Smt. K Jyothirmai

Page 1 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : VEMULAWADA

Present:Smt.K. Jyothirmai, Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

V E M U L A W A D A.

MONDAY, THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.3 of 2023

Between:

Nagam Rajitha, W/o.Srinivas, Age:29 years, Occ;Housewife, R/o.Fazilnagar, V/o. Vemulawada Rural, Rajanna Sircilla District. … Plaintiff A N D

1.Godugu Mallaiah, S/o.Komuraiah, Age:65 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Fazilnagar V/o. Vemulawada Rural, Rajanna Sircilla District.

2.The District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla.

3.The Tahsildar, Vemulawada Rural mandal Rajanna Sircilla District.

… Defendants No.1 to 3

This suit is coming on 12.01.2024 before me at the stage of final hearing in the presence of Sri. Ch. Venu Gopal, Advocate for plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 remained exparte, and having been heard and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the Item No.1 i.e., the agricultural land bearing

Page 2 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

Sy.No.258/A/C1 (old Sy.No.258/A/C1) measuring Ac.0-16 gts and item No.II i.e., agricultural land in Sy.No.258/A/C2 (old Sy.No.258/A/C2) measuring Ac.0- 16 gts, totally measuring Ac.0-32 gts and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1, his agents, workmen, supporters and henchmen from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule lands bounded by East: Agricultural land of Thaidhala

Beeraiah, West: Agricultural land of Keesari Anjaiah, North: Agricultural land of

Keesari Davaramulu and South: Agricultural land of Keesari Anjaiah situated at

Fazilnagar V/o. Vemulawada Rural mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District (which is hereinafter referred as ‘suit schedule property’) and also to direct the defendant

No.3 to rectify the wrong entries made in the concerned revenue records/Dharani portal of Fazilnagar V/o. Vemulawada Rural mandal for the year 2020 to 2022 and subsequent years by deleting the extent of land measuring Ac.0-02 gts in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the item No.1 of the suit schedule lands and to substitute the extent of land measuring Ac.0-16 gts in the name of the plaintiff in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule lands.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are:

(a)Original one Gandi Gangaiah was the owner and possessor of the land in suit survey number measuring Ac.0-31 gts, but on the spot, there is Ac.0-32 gts gts available on the spot and the said Gandi Gangaiah was in possession of totally

Page 3 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

area Ac.0-32 gts i.e., the suit schedule lands. The said Gandi Gangaiah died intestate at about 15 years back by leaving his two sons namely Gandi Rajesham and Gandi Laxmirajam as his only class-I legal heirs. The wife of Gandi

Gangaiah by name Eeravva also died. After the death of said Gandi Gangaiah and his wife, their two sons namely Gandi Rajesham and Gandi Laxmirajam became joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule lands. Being the owners and possessors of the suit schedule lands, the said Gandi Rajesham and Gandi

Laxmirajam sold out the suit schedule lands to the plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-. After receiving the entire sale consideration amount from the plaintiff, the said vendors executed a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.4499 of 2015, Dated 24.08.2015 in the office of Sub Registrar,

Vemulawada in favour of the plaintiff by delivering the vacant possession of the suit schedule lands. Since the date of said purchase, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands. The plaintiff has been cultivating the suit lands by raising paddy crops therein. The name of the plaintiff got mutated in the suit schedule lands on her name in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor and was issued old pattedar passbook No.542.

The Plaintiff’s name is continuing as pattedar and possessor in respect of the suit schedule lands. The Telangana Government launched a Dharani portal and the name of the plaintiff was also recorded in Dharani portal in respect of the suit

Page 4 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

schedule lands and the plaintiff was issued pattedar passbook cum title deed vide

No.T19120040305.

(b).Recently, the plaintiff came to know that the extent of land in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule land was wrongly recorded as Ac.0-02 gts instead of Ac.0-16 gts in the name of the plaintiff in the concerned revenue records illegally from the year 2020. The plaintiff approached the defendant No.3 to rectify the said wrong entries, but the defendant No.3 even refused to receive the said application fro the same, as such the Tahsildar, Vemulawada Rural is made as party to the suit as defendant No.3 and the District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla also made as necessary party to the suit as defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 by taking advantage of the wrong entries made in the revenue records, on 25.12.2022 at Fazilngar, V/o. Vemulawada Rural came to the suit schedule lands and tried to occupy the same by denying plaintiff’s title over the suit schedule lands, but the plaintiff with the help of her well wishers resisted the defendant

No.1 and his illegal interference, further the defendant No.1 left the suit schedule land by threatening the plaintiff that he would come again and occupy the suit schedule lands forcibly by dispossessing the plaintiff on the strength of wrong entries in pahaies with his brutal force. Hence the suit.

Page 5 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

3.The defendants No.1 even after service of summons, did not appear before this Court, hence he is remained ex parte. On behalf of Defendants No.2 and 3, the learned Assistant Government Pleader filed memo, but did not choose to file written statement within stipulated time, hence they also remained ex-parte.

4.During the trial the plaintiff No.1 examined as PW1. Ex.A1 to A34 were marked. Plaintiff also got examined Gandi Rajesham and Gandi Laxmirajam who are the vendors of the plaintiff as PWs. 2 and 3.

5.Heard arguments of the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff.

6.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title and

consequential injunction and rectification of wrong entries as prayed for?

