Sri.K.Kusha

Page No. 1 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DIST, AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT : SRI K.KUSHA, III-Additional District Judge,

Dated this the 27th day of April, 2022

O.S. No. 1394 OF 2014

Between:-

1. Smt. Butti Yadamma (Died per L.Rs).

2.Smt. Pittala Andalu W/o. Pittala Pullaiah, aged about 63 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 1-44, Dhannaram Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3.Meegada Kalamma W/o. Rama Swamy, aged about 61 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 1-35/2, Ravirala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4.Pittala Balamani W/o. Parvathesham, aged about 60 Years, Occ: Housewife, r/o. H. No. 1-49, Dhannaram Villasge, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5.Godugu Bharathamma W/o. Veeraiah, aged about 49 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 2-34, Khanapur Village, Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6.Edla Narsamma W/o. Pentaiah, aged about 48 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 2-81, Kandukur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7.Butti Andalu W/o. Late Butti Narsimha, aged about 55 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Dhannaram Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

8.Pittala Rama Devi W/o. Pandu D/o. Late Butti Narsimha, aged about 35 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Dhannaram Village Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9.Butti Jayaraju S/o. Late Butti Narsimha, aged about 39 Years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Dhannaram Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

10.Butti Bushan S/o. B. Swamy, aged about 37 Years, Occ: Nil, R/o. H. No. 5-37, Eliminedu Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (Plaintiff No.2 to 10 are added as per the order in IA No. 598/2021

dated 02.09.2021.)

...Plaintiffs

AND

1. Raganamoni Bixapathi S/o. Laxmaiah, aged about 50 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ravirala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Neerati Balamma W/o. Lachaiah, aged about 65 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Adibatla Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Page No. 2 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

3.Yata Pentamma (Died per L.Rs.,)

4.Talari Srinivas S/o. Laxmaiah, aged about 35 Years, Occ: Agirculture, R/o. Ravirala village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5.Gonamoni Bixapathi S/o. Balaiah, aged about 52 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ravirala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6.Raganamoni Venkatesh S/o. Bixapathi, aged about 30 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Raviryala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7.Neerati Raju S/o. Late Lachaiah, aged about 50 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

8.Neerati Babu S/o. Late Lachaiah, aged about 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

Both are R/o. Adibatla Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9.Jilamoni Padma W/o. Sathaiah D/o. Late Neerati Lachaiah, aged about 47 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Dandumailaram Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

10.Bussu Bharathamma W/o. Balaiah, D/o. Late Neerati Lachaiah, aged about 40 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Arutla village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (Defendant No.7 to 10 are added as per the order in IA No. 119/2021

dated 10.02.2021.)

...Defendants

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. V. Venu Gopal Reddy, Counsel for Plaintiffs and of Sri B. Vijayasimha Reddy, Counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 and 6, and Defendant No. 4 and 5 were set exparte and upon hearing both sides and considering the material on record, the court passed the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs for partition of suit schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and for allot ¼ th share to the plaintiff and ¼ th share each to the defendant No.1 to 3.

2.The brief averments of the Plaintiffs are as under:- a)That the plaintiff herein is the sister of the defendant No.1 to 3 herein, and that they both constitutes Hindu undivided joint family and they are the legal heirs and successors of common ancestors namely

Page No. 3 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

Gonamoni Venkanna who is the grand father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 herein, the defendants No.4 to 6 are the strangers to the family of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 3.

b)It is further the case of the plaintiff that, the above said joint family possess the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 122/a, Admeasuring Ac 05-26

Gts situated at Raviryala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. Originally the plaintiff herein born to Ragamoni Laxmaiah through his first wife namely Balamma and the defendant No.1 to 3 were born to

Ragamoni Laxmaiah through his second wife namely Smt. Anjamma and the mother of the plaintiff who is first wife of R. Laxmaiah was died leaving behind him, similarly the second wife R. Laxmaiah namely

Anjamma was also died leaving behind her, the defendant No.1 to 3 herein as his legal heirs and successors. Thus, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 herein being the legal heirs and successors of late R. Laxmaiah.

c) It is further the case of the plaintiff that, during the life time of mother of the plaintiff, the mother of the plaintiff along with her brother namely Isthari have purchased the land admeasuring Ac 05-26 Gts in Sy.

No. 122/A, and land admeasuring Ac 05-27 Gts in Sy. No. 121 situated at

Raviryala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the original pattedars and after purchasing the said land, the mother of the plaintiff and his brother namely Isthari were jointly partitioned the said land and since the said Isthari is being Protected tenant over the said survey number and in the said oral partition, the suit schedule land was fell to the share of mother of the plaintiff namely Balamma and the land admeasuring Ac 05-27 Gts in Sy. No. 121 of Raviryala Village was fell to the

Page No. 4 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

share of G. Isthari who is the brother of mother of the plaintiff and after the death of Balamma (who is the first wife of R. Laxmaiah), Anjamma (who is the second wife of R. Laxmaiah) and the said R. Laxmaiah, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 in the capacity of legal heirs and successors have inherited the suit land and are in joint possession and enjoyment in and over the suit schedule land, that the suit schedule land is the ancestral property of family of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 herein as such the plaintiff is entitle for a share in the suit schedule land along with the defendant No.1 to 3 herein.

d) It is further the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is got ¼ th share, defendant No.1 to 3 are got ¼ th share each in the suit schedule land, that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 herein are joint possession and enjoyment in and over the suit schedule land, that the suit schedule land is not partitioned so far, no regular partition had been effected with metes and bounds in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 herein, as such the suit schedule land is liable for partition, that recently some differences arose between the parties herein and due to which the plaintiff had demanded the defendants 1 to 3 herein for partition of the suit schedule land with metes and bounds and also for allotment of her separate share in the suit schedule land, that the plaintiff in order to avoid unnecessary future litigation and also maintain cordial relationship with the defendant No.1 to 3 herein, she demanded for regular partition of the suit schedule land, the defendant even though agreed for the same, but go on postponing the same to the future dates on one pretext or the other without any valid and justified reasons and the plaintiff also got

Page No. 5 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

issued legal notice to the defendant on 18.08.2014 to effect regular partition, that the plaintiff recently came to know that the defendants colluding with each other trying to alienate the suit schedule land in favour of third parties, taking advantage of the nominal entries made in the names of some of the defendants, defendants 1 to 3 herein collusion with each other, with a malafide intention to deprive the legitimate rights of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land either in favour of defendant

No.4 to 6 or third parties, that seeing the attitude of the defendants, the plaintiff has finally demanded the defendants 1 to 3 on 20.11.2014 for partition of the suit schedule land and for allotment of her separate share.

But the defendant No.1 to 3 without any valid and justified reasons refused for the proposal of the plaintiff, in view of the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff has no other alternative left open to her except to redress this court by way of filing the present suit for seeking the relief as indicated.

3.The defendant No.4 and 5 were set exparte and did not choose to contest the matter.

