48 of CPC, basing on the award passed by the sole arbitrator in Arbitration case No. 661 of 2012. The said Arbitration case No. 661 of 2012 was allowed on 17.08.2013, and as per the said award, the DHR/claimant is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.

1.37,891/- from the respondents/JDRs jointly and severally. The sole arbitrator also awarded the future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of the award, and 18% per annum from the date of award to till the date of realization on the

Principal an amount of Rs. 1,29,370/-.

9.It is an admitted fact that the award was passed by the sole arbitrator. The learned counsel for the JDR No.2 submitted that the sole arbitrator was appointed by the DHR unilaterally, and that no notice was issued to him by the DHR for appointment of the sole arbitrator and that the JDR.No.2 did not receive any notice from the sole arbitrator.TheDHR has failed to file any material to show that he was authorized to appoint the sole arbitrator.

22.12.2025 IV ADJ

EP. No. 616 of 2018

Page 5 - 6

10.The learned counsel for the JDR No.2 has relied over the

Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court between the Kotak Mahindra

Bank Limited Vs Narendra Kumar Prajapat, Bharat Broadband Network

Limited Vs United Telecoms Limited, Govind Singh Vs Satya Group Pvt.

Ltd, Sunder Dass Vs Ram Prakash and Jodhpur Vs Gokul Narain.

11.The Honble Supreme court pleased to observed in Kotak

Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Narendra Kumar Prajapat; “that the

Arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the Decree Holder is bad in law.” In Bharat Broadband Network Limited Vs United

Telecoms Limited, the Hon’ble Supreme court was pleased to observe that “waiver of a right to object to ineligibility of an Arbitrator under section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cannot be inferred by conduct of a party. As such Waiver can only be by an express agreement in writing.”

12.Coming to the case on hand, the sole arbitrator was appointed by the DHR herein. As per the award a notice dated 20.04.2012 said to have been issued, but the same was returned unserved. There is material to show that notice was issued to

JDR.No.2. Thus JDR No.2 had no knowledge or consent with regard to the appointment of the sole arbitrator. As per the award also no notice was issued by the sole arbitrator to the JDR No.2. In view of the

Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Central Organization for 22.12.2025 IV ADJ

EP. No. 616 of 2018

Page 6 - 6

Railway Electrification (V) ECL SPIC SMO MCML, CORE II case the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is bad in law. As stated above the DHR has not placed any material before this court to show that he was authorized to appoint the sole arbitrator. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in CORE II Case, this EP is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Execution Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 22ndday of December, 2025.

IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge -cum-I Addl.

Family Court,Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For DHR: For JDR:

-None-- None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For DHR: For JDR/s - Nil -- Nil -

IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge -cum-I Addl.

Family Court,Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

22.12.2025 IV ADJ

EP. No. 616 of 2018

Page 7 - 6 22.12.2025 IV ADJ

EP. No. 03/2025Page No. 1 of 2

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

Present: K. Jayaram Reddy,

Senior Civil Judge Court,

R.R.Dist., at Kukatpally.

Wednesday this the 29 th day of October, 2025

EP No. 03 of 2025

Between:-

Komal Bharadwaj Ravinuthula, S/o. Late R. Venugopala Chary, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o. 2218 NE, 38th Ave, Camas, WA 98607. Currently residing at Flat No. 304, Satya Sai Heights, Shiva Ganga Colony, Near Pochamma Temple, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 074. …Decree Holder

AND

1. M/s Next Gen, Rep. by its Partner Mr Krishna Reddy Rohith Kumar Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Software Employee and Business, Office of Koduru Mansion, Plot No. 20, 21, 24, 25, Indira Nagar, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District – 32.

2. M/s Next Gen, Rep. by its Partner Mr Pasham Amarnath Reddy, S/o. Vijay Shekar Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Software Employee and Business, Office of Koduru Mansion, Plot No. 20, 21, 24, 25, Indira Nagar, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District – 32. ....Judgment Debtors

This Petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Smt. K. Dhanalakshmi, Counsel for Decree Holder and upon hearing on perusal of records and the mater having stood over the consideration till this day this court made the following.

EP. No. 03/2025Page No. 2 of 2

DOCKET ORDER DATED 29.10.2025

Counsel for the DHR is present. As per the report of bailiff the possession of EP schedule property was delivered to the DHR. Counsel for the DHR reported no objection to close the EP. No representation for the JDR’s till 12.15 pm and no objections are received from the JDR’s against the bailiff report.

Hence the EP is terminated. No costs.

Senior Civil Judge

R.R.District at Kukatpally

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

Present: K. Jayaram Reddy,

Senior Civil Judge Court,

R.R.Dist., at Kukatpally.

Tuesday this the 04 th day of November, 2025

EP No. 24 of 2023

Between:- A. Chandrashekar Yadav, S/o. ARC Yadav Aged 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 11/4/328/1, W/S Colony, Izzath Nagar, Khanamet, Serilingampally, R.R.District. …Decree Holder

AND

Akula Rama Chandra Yadav, S/o. Late Venkata Rao Aged 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 5-489, Izzathnagar Colony, Izzathnagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District. Rep. by GPA holder Mr Bala Anjanappa, S/o. Late Bala Subbaiah Aged 73 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 1/3, Izzathnagar Colony, Izzathnagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District. ....Judgment Debtor

This Petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Y. Satyanarayana Reddy, Counsel for Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor is set exparte and upon hearing on perusal of records and the mater having stood over the consideration till this day this court made the following.

DOCKET ORDER DATED 04.11.2025

No representation for the DHR till 1.30 pm. As per the letter dated 23.04.2025 addressed by the Joint Sub Registrar the EP schedule property was notified in Prohibited Properties as it was classified as Laoni Patta due to which he refused to register the sale deed in favour of the DHR. There is no representation for the DHR and inspite of imposing condition he failed to appear before the court. In view of the conditional orders dated 21.08.2025 and 18.09.2025 this EP is dismissed for default. No costs.

Senior Civil Judge

R.R.District at Kukatpally