Point:

7.The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the Suit Schedule Property and further that defendant no.1 has no rights over the lands, recently the plaintiff came to know that the extent of land in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule land was wrongly recorded as Ac.0-02 gts instead of Ac.0-16 gts in the name of the plaintiff in the concerned revenue records illegally from the year 2020.

Page 6 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

8.To prove the same, Plaintiff no.1 as PW-1 filed his Chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the Plaint and hence the contents of chief examination affidavit are not reproduced. PWs.2 and 3 are also examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs who are vendors of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule lands supported their case. Ex.A1 to A34 are marked through PW1.

9.The combined reading of the oral evidence of PW-1 together with documentary evidence the Plaintiff could prove her title and possession over the

Suit Schedule lands. On perusal of the documents, it is sufficiently proved that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule lands from Gandi Rajesham and Gandi

Laxmirajam through registered sale deed Doc.No.4499/2015, Dt:24.08.2015 for consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- as shown in Ex.A.1, through Ex.A2 and A3, the plaintiff is having the suit schedule item No.1 and 2, through Ex.A4, the suit schedule Item No.1 was mutated in the name of the plaintiff from his Vendor

Gandi Rajesham vide proceeding No.B/1268/2015, Dt:10.11.2015, through

Ex.A5 the suit schedule Item No.I1 was mutated in the name of the plaintiff from his Vendor Gandi Laxmirajam vide proceeding No.B/1268/2015,

Dt:03.11.2015. Further Ex.A8 to A33 shows the name of plaintiff’s vendor’s

father as possessor in respect of the suit schedule lands. Thereafter, it is contention of plaintiff that the Revenue authorities, Vemulawada Rural wrongly recorded area as Ac.0-02 guntas instead of Ac.0-16 guntas in Sy. No.258/A/C1 in

Page 7 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

the name of the plaintiff illegally from the year 2020 to 2022 and the defendant

No.1 taking advantage of the same, he is trying to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The said contention of the plaintiff has to be accepted as the evidence of Plaintiff is unrebutted and unchallenged. The contention is further proved by the evidence of

Pws.2 and 3 who deposed on the same lines as that of Plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is able to prove her contentions and entitled for the reliefs asked for.

10.IN THE RESULT, the Suit of the Plaintiff is Decreed without costs declaring Plaintiff as owner of suit schedule Item No.1 and 2 and perpetual injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 restraining the defendants No.1, his agents, workmen, supporters and henchmen from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule Item No.1 i.e., the agricultural land bearing

Sy.No.258/A/C1 (old Sy.No.258/A/C1) measuring Ac.0-16 gts and item No.II i.e., agricultural land in Sy.No.258/A/C2 (old Sy.No.258/A/C2) measuring Ac.0- 16 gts, totally measuring Ac.0-32 gts, bounded by East: Agricultural land of

Thaidhala Beeraiah, West: Agricultural land of Keesari Anjaiah, North:

Agricultural land of Keesari Davaramulu and South: Agricultural land of Keesari

Anjaiah situated at Fazilnagar V/o. Vemulawada Rural mandal, Rajanna Sircilla

District. The Plaintiff is also entitled for relief of rectification of wrong entries

Page 8 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

by Defendant no.1 made in concerned revenue record/Dharani Portal of

Fazilnagar, V/o. Vemulawada Rural mandal for the year 2020-2022 mentioned in the name of the plaintiff in respect of item No.I of the suit schedule lands and substituting the extent of land measuring Ac.0-16 gts in the name of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule Item No.I of the suit schedule lands.

Typed to my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of February, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge – cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Nagam Rajitha- None -

P.W.2: Gandi Rajesham

P.W.3: Gandi Laxmirajam

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Original Regd. Sale deed bearing doc.No.4499/2015, Dt:24.08.2015.

Ex.A2:Original old pattedar passbook vide its patta No.542

Ex.A3:Original new pattedar passbook cum title deed vide its No.T19120040305

Ex.A4:Original mutation proceedings No.B/1268/2015, Dt:10.11.2015 in respect of item No.1.

Page 9 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

Ex.A5:Original Mutation proceedings No.B/1268/2015, Dt:10.11.2015 in respect of the Item No.2.

Ex.A6:Statement of encumbrance certificate, Dt:11.09.2022.

Ex.A7:Former details issued by the mandal agricultural Office, Vemulawada Rural, Dt:09-11-2022.

Ex.A8:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1977-78.

Ex.A9:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1978-1979.

Ex.A10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1979-1980.

Ex.A11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1980-1981.

Ex.A12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1981-1982.

Ex.A13: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1982-1983

Ex.A14: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1984-1985

Ex.A15: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1985-1986

Ex.A16: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-1987

Ex.A17: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1988-1989

Ex.A18: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1989-1990

Ex.A19: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-1991

Ex.A20: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1991-1992

Ex.A21: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1992-1993

Ex.A22: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1993-1994

Ex.A23: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-1995

Ex.A24: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-1996

Ex.A25: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1996-1997

Ex.A26: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-1998

Ex.A27: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000

Ex.A28: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-2001

Ex.A29: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-2002

Ex.A30: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-2005

Ex.A31: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-2007

Ex.A32: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-2009

Ex.A33: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-2010

Page 10 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

Ex.A34: Certified copy of form NO.I-B issued by Tahsildar, Vemulawada Rural Mandal.

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

- Nil -

Junior Civil Judge – cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

Page 1 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : VEMULAWADA

Present:Smt.K. Jyothirmai, Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

V E M U L A W A D A.