4 a). The defendant No.1 filed Written Statement and denying the entire pleadings made by the Plaintiff and inter alia submitted that the plaintiff has no right over the schedule property as well as against this defendant in any manner and she filed the present suit by suppressing the true and real facts with a view to squeeze the money under the threat of litigation, and that the plaintiff is not entitled for partition and separate possession over the suit schedule property and the same is liable to be dismissed for

Page No. 6 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

mis joinder of necessary parties as the defendant No.4 to 6 parties without any relief against them.

b)It is further the case of the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff got marriage long back and she has been residing in her in laws house happily, that the plaintiff is no way connected with the suit land and she never in possession of the suit land as stated by her in the plaint. In fact, the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property having purchased the same with the contribution of Stridhan of his two wives namely Satyamma and Ramulamma. Thereafter the defendant No.1 got mutated his name in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor for the time immemorial, that the records also clearly established the said fact, the brother of the plaintiff namely Istari is having his own land in suit survey number as well as in Sy. No. 121 of Ravirala village to meet the family necessities the defendant No.1 alienated part of suit land ie., Ac 01-20 Gts to third parties and the remaining suit land admeasuring Ac 04-06 Gts partitioned among the family members of the defendant No.1 under a registered partition deed. Since, then, the sons of defendant No.1 ie., defendant No.6 and others are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective allotted portion of suit land without any interference. The plaintiff also very well aware about the facts mentioned above, but she filed the present suit to get the money under the threat of litigation which is not tenable either under law or on facts. As such the present suit is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Page No. 7 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

5. The defendant No.2 filed Written Statement and denying the entire pleadings made by the Plaintiff and inter alia submitted that the suit property is the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 and he is the only absolute owner and possessor of the same as he purchased with his earning and support of his family members, thereafter the defendant No.1 and his sons got developed the same, alienated part of suit land to third parties and partitioned the remaining land among his family members,

Since, then, the sons of defendant No.1 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective allotted portion of suit land. As such the plaintiff is not having any share in the suit land as claimed by her, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.The defendant No.3 filed Written Statement and denying the entire pleadings made by the Plaintiff and inter alia submitted that the suit property is the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 and he is the only absolute owner and possessor of the same as he purchased with his earning and support of his family members, thereafter the defendant No.1 and his sons got developed the same, alienated part of suit land to third parties and partitioned the remaining land among his family members,

Since, then, the sons of defendant No.1 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective allotted portion of suit land. As such the plaintiff is not having any share in the suit land as claimed by her, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.The defendant No.6 adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No.1.

Page No. 8 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

8.Based on the above pleadings, this court has settled the following issues.

(i)Whether the suit schedule property is joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants and liable to partition? If so, whether the suit schedule property is liable to be partitioned into four equal shares for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and also one such share to the defendant No. 1 to 3 as prayed for?

(ii)Whether the suit is not maintainable for payment of Court fee U/s. 34 (2) of APCF & SV Act as the plaintiff not paid sufficient court fee as contended by her?

(iii)Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit as contended by defendant No.1 ?

(iv)To what relief?

9.On behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 documents.

10.On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined and got marked

Ex.B1 document.

11.Heard arguments from both sides.

12. ISSUE NO.(i)

The undisputed facts are that the deceased plaintiff Butti Yadamma and defendant No.1 to 3 are the childrens of late Ragamoni Laxmaiah. The plaintiff is born through first wife Smt. Balamma of her father R. Laxmaiah and defendant No.1 to 3 are born through second wife Smt. Anjamma.

13.According to PW1 her mother Smt. Balamma along with her brother

G. Isthari has purchased land admeasuring Ac 05-26 Gts of Sy. No. 122/A and Ac 05-27 Gts of Sy. No. 121 situated at Raviryala Village,

Maheshwaram Mandal from original pattedar and thereafter both of them

Page No. 9 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

got partitioned the said property, wherein Balamma was allotted Ac. 05-27

Gts of Sy. No. 122/A and G. Isthari was allotted Sy. No.121 to an extent of

Ac 05-26 Gts.

14.She, then, further deposed that after death of Balamma the said property became a Hindu Joint family property and as the defendant No.1 being a male member his name has been mutated in the revenue records but, even, then, the entire property is under joint possession. But, the defendants failed to divide the property despite legal notice dated 18.08.2014 and that she is entitled for ¼ share.

15.In support of her contention Ex.A1 to A10 are marked which are certified copy of pahani patrika for the year 2014, legal notice dated 18.08.2014, pahani patrikas for the year 1964-65, 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1971-72, 1975-76, 1984-85 and 2000-01.

16.After death of deceased plaintiff her legal heirs were brought on record as Plaintiff No. 2 to 10. The plaintiffs also got examined Sri

Gonemoni Ashok, resident of Ravirala Village as PW2 who deposed that mother of PW1 Smt Balamma and her brother G. Isthari purchased the land in Sy. No. 121 and 122/A, and thereafter got partitioned the said property wherein the suit schedule property fell to the share of Smt.

Balamma and to other Survey number G. Isthari and after death Smt

Balamma the suit schedule property is in joint possession.

17.Then, the plaintiffs further got examined the plaintiff No.9 Butti

Bhushan as PW-3 who deposed as deposed by PW1 and PW-2.

Page No. 10 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

18.The defense of the defendants are that the suit schedule property has been purchased by defendant No.1 with the contribution of his family members and therefore the suit schedule property is the self acquired property and not a joint family property and never in joint possession.

19.The defendants has cross examined PW1 to PW3 in the lines of their defense.

20.Therefore, in the light of defense of the defendants, the plaintiffs are under the obligation to establish the fact that Smt Balamma and Sri G.

Isthari has jointly purchased the property in Sy. No. 122/A and 121 to an extent of Ac 05-27 Gts and Ac 05-26 Gts. So, therefore, the burden is squarely on the plaintiffs.

21.The pleadings of the deceased plaintiff Smt Butti Yadamma are that her mother Smt Balamma was allotted suit schedule property towards her share during partition with her brother Sri G. Isthari. Thus, the plaintiff has to substantiate the said pleadings by way of evidence. Admittedly, the deceased plaintiff did not filed any document showing that her mother

Smt. Balamma and her brother G. Isthari has jointly purchased land in Sy.

No. 122/A and 121 extent Ac 05-27 and Ac 05-26 Gts. However, she relied on Ex.A3 to A10 which are Pahani Patrika. In so far as the property fell to the share of Sri G. Isthari in Sy. No. 121 is no way concerned with the subjected matter. Therefore, the plaintiffs are confined only to the suit schedule property which is in Sy. No. 122/A extent Ac 05-27 Gts.

Page No. 11 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

22.Ex.A3 is the Pahani Patrika for the year 1964-65 which recites that land in Sy. No. 122 extent Ac 09-08 Gts is recorded in the name of Isthari

Gonamoni, Ex.A4 is the Pahani Patrika for the year 1965-66 which further recites that land in Sy. No. 122 extent Ac 09-08 Gts recorded in the name of Isthari Gonamoni, Ex.A5 is the Pahani Patrika for the year 1966-67 also recites that land in Sy. No. 122 extent of Ac 09-08 Gts in the name of

Isthrai Gonamoni, Ex.A6 is the Pahani Patrika for the year 1968-69 also recites that land in Sy. No. 122 extent of Ac 09-08 Gts recorded in the name of Isthari Gonamoni, Ex.A7 is the Pahani Patrika for the year 1971-72 which recites that land in Sy. No. 122 extent Ac 09-08 Gts in the name of

Balaiah S/o. Isthari. Ex.A8 is the Pahani Patrika for the year 1975-76 also recites that land in Sy. No. 122 extent Ac 09-08 Gts in the name of Balaiah

Gonamoni S/o. Isthari. Ex.A9 is the Pahani for the year 1984-85 in respect of land in Sy. No. 122 stands in the name of Gonamoni Balaiah and

Gonamoni Sathaiah. Ex.A10 is the pahani patrika for the year 2000-01 in respect of Sy. No. 122/A stands in the name of Bixapathi Ragamoni (Defendant No.1) and Ex.A1 is the Pahani Patrika for the year 2014 stands in the name of Bixpathi Ragamoni (Defendant No.1) in respect of land in

Sy. No. 122/A extent of Ac. 05-26 Gts.

