IN THE COURT OF THE I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT: Sri. K. KIRAN KUMAR,
I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL, 2025
SOP.No. 47 OF 2018
Between:
Sri. Ramesh Chandra Soni S/o. Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni Aged about 68 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.152148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad. … Petitioner
A N D
1)Sri. Purshottamdas Soni, S/o.Late Shri Surajkaran Soni (died) As per legal representative/ Respondents No.8 to 12.
2)Sri. Mukunddas Soni, S/o. Purshottamdas Soni, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Business, 47290, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad – 27.
3)Sri. Kamal Kishore Soni, S/o. Shri Hanumandas Soni, Aged about 50 years, Occ:Business, 152134, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad – 12.
4)Vivo BioTech Ltd., represented by the Authorized representative, 608, Lingapur Complex, Himyatnagar, Hyderabad – 29.
5)The Mahesh Urban Coop Bank Ltd., Represented by the authorized Representative, 53989, III Floor, Sherza Estate, Nizamshahi Road, Osmangunj, Hyderabad500095 (TS).
6)Inani Securities Ltd., represented by the authorized representative,
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 2 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
G15, Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Laine, Hyderabad01.
7)To whom so every concern.
8)Smt. Kamala Soni, W/o. Late Ghanshaymdas Soni, Aged about 55 years, Occ:House wife, Flat No.501, AP Mansion, H.No.162147/K/1, New Malakpet, Hyderabad.
9)Smt. Priyamka Mundada D/o. Late Ghanshaymdas Soni, Aged about 30 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.Plot No.305, Flat No.201, Vakratunda Apartments, Chikali Layout, near East RTO office, Nagpur440035.
10)Miss Payal Soni (dead as per LR resp.No.8 & 9).
11)Smt. Nirmala Phafat D/o. Late Purshottamdas Soni, Aged about 56 years, Occ:House wife, R/o.H.No.45587/3, Hutbiguda, Opp. lane of Durga Dairy products, Near Badi Chowdi, Hyderabad.
12)Smt. Meena Damani D/o. Late Purshottamdas Soni, Aged about 50 years, Occ:House wife, R/o.Flat No.05, Indumati Apartments, 2nd floor, Opp:Gokhale School, Shimpoli Road, Borivali West, Mumdai – 400092. (respondents No.8 to 12 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 as per Orders dated 10032020 passed in IA No.929/2019) … Respondents
This Petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.Basant Kumar Soni, Counsel for the petitioner, and of M/s. Ganu & Company, Counsel
for respondents No.2 8, and of Sri.K. Sreedhar, Counsel for respondent No.3, and of B. Jyothi,
Counsel for respondent No.6, and respondents No.4, 5, 11, and 12 remained exparte and respondent No.7 is All Concerned, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivers the following:
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 3 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
:: O R D E R :
1.This Petition is filed under section 372 of Indian Succession Act for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of petitioner in respect of petition schedule shares which is lying in the name of the Late Shri. Satyanarayan and
Smt.Bhawari Devi Soni, with Respondents No.1 and 2.
2.The material averments of the petition is summarized as under:
For Petitioners:
2.1It is submitted that the petitioner is the natural son of Late Shri Gokuldas
Soni and Late Smt.Ramkanwari Bai, that the petitioner has been given in adoption to Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni (herein after refereed to as deceased
No.1) and Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni (herein after referred to as deceased
No.2). It is submitted by the petitioner that, on 26031963 a grand function was organized by deceased Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of Soni family members and society to perform custom rituals as per Hindu faith (datha
Homa) while taking the petitioner into adoption and thereafter, the petitioner started resided with deceased Nos.1 & 2, and they performed the petitioner’s marriage in grand manner. It is further submitted that, after the adoption, the petitioner had performed his duties as a son till date and he regularly
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 4 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
performing yearly feast of deceased Nos.1 & 2 and that all the members of the soni family used to attend yearly feast hosted by the petitioner.
2.2During the lief of deceased No.1 had executed a WILL DEED dated 20 121994 bequeathing her property in favour of the petitioner and life interest limited to rent derived from property in favour of deceased No.2 and thereafter a Charitable Trust was created by deceased No.2 in the name of Bhawari Devi
Satyanarayan Soni Charitable Trust and life interest was transferred in favour of the said Trust by deceased No.2 and that the petitioner is also one of the
Trustee of the said Trust. During the life of deceased No.1 had purchased 10 shares for Rs.20/ each of respondent No.5 and 90 shares for Rs.10/ each of respondent No.4 and both the shares of respondents No.4 and 5 are not bequeath vide the aforesaid WILL DEED dated 20121194. It is further submitted by the petitioner that, on 13022018 he got issued legal notices to respondents No.4 and 5 to transfer the petition schedule shares in his favour, but the respondents No.4 and 5 failed to reply the said legal notice nor transfer the petition schedule shares in favour of the petitioner.
2.3During the life of deceased No.2 had purchased 250 shares of face value of Rs.20/ each vide Folio No.V/3, distinctive No.11676 to 11725 for 50 shares and vide ledge Folio No.31545, distinctive No.2219131 to 2219330 for 200
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 5 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
shares of respondent No.5, the deceased No.2 also purchased 580 shares of respondent No.4 and he also purchased 160 shares of respondent No.6 in demat form vide demat A/c.No.120362000009797. It is further submitted by the petitioner that, on 13022018, he got issued legal notices to respondents
No.4, 5 and 6 to transfer the petition schedule shares in his favour, but the respondents No.4 and 5 failed to reply the said legal notice nor transfer the petition schedule shares in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner made repeated oral reminders to the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 for transfer of above mentioned shares in his favour, but the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 failed to transfer the petition schedule shares without any valid reason.
Therefore, the petitioner constrained to filed the present petition for declaration and consequential reliefs.
2.4It is further submitted that the respondents No.1 to 3 are claiming the properties of deceased Nos.1 and 2, as such are arrayed as parties to the present petition and it is needless to mention that the respondents No.1 to 3 at no point of time are claiming to be successors of deceased Nos.1 and 2. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 is allegedly claiming the property bearing H.No.152601 to 606, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, under alleged gift settlement deed ated 20092009, vide Regd. Doc.no.2100 of 2009 alleged to have been executed by deceased No.2 in favour of respondent No.1. As the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 6 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
said property alleged to have been gifted by deceased No.2 under the instigation in favour of the respondent No.1 without any right and authority as the property was owned and possessed by the petitioner under the WILL DEED
dated 20121994 executed by deceased No.2.
2.5It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 is claiming the property bearing H.No.152147 to 149, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, under alleged WILL
DEED dated 24102016 as alleged to have been executed by deceased No.2 and also some other properties alleged to have been owned and possessed by deceased No.2 and another alleged WILL DEED dated 20062014 alleged to have been executed by deceased No.2 in favour of respondent No.1. It is further submitted that it is needless to mention that the signature on the alleged WILL DEED dated 20062014 are forged signature and does not belong to deceased No.2.
2.6It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 is allegedly claiming the properties of deceased No.1 under alleged WILL DEED dated 26121994 and it is needless to mention that the alleged WILL DEED is also forged and fabricated document and the signatures of deceased No.1 are also forged by the respondent No.3 in collusion with the respondents No.1 and 2 for the purpose of defeating the claim of the petitioner under the original WILL of
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 7 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
deceased No.1 and that the respondent No.3 and his father Hanumandas Soni are the servants of the respondents No.1 and 2. Therefore, there is no impediment under any law for granting succession certificate in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner is sole legal heir and successor to the estate of deceased Nos.1 and 2. Hence, this petition.
For Respondents No.1 & 2:
3.Respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter and denying the material allegations made in the petition, except those that are specifically admitted hereunder that the petitioner is the natural son of Late Sri.Gokuldas Soni and
Smt.Ramkanwari Bai Soni. The petitioner was not adopted by Late Sri
Satyanarayan Soni and Late Smt.Bhawari Devi Soni during their life time and that the petitioner failed to file any document to show that he was adopted son of Late Satyanarayan Soni and Late Smt.Bhawari Devi Soni. The respondents are denied that the petitioner has performed all the duties as a son till the death of Satyanarayan Soni and Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni as per Hindu faith and customs and it is also denied that, all the Soni family members are used to attend yearly feast hosted by petitioner.
3.1It is further submitted that, during the life time of Late Satyanarayan
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 8 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Soni, he himself declared that the petitioner is not his son and he also given an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate at Nagpur, stating that he has no relation with the petitioner and that Late Satyanarayan Soni has lodged many complaints stating that the petitioner and his son beat him mercilessly, thereby, he suffered paralytic stroke and he became deaf and dumb and also stated that the petitioner and his son committed theft of important documents, cheques, promissory notes and blank signed cheques, blank signed stamp papers and they have misused the same and many criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and his son which are lodged by Late Satyanarayan Soni.
3.2It is further submitted that, the respondent No.1 is the younger brother of Late Satyanarayan Soni and respondent No.2 is the son of respondent No.1.
During the bad days of Late Satyanarayan Soni, the respondent No.2 has look after him by all means, including medical, health and financially, and the respondent No.2 is the legal heir of Late Satyanarayan Soni. It is further submitted that, during the life of Late Satyanarayan Soni, has executed a registered gift deed in favour of respondent No.1 bequeathing the house properties situated at Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad, and not only that he also executed a WILL DEED in respect of house bearing No.152147 to 152149, situated at Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad in favour of respondent No.2. It is
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 9 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
further submitted that, Late Satyanarayan Soni had filed a memo in OS
No.1225/1992 on the file of IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad stating that except him there is no other legal heir of Late Smt.
Bhawari Devi Soni. The respondent No.2 has performed all the funeral rites of
Late Satyanarayan Soni and Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni, this fact is known to all the family members of Soni family.
3.3It is further submitted that the Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni has not executed a WILL DEED dated 20121994 in favour of the petitioner and the said WILL DEED is forged and created by the petitioner and his son to grab the properties of Late Satyanarayan Soni and Late Smt Bhawari Devi Soni. Late
Satyanarayan Soni has not established any Charitable Trust under the name and style of “Bhawari Devi Satyanarayan Soni Charitable Trust”. When there is no trust established, the question of appointing the Trustee do not arise.
3.4It is further submitted that the Late Satyanarayan Soni and Late Smt.
Bhawari Devi Soni have purchased the shares from respondents No.4 to 6 on their respective names. The petitioner cannot be declared as the legal heir of
Late Satyanarayan Soni and Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni and that the Late
Satyanarayan Soni denied the relationship of father and son between the petitioner and himself and that the petitioner is not entitled for any
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 10 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
declaration. When the petitioner is not legal heir of Late Satyanarayan Soni and Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni, transferring the shares on the name of petitioner does not arise.
3.5It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the house bearing No.152601 to 606 and 15212 to 614 & 614/A, situated at
Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad, by virtue of registered gift settlement dated 2010 2009 vide Doc. no.2100/2009 and that the petitioner has no right to cancel the gift settlement deed executed by Late Satyanarayan Soni in favour of respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 is the owner of the house bearing No.152147 to 149, situated at Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad by virtue of Registered WILL DEED executed by Late Satyanarayan Soni in favour of respondent No.2 is valid. It is denied that the respondents No.3 and his father Hanuman Das Soni are the servants of respondents No.1 and 2 and that the above said persons are close relatives of petitioner, respondents No.1 and 2. It is further submitted that the petitioner and his son have committed theft of important documents including shares of Late Satyanarayan Soni and
Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni. Therefore, the original share certificates are with the petitioner and his son and that the physical custody of the shares held by the petitioner and his son is illegal and they are liable to be prosecuted under
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 11 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
criminal law. Therefor, the respondents No.1 & 2 prays this Court to dismiss the petition.