MONDAY, THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.3 of 2023

Between:

Nagam Rajitha, W/o.Srinivas, Age:29 years, Occ;Housewife, R/o.Fazilnagar, V/o. Vemulawada Rural, Rajanna Sircilla District. … Plaintiff A N D

1.Godugu Mallaiah, S/o.Komuraiah, Age:65 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Fazilnagar V/o. Vemulawada Rural, Rajanna Sircilla District.

2.The District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla.

3.The Tahsildar, Vemulawada Rural mandal Rajanna Sircilla District.

… Defendants No.1 to 3

This suit is coming on 12.01.2024 before me at the stage of final hearing in the presence of Sri. Ch. Venu Gopal, Advocate for plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 remained exparte, and having been heard and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the Item No.1 i.e., the agricultural land bearing

Page 2 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

Sy.No.258/A/C1 (old Sy.No.258/A/C1) measuring Ac.0-16 gts and item No.II i.e., agricultural land in Sy.No.258/A/C2 (old Sy.No.258/A/C2) measuring Ac.0- 16 gts, totally measuring Ac.0-32 gts and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1, his agents, workmen, supporters and henchmen from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule lands bounded by East: Agricultural land of Thaidhala

Beeraiah, West: Agricultural land of Keesari Anjaiah, North: Agricultural land of

Keesari Davaramulu and South: Agricultural land of Keesari Anjaiah situated at

Fazilnagar V/o. Vemulawada Rural mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District (which is hereinafter referred as ‘suit schedule property’) and also to direct the defendant

No.3 to rectify the wrong entries made in the concerned revenue records/Dharani portal of Fazilnagar V/o. Vemulawada Rural mandal for the year 2020 to 2022 and subsequent years by deleting the extent of land measuring Ac.0-02 gts in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the item No.1 of the suit schedule lands and to substitute the extent of land measuring Ac.0-16 gts in the name of the plaintiff in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule lands.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are:

(a)Original one Gandi Gangaiah was the owner and possessor of the land in suit survey number measuring Ac.0-31 gts, but on the spot, there is Ac.0-32 gts gts available on the spot and the said Gandi Gangaiah was in possession of totally

Page 3 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

area Ac.0-32 gts i.e., the suit schedule lands. The said Gandi Gangaiah died intestate at about 15 years back by leaving his two sons namely Gandi Rajesham and Gandi Laxmirajam as his only class-I legal heirs. The wife of Gandi

Gangaiah by name Eeravva also died. After the death of said Gandi Gangaiah and his wife, their two sons namely Gandi Rajesham and Gandi Laxmirajam became joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule lands. Being the owners and possessors of the suit schedule lands, the said Gandi Rajesham and Gandi

Laxmirajam sold out the suit schedule lands to the plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-. After receiving the entire sale consideration amount from the plaintiff, the said vendors executed a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.4499 of 2015, Dated 24.08.2015 in the office of Sub Registrar,

Vemulawada in favour of the plaintiff by delivering the vacant possession of the suit schedule lands. Since the date of said purchase, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands. The plaintiff has been cultivating the suit lands by raising paddy crops therein. The name of the plaintiff got mutated in the suit schedule lands on her name in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor and was issued old pattedar passbook No.542.

The Plaintiff’s name is continuing as pattedar and possessor in respect of the suit schedule lands. The Telangana Government launched a Dharani portal and the name of the plaintiff was also recorded in Dharani portal in respect of the suit

Page 4 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

schedule lands and the plaintiff was issued pattedar passbook cum title deed vide

No.T19120040305.

(b).Recently, the plaintiff came to know that the extent of land in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule land was wrongly recorded as Ac.0-02 gts instead of Ac.0-16 gts in the name of the plaintiff in the concerned revenue records illegally from the year 2020. The plaintiff approached the defendant No.3 to rectify the said wrong entries, but the defendant No.3 even refused to receive the said application fro the same, as such the Tahsildar, Vemulawada Rural is made as party to the suit as defendant No.3 and the District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla also made as necessary party to the suit as defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 by taking advantage of the wrong entries made in the revenue records, on 25.12.2022 at Fazilngar, V/o. Vemulawada Rural came to the suit schedule lands and tried to occupy the same by denying plaintiff’s title over the suit schedule lands, but the plaintiff with the help of her well wishers resisted the defendant

No.1 and his illegal interference, further the defendant No.1 left the suit schedule land by threatening the plaintiff that he would come again and occupy the suit schedule lands forcibly by dispossessing the plaintiff on the strength of wrong entries in pahaies with his brutal force. Hence the suit.

Page 5 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

3.The defendants No.1 even after service of summons, did not appear before this Court, hence he is remained ex parte. On behalf of Defendants No.2 and 3, the learned Assistant Government Pleader filed memo, but did not choose to file written statement within stipulated time, hence they also remained ex-parte.

4.During the trial the plaintiff No.1 examined as PW1. Ex.A1 to A34 were marked. Plaintiff also got examined Gandi Rajesham and Gandi Laxmirajam who are the vendors of the plaintiff as PWs. 2 and 3.

5.Heard arguments of the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff.

6.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title and

consequential injunction and rectification of wrong entries as prayed for?

Point:

7.The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the Suit Schedule Property and further that defendant no.1 has no rights over the lands, recently the plaintiff came to know that the extent of land in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule land was wrongly recorded as Ac.0-02 gts instead of Ac.0-16 gts in the name of the plaintiff in the concerned revenue records illegally from the year 2020.