23.Ex.A1, A3 to A10 does not recites the name of Smt. Balamma in respect of land in Sy. No. 122/A which is the suit schedule property. The said entries goes to show that the name of Gonemoni Isthari has been recorded as pattedar and possessor of land in Sy. No. 122. But, Ex.A1 and

Ex.A10 goes to show that defendant No.1 name is recorded as pattedar and possessor in respect of land in Sy. No. 122/A extent Ac 05-26 Gts. Thus,

Page No. 12 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

the pleadings of the deceased plaintiff, that her mother Smt Balamma and her brother G. Isthari has jointly purchased land in Sy. No. 122/A and 121 from original pattedars stands not proved. To this effect deceased plaintiff nor the plaintiffs has filed any document showing that from whom Smt Balamma and G. Isthari has purchased the land in Sy. No. 122 and 121. Similarly, the pleading of the deceased plaintiff that the suit schedule property fell to the share of her mother Smt. Balamma during partition with her brother G. Isthari also stands not proved for the reason that no document is filed or there is no oral evidence as to when the oral partition has taken place. The pleadings of the deceased plaintiff and

Ex.A1 to A10 documents are going contra with regard to purchasing of the property jointly by Smt Balamma and G. Isthari and partition. None of the documents filed by the plaintiffs does not visualize that the suit schedule property fell to the share of Smt. Balamma during partition with G. Isthari.

All the documents relied by the plaintiffs would goes to show that the suit schedule property stands recorded in the name of Sri G. Isthari but not

Smt Balamma.

24. Ex.A10 entries makes clear that defendant No.1 name has been recorded as pattedar and possessor of the suit property. The deceased plaintiff during her life time never demanded for partition. At the age of 70 plus the deceased plaintiff filed the suit for partition by claiming that the suit schedule property is a joint family property.

25. It is no doubt defendant No.1 to defendant No.3 are the childrens born through second wife Smt. Anjamma of R. Laxmaiah. The deceased plaintiff is the daughter of Smt Balamma. There is no evidence to show

Page No. 13 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

that after death of Balamma and Anjamma the suit schedule property are in joint possession. Ex.A3 to A9 documents goes to show that in fact G.

Isthari was the pattedar and possessor of land in Sy. No. 122. So, therefore, the burden which is in the plaintiffs with regard to existence of joint family property has not been discharged. In such situation, onus of proof cannot be shifted to defendant No.1 in establishing his claim of purchasing the property with the contribution of his family members. The plaintiffs did not produced any other evidence except the oral evidence of

PW2 and PW3 with regard to succeeding of the property of Smt Balamma by PW1 and defendant No.1 to 3.

26.At this point the learned counsel for the plaintiffs sought the intervention of the court towards the admission of DW1 who is defendant

No.6 wherein he says that his father ie., defendant No.1 Ragamoni

Bixapathi has purchased the suit schedule property from Mohd. Abbas and did not filed any document to show about the same. It is true, this court is also in agreement of the contention urged by the counsel for the plaintiffs. But, Ex.A10 and Ex.A11 revenue records goes to show the defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor of land in Sy. No. 122/A extent Ac 05-26 Gts. The defendant No.1 is not in the witness box.

Defendant No.6 who is son of defendant No.1 examined as DW1.

According to DW1 his father defendant No.1 Ragamoni Bixapathi has purchased the suit schedule property with his self earning and with the contribution of Stridhana of his wife ie., mother and later he sold Ac 01-20

Gts for family necessity by retaining Ac 04-06 Gts.

Page No. 14 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

27.It is no doubt true that DW1 did not filed any document showing that from whom his father defendant No.1 has purchased the property. It is also relevant to mention that PW1 during cross examination has also stated that her mother and maternal uncle Ishthari has purchased the suit schedule property and Sy. No. 121 from Mohd. Abbas. But, both who are claiming title from Mohd. Abbas has not filed any document.

28.In this context the evidence of PW3 who is plaintiff No.9 assumes greater importance. During cross examination PW3 has deposed that he has not seen any document of Balamma and Isthari and further says that he did not filed any document showing that Balamma and Isthari got partitioned land in Sy. No. 121 and 122. PW-2 who is from Gonamoni family has also deposed that he has not seen the document of Balamma and

Isthari and further deposed that land in Sy. No. 122 stands in the name of

Isthari who is maternal uncle of deceased plaintiff. He, then, says Balaiah and Sathiah are the sons of Isthari.

29.From the oral admission made by PW3 and PW2, Ex.A3 to A9 coulpled with entries made in Ex.A3 to A9 documents goes to show that it is G. Isthari is the pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule property.

But, not Smt. Balamma. Therefore, it can be concluded that the deceased plaintiff is not aware as to which property fell to the share of her mother

Balamma. The foundational facts of purchasing of property by Smt.

Balamma and G. Isthari has not been proved and established. Merely because defendant No.1 to 3 are the brothers of the deceased plaintiff cannot say that the suit schedule property is a joint family property. The jointness of the property has to be proved by independently. Even, though

Page No. 15 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

the defendants did not produced any sale deed showing that defendant

No.1 has purchased the suit schedule property from Mohd. Abbas cannot be a ground of constituting a joint family property, for the reason that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the suit schedule property is a joint family property. The entire documents relied by the plaintiffs if taken into consideration, the suit schedule property is registered in the name of Sri G.

Isthri in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor. The plaintiffs are not certain as to which property that fell to the share of Smt. Balamma.

Even, according to the deceased plaintiff she is claiming rights over the property of her mother Smt. Balamma. Her mother died long back. There is no demand made by the deceased plaintiff after death of Smt. Balamma.

The claim of the deceased plaintiff is in respect of land in Sy. No. 122/A which stands in the name of Sri G. Isthari. In such eventuality the deceased plaintiff cannot be allowed to claim any share over the property which fell to her material uncle Sri G. Isthari. In all, the plaintiffs failed to substantiate the pleadings as pleaded.

30.On careful consideration of the entire evidence of PW to PW3 and

DW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A10 and Ex.B1 this court is of considered view that, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and therefore not entitled for partition.

Hence, issue No. (i) is answered against the plaintiffs.

Page No. 16 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

31.ISSUE NO.(ii)

Since, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and in joint possession and as such the court fee under Section 34 (2) of APCF and SV Act, is grossly under valued

Issue answered accordingly.

32.ISSUE NO. (iii)

The pleadings of the plaintiffs with regard to existence of joint family property has not been proved. Mere issuing Ex.A2 demand notice for partition does not constitute the cause of action. It is settled law mere existence of a joint family by itself does not constitute a joint family property. No single, document is forth coming in substantiating the claim of a joint family property. The pleadings has to be proved by the evidence.

The pleading further shows the cause of action commences from Ex.A2 legal notice which is in correct. The cause of action includes bundle of facts. The relationship in between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3 by itself does not makes out a cause of action unless there exists a joint family property. Hence, there is no cause of action in filing the suit.

Moreover, the suit is in speculative in nature and misconceived.

Issue answered against the plaintiffs 33.ISSUE NO. (v)

In view of finding of all the issues against the plaintiffs as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition. The suit fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Page No. 17 Of 17

OS 1394-2014

In the result, the suit is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27 th day of April, 2022.

III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: PW-1 Butti Yadamma. PW-2 Gonemoni Ashok, PW-3 Butti Bushan.

FOR DEFENDANTS

DW-1 Ragamoni Venkatesh.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFFS:- Ex A-1 C.C. of Pahani for the year 1424 Fasli (2014) Dated 16.08.2014, Ex A-2 Legal notice dated 18.08.2014, Ex A-3 True copy of Pahani Patrika for the year 1964-65 in respect of Sy. No. 122 without any name in respect of pattedar column, Ex A-4 True copy of Pahani Patrika for the year 1965-66 in respect of Sy. No. 122 without any name in respect of pattedar column, Ex A-5 True copy of Pahani Patrika for the year 1967-68 in respect of Sy. No. 122 without any name in respect of pattedar column, Ex. A-6 True copy of Pahani Patrika for the year 1968-69 in respect of Sy. No. 122 name not visible and readable in respect of pattedar column, Ex. A-7 True copy of Pahani Patrika for the year 1971-72 in respect of Sy. No. 122 name not visible and readable in respect of pattedar column, Ex. A-8 True copy of Pahani Patrika for the year 1975-76 in respect of Sy. No. 122 name not visible and readable in respect of pattedar column, Ex. A-9 True copy of Pahani Patrika for the year 1984-85 in respect of Sy. No. 122 stands in the names of Gonemoni Balaiah and Gonemoni Sattaiah in respect of pattedar column. Ex. A-10 True copy of Pahani Patrika for the year 2000-01 in respect of Sy. No. 122/Aa, Ac 03-22 Gts stands in the names of Gonemoni Sattaiah S/o. Isthari in respect of Pattedar Column.