For Respondent No.3:
4.Respondent No.3 filed counter and denying the material allegations made in the petition, except those that are specifically admitted hereunder that the petitioner is the natural son of Late Sri. Gokuldas Soni and Smt.
Ramkanwari Bai Soni, but is its false to that in the year 1963, the petitioner was given in adoption by Late Smt. Ramkanwari Bai Soni to Late Sri
Satyanarayan Soni and Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni and it is denied to satiate that on 26031963 a grand function was organized in the presence of members of Soni family and society to perform custom rituals as per Hindu faith (dathaHoma) while taking the petitioner into adoption, after adoption he had performed and discharged all duties as a son till dated, as per the Hindu faith and performed last rites of Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni and Late
Satyanarayan Soni and regularly performing their yearly feast and it is also denied that, all the Soni family members are used to attend yearly feast hosted by petitioner.
4.1It is further submitted that the Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni has not
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 12 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
executed a WILL DEED dated 20121994 bequeathing her property in favour of petitioner and life interest limited to rent derived from property in favour of
Late Satyanarayan Soni and thereafter Late Satyanarayan Soni created
Charitable Trust under the name and style of “Bhawari Devi Satyanarayan Soni
Charitable Trust” and life interest was transferred in favour of the said trust and the petitioner is also one of the Trustee of the said trust.
4.2It is further submitted that this defendant is not aware that the Late
Satyanarayan Soni and Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni have purchased the shares from respondents No.4 to 6 on their respective names. It is further submitted that the defendant No.3 is the owner and possessor of the property bearing
M.No.152601 to 606, Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad by virtue of WILL DEED
dated 26121994 executed by Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni in favour of the
respondent No.3 and the said will was duly handed by her husband Late
Satyanarayan Soni to the defendant No.3. Thus, the defendant No.3 is rightly claiming the ownership of the said properties by virtue of WILL DEED.
4.3It is denied that the respondents No.3 and his father Hanuman Das Soni are the servants of respondents No.1 and 2. The defendant No.3 reserves his right to initiate the defamation proceedings against the petitioner for the said averments. It is further submitted that the father of the defendant No.3 by
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 13 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
name Late Hanumandas Soni was the elder brother of the petitioner and the said fact is suppressed by the petition to gain unlawfully. Hence, the relief sought by the petitioner is erroneous and defective and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought by him. Therefor, the respondent No.3 prays this
Court to dismiss the petition in limine with costs.
For Respondent No.6:
5.Respondent No.6 filed counter and denying the material allegations made in the petition, except those that are specifically admitted hereunder that, on 27112007, Late Satyanarayan Soni had opened a demate account with respondent No.6 on his name vide A/c No.120320000009797, while opening the said account, the name of the petitioner has been given as nominee being the son of Late Satyanarayan Soni. It is further submitted that,
Late Satyanarayan Soni has also opened another demate account in the name of Satyanarayan Soni HUF vide A/c No.120320000009229 with respondent
No.6, while opening the said account, the name of the petitioner herein is given in detail of family member as son of Late Satyanarayan Soni.
5.1It is further submitted that, in view of the nomination given in favour of the petitioner by Late Satyanarayan Soni, the respondent No.6 has requested
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 14 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
the petitioner for providing copy of the death certificate of Late Satyanarayan
Soni along with the transmission request form duly signed by the petitioner and that the petitioner has provided all the documents sought by the respondent No.6. It is further submitted that this respondent shall transfer the shares held in the above said account to the petitioner’s account vide A/c.
No.120320000009822 after completing due formalities as per rules.
Therefor, the respondent No. prays this Court to dismiss the petition.
6.Respondents No.4, 5, 11 and 12 remained exparte. Inspite of issuing paper publication, no objections were received against the respondent No.7/All concerned.
7.Heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel. Perused the material on record.
8.On the basis of pleadings of both side contesting parties to the petition, the point derives for adjudication:
(1) Whether the Petitioners has make out any case for grant
of Succession Certificate in his favour ?
(2) To what relief ?
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 15 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
POINT :
To Begin with, in a case titled as Ritesh Tewari and Another Vs State of U.P and others 1 The Hon'ble Apex Court has held:
“Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest”
9.This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking succession certificate in respect of the petition scheduled shares in the capacity of adoptive son of Late.
Sri. Satyanarayan Soni and Late. Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni by invoking section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Order XXXIIA Rule 1 (E) and (F) and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1954 and consequentially, declare the petitioner as the sole legal heir of the deceased Sri. Late. Satyanarayan Soni and Late. Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni.
10.The present succession petition was filed on 03.04.2018 also seeking to declare the petitioner as the sole legal heir. The proceedings under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are summary in nature. Due to one reason or the other, this case dragged for Seven long years. Dramatically, this case has taken a shape of a comprehensive suit for declaration. With the order in
IA.NO.2 of 2023 in TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION.No.189 of 2022, dated 05
1(2010) 10 SCC 677
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 16 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
082024, there was a specific direction to this Court to dispose the present case within Three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by giving atmost priority. This court has received the order copy on 17122024.
11. The petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu of the chief examination of
PW1, on perusal of the chief examination of PW1, it is reiteration of facts incorporated in the petition on oath. Through PW1, the documents under exhibit P1 to P28 are marked. To further the case of petition, the petitioner has produced Sri. Jai Prakash Soni as PW2 and Sri. Laxminarayan Soni as PW3.
Since, these two witnesses did not turn up for the cross examination, this court was compelled to eschew their evidence from the record. The Bank Manager of
A.P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank ltd., Siddiamber Bazaar was examined as
PW4 and through PW4, the documents under exhibit P30 to P39 got marked.
The Bank Official is examined as PW5 and through PW5, the documents under exhibit P40 to P50 got marked. The son of the petitioner has stepped into witness box as PW6 and through him the documents under exhibit P51 to P63 got marked. By way of confrontation of RW1, the documents under exhibit P64 to P70 got marked. With the order of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of
Telangana vide CRP. 1635 of 2024 dated: 11032025, the documents under exhibit P71 to P108 are marked.
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 17 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
12. The Respondent No. 2 has stepped into witness box as RW1 to substantiate the averment in the counter. The Respondent No. 3 despite having a reasonable opportunity, failed to enter into witness box to testify the averments of the counter. It is apparent, except the sole testimony of RW1, none of the respondents have adduced any sort of evidence.
13.Documents for petitioners:
Ex.P1 is the death certificate of Late Smt.Bhawari Devi Soni issued by the MCH,
dated 11011995, Ex.P2 is the death certificate of Late Sri Satyanarayan Soni issued by the
GHMC dated 15032017, Ex.P3 is the Will Deed execution by Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni
dated 20041994, Ex.P4 is the share certificate A/c.No.1198 dated 02011979 issued by
respondent No.5, Ex.P5 is the legal notice dated 1302201 issued to respondent No.5, Ex.P6 is the reply letter dated 26022018 by respondent No.5, Ex.P7 is the legal notice dated 13 022013 issued to respondent No.4, Ex.P8 is the share certificate A/c No.1201 dated 0201 1979 issued by respondent No.5, Ex.P9 is the share certificate No.31545 dated 24041996 issued by respondent No.5, Ex.P10 is the reply letter dated 14022018 by respondent No.6,
Ex.P11 is the reply letter dated 1607201 by respondent No.6, Ex.P12 is the certified copy of deposition in CC.No.521/2011 dated 15102012, Ex.P13 is the certified copy of deposition in CC.No.921/2011 dated 08012015, Ex.P14 is the certified copy of deposition in CC.No.162/2011 dated 08012015, Ex.P15 is the photographs (14 Nos), Ex.P16 is the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 18 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
certified copy of Judgment in OS No.2801/2010 dated 19062020, Ex.P17 is the joint memo filed by plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 in OS No.2801/2010 dated 05112020, Ex.P18 is the Demat account statement of deceased Satyanarayan Soni, dated 31072018 issued by respondent No.6 (counsel for respondent raised objection that it is the photo copy and not a downloaded document as it does not contain statement that it is computer generated copy and does not requires signature and stamp), Ex.P19 is the account statement of deceased
Satyanarayan Soni, dated 16072018 issued by respondent No.6 (counsel for respondent raised objection that it is the photo copy and not a downloaded document as it does not contain statement that it is computer generated copy and does not requires signature and stamp), Ex.P20 is the certified copy of registered release deed vide Doc.No.1165/1985 dated 26051982, Ex.P21 is the letter of deceased Satyanarayan Soni to Civil supply officer dated 17032008, Ex.P22 is the video (6 Nos.) in CD (court has played video and seen the same and marked as exhibit), Ex.P23 is the passport of petitioner No.1, Ex.P24 is the Aadhar card of petitioner No.1, Ex.P25 Is the PAN card of petitioner No.1, Ex.P26 Is the Election ID card of petitioner No.1, Ex.P27 Is the driving license of petitioner No.1, Ex.P28 Is the certified copy of household card of petitioner No.1(marked subject to objection that it is not original document), Ex.P29 is the Account opening form of Satyanarayan Soni HUF dated 2210 2007 of A/c.No.38489 of respondent No.5 bank, Ex.P30 is the continuation of Account
No.39489 by Satyanarayan Soni HUF dated 02092020 of respondent No.5 bank along with
DC of Satyanarayan Soni dated 08102020 along with Enclosures for KYC compliance,
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 19 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Ex.P31 is the account opening form along with the annexure copy of the PAN card and address proof, Ex.P32 is the application form along with death certificate of Satyanarayan
Soni, copy of PAN card of Satyanarayan Soni HUF and the KYC particulars of remaining members of HUF for change of kartha after the death of Satyanarayan Soni,Ex.P33 is the account statement for the period from 01042007 to 07092013, Ex.P34 is the account statement for the period from 07092013 to 31032016, Ex.P35 is the account statement for the period from 01042016 to 12072023, Ex.36 & 37 are the attested copies of cheque book issue register showing Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) in page Nos.15 and 26 of the years 2007 to 2009, Ex.P38 & P39 are the computerized copies of file of cheque book isseud registere showing Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) for the period from 01092020 to 15122021 and 31032022 to 15112022 in page Nos.15 and 26 of the years 2007 to 2009,
Ex.P40 is the authorization letter given to PW5 by Managing Director of respondent No.6 to produce the documents and depose before the Court, Ex.P41 is the client registration form in between Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) and respondent No.6, Ex.P42 is the agreement between stock broker and client dated 03112003 in between Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) and respondent No.6, Ex.P43 is the application form for opening depository account dated 2910 2007 by Satyanarayan Soni (HUF),Ex.P44 is the agreement between participant and person seeking to open a beneficial owners account dated 29102009 in between Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) and respondent No.6, Ex.P45 is the application form for opening depository account by Satyanarayan Soni dated 27112007, Ex.P46 is the nomination form, Ex.P47 is the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 20 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
agreement between participant and person seeking to open nenefical owners account dated 27112007 in between Satyanarayan Soni and respondent No.6, Ex.P48 is the client master report with depository ID No.1203620000009797 on the name of Satyanarayan Soni individual, Ex.P49 is the client master report with depository ID No.1203620000009229 on the name of Satyanarayan Soni (HUF), Ex.P50 is the KYC updation application of
Satyanarayan Soni (HUC) along with Annexures (copy of Aadhar card of Ramesh Chandra
Soni, copy of PAN card of Satyanarayan Soni (HUF), Ex.P51 is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 3005 2009, Ex.P52 is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late
Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 18092009., Ex.P53 is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 05122009,
Ex.P54 is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri
Satyanarayan Soni dated 18072009, Ex.P55 is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 01082009, Ex.P56 is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan
Soni dated 12012010, Ex.P57 is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 31012010, Ex.P58 is the certified copy of the police complaint in CC No.521/2011 filed under section 200 CR.P.C. byLate Shri
Satyanarayan Soni, Ex.P59 is the certified copy of FIR No.610/2009 by PS Afzal Gunj,
Ex.P60 is the certified copy of the Judgment in CC No.722/2022 (CC.No.521/2011), Ex.P61
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 21 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
is the copy of FIR No.448 of 2009Regd. With PS Afzalgunj, Ex.P62 Videography and 30
Nos. photographs of the Marriage ceremony of Smt. Madhuri Rathi, Shri Basant Kumar Soni,
Smt.Meenakshi Somani, Shir Krishna Kant Soni and Smt. Mahdavi Sarda in compact disc along with Section 65B affidavit under section Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P63 Certified copy of complaint U/section 200 of Cr.P.C. on the file of Hon’ble II Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad with SR.No.2685/2009 dated 17062009,
Ex.P64 Notice issued to respondent No.2 herein by PW6 as a Junior counsel on record on the file of Hon’ble XXV, ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad, vide OS.No.596/2010 dated 18042022 (marked subject to objection that PW6 is not the party to Ex.P64 and does not reflect the name of PW6 as counsel for plaintiff therein. This Court finds that Ex.P64 bears the signature of PW6 as counsel for petitioner, hence objections over ruled.), Ex.P65 is the certified copy of inquiry case EC.No.389/2009, Ex.P66 is the certified copy of application,
Ex.P67 is the certified copy of the petition in IA No.701/2017 in OS No.2801/2010, Ex.P68 is the certified copy of Order in IA No.701/2017 in OS No.2801/2010, Ex.P69 is the certified copy of WILL dated 21062014, Ex.P70 is the medical certificte dated 21102016,
Ex.P71 is the Regd. General Power of Attorney executed by Late Shri Satyanarayan
Soni and Late Smt Bhawari Devi Soni in favour of Hanumandas Soni, Ex.P72 is the
Original household cards PAP 1674482000077 issued by DPLin charge, ALO Circle
No. VII. (2 No’s), Ex.P73 is the Certified copy of the order in EA No. 10 of 2022 in EP
Sr No. 295 of 2022 in OS No. 214 of 2009, Ex.P74 is the Certified copy of the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 22 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
examination in chief and crossexamination of witness Pw4 Jaiprakash Soni in OS No.