Page 6 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

8.To prove the same, Plaintiff no.1 as PW-1 filed his Chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the Plaint and hence the contents of chief examination affidavit are not reproduced. PWs.2 and 3 are also examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs who are vendors of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule lands supported their case. Ex.A1 to A34 are marked through PW1.

9.The combined reading of the oral evidence of PW-1 together with documentary evidence the Plaintiff could prove her title and possession over the

Suit Schedule lands. On perusal of the documents, it is sufficiently proved that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule lands from Gandi Rajesham and Gandi

Laxmirajam through registered sale deed Doc.No.4499/2015, Dt:24.08.2015 for consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- as shown in Ex.A.1, through Ex.A2 and A3, the plaintiff is having the suit schedule item No.1 and 2, through Ex.A4, the suit schedule Item No.1 was mutated in the name of the plaintiff from his Vendor

Gandi Rajesham vide proceeding No.B/1268/2015, Dt:10.11.2015, through

Ex.A5 the suit schedule Item No.I1 was mutated in the name of the plaintiff from his Vendor Gandi Laxmirajam vide proceeding No.B/1268/2015,

Dt:03.11.2015. Further Ex.A8 to A33 shows the name of plaintiff’s vendor’s

father as possessor in respect of the suit schedule lands. Thereafter, it is contention of plaintiff that the Revenue authorities, Vemulawada Rural wrongly recorded area as Ac.0-02 guntas instead of Ac.0-16 guntas in Sy. No.258/A/C1 in

Page 7 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

the name of the plaintiff illegally from the year 2020 to 2022 and the defendant

No.1 taking advantage of the same, he is trying to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The said contention of the plaintiff has to be accepted as the evidence of Plaintiff is unrebutted and unchallenged. The contention is further proved by the evidence of

Pws.2 and 3 who deposed on the same lines as that of Plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is able to prove her contentions and entitled for the reliefs asked for.

10.IN THE RESULT, the Suit of the Plaintiff is Decreed without costs declaring Plaintiff as owner of suit schedule Item No.1 and 2 and perpetual injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 restraining the defendants No.1, his agents, workmen, supporters and henchmen from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule Item No.1 i.e., the agricultural land bearing

Sy.No.258/A/C1 (old Sy.No.258/A/C1) measuring Ac.0-16 gts and item No.II i.e., agricultural land in Sy.No.258/A/C2 (old Sy.No.258/A/C2) measuring Ac.0- 16 gts, totally measuring Ac.0-32 gts, bounded by East: Agricultural land of

Thaidhala Beeraiah, West: Agricultural land of Keesari Anjaiah, North:

Agricultural land of Keesari Davaramulu and South: Agricultural land of Keesari

Anjaiah situated at Fazilnagar V/o. Vemulawada Rural mandal, Rajanna Sircilla

District. The Plaintiff is also entitled for relief of rectification of wrong entries

Page 8 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

by Defendant no.1 made in concerned revenue record/Dharani Portal of

Fazilnagar, V/o. Vemulawada Rural mandal for the year 2020-2022 mentioned in the name of the plaintiff in respect of item No.I of the suit schedule lands and substituting the extent of land measuring Ac.0-16 gts in the name of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule Item No.I of the suit schedule lands.

Typed to my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of February, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge – cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Nagam Rajitha- None -

P.W.2: Gandi Rajesham

P.W.3: Gandi Laxmirajam

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Original Regd. Sale deed bearing doc.No.4499/2015, Dt:24.08.2015.

Ex.A2:Original old pattedar passbook vide its patta No.542

Ex.A3:Original new pattedar passbook cum title deed vide its No.T19120040305

Ex.A4:Original mutation proceedings No.B/1268/2015, Dt:10.11.2015 in respect of item No.1.

Page 9 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

Ex.A5:Original Mutation proceedings No.B/1268/2015, Dt:10.11.2015 in respect of the Item No.2.

Ex.A6:Statement of encumbrance certificate, Dt:11.09.2022.

Ex.A7:Former details issued by the mandal agricultural Office, Vemulawada Rural, Dt:09-11-2022.

Ex.A8:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1977-78.

Ex.A9:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1978-1979.

Ex.A10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1979-1980.

Ex.A11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1980-1981.

Ex.A12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1981-1982.

Ex.A13: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1982-1983

Ex.A14: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1984-1985

Ex.A15: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1985-1986

Ex.A16: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-1987

Ex.A17: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1988-1989

Ex.A18: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1989-1990

Ex.A19: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-1991

Ex.A20: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1991-1992

Ex.A21: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1992-1993

Ex.A22: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1993-1994

Ex.A23: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-1995

Ex.A24: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-1996

Ex.A25: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1996-1997

Ex.A26: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-1998

Ex.A27: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000

Ex.A28: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-2001

Ex.A29: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-2002

Ex.A30: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-2005

Ex.A31: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-2007

Ex.A32: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-2009

Ex.A33: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-2010

Page 10 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.3 of 2023 (fair)

Ex.A34: Certified copy of form NO.I-B issued by Tahsildar, Vemulawada Rural Mandal.

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

- Nil -

Junior Civil Judge – cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

1 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VEMULAWADA

Present:Smt. K. Jyothirmai, Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.288 of 2016

Between: The State through The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chandurthy (Cr. No.34 of 2016) … Complainant A N D Merupula Devaiah, S/o.Lasmaiah, Age:63 years, R/o.Engal village of Chandurthy Mandal. … Accused

This case coming before me on 19.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K.Anjaiah, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chandurthy has filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.34 of 2016 of Chandurthy Police Station for offence under Section 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (For short “IPC”).