FOR DEFENDANTS:- Ex B-1 Certified copy of Partition deed dated 14.10.2014.

III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Page No. 1 of 17

OS 1438-2014

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DIST, AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT : SRI K.KUSHA, III-Additional District Judge, [ Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2022

O.S. No. 1438 OF 2014

Between:-

Maryam Bee W/o. Late Salabasad, aged about 70 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. H. No. 18-13-202, Harijung Basthi, Bandlaguda, Keshev Basthi,Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

AND

1.Mohd. Sajjad Ali S/o. Khasim Ali, aged about 44 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 1-13, Peer Zada Moholla, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Syed. Hidayath Ali S/o. Imam Ali, aged about 56 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 1-106/1, Peer Zada Moholla, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3.Syed. Mubeen S/o. Syed. Nazeer, aged about 34 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. 4-94, Peer Zada Moholla, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (Defendant No.2 and 3 are added as per the orders in IA No. 268/2007

dated 06.10.2017).

....Defendants

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Syed. Mohiuddin Hussaini, Counsel for the Plaintiff and of M/s. Vijay B. Paropakari, Counsel for the defendant No.1 and Sri. T. Ravi Kiran, counsel for the defendant No.2 and 3 and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stoodover for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document No. 5665/2013 dated 03.04.2013 registered at Sub

Registrar officer at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District in respect of the suit schedule property.

2.The brief facts of the Plaintiff is as under:- a)That the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No. 815/2 admeasuring Ac 04-00 Gts situated at Bagayath

Page No. 2 of 17

OS 1438-2014

Ibrahimpatnam village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having acquired the same vide document bearing No. 792/1985, that the plaintiff being paradanasheen lady as such she has executed an agreement of sale cum

General Power of Attorney in favour of Mohd. Sayeed Hassan Khan vide document No. 8627/2008 for development of above said property but the said Mohammed Sayeed Hassan Khan failed to perform his part of performance and misused the powers delegated to him therefore, under intimation to him he had cancelled the agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney on 29.03.2012 vide document No. 2254/2012 and taken back the physical possession of the suit schedule property and since then he is in physical possession of the suit schedule property.

b)It is further the case of the plaintiff that the said Mohd. Sayeed Hassan

Khan the ex-agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff in collusion with defendant herein with a malafide intention just to play fraud of the plaintiff and for gaining monitoring benefit approach through the defendant herein and manage to get the sale deed executed by the plaintiff herein in favour of the defendant without making of the agreed sale consideration amount, that the plaintiff for the sale of plot numbers 23, 36, 41, 43, 47, 53, 54, 56,63,82,98,101,102,113,114 and 115 total admeasuring 1936 Sq. yards agreed to sold for a total sum of Rs. 11,62,000/- and on assurance of the defendant that he will pay the cheque of total sale consideration amount at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed at the office of registration executed the sale deed vide document No.

5665/2013 on 03.04.2013 but surprisingly the defendant did not paid total sale consideration amount on the ground that he left the cheque book at his

Page No. 3 of 17

OS 1438-2014

residence and he will handover the cheque to the plaintiff at his residence but for the reasons best known to the defendant but he did not paid the total sale consideration in cash of through cheque resulting which the plaintiff did not paid the total sale consideration in cash or through cheque resulting the plaintiff did not deliver the vacate possession of the suit land in favour of the defendant and inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and her sons the defendant taking undue advantage of the old age of the plaintiff and illiteracy of the sons went on making empty promises but never comply the same ultimately on 11.07.2014 the plaintiff came to know though one real estate dealer Syed Hassan Ali Razvi that the defendants are making efforts for transferring the title of the suit property to some third parties as such there were no other alternative, is thus, before court seeking the relief, as indicated.

3.The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the Written Statement filed by the defendants reiterating the plaint averments and denied that there is no rectification deed as alleged in the Written Statement executed by the plaintiff under document No. 5664/2013 dated 03.04.2013 the alleged rectification deed is a fabricated document it is further submitted that either in the written statement of defendant No.1 or in the Written Statement of defendant No.2 and 3 herein who are in the entire written statement supported the defense taken by the defendant No.1 in the main suit and there is no specific denial of defendants to the bereavements of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 has not paid agreed sale consideration amount of

Rs.11,00,000/- to her and more over the original title deeds of the suit

Page No. 4 of 17

OS 1438-2014

schedule property is still with the custody and possession of the plaintiff and sought for decreed the suit.

4.a)The defendant No.1 has filed written statement by denying all the averments made by the plaintiffs and further submitted that the plaintiff executed various sale deeds dated 25.04.2008 though her General Power of

Attorney Mubarak Bin Salam vide document No. 2893/2008 in favour of

Abdul Moiz Khan in respect of land to an extent of Ac 03-06 Gts in Sy. No.

815/2008 and that the sale consideration was stipulated at Rs.9,45,000/- which was paid, plaintiff executed General Power of Attorney dated 18.12.2006 vide document No. 270/2006 appointing Mubarak bin Salam as her

General Power of Attorney to an extent of Ac 03-06 Gts, the plaintiff executed another agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney on 31.12.2008 vide document No. 8627/2008 appointing Mohd. Syed. Hussain

Khan as her General power of attorney holder and also simultaneously executed an agreement in his favour after receiving a consideration of

Rs.62,21,500/- for plot Nos. 1 to 68, 70 to 83, 86 to 99 and 102 to 115 in Sy. no.

815/2 after receiving sale consideration in respect of suit schedule property on 03.04.2013, that the plaintiff executed a registered ratification deed on 03.04.2013 vide document No. 5664/2013 ratifying sale of plot Nos. 1 to 68, 70 to 83, 86 to 99 and 102 to 115, the ratification executed in favour of 33 purchasers, that the said purchasers are not made parties to the present suit, that the plaintiff executed a declaration on 28.08.2013 conceding that Ac 04-00 Gts of land belonging to her were made into 115 plots. 97 of them were sold by her personally and all the sale deeds are registered, and some plots ie., 18 sold by her through her General Power of Attorney and collected an

Page No. 5 of 17

OS 1438-2014

additional sum of Rs.3 Lakhs for executing this declarations, that the plaintiffs

having sold plot Nos. 1 to 68, 70 to 83, 86 to 99 and 102 to 115 in Sy. No.

815/2 in 2008 under Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 31.12.2008 for Rs.62,25,500/- again sold suit plots to defendants for which steps will be taken to prosecute the plaintiff.

b)It is further the case of the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff through agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 31.12.2018 vide document No. 8627/2008 executed sale deeds, reselling from the same she threatened to cancel these sale deeds. Upon being pursued after collecting huge amount the plaintiff executed a ratification deed dated 03.04.2013 vide document No. 5664/2013 out of the suit plots the defendant sold plot Nos.

41, 47, 54, 82 and 114 to one Syed. Hidayath Ali under a registered sale deed

dated 10.07.2013 vide document No. 9389/2013 and on the same day the

defendant sold plot No. 23, 36, 56, 98 and 115 to one Syed. Mubeen vide document No. 9390/2013, and that these purchasers are proper and necessary parties whose absence entails dismissal of the suit for non joinder and more particularly the plaintiff is aware about these sale deeds and sought to dismiss with costs.

5.The defendant No.2 adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No.3.