2801 of 2010, Ex.P75 is the Certified copy of the examination in chief and cross examination of witness Pw4 Laxminarayan Soni in OS No. 2801 of 2010, Ex.P76 is the
Certified copy of the death certificate of the Late Shri Laxminarayan Soni issued by the Brith and Death Registration Dept of the GHMC, Ex.P77 is the Certified copy of
Regd. Partition Deed. Doc No. 44 of 2010, Ex.P78 is the Certified copy of deposition of Late Hanumandas Soni in CC 722/2012, Ex.P79 is the Certified Copy of the
Original Application No.16 of 2009 under section 41(D) of the Maharashtra Public
Trust Act, 1955, Ex.P80 Certified Copy of Order passed in Original Application No.16 of 2009 under section 41(D) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1955, dated 21.01.2012, Ex.P81 is the Original handwritten proforma of marriage invitation of
Shri Krishna Kanth Soni son of the Petitioner by Late Hanumandas Soni, Ex.P82 is the original Marriage invitation card of the elder daughter of the Petitioner with English translation, Ex.P83 is the original marriage invitation of the elder son of the
Petitioner with English translation, Ex.P84 is the original marriage invitation of the daughter of the Petitioner with English translation, Ex.P85 is the original marriage invitation of the daughter of the Petitioner with English translation, Ex.P86 is the original marriage invitation of the son of the Petitioner with English translation,
Ex.P87 is the original Certificate was issued by the Medical Officer, CARE Hospital.
Nampally, Hyderabad along with discharge summary, Ex.P88 is the original bills in
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 23 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
respect of Medication administered to late Shri Satyanarayan Soni after paralysis,
Ex.P89 is the original receipt showing payment of cremation charges at the burial ground for performing the last rituals of late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni, Ex.P90 is the
Letter issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner dated 11/03/1985, Ex.P91 is the Letter issued by Late Hanumandas Soni to the Petitioner dated 1/4/1978, Ex.P92 is the Letter issued by Late Hanumandas Soni to the Petitioner dated 1/4/1980,
Ex.P93 is the Letter issued by Late Shri Ramdeo Loya to the Petitioner dated 1/4/1981, Ex.P94 is the Letter issued by Late Shri Ramdeo Loya to the Petitioner
dated 1/4/1982, Ex.P95 is the Letter issued by Late Shri Ramdeo Loya to the
Petitioner dated 1/4/1983, Ex.P96 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19721973 was issued to the Petitioner, Ex.P97 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19741975 was issued to the Petitioner, Ex.P98 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19751976 was issued to the
Petitioner, Ex.P99 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19761977 was issued to the Petitioner, Ex.P100 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19771978 was issued to the Petitioner, Ex.P101 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19781979 was issued to the Petitioner,
Ex.P102 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 24 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
assessment year 19791980 was issued to the Petitioner, Ex.P103 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19801981 was issued to the Petitioner, Ex.P104 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19811982 was issued to the Petitioner, Ex.P105 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19821983 was issued to the Petitioner, Ex.P106 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19831984 was issued to the
Petitioner, Ex.P107 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19841985 was issued to the Petitioner and Ex.P108 is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19871988 was issued to the Petitioner.
14.Documents for Respondents:
Ex.R1Is the certified copy of Hindi Milap Daily news paper dated 13062009,
Ex.R2 Is the certified copy of registered Gift Deed vide Doc,No.2100 of 2009 dated 30102009, Ex.R3 Is the certified copy of chief evidence affidavit of Satyanarayan
Soni in OS No.15/2013 on the file of IX ACJ, CCC, Hyderbad, Ex.R4 Is the certified copy of plaint, written statement and chief evidence affidavit of Satyanarayan Soni in
OS No.2356/2010 and Ex.R5 Is the certified copy of the certified copy of the WILL
Doc.No.203/III/2016 dated 24102016
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 25 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
15. It is the primary case of the petitioner that he was adopted by Sri.
Satyanarayan Soni and Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni on 26031963 in the presence of family members and society by following customary rituals as per Hindu
Faith and Belief and the petitioner was handed over to his adoptive parents and the petitioner started residing with his adoptive parents and performed all his duties towards his adoptive parents as a son, including the last rites, the petitioner has also performed yearly feasts as per Hindu faith in their honor and all the members of the extended Soni family are aware that the of the said fact had attended all such feasts.
16. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 2 had attempted to portrait a case in his chief examination, claiming the petition scheduled property as a class II heir of Late. Satyanarayan Soni and Late. Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni. The
Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their detail counter affidavit had levelled serious allegation against the petitioner and his son/ PW6, alleging physical abuse on
Late. Satyanarayan Soni. However, the respondents did not choose to affirm those allegations in the evidence of RW1.
17. PW4 was summoned to produce document under exhibit P30 to P32 i.e., bank account opening form of A/c 39489 in the name of Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) with Respondent No. 5. In account opening from Sri Satyanarayan Soni
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 26 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
has shown the name of the Petitioner and his sons as coparceners of the
Satyanarayan Soni (HUF). After the death of Sri Satyanarayan Soni, the
Petitioner is operating the said account as Kartha, The learned counsel for
Respondent No. 2 had crossexamined the witness PW4 Bank manager at great length, but nothing contrary was brought on record. Production of documents exhibit P33 was sought by the Respondent’s counsel, but after the production of the documents, as requested did not choose to crossexamine the witness for no valid reason. Exhibit P33 is the Bank statement of Satyanarayan Soni HUF and establishes that the Petitioner is operating the said Bank account as kartha.
18. PW5 was summoned to produce documents marked as exhibit P40 to
P50, account opening form of the demat a/c No. 1203620000009797 of
Satyanarayan Soni and demat a/c No. 1203620000009229 of Satyanarayan
Soni HUF with the Respondent No. 6. The document established that the
Petitioner was appointed as a nominee in the individual account of
Satyanarayan Soni, and after the death of Sri Satyanarayan Soni, the shares holding in said account are transferred in favour of the Petitioner. Likewise, the Petitioner and his sons are shown as members of Satyanarayan Soni HUF.
After the death of Sri Satyanarayan Soni, the Petitioner is operating the account as kartha.
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 27 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
19. The Petitioner had introduced documentary evidence at great length to establish and substantiate the adoption. To start with, exhibit P20 is a Regd.
Release Deed was executed on 26 May 1982 by Hanumandas Soni, the GPA holder of Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni, in favour of
Ramesh Chandra Soni, Exhibit P20 records as “Ramesh Chandra Soni s/o
Satyanarayan Soni” and the purport of the document is explained as “1. That the Releasors No. 1 and 2 and Release are member of Hindu Joint Family and having equal share in the property belonging to the Hindu Joint Family. This
Joint family consist of father his wife and son.” Exhibit P71 is the General
Power of Attorney executed by Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt Bhawari Devi
Soni in favour of Sri. Hanumandas Soni authorizing to execute and present
Exhibit P20 for registration before the SubRegistrar, Nagpur, Exhibit P71 also acknowledge that the Petitioner is the son of Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt
Bhawari Devi Soni. As can be seen from the evidence, it is pertinent to note that the Respondents never disputed the execution and purport of Exhibit P20 and
P71 and nothing is brought on record to demonstrate that Sri Satyanarayan
Soni and Smt Bhawari Devi Soni, during their lifetime, disputed the purport of exhibit P20 as also could be gathered from the documents.
20. On examining Exhibit P20, it is evident that the assets belonging to the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 28 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Hindu undivided family of Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) were divided among its members the father, mother and their son. The Petitioner was allotted immovable property valued at Rs 55,000 in exchange for relinquishing his rights in other immovable property worth Rs. 1,10,000/ (Rupees One Lakh
Ten Thousand Only) towards his share in the property of Hindu Undivided
Family. Accordingly, Schedule – A of the document was allotted to the
Petitioner, while Schedules B, C and D were allotted to Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt Bhawari Devi Soni. The immovable property described in the schedule is a large plot measuring 1,324.32 square meters, which was valued at RS.
55,000/ (Fifty Five Thousand Rupees Only) in 1982. Taking judicial notice of the fact, there is a substantial rise in land prices over the years, it is reasonable to presume that the property’s current value is significantly higher. It is unlikely that Sri. Satyanarayan Soni and Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni would have transferred such property to someone without a legitimate right. Therefore, this Court hold that the share relinquished in favour of the Petitioner was given in recognition of his legitimate entitlement as a member of the Satyanarayan
Soni (HUF) by adoptions.