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(a) On 01.05.2016 at 09.00 hours, the defacto complainant/Merupula

Parsharamulu, S/o. Lasmaiah came to Police Station, Chandurthy and lodged a 2 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

complaint against accused stating that, on the same, at morning 0800 hours while the complainant was talking with his villagers in Grama Panchayath premises, at that time his own brother Merupula Devaiah/Accused came and raised quarrel and attacked him with stick from the hands of Bathula

Devaraju/LW.5 and caused bleeding injury on his head. Further the complainant stated that since long back there were disputes going on between him and his brother/accused and several times accused and his wife Sathavva attacked him.

The incident was witnessed by village Sarpanch’s husband Gaddam Gangadhar/

LW.4, Gaddam Devaiah/PW.2 and one Sunkari. Further the complainant stated that there is life danger in the hands of accused. Finally he requested to take necessary action against the accused. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, place of incident was observed and scene of offence panchanama is prepared. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against accused, for offence under Section 324 of

Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court took cognizance of offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal

Code against accused.

4.On producing the accused from District Jail, Karimnagar, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

5. The Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing, charges were framed against the Accused for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and

Ex.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to him incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence. He denied it totally and reported no defense evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

10.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.05.2016 at morning 0800 hours,

LW.1/Merupula Parsharamulu, S/o.Lasmaiah while he was talking with his villagers in Grama panchayath premises at that time his own brother/accused 4 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

came and raised quarrel and attacked LW.1 and beat him with stick from the hands of LW.5/Bathula Devaraju caused bleeding injury on his head, at that time PWs. 1 and 2 witnessed the incident. Thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 324 of IPC.

11.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 on behalf of the prosecution and M.O.1 is seized by

LW.6.

12.The evidence of LW.1/Merupula Parsharamulu was given up by the prosecution and death certificate of LW.2 filed by the prosecution and accordingly LWs. 1 and 2 were not examined by the prosecution.

13.PW.1 is said to be the eye witness to the incident and he deposed that around 6 to 7 years back, when LW.1 was present near Gramapanchayath along with LWs. 3 to 6, then accused came and quarreled with LW.1 and beat LW.1 with stick of LW.5. He along with LW.2/Merupula Chandravva went to the scene of offence and took LW.1 to police station. PW.1 stated in his cross examination that he did not witness the incident and he was informed by some one about the incident. Hence nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.1 in favour of the prosecution.

14.PW.2 also said to be eye witness to the incident and he deposed that around 5 to 6 years ago when he was inside the Gramapanchayath office, then 5 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

he came to know that there was a quarrel happened between LW.1/Merupula

Parsharamulu and accused and also came to know that the accused beat the

LW.1 but he did not see the alleged incident. In the cross examination he stated that may be the quarrel happened between the accused and LW.1/M.

Parsharamulu, but he did not witness the incident hence nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

15.On examination of PWs. 3 and 4 they deposed that the police came to the scene of offence and conducted panchanana in their presence and seized

M.O.1 in the presence of PW.3 and he along with LW.8/Madasu Jhanu signed on CDF which is marked as ExP1. The counsel for the accused cross examined

PWs. 1 to 4, they stated that they do not know the contents of Ex.P1 and PWs. 3 and 4 signed on the instance of police and they do not know about the alleged incident and Pws. 3 and 4 are the panch witnesses deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and they signed only on CDF/Ex.P1.

16.PW.5 who is doctor P.Raghu is the Civil Assistant Surgeon District

Hospital, Sircilla deposed about the fracture associated swelling, which is 2x1 cm of the left proximal phalanx of the fifth finger which is simple in nature.

Hence he issued medical certificate which is marked as Ex.P2. In the cross examination he stated that he did not mention in Ex.P2 he treated victim whether inpatient or out patient.

6 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

17.PW.6 is the investigating officer and he handed over the case file from

LW.10 and he has not reexamined any witnesses and he collected Ex.P2 from

LW.10 thereafter completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. He deposed about the manner in which he has done his investigation in the present case which is nothing but reiteration of the contents of the charge sheet filed by him.

18.On careful scrutiny of evidence of prosecution witnesses and on perusal of Ex.P4/Complaint lodged by LW.1 basing on which a criminal law set into motion PW.1 stated that on 01.05.2016 the accused made quarrel with LW.1 and attacked him and beat him with stick due to which sustaining injuries to

PW.1 whereas the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 who are said to be eye witnesses to the alleged incident the accused person quarreled with LW.1 and beat him but they did not witness the incident later they came to the scene of offence along with LW.2. Therefore, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution. As per the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 who are said to be panch witnesses for CDF that they do not know anything about the case. It also goes to show that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

19.In this case the LW.1/injured victim has not been examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Though the 7 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

prosecution examined two independent witnesses in this case nothing elicited from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 in favour of the prosecution and the injury allegedly received by the accused was not fatal part of his body and also the injury was not grievous in nature as Ex.P2, as could be seen from the entire evidence of PWs. 1 to 6 they did not state anything against the accused and that therefore it can be safely concluded that there is no fatal to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence under section 324 of IPC against the accused.