6 a).The defendant No.3 has filed written statement by denying all the averments made by the plaintiff and further submitted that originally the lands in Sy. No. 815/2 admeasuring Ac 15-13 Gts situated at Bagayath,

Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, that one Buchaiah

Dhobi was the owner and pattedar in respect of the above said lands. The said

Page No. 6 of 17

OS 1438-2014

Buchaiah Dhobi alienated the land admeasuring Ac 04-00 Gts out of

Ac.15-13 gts in favour of Battala Sangappa through registered sale deed bearing document No. 341/1980 dated 09.06.1980 and thereafter said battala

Sangappa sold the land in favour of the plaintiff’s name through registered sale deed bearing document No. 792/1985 dated 25.06.1985 and thereafter the plaintiff was converted the land into the plotted area and she obtained

Gram panchayat permission No. 21/2003 and thereafter the plaintiff was executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Mohammed Sayeed Hasan

Khan through registered document No. 8627/2008 dated 31.12.2008 and thereafter the plaintiff was cancelled the General Power of Attorney vide document No. 2254/2012 dated 29.03.2012 and thereafter the plaintiff executed the Deed of Ratification in favour of Maimuna and 32 others vide document No. 5664/2013 dated 03.04.2013.

b)It is further the case of the defendant No.3 that on the same day ie., on 03.04.2013 the remaining 16 plots ie., plot Nos. 23,36, 41, 43, 47, 53, 54, 56, 63, 82, 98, 101, 102, 113, 114, 115 admeasuring area 121 Sq. yards each total admeasuring 1936 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 815/2 situated at Bhagayath,

Ibrahimpatnam village and mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the plaintiff his family necessities and financial requirements offered to sell the suit schedule land to the defendant No.1 herein accordingly the defendant agreed to purchase the suit schedule land for valid sale consideration under the registered sale deed bearing document No. 5665/2013 dated 03.04.2013.

Thus, the defendant No.1 is the bonafide purchaser and absolute owner of the suit schedule property, thereafter the defendant No.1 sold the plot No.

41 admeasuring 121 Sq. yards, plot No. 47 admeasuring 121 Sq. yards, plot

Page No. 7 of 17

OS 1438-2014

No. 54 admeasuring 121 Sq. yards, plot No. 82 admeasuring 121 Sq. yards, plot No. 114 admeasuring 121 Sq. yards total admeasuring 605 Sq. yards in favour of defendant No.2 under registered sale deed bearing document No.

9389/2013 dated 10.07.2013 and the defendant No.1 also sold the plot No. 23 admeasuring 121 Sq. yards, plot No. 36 admeasuring 121 Sq. yards, plot No.

56 admeasuring 121 Sq. yards, plot No. 98 admeasuring 121 Sq. yards, plot

No. 115 admeasuring 121 Sq. yards total admeasuring 605 Sq. yards in favour of defendant No.3 under registered sale deed bearing document No.

9390/2013 dated 10.07.2013. Thus, the plaintiff already out of possession from total land, and that the plaintiff suppressing the real and true facts filed the present suit as such the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

c)It is further the case of the defendant No.3 that due to abnormal increase of the market rate of the suit schedule land due to evil eye with an intention to extract further amounts from the defendant and with sole intention to harass and cause loss to the defendants and with black mail tactics the plaintiff filed the present suit and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

7.Based on the above pleadings, this court has settled the following issues.

(I)Whether the Sale deed dated 03.04.2013 is not supported by consideration? (II)Whether the agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney vide document No. 8627/2008 has been validly cancelled? (III)Whether the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties? (IV)Whether the Sale deed document No. 5665/2013 dated 03.04.2013 is liable to be set aside? (V)To what relief?

Page No. 8 of 17

OS 1438-2014

8.On behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and got marked

Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 documents.

9.On behalf of the defendants, DW1 to DW3 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to B12 documents.

10.Heard both sides.

11.ISSUE NO. (I) :-

The plaintiff sought for cancellation of sale deed of defendant No.1

Mohd. Sajjad Ali on the ground that she has not received any sale consideration under sale deed document bearing No. 5665/2013 dated 03.04.2013. Therefore, the burden lies on the plaintiff.

12.In order to establish the suit claim the plaintiff Smt Mariyam bee got examined as PW1 and she reiterated the plaint bereavements. In support of her evidence Ex.A1 and A2 are marked.

13.The plaintiff further got examined her own son Sri Abdul Bin Salam as

PW2 who deposed as deposed by PW1.

14.The sum and substance of the evidence of PW1 and 2 are that PW1 has executed an agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mohammed Sayeed Hassan Khan vide document bearing No. 8627/2008 for development of the suit schedule property. But, she failed to perform his obligation and misused the powers delegated to him and thereafter got cancelled the said document on 29.03.2012 vide document No. 2254/2012 and taken the physical possession of the suit schedule property and since

Page No. 9 of 17

OS 1438-2014

then, enjoying the property peaceably. Subsequent there to, PW1 has agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the defendants for total sale consideration of Rs. 11,62,000/- and promised to pay the same by way of cheque at the time of registration and having executed the sale deed bearing document No. 5665/2013 dated 03.04.2013, the defendant did not chose to pay the consideration, as such the possession was not delivered and further defendant is making efforts to sell the property. Therefore, sought to cancel the said sale deed.

15.PW1 and 2 are cross examined by the defendants at length on the ground that the sale deed dated 03.04.2013 is supported by consideration and that a false suit has been filed only to extract more money.

16.During cross examination PW1 has deposed that she lost her land and praying for restoration of the same as somebody has occupied the land. She further deposed that she got cancelled the General Power of Attorney as she did not received any amount of Rs.62,17,500/- and further admits that third parties are in possession of the suit property for the last 10 years.

17.PW2 who is son of PW1 has deposed that during cross examination that

PW1/mother has executed document General Power of Attorney bearing No.

270/2006 dated 18.12.2006 and further admits that PW1 also executed document bearing No. 5665/2013 in favour of Sajjad Ali/Defendant No.1. He further admits that he is one of the witness to the sale deed of defendant

No.1. He, then, admits that PW1 has given agreement of sale cum General

Power of Attorney vide document No. 8627/2008 in favour of Mohammed

Page No. 10 of 17

OS 1438-2014

Sayeed Hassan Khan and further admits that PW1 has executed ratification deed vide document No. 5664/2013 dated 03.04.2013 in respect of Plot Nos.

1 to 68, 70 to 83, 86 to 99 and 102 to 115.

18.In all, the grievance ventilated by PW1 and 2 are that the defendant

No.1 without paying sale consideration amount of Rs.11,62,000/- got executed Ex.A1 sale deed dated 03.04.2013 and sought to cancel the same.

19.Be it noted, Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 03.04.2013 which recites that Smt Mariyam Bee (PW1) has executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.1/ Sri Mohammad Sajjad Ali in respect of Plot Nos. 23, 36, 41, 43, 47, 53, 54, 56, 63, 82, 98, 101, 102, 113, 114 and 115 total admeasuring 1936 Sq. yards which is the suit schedule property for total sale consideration of Rs.11,62,000/-. The said document further recites that the vendor ie., plaintiff (PW1) has already received sale consideration amount of

Rs.11,62,000/- from the defendant No.1/Vendee and the property was also delivered.

20.PW-2 is the son of PW1 and one of the witness to Ex.A1 sale deed. But, he says that the defendant No.1 did not paid total sale consideration. The other witness who is not before the court is also son of PW1. In all, Ex.A1 is executed by the plaintiff in the presence of his two sons ie., PW2 and another.

21.The pleadings and evidence of PW1 and PW2 are that the defendant

No.1 by playing fraud has obtained Ex.A1 sale deed without paying sale consideration amount of Rs.11,62,000/-.

Page No. 11 of 17

OS 1438-2014

22.At para No.3 of plaint on page No. 2, the plaintiff has pleaded as under :

“That the said Mohammed Sayeed Hassan Khan the Ex.AGPA of the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant No.1 herein with a malafide intention just to play fraud on the plaintiff and for granting monetary benefit approach through defendant herein and managed to get the sale deed executed by plaintiff in favour of the defendant without making payment of the agreed sale consideration amount.” 23.The plaintiff did not pleaded as to how and in what manner the defendant has played fraud while obtaining Ex.A1 sale deed. As per Order VI

Rule 4 CPC deals with particulars to be given wherever necessary :- “In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, beach of trust, willful default or undue influence, and in all other cases in which the particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the form aforesaid, particulars, (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading.