21. Exhibit P12 is the deposition of Sri Satyanarayan Soni in CC No. 521 of 2011 on the file of Special Magistrate – III, Hyderabad in the Chief
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 29 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Examination Sri Satyanarayan Soni recorded the statement “Accuse No. 1
Ramesh Chandra Soni is my son and accuse No. 2 Basant kumar Soni is son of accuse No. 1 Ramesh Chandra Soni.” In crossexamination following statement “When I suffered with paralysis stroke accuse No. 2 took me to the care hospital,
Nampally, kamal kishore Soni, Basant Kumar Soni (Accuse No. 2) and Ramesh
Chandra Soni (accuse No.1) looked after me in care hospital”. Exhibit P13 is the crossexamination recorded in CC No. 164 of 2014 on the file of the Hon’ble
Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad recorded on 8 December 2014 in crossexamination following statement “It is not true to suggest that last rituals of late Smt Bhawari Devi Soni was performed by Ramesh Chandra Soni. It is true that myself and my wife took Ramesh Chandra Soni in adoption but thereafter we have served the said deposition in CC No. 162 of 2014 on the file of the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad recorded on 8
January 2015 in crossexamination following statement “It is not true to suggest that Ramesh Chandra Soni has performed the last rituals of late Smt
Bhawari Devi Soni. It is true that as per Hindu Faith and custom last rituals will be performed by the son of the deceased. It is not true to suggest that Ramesh
Chandra Soni being the son ha performed the last rituals of Smt Bhawari Devi
Soni. It is true to say that I and late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni have taken Ramesh
Chandra Soni into adoption. It is true that grand function was organized to
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 30 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
perform all functions and rituals as per Hindu Faith while taking Ramesh
Chandra Soni into adoption by me and late Smt Bhawari Devi Soni. It is tue immediately after death of my younger brother late Gokuldas Soni in year 1962 Ramesh Chandra Soni into adoption by me and my wife, “It is evident from the aforesaid deposition Sri Satyanarayan Soni admitted the fact that he and his wife had taken the Petitioner in adoption after the death of his elder brother Gokuldas Soni in the year 1962. Thus, Section 15 of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act provides that a valid adoption cannot be cancelled. Therefore, without any evidence suggesting valid severance of the relationship by adoption following due process of law a unilateral severance cannot be permitted.
22. Exhibit P15 are photographs showing the last ritual ceremonies as per the Hindu Faith of Sri Satyanarayan Soni, seen to be performed by the
Petitioner. The Respondent disputed the claim but have failed to produce any persuasive evidence to suggest that the photographs do not depict the last ritual ceremonies of Sri Satyanarayan Soni and who that all the family members would have attended funeral o Sri Satyanarayan Soni including the
Respondents Exhibit P89 is the receipt dated 3 January 1995 issued by the crematory towards the cremation expenses for performing the last rituals of
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 31 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Smt Bhawari Devi Soni, paid by the Petitioner. This Court, therefore has no hesitation in holding that the Petitioner has performed the last rites of Sri
Satyanarayan Soni and Smt Bhawari Devi Soni as a son of the departed soul as per the Hindu faith.
23. Exhibit P21 is the letter by Satyanarayan Soni to the Asst. Civil Supply
Officer,Circle – IV, Hyderabad, for correction in family member details in the household card No. PAP164778200077 and requested to add the name of the
Petitioner as the son in the family member details. Exhibit 72 is both the original and duplicate household card, issued after making the requested correction as desired by Sri Satyanarayan Soni.
24. Exhibit P23 to P28 are the public documents issued by the competent authorities in favour of the Petitioner and all the documents predate the litigation and demonstrate the Petitioner as the son of Sri Satyanarayan Soni. It is pertinent to mention that, admittedly, after the introduction of exhibit P23 to P28, the Respondent No. 2 made representations to the competent authorities, complaining that the Petitioner has misrepresented his status as a son of Sri Satyanarayan Soni. In crossexamination, Rw1 was requested to produce those representations, but he refused to produce the same for no valid reason. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the Respondents. If
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 32 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
those documents are produced for the inspection of this Court, the same would go against the interest of the Respondents and in favour of the Petitioner. In
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar Vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Other2, Hon’ble has held “even if the withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts in issue”.
25. Exhibit P51 t P58 are the police complaints filed by Sri Satyanarayan
Soni against the Petitioner and his son, Exhibit P59 is the FIR No. 610 of 2009 and Exhibit P60 is the judgment in CC No. 722 of 2022 (CC No. 521/11) and
Exhibit P61 is a copy of FIR No. 448 of 2009. First, Exhibit P 51 to P58 are the alleged police complaints by Satyanarayan Soni, After going through the police complaints starting from 26 may 2009 as rightly said by the witness PW6 in his examination in chief by each passing day, new allegations were added might be afterthought, without ay proper explanation as to why there allegations were absent in the original complaint dated 26 May 2009 Furthermore, the complaints show that the Petitioner’s name was added later, followed by the name of his younger son, with the same set of allegation is subsequent criminal complaints. These in consistences are unexplained and diminish the credibility of the complaints.
2AIR 1968 SC 143
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 33 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
26. Exhibit P58 is a private complaint, Exhibit P59 is FIR No. 610 of 2009, and Exhibit P60 is the judgment in CC No. 722 of 201. During the lifetime of
Sri Satyanarayan Soni, the allegations made in the alleged police complaint were rejected by the competent criminal court, and Sri Satyanarayan Soni did not file an appeal. It is also evident from the police complaints that Sri
Satyanarayan Soni was residing with the Respondent No. 1 and 2 since May 2009 and naturally he was under undue influence, and criminal complaints were never independently verified after facing cross examination as evident from Exhibit R3, marked after confronting PW1, i.e., examination in chief of
Sri Satyanarayan Soni in OS No. 15 of 2013 on the file of the Hon’ble IX Addl.
Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, exhibited the police complaints but did not face crossexamination, and later, the examination in chief was eschewed. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in drawing a presumption that the alleged police complaints were filed by Sri Satyanarayan Soni under the influence of the
Respondent No. 1 to 3; these police complaints lack credibility and the incidents narrated therein appear to be afterthought.
27. The Initial Police complaint by Satyanarayan Soni was narrowly focused on his personal property being manage and controlled by the Petitioner;s elder son by name Basant Soni, without his consent. The complaint did not contain
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 34 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
any significant allegations beyond te property dispute, specifically excluding any claims of abuse or physical assault. Escalation of allegations after the first complaint, making headway gradually introduced new claims without explanations, possibly attempting to amplify the seriousness of the complaint to yield the desired outcomes. Relevant part of the first Police complaint dated 26 May 2009 Exhibit P51 is as “I further, submitted that the above person is collecting the rent from my tenants of Soni Bhavan and also collecting rents from my tenants of my house. Mr Basant Sony is now managing the entire business without, my consent and permission under threat and force.” “By threatening me with dire consequences, Basant Soni has taken my signatures on blank papers and some documents in the month of December 2008 and also on 11 May 2009 original documents was taken and I am apprehending danger to my life and also to my property from the above named person.” Relevant part of the last Police complaint dated 12 January 2010, Exhibit P56, to understand improvement made in criminal complaints “… I have taken care of my brother’s son Ramesh Chand Soni s/o Gokuldas Soni and treated him like my son. When he was acting against my interest I have served the relation with the said Ramesh Chand Soni by executing a release date on 26 May 1982 by giving him some properties, Since 1982 I have no relation with the said
Ramesh Chand Soni.. When I suffered with illness in the month of June 2008
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 35 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Ramesh Chand Soni along with his 2 sons by name Basant Soni and krishna kant Soni forcibly obtained signatures on some blank papers and bond papers.
They also misuse the blank papers of my wife Bhawari Devi Soni. I lodged police complaints against the persons i.e., Ramesh Chand Soni, Basant Soni and Krishna kant Soni on 26/5/29, 30/5/09, 31/8/09, 16/09/09, 6/10/09 and 5/12/0. At this fag end of my life and the persons to whom I helped a lot beat me mercilessly and forcibly throw away me out of my residence in the month of May 2009. I was forced to take shelter in my younger brother’s residence at Esamia Bazar Hyderabad. My younger brother by name
Purushottamdas Soni and his son Mukund Soni helped me a lot and have given me al the comfort and medical assistance. My other family members namely
Hanumandas Soni, Kamal Soni have also given me wholeheartedly support in my bad times. When I am taking shelter to save my life said persons are searching for me to kill me and they are proclaiming them self that Ramesh
Chandra Soni is my son and Basant Soni and Krishna kant Soni are my grandsons which is totally false. They are saying so with the intention only to grab my valuable property. Earlier to May 2009 they kept me under house arrest in my own house and they deprived me from milk food and medicines and other necessary items and even for some time they kept me on fasting and beat me several times mercilessly and took my signatures on blank papers and
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 36 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
also forcibly taken away all my property documents. Though I have given several complaints to the authorities but till date no action was taken.
28. However, over time, the allegations escalated significantly. From the first complaint dated 26 May 2009 to the last one dated 12 January 2010, Sri
Satyanarayan Soni introduced new and serious accusations, including claims of physical abuse and assault. Additions are unexplained but also seen to be an attempt to build a more compelling narrative by widening the allegation. Yet, these additions were not supported by credible evidence and lacked logical evidence of wrongdoing based on fact. Given the absence of a logical and inconsistencies, it is reasonable to conclude that the criminal complaints are motivated by a desire to manufacture bias against the Petitioner by some interested persons taking advantage of the dispute interse between the
Petitioner and his family with Sri. Satyanarayan Soni and projecting interested person in good light by selfappreciation as helping hand to Sri Satyanarayan
Soni as a strategic attempt to manipulate the legal process against the
Petitioner and his family.
29. Exhibit P63 is the private complaint filed by Pw6 and Exhibit P61 is FIR
No. 448 of 2009. On careful reading of the private complaint, it appears that serious differences arose between Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Pw6 over the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 37 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
management control of the familyrun charitable trust, namely Satyanarayan
Soni Seva Sansthan and the same led to the hostility between the Pw6 and Sri
Satyanarayan Soni. Thereafter, between the Petitioner and Sri Satyanarayan
Soni as the Petitioner, the stand taken by his son, Pw6.
30. Exhibit P79 and P80 are the application and judgment in OA No. 16 of 2009 by the learned Joint Commissioner, Nagpur, for removing Sri
Satyanarayan Soni and Sri Hanumandas Soni from trusteeship of the family run charitable trust, namely Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan. On careful reading of the complaint, serious allegations of embezzlement of trust funds are levied, leading to a hostile relationship as PW6 demanded the resignation of Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Sri Hanumandas Soni fro the trusteeship in the interest of the trust. Sri Satyanarayan Soni refused to resign. The Respondents used the same to create differences and hostility between Satyanarayan Soni and the Petitioner. However, in paragraph No. 13, findings are recorded by the
Competent Authority that the rust property and its funds have been mismanaged by Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Sri Hanumandas Soni, and a detailed enquiry is ordered to be done by the Assistant Charity Commissioner.
During the hearing, it was enquired whether any appeal was filed aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment it was informed by the Counsel for Petitioner that
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 38 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Satyanarayan Soni and Sri Hanumandas Soni have not preferred appeal against the findings but the original applicant filed an appeal limited being aggrieved by the findings recorded as to his status as trustee of the trust and same is allowed and matter is remanded to the original authority and the same is pending limited to decide the claim of trusteeship of the original applicant
Pw6.