20.In view of the above discussion held supra, this is of the opinion that there is no evidence on record with regard to this case to pass criminal liability against the accused with which they stood charge the prosecution failed to prove home to the guilt of the accused.

21.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused is detained in District Jail, Karimnagar. The Superintendent, District

Jail, Karimnagar is directed to set him at liberty if he is not required in any other crime.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of March, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

8 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1:Gaddam Sathaiah- None -

P.W.2: Gaddam Devaiah

P.W.3: H.Kista Swamy

P.W.4:Madasu Jhanu

P.W.5Dr. P. Raghu

P.W.6A. Kiran Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Crime Detail Form through PW.3

Ex.P2:Medical certificate through PW.5

Ex.P3:Complaint

Ex.P4:First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Spade through PW.3

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

1 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VEMULAWADA

Present:Smt. K. Jyothirmai, Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.288 of 2016

Between: The State through The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chandurthy (Cr. No.34 of 2016) … Complainant A N D Merupula Devaiah, S/o.Lasmaiah, Age:63 years, R/o.Engal village of Chandurthy Mandal. … Accused

This case coming before me on 19.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K.Anjaiah, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chandurthy has filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.34 of 2016 of Chandurthy Police Station for offence under Section 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (For short “IPC”).

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(a) On 01.05.2016 at 09.00 hours, the defacto complainant/Merupula

Parsharamulu, S/o. Lasmaiah came to Police Station, Chandurthy and lodged a 2 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

complaint against accused stating that, on the same, at morning 0800 hours while the complainant was talking with his villagers in Grama Panchayath premises, at that time his own brother Merupula Devaiah/Accused came and raised quarrel and attacked him with stick from the hands of Bathula

Devaraju/LW.5 and caused bleeding injury on his head. Further the complainant stated that since long back there were disputes going on between him and his brother/accused and several times accused and his wife Sathavva attacked him.

The incident was witnessed by village Sarpanch’s husband Gaddam Gangadhar/

LW.4, Gaddam Devaiah/PW.2 and one Sunkari. Further the complainant stated that there is life danger in the hands of accused. Finally he requested to take necessary action against the accused. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, place of incident was observed and scene of offence panchanama is prepared. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against accused, for offence under Section 324 of

Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court took cognizance of offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal

Code against accused.

4.On producing the accused from District Jail, Karimnagar, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

5. The Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing, charges were framed against the Accused for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and

Ex.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to him incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence. He denied it totally and reported no defense evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

10.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.05.2016 at morning 0800 hours,

LW.1/Merupula Parsharamulu, S/o.Lasmaiah while he was talking with his villagers in Grama panchayath premises at that time his own brother/accused 4 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

came and raised quarrel and attacked LW.1 and beat him with stick from the hands of LW.5/Bathula Devaraju caused bleeding injury on his head, at that time PWs. 1 and 2 witnessed the incident. Thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 324 of IPC.

11.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 on behalf of the prosecution and M.O.1 is seized by

LW.6.

12.The evidence of LW.1/Merupula Parsharamulu was given up by the prosecution and death certificate of LW.2 filed by the prosecution and accordingly LWs. 1 and 2 were not examined by the prosecution.

13.PW.1 is said to be the eye witness to the incident and he deposed that around 6 to 7 years back, when LW.1 was present near Gramapanchayath along with LWs. 3 to 6, then accused came and quarreled with LW.1 and beat LW.1 with stick of LW.5. He along with LW.2/Merupula Chandravva went to the scene of offence and took LW.1 to police station. PW.1 stated in his cross examination that he did not witness the incident and he was informed by some one about the incident. Hence nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.1 in favour of the prosecution.

14.PW.2 also said to be eye witness to the incident and he deposed that around 5 to 6 years ago when he was inside the Gramapanchayath office, then 5 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

he came to know that there was a quarrel happened between LW.1/Merupula

Parsharamulu and accused and also came to know that the accused beat the

LW.1 but he did not see the alleged incident. In the cross examination he stated that may be the quarrel happened between the accused and LW.1/M.

Parsharamulu, but he did not witness the incident hence nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

15.On examination of PWs. 3 and 4 they deposed that the police came to the scene of offence and conducted panchanana in their presence and seized

M.O.1 in the presence of PW.3 and he along with LW.8/Madasu Jhanu signed on CDF which is marked as ExP1. The counsel for the accused cross examined

PWs. 1 to 4, they stated that they do not know the contents of Ex.P1 and PWs. 3 and 4 signed on the instance of police and they do not know about the alleged incident and Pws. 3 and 4 are the panch witnesses deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and they signed only on CDF/Ex.P1.

16.PW.5 who is doctor P.Raghu is the Civil Assistant Surgeon District

Hospital, Sircilla deposed about the fracture associated swelling, which is 2x1 cm of the left proximal phalanx of the fifth finger which is simple in nature.

Hence he issued medical certificate which is marked as Ex.P2. In the cross examination he stated that he did not mention in Ex.P2 he treated victim whether inpatient or out patient.

6 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

17.PW.6 is the investigating officer and he handed over the case file from

LW.10 and he has not reexamined any witnesses and he collected Ex.P2 from

LW.10 thereafter completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. He deposed about the manner in which he has done his investigation in the present case which is nothing but reiteration of the contents of the charge sheet filed by him.