24.The plaintiff except by making a stray sentence of with a malafide intention just to play fraud on the plaintiff and for granting monetary benefit approach through defendant herein and managed to get the sale deed executed by plaintiff in favour of the defendant without making payment of the agreed sale consideration amount. There is no mention as required under

Rule 4 of Order VI as to the dates or how and in what manner the defendant has played fraud.

25.Ex.B9 is the certified copy of deed of ratification vide document No.

5664/2013 dated 03.04.2013 executed by PW1 in favour of some of the purchasers acknowledging the correctness of General Power of Attorney and alienation of plots sold to the defendants. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and some other purchasers. The

Page No. 12 of 17

OS 1438-2014

recitals made in Ex.B9 are that she has acknowledged about earlier sale and execution of agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney and sale deed. This shows that the plaintiff and her two sons ie., PW2 and another who is not before the court knows about the sale made in favour of the defendant

No.1 Sri Mohammed Sajjad Ali.

26.Ex.A1 and Ex.B9 recitals shows that the plaintiff has sold the suit schedule property by receiving total sale consideration of Rs.11,62,000/- from the defendant No.1 in the presence of PW2 and another. Now, there cannot be any oral evidence as against the terms of contract and if, so, has to be excluded by virtue of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

27.The learned counsel for the defendants contended that, when there are recitals in Ex.A1 sale deed that the plaintiff has received sale consideration amount from the defendant No.1 then she cannot roll back and in support of said contention has relied upon a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 899 between Ratan Singh and

others Vs. Nirmal Gill and Others etc., Inder Pal Singh and Another Vs.

Nirmal Gill and Others etc., Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at Para No.

32 as under:

“There is a presumption that registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption”.

And further held that at para No. 62 as under:

“The plaintiff also asserted that she had not received the consideration in relation to the stated transactions and that the defendants had no means to pay the consideration. Further, the plaintiff was obliged to rebut the positive evidence produced by the defendants regarding payment of consideration amount to

Page No. 13 of 17

OS 1438-2014

the plaintiff; but also ought to have independently proved her case of non-receipt of the consideration amount”.

28.The dictum laid in the Judgment cited supra, mandates that it is for the plaintiff who has to lead evidence to rebut the presumption. Except oral evidence of PW1 and 2 there is no other evidence. That apart though Ex.A1 sale deed was executed on 03.04.2013 besides ratification deed under Ex.B9 on the same day, yet, the plaintiff did not issued any notice to the defendant calling upon him for payment of sale consideration amount for Rs.11,62,000/- except approaching the court. PW1 and 2 says that some third parties are in possession of the suit schedule properties. The initial burden which is on plaintiff has not been discharged by placing clear and acceptable evidence. I do not find any truth in the evidence of PW1 and 2 with regard to non payment of sale consideration by defendant No.1.

29.At this stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that, the defendant No.1 did not produced any kind of evidence acknowledging the sale consideration amount by the plaintiff and drawn the attention of the court towards oral evidence of DW1 to DW3 and Ex.B1 to B12 documents. It is no doubt true, that the defendant No.1 did not produce any receipt showing that he has paid sale consideration amount of Rs.11,62,000/-. The issue as framed is negatively couched. Therefore, the initial burden is on the plaintiff but not on the defendant No.1. Thus, the plaintiff cannot take any advantage of the weakness of the defendants evidence. Moreover, the evidence of DW1 to DW3 goes to show that DW-3 and others are in possession of suit schedule property. The plaintiff did not bring all the purchasers as party to the proceedings. According to PW1 some third parties are in possession of the

Page No. 14 of 17

OS 1438-2014

suit schedule property for the last 10 years. Yet, no action has been initiated so far against them except seeking a cancellation of sale deed of defendant

No.1. On one hand PW1 says that she is in possession and on the other some strangers are in possession of the suit schedule property for the last 10 years.

Therefore, the pleadings as pleaded by the plaintiff with regard to taking of possession from defendant No.1 is beyond imagination.

30.Assuming for a moment that, defendant No.1 has not paid the sale consideration amount. In these situation, what is the remedy that vests with the plaintiff is to be looked into. As per Section 55 (4) (b) of Transfer of

Property, 1882 says that : Where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before a payment of the whole of the purchase money, to a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer, (any transferee without consideration or any transferee with notice of the non payment) for the amount of the purchase money, or on such amount or part (from the date on which possession has been delivered). Therefore, by virtue of the said provision the plaintiff can have a charge over the property in respect of non payment of purchase money but not by way of cancellation of the sale deed.

To put a rest with regard to non payment of sale consideration this court has come across a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court arising out of SLP (Civil)

No.11618 of 2017) Dahiben Appellant Versus Arvindbhai Kalyanji

Bhanusali (gajra)(d) Thr Lrs & Ors. Dated 09.07.2020. Wherein it was held as under :

“The non payment of a part of the sale price would not effect the validity of the sale. Once, the title in the property has already passed, even, if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be in validated on this ground. In order to

Page No. 15 of 17

OS 1438-2014

constitute a sale the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the price either in praesenty, or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record. In view of the law laid down by this court, even, if the averments of the plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground for cancellation of the sale deed. The plaintiff may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance sale consideration but could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed.

31.The conduct of the plaintiff in not taking recourse to legal action for over a period of nearly two years for payment of sale consideration amount, also reflects that the present suit is an after thought. The defendant No.1 has already sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 and others. Therefore, the plaintiff abruptly failed to establish that Ex.A1 sale deed is not supported by the consideration.

Issue answered against the plaintiff in favour of the defendants.

32.ISSUE NO. (II) :

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of cancellation of agreement of sale cum

General Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff in favour of Mohammed

Sayeed Hussain Khan dated 29.03.2012. According to PW1 she has executed agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney in favour of Mohammed

Sayeed Hassan Khan vide document No. 8627/2008 for development of the property and as he failed to keep up the promise in terms of agreement which constrained her to executed its cancellation. But, the plaintiff did not sought any relief against the said document except seeking cancellation of Ex.A1 sale deed of defendant No.1 which has been negativated by way of above finding

Page No. 16 of 17

OS 1438-2014

in issue No.1. Moreover, Mohammed Sayeed Hassan Khan is not a party to the present suit. Therefore in the absence of said person the issue cannot be gone into.

Issue answered accordingly.

33.ISSUE NO. (III) :

As seen from the evidence on record, the defendant No.1 has already sold the suit schedule property in favour of third parties. Even, otherwise, according to PW1 and PW2 third parties are in possession of suit schedule property for the last 10 years. The said persons are not made party to the proceedings. Thus, the suit is apprently bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Issue answered accordingly.

34.ISSUE NO. (IV) :

In view of finding of issue No.1 against the plaintiff as such not entitled for cancellation of sale deed of defendant No.1 under Ex.A1 issue answered accordingly.

35.In the result, the suit is dismissed. However, in the circumstances as there is no order as to costs.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 22 nd day of April, 2022.

III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Page No. 17 of 17

OS 1438-2014

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants PW-1 Smt Mariyam BeeDW1 Sri Mohd. Sajid Ali. PW-2 Sri Abdullah Bin Salam, DW2 Sri Syed. Oumar. PW-3 Sri Syed Kazim Ali Abedi. (Eschwed) DW3 Sri Syed. Mubeen.