31.From Exhibit P62 photographic and video evidence of the marriage ceremonies of the Petitioner’s children show that Sri. Satyanarayan Soni and
Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni actively participated in rituals as heads of the family.
Marriage invitation cards (Ex.P81 to Ex.P86) also confirm their roles as grandparents of the bride and groom. Notably, ExP81 is a handwritten invitation by Sri Hanumandas Soni for his son’s wedding, explicitly naming sri
Satyanarayan Soni and Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni as grandparents of the groom.
This substantiates their continued familiar role and contradicts the narrative set up by the respondents.
32. Exhibit P65 and P66 are application EC No. 389 of 2009 on the file of the Asst. Charity CommissionerII, Nagpur under section 41 of the Maharashtra
Public Trust Act, in respect of the family run charitable trust, namely
Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan, filed by the Respondent No. 2 nowhere
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 39 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
alleged a hostile relationship between Sri Satyanarayan Soni on the one hand and the Petitioner and his sons on the other hand on the contrary, it alleged that the due to sudden illness and old age of Sri Satyanarayan Soni, the entire fair of the Trust is hijacked by the Petitioner and his sons. The Respondent No.
2 unilaterally withdrew the aforesaid proceedings under Exhibit P66 making a unilateral statement that the affairs of the charitable trust have been taken over from Sri Basant Kumar Soni, PW6. The EC No. 389 of 2009 was unilaterally withdrawn only after the relationship between Sri Satyanarayan
Soni and the Petitioner turned hostile, as evidenced by Exhibit P51 to P59 police complaints filed by Sri Satyanarayan Soni .
33. Exhibit P74 and P75 are the deposition of Sri Jaiprakash Soni and Sri
Laxminarayan Soni recorded in OS No. 2801 of 2010 on the file of the Hon’ble
XVII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. Both Sri Jaiprakash Soni and Sri
Laxminarayan Soni are younger brothers of the Petitioner from his natural parents. Thus, have special knowledge about the adoption. Sri Laxminarayan
Soni filed his chief affidavit in the present matter on 3 April 2019, and subsequently, he expired on 11 December 2020, therefore his examination could not be recorded due to his death. Sri Jaiprakash Soni also filed his examination in chief on 3 April 2019, later, on 28 October 2022, he affirmed
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 40 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
the statements made in the examination in chief recorded in the Court and the crossexamination was deferred at the request of the Respondents. However, since he failed to face crossexamination, his evidence affidavit was eschewed on 1 June 2023. Witness Jaiprakash Soni filed an affidavit on 4 January 2023 making allegations against the Petitioner and his counsel for obtaining the signatures on examination in chief and further alleged that he had not instructed for drafting his examination in chief and on the pretext of filing the papers in Os No. 74 of 2016 pending on the file of this Court signature are taken but later wantonly failed to appear in OS 74 of 2016 therefore he suffered financial losses. The affidavit is silent as to why Sri Jaiprakash Soni affirmed the contents of the chief affidavit on 28 October 2022 before this
Court and the chief affidavit OS No. 2801 of 2010 and evidence affidavit filed in the present case are verbatim same and faced crossexamination by the counsel for Defendant therein and in crossexamination he affirmed the contents of the chief affidavit. Whereas, in his affidavit dated 4 January 2023, he alleged no instruction to draft the chief affidavit as Pw2 in the matter and that whatever was stated in the chief affidavit was false and without his knowledge. However, the affidavit appears to have been drafted on the instigation of some interested persons. Therefore it is safe to draw a presumption that the witness PW2 is kept away from giving evidence by the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 41 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Respondents/ interested persons, as the same would go against their interest.
34. This Court finds no reason to doubt the statements made by these witnesses under Exhibit P74 and P75, affirming the adoption of the Petitioner by Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni, as per Hindu faith, after performing all customary ceremonies, as they are younger brothers of the
Petitioner, have no conflict of interest with any of the parties in the case. There is no plausible reason why they would falsely testify about the adoption ceremonies. Moreover, as close family members, they had direct access to information from family elders regarding the adoption ceremonies. The deposition is Exhibit P74 and P75 are admissible under Section 44 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as the witnesses testifying to the facts which, in the normal course, as a family member, are known to them and the testimony recorded is credible and inspires confidence.
35. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and 8 during the examination objected to the admissibility and marking of Exhibit P74, P75 and P78 as the same are the depositions recorded in other proceedings and relied on Section 27 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023. This Court has no hesitation in overruling the objections for the following reasons. Section 27 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam. 2023, provides for removing difficulties arising out of the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 42 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
unavailability of the crucial witnesses at a later stage or in other proceedings where the issues are substantially the same. On keen reading of Section 27, it provides Two level safeguard for protecting the interests of the parties against the unjust admission of evidence. First, Five tests are provided for admissibility, if any of the test is met first hurdle is cleared. Thereafter, the proviso provides for Three tests to satisfy the admissibility and all three tests are required to be satisfied to clear the second hurdle, namely, proceedings must involve the same parties or their legal representatives, the opportunity of crossexamination in earlier proceedings and the issues should be on substantially the same. Exhibit P74 is the deposition of Sri Jaiprakash Soni and this Court, on proper appreciation of the material placed on record, has come to a definite conclusion that the witness has been kept away by some interested person from giving evidence in the matter, Exhibit P75 and P78 witnesses are dead and the first test is cleared.
36. The deposition are recorded in the matter wherein Sri Satyanarayan
Soni is the party and witnesses are crossexamined by the adversary party, lastly the evidence was led to prove the adoption of the Petitioner by Sri
Satyanarayan Soni and Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni and the issues are substantially same in the present proceedings and all three tests are met. Even otherwise,
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 43 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
this Court is satisfied with the explanation given by the witness PW6 in his examination in chief to the documents and the relevancy of the same with the controversy at hand. Thus,objections are overruled as all the tests under section 27 are met and further relevancy to decide the controversy.
37.In Tehsildar Singh vs State of UP . 3 it is held that previous testimony is admissible only when the crossexamination was allowed in the original proceedings and further clarified that mere unavailability of a witness is not enough. The prosecution must prove that the witness’s presence could not be secured despite reasonable efforts. In the case of Bairon Singh vs State of
Madhya Pradesh 4referred with approval to a passage from Ratanlal Dhiralal’s commentary on the law of referred with approval to a passage from Ratanlal
Dhiralal’s commentary on the law of evidence(1982): “Hearsay is excluded because it is considered not sufficiently trustworthy. It is rejected because it lacks the sanction of the test applied to admissible evidence, namely the oath and crossexamination. But when there are special circumstances which gives a guarantee of trustworthiness to the testimony, it is admitted even though it comes from a secondhand source.
3AIR 1959 SC 1012, 4 AIR 2009 SC 2603
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 44 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
38. That objection by the Respondent is required to be rejected for more than one reason, by order dated 4 April 2024, this Court sustained the objection by memo dated 26 March 2024 by the Respondents No. 2 and 8 wherein a similar objection was put forth for exhibiting Ex.P74, Ex.P75 and
Ex.P78. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed CRP No. 1635 of 2024, assailing the Order dated 4 April 2024. The Hon’ble High Court, by order dated 11 March 2025, allowed the revision and directed this Court to mark the document through Pw6, not assailed by the Respondents No. 2 and 8 in argument relied upon a judgment in V M Mathew vs Sharma’s case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case has explained the phrase “adversity party
referred in the proviso is the party in the previous proceedings against whom the evidence adduced therein was given against his interest. He had the right and opportunity to crossexamine the witness in the previous proceedings.” the judgment relied upon by the Counsel for Respondents in fact supports the case of the Petitioner.
39. Exhibit P90 to P95 are letters issued by Sony Chit Fund and Finance
Private Limited, where Respondent No. 1 was the Managing Director. The
Petitioner was also a Director of the company, and the correspondence by the
Respondent No.1. Managing Director Sri Hanumandas Soni (father of
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 45 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Respondent No. 3) and Manager Sri Ramdero Loya demonstrates that the
Petitioner was identified as the son of Sri Satyanarayan Soni. Moreover, these documents are from the year 1980, when the parties were on good terms. As is evident, the Petitioner was recognized as the son of Sri Satyanarayan Soni in the normal course, as family members are aware that the Petitioner is the adopted son of Sri Satyanarayan Soni andSmt Bhawari Devi Soni. These Exhibit
P90 to P95 pertain to regular business transactions between Respondent No. 1 and the Petitioner. It is reasonable to draw a presumption under Section 28 of he Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, that correspondences are done in the normal course of business reflect the true nature of their relationship and are accurately recorded.
40. Exhibit P96 to P108 are the assessment orders and notices issued by the
Income Tax Department to the Petitioner from the assessment years 19721973 to 19891999 related to the income tax assessment. Admittedly, the Petitioner attended the majority on 19 June 1971, as the relevant time the majority age was 21 years. In the income tax returns, the Petitioner is shown as a partner of
M/s Satyanarayan Soni & Co., and the address is shown as H. No. 152148,
Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, which goes to show the Petitioner was residing with his adoptive parents. Further, Sri Satyanarayan Soni was the managing partner
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 46 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
and the Petitioner was inducted as a partner as a family member. Exhibit P96 to P108 are issued by the competent authority in exercising the statutory functions and are of the year starting from 1972, much before the commencement of litigation. Therefore, under Section 29 of the Bharatiya
Adhiniyam, 2023 a presumption can be drawn that acts performed by public officials in the discharge of their duties contain correct and accurate information.
41. Exhibit P77 is the Regd. Partition deed executed interse by the biological brothers of the Petitioner, partitioning the property owned by Smt
Ramkanwari Bai, the natural mother of the Petitioner. Exhibit P78 is the deposition of the Hanumandas Soni in CC No. 722 of 2012. On perusal of
Regd. Partition Deed Doc No. 444 of 2009 the Petitioner is excluded and makes a declaration that only Five brothers, excluding the Petitioner, inherited the property from their mother and no explanation whatsoever why the
Petitioner is excluded from the partition. Exhibit P78 demonstrates the hostile relationship between Sri. Hanumandas Soni and the Petitioner. When specifically asked about the partition, he refused to answer the questions and refused to explain why the Petitioner had been excluded from the partition of the property left behind by the natural mother. Since the natural brothers of
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 47 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
the Petitioner partition the property admittedly owned by the natural mother, excluding the Petitioner, a reasonable inference could be drawn, since the
Petitioner has been given in adoption to Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt
Bhawari Devi Soni, therefore he is left out from the partition and not allotted a share. An adverse inference is required to be drawn against the Respondent
No. 3 for failing to enter the witness box, as one of the beneficiaries under the
Partition Deed stayed away from the witness box purposely to avoid admission contrary to their interest.
42. Now, examining the evidence presented by Respondent o. 1,2 and 8:
Rw1 entered the witness stand, no documents were exhibited. To begin with, the Respondent No.2 attempted to build a case in his examination in chief, claiming a Petition schedule debt as a ClassII heir of Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni. However, this claim was never formally pleaded in the case. Additionally, Respondent No. 2 denied the Petitoner’s adoption.