18.On careful scrutiny of evidence of prosecution witnesses and on perusal of Ex.P4/Complaint lodged by LW.1 basing on which a criminal law set into motion PW.1 stated that on 01.05.2016 the accused made quarrel with LW.1 and attacked him and beat him with stick due to which sustaining injuries to

PW.1 whereas the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 who are said to be eye witnesses to the alleged incident the accused person quarreled with LW.1 and beat him but they did not witness the incident later they came to the scene of offence along with LW.2. Therefore, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution. As per the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 who are said to be panch witnesses for CDF that they do not know anything about the case. It also goes to show that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

19.In this case the LW.1/injured victim has not been examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Though the 7 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

prosecution examined two independent witnesses in this case nothing elicited from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 in favour of the prosecution and the injury allegedly received by the accused was not fatal part of his body and also the injury was not grievous in nature as Ex.P2, as could be seen from the entire evidence of PWs. 1 to 6 they did not state anything against the accused and that therefore it can be safely concluded that there is no fatal to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence under section 324 of IPC against the accused.

20.In view of the above discussion held supra, this is of the opinion that there is no evidence on record with regard to this case to pass criminal liability against the accused with which they stood charge the prosecution failed to prove home to the guilt of the accused.

21.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused is detained in District Jail, Karimnagar. The Superintendent, District

Jail, Karimnagar is directed to set him at liberty if he is not required in any other crime.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of March, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

8 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Vemulawada (fair)

CC No.288/2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1:Gaddam Sathaiah- None -

P.W.2: Gaddam Devaiah

P.W.3: H.Kista Swamy

P.W.4:Madasu Jhanu

P.W.5Dr. P. Raghu

P.W.6A. Kiran Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Crime Detail Form through PW.3

Ex.P2:Medical certificate through PW.5

Ex.P3:Complaint

Ex.P4:First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Spade through PW.3

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

Page 1 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.98 of 2025 (fair)

THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : VEMULAWADA

Present:Smt K. Jyothirmai Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

V E M U L A W A D A.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 17THDAY OF APRIL, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 98 of 2025

Between:

Aggu Prasad S/o Komuraiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Vemulawada town and mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District. … Plaintiff.

A N D

1.Bandari Beeraiah S/o Komuraiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Gunta Yellaiah S/o Chinnaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Gunta Srinivas S/o Chinnaiah, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4.Gunta Parshaiah S/o Komuraiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,

5.Gunta @ Sattu Beeraiah S/o Mallaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agril,

6.Gunta @ Sattu Padma W/o Beeraiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agril,

7.Gunta Laxmi W/o Yellaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,

8.Bandari Laxmavva W/o Yellaiah, Age: 31 years, All are R/o. Nagaiahpally village of Vemulawada Rural Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District. … Defendants No.1 to 8.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 13.02.2026 in the presence of Sri Ch. Venugopal, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant

No.1 to 8 were set exparte, and having been heard and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

Page 2 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.98 of 2025 (fair)

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

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their family members, agents, supporters and workmen etc., from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over his open place measuring 30.25 Sq.yards in

Sy.No.567/e/1 (bifurcated from Sy.No.567/e) and measuring 181.50

Sq.yards in Sy.No.571 ఆ/4 (bifurcated from Sy.No.571 ఆ/1), totally measuring 211.75 Sq.yards, which is one compact block, situated at

Nagaiahpally village H/o Marripally Revenue village of Vemulawada

Rural Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District., hereinafter referred as Suit

Schedule Property.

THE BRIEF AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE:

1.i.The plaintiff is absolute owner and exclusive possessor of open place measuring 30.25 sq. yards in Sy.No.567/e/1 (bifurcated from Sy.No. 567/e) and measuring 181.50 sq. yards in Sy.No. 571/ఆ/4 (bifurcated from

Sy.No.571/ఆ/1), totally measuring 211.75 sq. yards, which is one compact block, within boundaries mentioned in the schedule annexed hereto, situated at Nagaiahpally village H/o Marripally Revenue Village of

Vemulawada Rural Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District, which is herein after called as suit schedule property.

Page 3 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.98 of 2025 (fair)

ii.It is further submitted that the natural mother of the plaintiff by name

Aggu Nagavva, out of love and affection towards the plaintiff gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff by way of executing the registered gift deed bearing document No.1660 of 2025, dated 19-03-2025, in the office of SRO Vemulawada, by delivering the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has accepted the said gift. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

iii.Previously, the natural mother of the plaintiff by name Aggu

Nagavva purchased the lands bearing Sy.No.567/e measuring Ac.0-0025 gts, Sy.No.568/e measuring Ac.0-0800 gts, and Sy.No.571/e/1 measuring

Ac.0-0150 gts, situated at Nagaiahpally village H/o Marripally Revenue

Village of Vemulawada Rural Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District from

Chitpally Srikanth through registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.783/2024

dated 31-12-2024 of Tahsildar & Joint Sub-Registrar, Vemulawada Rural.

iv.Later, the name of said Aggu Nagavva was recorded in the concerned revenue records and she was issued new pattadar passbook-cum- title deed vide booklet No. T19120071762, Khata No. 60769. Thereafter,

Aggu Nagavva applied for NALA conversion of agricultural lands bearing:

Page 4 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.98 of 2025 (fair)

Sy.No. 567/e measuring 0-0025 gts (equal to 30.25 sq. yards), Sy.No.