Exhibits marked for

For Plaintiff:- Ex. A1 Sale deed dated 03.04.2013. Ex. A2 Cancellation of agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dt. 29.03.2012

For Defendants:- Ex.B1 Certified copy of Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 31.12.2008. Ex.B2 Certified copy of Ratification deed dated 03.04.2013, Ex.B3 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 10.07.2013, Ex.B4 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 10.07.2013, Ex.B5 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 03.04.2013, Ex.B6 Certified copy of encumbrance certificate for the period from 01.01.1991 to 31.08.2021 (12 Sheets.) Ex.B7 Certified copy of AGPA document No. 8627/2008, December, 2008, Ex.B8 Certified copy of Cancellation of AGPA document No. 2254/2012 dated 29.03.2012, Ex.B9 Certified copy of deed of ratification document N. 5664/2013 dated 03.04.2013, Ex.B10 Certified copy of Sale deed document No. 5665/2013 dated 03.04.2013, Ex.B11 Certified copy of Sale deed document No. 9389/2013 dated 10.07.2013, Ex.B12 Certified copy of Sale deed document No. 9390/2013 dated 10.07.2013.

III-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Page No. 1 of 11

SC 1124 of 2018

`

IN THE COURT OF III-ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: Sri K. KUSHA, III-Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 13th day of April, 2022

SC No. 1124 of 2018

1.Name of the complainant: The State of Telangana through RGI Airport, Police Station.

2.Name of the Accused: Mudavath Raju S/o. M. Gopal @ Gopya, aged about 25 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Chintagattu Thanda, Siddapur Village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3.Offence under Section: 304-B of IPC

4.Cr. No. and Name of Police : Cr. No. 573/2018 of RGI Airport, Police Station Station

5.P.R.C. No.: 101 of 2018 6Case committed by: VIII-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

7.Plea of the accused: Not guilty

8.Finding of the Court: Not guilty

9.Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.304-B of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged, after expiry of appeal time. MO-1 Saree shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Sudharshan, Learned Counsel for the accused and Sri N. Raveendar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Division, has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 573 of 2018 for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.

Page No. 2 of 11

SC 1124 of 2018

` 2.The case of the prosecution is that :

a)On 24.10.2018 at 0330 hours received a complaint from Sri Jarpula Bikya

Naik in which he stated that two years ago his second daughter Aruna, aged about 22 years got love marriage with Mudavath Raju and out of their wed lock they were blessed with female baby, that after the marriage they were staying in a rented house at H. No. 21-58/1, R.B. Nagar, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy

District, since, then his son in law Mudavath Raju and his parents started harassing his daughter both physically and mentally for additional dowry, and that four months ago he has given gold and silver ornaments all worth

Rs.3,50,000/- as dowry, even, though M. Raju did not change his behaviour and the parents of Raju harassed his daughter again for additional dowry.

b)That, on 23.10.2018 at about 2100 hours his son in law informed over phone that his daughter Aruna has committed suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling fan with Saree in their bed room at Shamshabad, then, immediately he along with his family members rushed to the spot and found that his daughter found dead, and that the complaint has suspect on his son in law and his family members over the death of his daughter and sought for necessary action.

c)On the strength of it, Inspector of Police, has registered a case in Cr. No.

573 of 2017 under Section 304-B of IPC and took up the investigation.

d)That, on receipt of information of this case, deceased Smt. Mudavath

Aruna committed suicide within 7 years of her matrimonial life and her father shown suspicion on this incident upon which the LW-16/Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad division took up the investigation and immediately rushed to the spot and caused enquiries about the incident and recorded the detailed statement of complainant and his blood relatives and neighbours ie.,

LW1 to 8 Under Section 161 Cr.P.C which are incorporated in part-II C.D. and

Page No. 3 of 11

SC 1124 of 2018

` secured the presence of LW-9 Vemula Nagaiah and LW-10 K. Mallesh and conducted scene of offence panchanama in crime detail form drafted rough sketch of the scene and seized one Saree form the scene of offence under the cover of scene of offence cum seizure in the presence of same mediators.

Subsequently, body was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for mortuary and given a requisition to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal to visit the spot and conduct inquest over the dead body of deceased/Mudavath Aruna and gave requisition to the Head of the Department Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical

College, Hyderabad for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased/Mudavath Aruna. Meanwhile, on the requisition of the LW-16 S. Ashok

Kumar, Investigating officer, LW-13 Deputy Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal arrived at Mortuary secured the presence of mediators ie., LW-11 Smt Ketavath

Anitha and LW-12 Nenavath Srinu and inspected the dead body minutely held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, after the inquest the body was subjected for autopsy. The LW-14 Dr. Rama Murthy who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased/Mudavath Aruna, the body was handed over to the blood relatives for conducting last rites and obtained acknowledgment and on 27.10.2018 accused Mudavath Raju was arrested and sent to court for judicial remand and after receiving necessary documents from the concerned authority and on completion of investigation has laid charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3.The case against the accused was taken on file by taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 304-B of IPC vide PRC No. 101 of 2018 on the file of learned VIII-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him under Section 208 Cr.P.C., and as the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, and this case was

Page No. 4 of 11

SC 1124 of 2018

` committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C., and the same was made over to this court for disposal, in accordance with law.

5. On appearance of the accused in this court, and after hearing both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and upon considering the material on record, a charge under Section 304-B of IPC has been framed against him, read over and explained in his known language for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6.In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-12 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14 and MO-1.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating circumstances available against him in the evidence on record and pleaded his false implication.

However, he did not choose to lead their evidence.

8.Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for consideration is;

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT :-

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the question is whether a case under Section 304-B of IPC has been made out by the prosecution against the accused.

11.The accused is suffering charge u/s 304-B of IPC.

12.For the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, the prosecution must prove that;

Page No. 5 of 11

SC 1124 of 2018

`

(i)Death of a woman is either by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.

(ii)It should be within 7 years of marriage

(iii)It should also be shown that soon before the death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or relative of the husband.

(iv)Such harassment or cruelty should pertain to the demand for dowry.

13.In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything is essential to establish the charge against the accused is always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until and unless the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed; subject to, of course, to some statutory exception.

14.In the light of the above statutory provision and cardinal principles of the criminal jurisprudence what is the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case has to be looked into.

15.The undisputed facts are that the accused is the wife of the deceased/

Mudavath Aruna and their marriage was performed in the year 2016 which is a love marriage and also blessed with one female baby by name Pallavi.

16.The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that, the accused and his family members started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally for want of additional dowry for which four months prior to death, the complainant ie., father of the deceased Sri. Jarpula Bikhya Naik had given gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.3,50,000/- as dowry and even then, the accused and his family members not satisfied and again demanded for additional dowry and on 23.10.2018 at 2100 hours the accused informed the complainant over phone that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging and went there and

Page No. 6 of 11

SC 1124 of 2018

` found the dead body of the deceased and on suspicious has gave complaint against the accused and his parents.

17.PW2 is the father of the deceased who gave Ex.P1 complaint. The marriage of the deceased/Mudavath Aruna has been performed with the accused in the year 2016 which is love marriage and later both led marital life happily and blessed with one female child by name Pallavi.

18.According to PW1 who is maternal uncle of the deceased/Mudavath Aruna has deposed that in the year 2013 the parents of the deceased has performed her marriage with the deceased as per Hindu Rites and Customs which is arranged cum love marriage and at the time of marriage the parents of the deceased gave Rs.2 Lakhs to the accused towards dowry apart from gold and silver articles and thereafter the accused and deceased/Mudavath Aruna led martial life at Shamshabad and also blessed with one daughter, and on 23.10.2018 the accused informed him over phone, that he has scolded and beat his daughter, thereafter went and when he came back to his house the deceased was found hanging and asked him to come to there and accordingly he went there along with their relatives and found dead body.

19.He, then, deposed that the deceased/Mudavath Aruna has committed suicide as the accused beat his daughter for which the father of the deceased J.

Bikya Naik has lodged a complaint.