43. The Respondents No. 1 and 2, in their detailed counteraffidavit, had levelled serious allegations against the Petitioner and his sons, alleging physical abuse of Sri Satyanarayan Soni. However, rightly, the Respondents did not choose to affirm those allegations in examination, as this Court has no hesitation in holding that the allegations are unfounded and it appears they are
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 48 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
only designed to create bias evidence to defeat the Petitioner’s claim. It is a settled proposition of law that pleading is the foundation on which the evidence is to be led, and pleadings cannot substitute evidence. In the cross examination of Pw1, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 suggested, “it is not true to suggest that myself and my son Basant Kumar Soni beat
Satyanarayan Soni due to which he was having hearing, talking and walking problem. Witness when confronted with the certified copy of the complaint given by Satyanarayan Soni to the Afazal Gunj police station dated 26052009 stating that myself and my son beat him, admitted the same which was marked as Ex. P8 in IA No. 824 of 2017 in OS No. 15 of 2013 on the file of Hon’ble X Addl. Chief
Judge, CCC, Hyderabad”. It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid complaint
dated 26 May 2009, along with other police complaints, were exhibited by
PW6 as Ex. P51 to Ex. P59; no crossexamination has been done by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and 8 to counter the explanation given by the witness PW6 in his examination in chief and as supra the alleged police complaints are afterthought and are rejected in toto.
44. The Respondent No. 2 relied upon Ex.R5 Regd. Will Deed dated 24
October 2016, marked after confronting witness Pw6 in crossexamination, alleging that Sri Satyanarayan Soni bequeathed immovable property in his
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 49 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
favour However, the same is not affirmed in the examination in chief by the witness, Rw1. The learned counsel for Petitioner had crossexamined the witness, Rw1 and confronted certain documents. Witness Rw1, in cross examination, admitted that the injunction order has been in operation since 22
November 2022 in favour of the Petitioner and against him and his wife concerning the immovable property covered under Ex. R5. Further admitted that Sri Satyanarayan Soni executed Ex.P69 Will dated 21 June 2014 in favour of the Respondent No. 2 admittedly has not taken the necessary steps to prove those alleged Will in his favour before the Competent Court despite being challenged by the Petitioner. Ex.P70 medical certificate issued by Dr. Akash
Agarwal dated 21 October 2016, on careful perusal of the medical certificate, it is evident that Satyanarayan Soni suffered a paralytic stroke in September 2016 and was not mentally sound to instruct for drafting and execution of the
Will Furthermore, Respondent No. 2 did not produce any attesting witnesses to prove the validity of the alleged Will, as required under Section 67 and 68 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
45. Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 are the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 2801 of 2010 by the XVII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. Sri Satyanarayan Soni had filed this suit for the recovery of liquidated debt, but he passed away in
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 50 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
pendency. The Petitioner was brought on record as his legal representative, pursued the case, and obtained a decree against the defendant. Subsequently the decretal amount was paid to the Petitioner as recorded in Ex.P17 by the
Defendant. However, Respondent No. 2 claims tha this liquidated debt, was bequeathed to him by Sri Satyanarayan Soni under an alleged unregistered
Will dated 21 June 2014 and filed IA No. 701 of 2017 in OS No. 2801 of 2010, for impleading as Plaintiff No. 2 application was dismissed and the order attained finality. Despite his claim, Respondent No. 2 took no steps to enforce his rights over the decretal amount under the purported Will dated 21 June 2014. In the crossexamination of Pw1 it is suggested “I do not know if
Mukund Soni/Respondent No. 2 has contested the above suit on behalf of
Satyanarayan Soni as his GPA Ex.P17 bears my signature. Ex.P17 is the document reflecting amount given to me in OS No. 2801 of 2010 and are joint memo as to receipt of Rs. 3,50,000/ (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand
Only) to me under Two cheques. I do not know for what amount the suit was decreed. It is not true to suggest that Mukunddas Soni is entitled for the decretal amount in OS No. 2801 of 2010. “Furthermore, he failed to explain why the existence of this alleged Will was not mentioned in the subsequent registered Will Deed dated 24 October 2016. In these circumstances, this Court has no hesitant in holding that the alleged Will dated 21 June 2014 and the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 51 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
subsequent registered Will Deed dated 24 October 2016, are not genuine and created to unlawfully claim the properties belonging to the Petitioner and Sri
Satyanarayan Soni.
46. The findings recorded in Ex.P16 judgment and decree in OS No. 2801 of 2010 by the XVII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad in favour of the
Petitioner as legal representative of Sri Satyanarayan Soni, attained finality.
Despite having complete knowledge of the orders, the Respondent No. 2 failed to take steps and accepted the claim of the Petitioner. In view of Section 121 of
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Respondents are estopped from objecting to the same.
47. In crossexamination, Respondent No. 2 claimed he was unaware that the demate account with Respondent No. 6, in the name of Satyanarayan Soni (HUF), is operated by the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 6 filed a written statement disclosing the same and relevant documentary evidence produced by
PW5, who was summoned by this Court. Similarly, Respondent No. 2 alleged that he was unaware that the Petitioner was operating the bank account of
Satyanarayan Soni HUF as its kartha, even though relevant documentary evidence was produced by PW4, who was also summoned by the Court. It appears that Respondent No. 2 is ignorant of these facts, which are part of the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 52 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
record to avoid contrary admissions.
48. The Respondent No. 2 filed suit OS No. 58 of 2009 on the file of the
Hon’ble VII Addl. District Judge Sangareddy, for specific performance of
contract against Sri Satyanarayan Soni, alleging breach of trust and the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, Appeal AS No. 96 of 2013 was filed before the
Hon’ble High Court and on enquiry during argument is stated that the appeal is
pending. It is unexplained why a suit for a specific performance is filed against
Sri Satyanarayan Soni, alleging breach of trust, more particularly when the
Respondent No. 2 claimed to be the sole beneficiary to the estate left by Sri
Satyanarayan Soni under UnRegd. Will dated 21 June 2014 and Regd. Will
Deed dated 24 October 2016. Further claimed that Sri Satyanarayan Soni was in his care and custody and is looking after his litigation as GPA holder.
49. Adverse inference is required to be drawn against the Respondent No. 2 for purposefully answering as ignorant to the specific and direct questions born from the record. When questioned about Ex.P62 the witness initially claimed he had not seen the videography. He then goes on to deny having attended the weddings of the Petitioner’s sons and daughters. However, when confronted with photographs, he admitted attending the weddings, stating that he and the
Petitioner were in good terms at the time. Later, when asked about any
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 53 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
contradictions or divergent in the videography under Ex.P62, he again claimed that he had not reviewed the videography. It is highly unlikely that Respondent
No. 2 would not have examined such crucial evidence introduced by the
Petitioner. His claims of ignorance appear to be a deliberate attempt to avoid further crossexamination and unfavourable admissions that could weaken his case.
50. That adverse inference is required to be drawn for more than one reason. When the RW1 was asked abut the beneficiary of the liquidated debt under OS No. 2801 of 2010 is covered under the alleged Will dated 21 June 2014 initially claimed he was unaware of the decree passed by the Court in OS
No. 2801 of 2010 and subsequently confronted with deposition recorded in OS
No. 15 if 2013 wherein judgment and decree were confronted on 11
September 2023 to the RW1. Furthermore, the learned counsel for Respondent
No.2 in crossexamination of PW1 on 11 April 2023 had suggested that the liquidated debt recovered in OS No. 2801 of 2010 belongs to the Respondent
No.2.
51. It is important to note that Ex.P16 and P17 were filed on record on 18
April 2022, along with IA No. 688 of 2022, which was contested and allowed by this Court on 23 September 2022. The Respondent No. 2 was directly
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 54 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
questioned about why he had not taken any steps to recover the decretal amount, despite claiming it under the Will dated 21 June 2014, he first stated that he only became aware of it today. Later, admits knowledge about Ex.P16 and P17. However, the record shows these documents were filed on record on 18 April 2022. This inconsistency supports the drawing of adverse inference.
More particularly, the XVII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, after due contest, allowed the Petitioner to prosecute the suit as the legal representative and IA No. 701 of 2017 filed for impleadment by Respondent No. 2 was dismissed on contest by the Petitioner and attained finality Inaction in enforcing alleged rights under the unregistered Will dated 21 June 2014
Ex.P69 and Regd. Will Deed dated 24 October 2016 Ex.R5 purported by the
Respondent No. 2 raises serious suspicion about the genuineness of the Wills.
52. On the contrary, the Respondents, who are close family members, could not produce any reliable evidence to substantiate their alleged claim. The existence of a registered deeds of the year 1982 acknowledging the Petitioner as sons and coparcencers in Satyanarayan Soni HUF, apart fro the reliable documentary evidence from the year 1972 onwards, identifying the Petitioner as a son of Sri Satyanarayan Soni,adds legal weight to the adoption’s validity,
The Respondents have hopelessly failed to provide substantial evidence to
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 55 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
counter this presumption. On the contrary the Respondent’s case is that the relationship interse Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt Bhawari Devi Soni with the Petitioner was severed unilaterally without any challenge to the validity of adoption.
53.Section 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act gars cancellation of a valid adoption. Thus, the Respondents are also barred from disputing the adoption, particularly when the adoptive parents during their lifetime had never challenged the adoption. As held in Veerabhadrayya R. Hiremath v.
Irayya Hiremath 5 that adoption can be challenged only by natural parents of the boy or by the adoptive parents or by the child given in adoption and except them other persons are not competent to challenge his adoption. Therefore,
Plaintiff who was neither the adoptive parent nor natural parent nor the adopted child was competent to question the adoption.”
54. The limited right of the Respondents as ClassII heirs challenges the adoption could be done only on limited grounds of fraud or procedural irregularities, as a third party to the adoption, only in case they can prove a legal interest, such as property inheritance. The Respondent never claimed an inheritance right over the Petition schedule property as a ClassII heir in case of 5 AIR 2006 (NOC) 852 (KAR)
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 56 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
spicesuccession could be possible only on the challenge to the validity of the adoption. As held in Ghisalal vs Dhapubai 6 for the validity of adoption, strict compliance with Sections 6 to 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. However, the Respondents could not discharge their burden to substantiate their allegations on a limited scope to challenge the valid adoption by proving that the adoption is bad for fraud and for any procedural irregularities provided under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Therefore, the claim of the Respondents to the Petition schedule property as a
ClassII heir of Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt Bhawari Devi Soni is rejected.
55. The Petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgment Pawan kumar
Pathak vs Mohan Prasad, Civil Appeal No 4456 of 2016 by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court it is held Plaintiff had mentioned in the plaint that he is the son of his adoptive parents it is not necessary for him to specifically plead that he was adopted son. Section 3(57) of the General Clauses Act defined ‘Son’ “son in the case of any one whose personal law permits adoption, shall include an adopted son”. In the case ofSahy Madho Das vs Pandit Mukand Ram 7 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a family arrangement can, as a matter of law,
be in for a fact long course of dealing between the parties. It is well settled that if the party elects to accept a transaction knowingly and cannot later reject it 6(2011) 2 SCC 298 71955 AIR 481
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 57 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
when it becomes inconvenient, he cannot later challenge it. Past actions in accepting the arrangement are used as evidence of his consent.