571/e/1 measuring 0-0150 gts (equal to 181.50 sq. yards) v.It is submitted that the Tahsildar & Joint Sub-Registrar Officer,

Vemulawada Rural Mandal, considered the application and accorded conversion into non-agricultural purpose vide NALA order proceedings

No.2500153503, dated:18-03-2025. After issuance of NALA order, Aggu

Nagavva gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became absolute owner and possessor.

vi.To prove title and possession, the plaintiff filed documents including: Certified copies of pahani for years 1980–81, 1985–86, 1989– 90, 1994–95, 1999–2000, 2004–05, 2010–11, Registered sale deed No.

783/2024 dated 31-12-2024, Registered gift deed No. 1660/2025 dated 19- 03-2025, Xerox copy of pattadar passbook, Khata No. 60769 of Aggu

Nagavva, online copies of Bhubharathi, true copy of mutation proceedings

No. B/208/78/2024 dated 30-12-2024 of Tahsildar, Vemulawada Rural

Mandal, for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

Vii.That the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property and have no rights or interest whatsoever. The defendants developed ill

Page 5 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.98 of 2025 (fair)

intention and started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. On 17-05-2025, the defendants came to the suit property and attempted to occupy it by removing boundary stones. The plaintiff, with the help of well-wishers, resisted them and remained in possession. The plaintiff recorded a video of the incident. Again on 19-05-2025, at

Nagaiahpally village H/o Marripally Revenue Village, the defendants attempted to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his family resisted them successfully. The defendants left after threatening to return and forcibly occupy the property. Hence, the petition.

2.After sufficient service of summons, Defendant No.1 to 8 appeared

before this Court and engaged their counsel but failed to file written

statement within the stipulated period of 90 days, hence the Defendant

No.1 to 8 were set exparte.

3.Heard counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record.

4.During the course of trial, the Plaintiff himself got examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A10 and the Plaintiff got examined one

Chettipalli Srikanth as PW.2 by way of filing his chief examination affidavit and one Chettipalli Rajeshwari as PW.3 by way of filing his chief

Page 6 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.98 of 2025 (fair)

examination affidavit the Defendants did not examine anyone on their behalf and failed to cross examine PW.1 to PW.3 as they were set exparte.

5. Now the point that arises for consideration is

i. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of

the suit schedule property?

ii. Whether the defendants interfered with the plaintiff’s peaceful

possession?

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent

injunction? iv. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A10. He further examined Chettipalli Srikanth as PW.2 and Chettipalli Rajeshwari as PW.3, who filed their chief- examination affidavits in support of the plaintiff’s case.

7.The defendants, despite being afforded sufficient opportunities, failed to cross-examine PW.1 to PW.3 and did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. Consequently, they were set exparte. Hence, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff remains unchallenged and unrebutted.

Page 7 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.98 of 2025 (fair)

Point No.1:

8.The burden of proving title and possession lies upon the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has established his title through a chain of registered documents beginning from the sale deed dated 31-12-2024 in favour of

Smt. Aggu Nagavva. The subsequent mutation entries, Pattadar Passbook, and Title Deed support her possession.

9.The evidence further shows that the land was converted into non- agricultural land vide proceedings dated 18-03-2025. Thereafter, the said

Aggu Nagavva executed a registered gift deed dated 19-03-2025 in favour of the plaintiff, transferring both title and possession. The plaintiff has also relied upon pahani extracts to establish continuity and identity of the property.

10.There is no rebuttal evidence from the defendants. The evidence of

PW.1 to PW.3 and Exs. A1 to A10 remains unchallenged. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiff has proved his title and lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Finding: Point No.1 is answered in the

Affirmative.

Page 8 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.98 of 2025 (fair)

Point No.2:

11.The Plaintiff has specifically pleaded acts of interference on 17-05- 2025 and 19-05-2025. It is stated that the defendants attempted to trespass into the property and remove boundary stones.

12.Such acts clearly amount to interference with possession. The defendants have not contested these allegations nor produced any evidence to the contrary. In a suit for injunction, proof of possession and interference is sufficient. In the present case, both stand established. Point

No.2 is answered in the Affirmative.

Point No.3:

13.To grant permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish lawful possession and interference. Both these ingredients are proved. It is a settled principle that a person in possession cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law. The defendants, having no right, cannot interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Point No.3 is answered in the Affirmative.

Page 9 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.98 of 2025 (fair)

Point No.4:

14.In view of the findings on the above issues, the suit deserves to be decreed.

15. In the result, the suit is decreed without costs. The Defendants, their family members, supporters and workmen etc., are hereby perpetually restrained from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff’s over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Steno, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of F.C.,

Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Aggu Prasad- NIL -

P.W.2: Chettipalli Srikanth

PW.3: Chettipalli Rajeshwari

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:C.C. of pahani for the year 1980-01 (02)

Ex.A2:C.C. of pahani for the year 1985-86 (02)

Ex.A3:C.C. of pahani for the year 1989-90 (02)

Page 10 of 10 JCJ – cum - JMFC Court, Vemulawada

OS No.98 of 2025 (fair)

Ex.A4:C.C. of pahani for the year 1994-95 (02)

Ex.A5:C.C. of pahani for the year 1999-2000 (02)

Ex.A6:C.C. of pahani for the year 2004-05 (02)

Ex.A7:C.C. of pahani for the year 2010-11 (02)

Ex.A8:Original Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.783/2024, dt: 31.12.2024.

Ex.A9:Original Regd. Gift Deed bearing Doc.No.1660/2025, dt: 19.03.2025.

Ex.A10:Online copies of Bhubharathi in Sy.No.567/e/1 and 571/ఆ/4 (No.2).

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

- Nil -

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of F.C.,

Vemulawada.