56. The learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 8 drew the Court’s attention to an interpolation in Ex.P71, specifically, the word “Partition” being struck out and replaced with the handwritten word “Release” not countersigned by Sri Satyanarayan Soni or Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni. However, the execution and registration of Ex.P71 are not in dispute. The recitals in the document indicate that the general power of attorney was executed in favour of Sri Hanumandas Soni to execute and register Ex.P20, which is admittedly a
Release Deed and not a partition Deed. As noted earlier, Sri Satyanarayan Soni has acknowledged both the execution and contents of the Release Deed (Ex.P20). Therefore, drawing any adverse inference based on this minor interpolation is speculative and does not convince this Court. Moreover, the learned counsel for the Respondents had the opportunity to crossexamine
PW6, the witness who introduced Ex.P71 regarding this discrepancy, but failed to do so. Instead, the counsel argued for the complete exclusion of documentary evidence from Ex.P71 to Ex.P108 based on objections to the mode of proof. These objections, however, were already overruled by the
Hon’ble High Court.
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 58 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
57. The learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 8 further argued relying upon statements of Pw1 in the crossexamination, “I know the meaning of grand function. I have mentioned in my pleadings and in my chief affidavit that grand function was held for my adoption in Pandarinath Raghunath
Mandir at Maharajgunj. I cannot prove grand function of my adoption on 26
March 1983 in the Court. Witness add that it was held about 60 years ago and the temple was belonging to Samaj in the year 1963 and at present it belongs to endowment as such I cannot prove it”. The Examinationinchief of PW1 was filed on 10 December 2018, but it was recorded much later, on 14 October 2022 – nearly four years after filing. The crossexamination extended for more that six months, from 14 October 2022 to April 2023, spanning 37 pages and consuming substantial court time.
58.The crossexamination conducted by the learned counsel for the
Respondents was unduly long, exceeding reasonable limits. It appeared more focused on creating confusion than on uncovering the truth. During this prolonged process, the witness was subjected to mental strain and repeated questioning in various forms, which led to certain statements that seemed inconsistent with his earlier testimony However, it is important to highlight that these minor contradictions do not undermine the case, especially when set
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 59 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
against the backdrop of strong and reliable documentary evidence on record, which remains unrebutted. Upon closer examination, the second part of PW1’s statement refers to the location of the adoption ceremony. The witness explained that, given the change in temple management and the passage of nearly 60 years, it would be difficult to produce supporting evidence for the event. Therefore, such minor discrepancies especially when elicited under confusing or pressurizing questioning should not carry much weight. In Jay
Shree Yadav vs. State of UP 8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court acknowledged that prolonged and exhaustive crossexamination can lead witnesses to make mistakes, resulting in omissions, improvements, or contradictions.
59.The Court emphasized that such may become confused due to the cross examiner’s tactics. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “20…. In his examination in chief, this witness has clearly narrated the incident involving the named accused persons as also the overt acts attributed to them. Of course, in the crossexamination the defence has brought out that this person is closely connected with deceased Abid Ali, therefore, a suggestion was made that he was deposing falsely. This suggestion has been denied by the appellant. In the crossexamination defence has brought about certain omissions, contradictions and improvements in the evidence of this witness. These shortcomings in the 8AIR 2004 SC 4443
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 60 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
evidence of this witness will have to be considered in the background of the fact that this witness was subjected to nearly 217 questions over a period of 14 months i.e., his crossexamination starting 14.8.1994 and 28.11.1995. Both the courts below have taken judicial notice of this fact, not only regard to this witness but in regard to other witnesses also and have come to the concurrent conclusion that when a witness is subjected to such lengthy arduous cross examination over a lengthy period of time there is always a possibility of the witness committing mistakes which can be termed as omissions, improvements and contradictions therefore those infirmities will have to be appreciated in the background of ground realities which makes the witness confused because of the filibustering tactics of the cross examining Counsel”
60. The learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 8 argued that the
Petitioner failed to include or prove essential details about the adoption ceremony in his pleadings and did not present testimony from family members to support the adoption claim. They further contended that since the adoption was disputed, the Petitioner should have sought a formal declaration of adoption and done so within the limitation period, especially as Sri
Satyanarayan Soni began disputing the adoption as early as 2009. However, this Court has held that the Petitioner has sufficiently discharged his burden of
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 61 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
proving the adoption. The Respondents, who are close family members and claim to be ClassII heirs of Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni, could have presented family witnesses to challenge the Petitioner’s status but failed to do so.
61. In contrast, the Petitioner submitted reliable documentary evidence predating the dispute that shows he was recognized as the son of Sri
Satyanarayan Soni and Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni by members of the Soni family.
The record also shows that the Petitioner has had a hostile relationship with extended family members, making it difficult to expect their support.
Importantly, the Petitioner has proactively sought a declaration of his status as an adopted son in these proceedings, exercising due caution. Even otherwise, if there was a genuine dispute, it was upto Sri Satyanarayan Soni to have sought a declaration challenging the adoption during his lifetime, especially since the pleadings in related cases indicate that the relationship had ended after the execution of the registered Release Deed (Ex.P20) on 28 May 1982. However, the same is hit by Section 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a valid adoption cannot be cancelled. The only basis for declaring an adoption invalid is noncompliance with the requirements laid out in Sections 6 to 9 of the Act. Therefore, the burden to seek a declaration lies with the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 62 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
person disputing the adoption, not on the person affirming.
62. The learned counsel for the Respondent further relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Muthabava Kalifulla vs.
Ramyabharathi. In that case, a statement made by the mother of a minor plaintiff during criminal proceedings was sought to be used against the minor.
The High Court rejected this argument, holding that a statement made in criminal proceedings cannot be accepted at face value unless it meets the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the facts in that case are significantly different from those in the present case. Therefore, the ratio established in the relied judgment does not apply to the matter at hand.
63. On careful perusal of the cited authorities, the facts and legal issues addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Courts in the cited authorities do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, lend no support to the case put forth by the Respondents.
64. The Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 3 had attempted to impress that the valid adoption has not been provided, therefore, the Petitioner cannot be declared as the adopted son of Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt. Bhawari
Devi Soni. The argument deserves to be rejected, as this Court had held that
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 63 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
the Petitioner had validity discharged his burden to prove adoption. On the contrary the Respondent NO. 3 neither entered the witness box nor brought on record any documentary evidence substantiate the claim. On the contrary, adverse inference is drawn against the Respondent No. 3 for not entering the witness box and substantiating the allegations made in the counteraffidavit filed in the present proceedings.
65. On the strength of pleadings, the counsel for the Respondents tried to impress that Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt Bhawari Devi Soni severed their relationship with the Petitioner after the execution of the Regd. Release Deed
dated 27 May 1982 Ex.P20. However, the statements by Sri Satyanarayan Soni
were not independently verified in crossexamination. Additionally, the alleged police complaints Ex.P51 to Ex.P59 are made under the influence of interested parties. On the contrary, in the chief examination and crossexamination recorded before the competence criminal Courts. On various occasions in the pendency of the litigation, Sri. Satyanarayan Soni admitted that the Petitioner as his son by adoption and directly supported the Petitioner’s case.
66. In any case, as held supra, it is for Sri Satyanarayan Soni in his lifetime to challenge the validity of adoption by instituting appropriate proceedings, having failed to do so. It is not open for the Respondents to challenge the
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 64 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Petitioner’s adoption by Sri. Satyanarayan Soni and Smt Bhawari Devi Soni.
Under Indian law, an adopted child is considered equivalent to a biological child of the adoptive parents, with all corresponding rights and obligations.
Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, stipulates that from the date of adoption, all ties of the child with the biological family are severed and replaced by those with the adoptive family. In the case of Sawan
Ram vs. Kalawanti 9 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that an adopted child is deemed the child of the adoptive parents for all purposes, reinforcing their rights within the adoptive family. Section 15 if the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act,1956, establishes that a valid adoption cannot be cancelled by the adoptive parents or any other person, nor can the adopted child renounce their status and return to their birth family. Indian courts have upheld this principle in various judgments. Similarly, in Daniraiji Vrajlalji, Junagadh vs.
Vahuji Maharah Sri Chandraprabha 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India highlighted that Section 15 prohibits the cancellation of a valid adoption, reinforcing the irrevocability of valid adoption. These judgments underscore the legal position that a valid adoption, once made, is final and cannot be undone by any party involved. The adoptive parents did not contest the adoption during their lifetimes, and considering the legal provisions and 9(1961) AIR SC 1761 10 (1975) AIR SC 784
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 65 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
precedents, a ClassII heir’s challenge to the adoption’s validity is unsustainable.
67. It has been specific allegations by the Respondents that the present proceeding was initiated by the Petitioner only to take advantage of this judgment in other pending litigations between the parties in respect of the properties originally owned by Smt Bhawari Devi Soni and Sri Satyanarayan
Soni. This Court has no hesitation in observing that the Respondents have contested the claim tooth and nail only to deprive the Petitioner of his legitimate claim, so that the Respondents do not face any difficulty in other pending litigations and made all efforts to delay the trial despite the orders by the Hon’ble High Court directing this Court for time bound disposal but this
Court was required to seek extension for 3 times.
68. Before concluding, the unnecessarily prolonged crossexamination of the
Petitioner’s witnesses PW1,PW4 and PW5, which appears to have been conducted more for the benefit of the visitor gallery than for the case. The crossexamination of PW1 alone spans 40 pages. Even more concerning is the crossexamination of the PW4 and PW5, who were summoned to produce account opening forms. Despite their presence, the Respondents did not cross examine the witness, yet the crossexamination extended to 28 pages on
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 66 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
multiple dates. Similarly, PW5, who was summoned to produce the demate account opening form, faced over 24 pages of crossexamination on multiple dates. Upon carefully considered the arguments presented by the learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 8, but they were unable to highlight any admission from the crossexamination that could strengthen their case. It is settled Legal Proposition that lengthy and unnecessary crossexamination and held that it undermines the fair administration of justice and amounts to harassment of witnesses.
69.In Vidyadhari & Others Vs Sukhrana Bai11 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, if rival claims are made or there are intricate questions which cannot be gone into a summary proceedings, the court has to use its discretion and grant certificate in favour of party who has prima facie best title. In this case, the petitioner has adduced oral evidence i.e., PW1 and PW4 to PW6, so also, they have placed reliance upon as many as 108 documents under Ex.P1 to
Ex.P108, the testimonies of PW1 and PW4 to PW6 coupled with the documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P108 clinchingly establishes the case of the petitioner.
70.Further, the Petitioner is entitled to the succession certificate for claiming the Petition schedule liquidated debt as sole legal heir of the deceased 11 AIR 2008 SC 1420 = 2008 2 SCC 238 SC
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 67 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Sri Satyanarayan Soni and Smt Bhawari Devi Soni.
Point No.2: To what relief?
71.In the result, petition is allowed. Issue Succession Certificate in favour of Petitioner. Respondents No.4, 5 and 6 are directed to transfer the petition schedule shares standing in the names of Late Shri Satyanarayana Soni and
Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni, in favour of the Petitioner on proper identification and under proper acknowledgment. Petitioner shall pay the requisite Court fees for issuing the Succession Certificate. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer gradeI, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2025 . Sd/
I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
Petitioners: Respondents: PW1 : Ramesh Chandra Soni.RW1 : Mukunddas Soni PW2 : Jay Prakash Soni.(his evidence was eschewed) PW3 : Peram Thrinath Babu.(his evidence was eschewed) PW4 : Mahesh Kumar Navandhar. PW5 : B. Krishna Chaitanya. PW6 : Ramesh Chandra Soni.
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 68 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
Petitioner:
Ex.P1: Is the death certificate of Late Smt.Bhawari Devi Soni issued by the MCH, dated 11011995.
Ex.P2: Is the death certificate of Late Sri Satyanarayan Soni issued by the GHMC dated 15032017.
Ex.P3: Is the Will Deed execution by Late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni dated 20041994.
Ex.P4: Is the share certificate A/c.No.1198 dated 02011979 issued by respondent No.5.
Ex.P5: Is the legal notice dated 1302201 issued to respondent No.5.
Ex.P6: Is the reply letter dated 26022018 by respondent No.5.
Ex.P7: Is the legal notice dated 13022013 issued to respondent No.4.
Ex.P8: Is the share certificate A/c.No.1201 dated 02011979 issued by respondent No.5.
ExP9: Is the share certificate No.31545 dated 24041996 issued by respondent No.5.
Ex.P10: Is the reply letter dated 14022018 by respondent No.6.
Ex.P11: Is the reply letter dated 1607201 by respondent No.6.
Ex.P12: Is the certified copy of deposition in CC.No.521/2011 dated 15 102012.
Ex.P13: Is the certified copy of deposition in CC.No.921/2011 dated 08 012015.
Ex.P14: Is the certified copy of deposition in CC.No.162/2011 dated 08 012015.
Ex.P15: Is the photographs (14 Nos).
Ex.P16: Is the certified copy of Judgment in OS No.2801/2010 dated 19 062020.
Ex.P17: Is the joint memo filed by plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 in OS No.2801/2010 dated 05112020.
Ex.P18: 0.00
Ex.P19: Is the account statement of deceased Satyanarayan Soni, dated
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 69 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
16072018 issued by respondent No.6 (counsel for respondent raised objection that it is the photo copy and not a downloaded document as it does not contain statement that it is computer generated copy and does not requires signature and stamp).
Ex.P20: Is the certified copy of registered release deed vide Doc.No.1165/1985 dated 26051982.
Ex.P21: Is the letter of deceased Satyanarayan Soni to Civil supply officer
dated 17032008.
Ex.P22: Is the video (6 Nos.) in CD (court has played video and seen the same and marked as exhibit).
Ex.P23: Is the passport of petitioner No.1.
Ex.P24: Is the Aadhar card of petitioner No.1.
Ex.P25: Is the PAN card of petitioner No.1.
Ex.P26: Is the Election ID card of petitioner No.1.
Ex.P27: Is the driving license of petitioner No.1.
Ex.P28: Is the certified copy of household card of petitioner No.1(marked subject to objection that it is not original document).
Ex.P29: Is the Account opening form of Satyanarayan Soni HUF dated 22 102007 of A/c.No.38489 of respondent No.5 bank.
Ex.P30: Is the continuation of Account No.39489 by Satyanarayan Soni HUF dated 02092020 of respondent No.5 bank along with DC of Satyanarayan Soni dated 08102020 along with Enclosures for KYC compliance.
Ex.P31: Is the account opening form along with the annexure copy of the PAN card and address proof.
Ex.P32: Is the application form along with death certificate of Satyanarayan Soni, copy of PAN card of Satyanarayan Soni HUF and the KYC particulars of remaining members of HUF for change of kartha after the death of Satyanarayan Soni.
Ex.P33: Is the account statement for the period from 01042007 to 0709 2013.
Ex.P34: Is the account statement for the period from 07092013 to 3103 2016.
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 70 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Ex.P35: Is the account statement for the period from 01042016 to 1207 2023.
Ex.P36 &: Are the attested copies of cheque book issue register showing Ex.P37Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) in page Nos.15 and 26 of the years 2007 to 2009.
Ex.P38: Are the computerized copies of file of cheque book issued ®istere showing Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) for the period from Ex.P3901092020 to 15122021 and 31032022 to 15112022 in page Nos.15 and 26 of the years 2007 to 2009.
Ex.P40: Is the authorization letter given to PW5 by Managing Director of respondent No.6 to produce the documents and depose before the Court.
Ex.P41: Is the clien registration form in between Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) and respondent No.6.
Ex.P42: Is the agreement between stock broker and client dated 0311 2003 in between Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) and respondent No.6.
Ex.P43: Is the application form for opening depository account dated 29 102007 by Satyanarayan Soni (HUF).
Ex.P44: Is the agreement between participant and person seeking to open a beneficial owners account dated 29102009 in between Satyanarayan Soni (HUF) and respondent No.6.
Ex.P45: Is the application form for opening depository account by Satyanarayan Soni dated 27112007.
Ex.P46: Is the nomination form.
Ex.P47: Is the agreement between participant and person seeking to open beneficial owners account dated 27112007 in between Satyanarayan Soni and respondent No.6.
Ex.P48: Is the client master report with depository ID No.1203620000009797 on the name of Satyanarayan Soni individual.
Ex.P49: Is the client master report with depository ID No.1203620000009229 on the name of Satyanarayan Soni (HUF).
Ex.P50: Is the KYC updation application of Satyanarayan Soni (HUC)
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 71 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
along with Annexures (copy of Aadhar card of Ramesh Chandra Soni, copy of PAN card of Satyanarayan Soni (HUF).
Ex.P51: Is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 30052009.
Ex.P52: Is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 18092009.
Ex.P53: Is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 05122009.
Ex.P54: Is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 18072009.
Ex.P55: Is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 01082009.
Ex.P56: Is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 12012010.
Ex.P57: Is the certified copy of the police complaint allegedly by and signature of Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni dated 31012010.
Ex.P58: Is the certified copy of the police complaint in CC No.521/2011 filed under section 200 CR.P.C. byLate Shri Satyanarayan Soni.
Ex.P59: Is the certified copy of FIR No.610/2009 by PS Afzal Gunj.
Ex.P60: Is the certified copy of the Judgment in CC No.722/2022 (CC.No.521/2011).
Ex.P61: Is the copy of FIR No.448 of 2009Regd. With PS Afzalgunj.
Ex.P62: Videography and 30 Nos. photographs of the Marriage ceremony of Smt. Madhuri Rathi, Shri Basant Kumar Soni, Smt.Meenakshi Somani, Shir Krishna Kant Soni and Smt. Mahdavi Sarda in compact disc along with Section 65B affidavit under section Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Ex.P63: Certified copy of complaint U/section 200 of Cr.P.C. on the file of
Hon’ble II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,
Hyderabad with SR.No.2685/2009 dated 17062009.
Ex.P64: Notice issued to respondent No.2 herein by PW6 as a Junior counsel on record on the file of Hon’ble XXV, ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad, vide OS.No.596/2010 dated 18042022 (marked subject to objection that PW6 is not the party to Ex.P64 and does
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 72 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
not reflect the name of PW6 as counsel for plaintiff therein. This Court finds that Ex.P64 bears the signature of PW6 as counsel for petitioner, hence objections over ruled.)
Ex.P65: Is the certified copy of inquiry case EC.No.389/2009.
Ex.P66: Is the certified copy of application.
Ex.P67: Is the certified copy of the petition in IA No.701/2017 in OS No.2801/2010.
Ex.P68: Is the certified copy of Order in IA No.701/2017 in OS No.2801/2010.
Ex.P69: Is the certified copy of WILL dated 21062014.
Ex.P70: Is the medical certificte dated 21102016.
Ex.P71: is the Regd. General Power of Attorney executed by Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni and Late Smt Bhawari Devi Soni in favour of Hanumandas Soni.
Ex.P72: is the Original household cards PAP 1674482000077 issued by DPLin charge, ALO Circle No. VII. (2 No’s)
Ex.P73: is the Certified copy of the order in EA No. 10 of 2022 in EP Sr No. 295 of 2022 in OS No. 214 of 2009.
Ex.P74: is the Certified copy of the examination in chief and cross examination of witness Pw4 Jaiprakash Soni in OS No. 2801 of 2010.
Ex.P75: is the Certified copy of the examination in chief and cross examination of witness Pw4 Laxminarayan Soni in OS No. 2801 of 2010.
Ex.P76: is the Certified copy of the death certificate of the Late Shri Laxminarayan Soni issued by the Brith and Death Registration Dept of the GHMC.
Ex.P77: is the Certified copy of Regd. Partition Deed. Doc No. 44 of 2010.
Ex.P78: is the Certified copy of deposition of Late Hanumandas Soni in
CC 722/2012
Ex.P79: is the Certified Copy of the Original Application No.16 of 2009 under section 41(D) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1955
Ex.P80: Certified Copy of Order passed in Original Application No.16 of
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 73 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
2009 under section 41(D) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1955, dated 21.01.2012.
Ex.P81: is the Original handwritten proforma of marriage invitation of Shri Krishna Kanth Soni son of the Petitioner by Late Hanumandas Soni.
Ex.P82: is the original Marriage invitation card of the elder daughter of the Petitioner with English translation.
Ex.P83: is the original marriage invitation of the elder son of the Petitioner with English translation.
Ex.P84: Tis the original marriage invitation of the daughter of the Petitioner with English translation.
Ex.P85: is the original marriage invitation of the daughter of the Petitioner with English translation.
Ex.P86: is the original marriage invitation of the son of the Petitioner with English translation.
Ex.P87: is the original Certificate was issued by the Medical Officer, CARE Hospital. Nampally, Hyderabad along with discharge summary.
Ex.P88: is the original bills in respect of Medication administered to late Shri Satyanarayan Soni after paralysis.
Ex.P89: is the original receipt showing payment of cremation charges at the burial ground for performing the last rituals of late Smt. Bhawari Devi Soni.
Ex.P90: is the Letter issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner
dated 11/03/1985.
Ex.P91: is the Letter issued by Late Hanumandas Soni to the Petitioner
dated 1/4/1978.
Ex.P92: is the Letter issued by Late Hanumandas Soni to the Petitioner
dated 1/4/1980.
Ex.P93: is the Letter issued by Late Shri Ramdeo Loya to the Petitioner
dated 1/4/1981.
Ex.P94: is the Letter issued by Late Shri Ramdeo Loya to the Petitioner
dated 1/4/1982.
Ex.P95: is the Letter issued by Late Shri Ramdeo Loya to the Petitioner
dated 1/4/1983.
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 74 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
Ex.P96: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19721973 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P97: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19741975 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P98: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19751976 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P99: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19761977 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P100: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19771978 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P101: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19781979 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P102: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19791980 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P103: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19801981 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P104: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19811982 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P105: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19821983 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P106: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19831984 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P107: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19841985 was issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P108: is the original notice of demand under section 156 of the IT Act for the assessment year 19871988 was issued to the Petitioner.
Respondents:
Ex.B1: Is the certified copy of Hindi Milap Daily news paper dated 1306 2009.
Ex.B2: Is the certified copy of registered Gift Deed vide Doc,No.2100 of 2009 dated 30102009.
Ex.B3: Is the certified copy of chief evidence affidavit of Satyanarayan Soni
I SCJ, CCC, HYD
Page No. 75 of 75 SOP No.47 of 2018
Dated 22042025
in OS No.15/2013 on the file of IX ACJ, CCC, Hyderbad.
Ex.B4: Is the certified copy of plaint, written statement and chief evidence affidavit of Satyanarayan Soni in OS No.2356/2010.
Ex.B5: Is the certified copy of the certified copy of the WILL Doc.No.203/III/2016 dated 24102016 Sd/
I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.
I SCJ, CCC, HYD