20. PW-2 father of the deceased has deposed that in the year 2017 his daughter/Mudavath Aruna got married to the accused which is out of love marriage and without his consent and knowledge, and after that he accepted the marriage and gave Rs.2 lakhs and 3 ½ tulas gold to the accused towards

Page No. 7 of 11

SC 1124 of 2018

` dowry after selling some lands at his village and thereafter the accused and his daughter led marital life at Chintagutta thanda, Siddapur Village, for a period of one month and later shifted to Shamshabad town as the accused is driver by profession and later blessed with one female baby Pallavi and they lived happily for more than one year and later his daughter used to call him over phone and used to tell about her Stomach problem and then he took his daughter to private hospital at Shadnagar for providing treatment and on 23.10.2018 at about 7.30PM the accused called him over phone and informed that his daughter Mudavath Aruna has committed suicide and then immediately he and relatives went to the house of the accused and found the dead body and then he gave Ex.P1 complaint. He further deposed that on suspicion he lodged complaint against the accused.

21.PW-3 Junior Paternal uncle of the deceased has deposed as deposed by

PW1 and 2 and he further deposed that PW2 informed him on 23.10.2018 that the deceased has committed suicide and further deposed that he do not know as to why the deceased has committed suicide.

22.PW-4 relative of the deceased has turned hostile and did not say anything against the accused.

23.PW-5 maternal aunt of the deceased has deposed that about four or five years back the accused called him and informed that the deceased has committed suicide and went to Shamshabad town and found the dead body and further deposed that he do not know as to why the deceased has committed suicide.

Page No. 8 of 11

SC 1124 of 2018

` 24.PW-6 resident of Chintagattu thanda of Siddapur Village has deposed that on enquiry the owner of the house at Shamshabad informed that the deceased has committed suicide and did not know as to why she has committed suicide.

25.PW-9 is the Tahsildar has deposed as to the conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased/ Mudavath Aruna and preparing inquest report

Ex.P12.

26.PW-10 is the Medical Officer has deposed about conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased/ Mudavath Aruna and opined that the deceased died due to hanging. Ex.P13 is the Post Mortem Examination report.

27. PW-11 is the relative of the deceased has deposed that the Tahsildar has conducted inquest over the dead body by noting down the injuries and then obtained her signatures.

28.PW-12 is the investigating officer who deposed as to the lines of investigation and filing of charge sheet.

29. The prosecution evidence does not disclose that soon before death of the deceased/ Mudavath Aruna the accused has subjected the deceased to harassment in relation to demand of additional dowry. Almost all the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case as alleged in the manner. The evidence of PW1 to PW6 goes to show that the deceased has committed suicide on account of stomach pain and further that the accused has scolded his daughter for which the deceased got annoyed and committed suicide. None of the prosecution witness did not speak that the accused has demanded additional dowry soon before death of the deceased and was

Page No. 9 of 11

SC 1124 of 2018

` subjected with cruelty in relation to demand of additional dowry. The recitals of

Ex.A1 is not corroborating with the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to subjecting the deceased to harassment soon before death in relation to demand of additional dowry. PW2 who is father of the deceased has totally resiled from the earlier statement given to police and also from the contents of Ex.P1 complaint. Likewise, PW1, PW3 to PW6 also resiled from their earlier statement given to police.

30.Then, the only evidence available on the record is the evidence of PW-13 the investigating officer who deposed that on receipt of Ex.P1 complaint has registered the case and investigated into and later arrest the accused and on completion of investigation has laid charge sheet.

31.The marriage of the deceased/Mudavath Aruna has been taken place with the accused in the year 2016 and she died on 23.10.2018 and death of the deceased is unnatural. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the deceased has died within two years of her marriage and death is unnatural. The third requirement which is sine qua non is concerned there is no evidence and the same is lacking.

32.All the prosecution witnesses has given go by to their earlier statements made before PW-13 the investigating officer and has projected two things with regard to cause and reason of death of the deceased namely; that the deceased was suffering with Stomach problem and the other is that as the accused man handled her daughter Pallavi and got upset and committed suicide.

33.From the prosecution evidence now, it can be concluded that the deceased immensely upset over the high handed rebuke by the accused to her

Page No. 10 of 11

SC 1124 of 2018

` daughter, she could not digest the said man handling and in fit of rage, the deceased resorted to an extreme act of committing suicide.

34.Ex.P1 is the complaint given by PW2 who is father of deceased also recites that the accused himself has informed to him about committing suicide by the deceased by hanging to ceiling fan. The complaint further recites that PW2 has suspected the high handedness of the accused in the commission of offence and gave complaint.

35.The entire evidence of the prosecution suffers with suspicious/doubt with regard to the accused subjecting and harassing the deceased for want of

additional dowry soon before her death.

36. It is needless to emphasize that suspicion is however, grave and strong, cannot substitute the place of legal proof.

37.On careful examination of the entire evidence of the prosecution that of

PW1 to PW12 coupled with Ex.P1 to P14 and MO-1 this court feels that this is a case where there is an ample evidence with regard to death of the deceased who died within seven years of her marriage and her death is unnatural. But, in so far as the third ingredient is concerned with regard to harassment or cruelty soon before death of the deceased/Mudavath Aruna in relation to demand of

additional dowry is concerned there is no evidence at all. Thus, the prosecution

has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accsued for the charged offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Consequently the accsued is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Point answered accordingly.

Page No. 11 of 11

SC 1124 of 2018

` 38.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s 304-B of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C.,

The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged, after expiry of appeal time.

MO-1, Saree shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Partly d ictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of April, 2022.

III ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 Kethavath Suresh,NIL PW-2 Bikya Naik, PW-3 J. Ravi, PW-4 J. Srinu, PW-5 Kethavath Devula, PW-6 Nenavath Gopal Naik, PW-7 Nenavath Srinu, PW-8 K. Mallesh, PW-9 B. Shanker, PW-10 Dr. K.V.Ramana Murthy, PW-11 Kethavath Anitha, PW-12 S. Ashok Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1 is the Complaint, Ex.P-2 is the relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2, Ex.P-3 is the relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3, Ex.P-4 is the relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4, Ex.P-5 is the relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5, Ex.P-6 is the relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6. Ex.P-7 to P10 are the signatures of PW-7 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P-11 is the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. Ex.P-12 is the inquest report, Ex.P-13 is the PME Report, Ex.P-14 is FIR.

DEFENCE

NIL

MOs marked:- MO-1 is the Saree. III ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Page No. 1 of 7 MVOP 113-2016

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE),

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: Sri K.KUSHA, III-Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2022

MVOP No. 113 of 2016

Between:-

1.Kancherla Manmada W/o. Late Ravindar Reddy, aged about 44 Years, Occ: Housewife.

2.Kancherla Satwick Reddy S/o. Late Ravindar Reddy, aged about 20 Years, Occ: Student.

3.Kancherla Amruthamma W/o. Late Kantha Reddy, aged about 75 Years, Occ: Nil. All are R/o. Plot No. 104, Teachers Colony, Hasthinapuram, B.N. Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. ...Claimants

And

1.Boine Anjaiah S/o. Saidappa, aged about 38 Years, Occ: Driver, (Employee ID No. 272649) R/o. H. No. 2-20, Syed Malkapur, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District. (Driver RTC Bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 2145).

2.The Joint Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

3.The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 2 Bus Depot, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad. ….Respondents

This claim petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. Sama Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners/Claimants and Sri Suresh Kumar Pulijala, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and 3 and the respondent No.1 was set ex-parte and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

A W A R D

1. Initially the present claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees

Thirty lakhs only) and thereafter enhanced compensation amount to Rs.

46,00,000/- for the death of Kancherla Ravinder Reddy in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 09.01.2014.

Page No. 2 of 7 MVOP 113-2016 2.The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the son of petitioner and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased.

PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONERS:

3.(a) The pleadings show that the deceased K.Ravindar Reddy who was the

Traffic Inspector - Grade-III of Regional Enforcement Squad of TSRTC, Ranga

Reddy Region. On 09.01.2014 he was performing his duties as Traffic

Inspector at about 1600 hours as she is feeling fever and in order to bring some tablets at CBS Dispensary he boarded the RTC Bus bearing No. AP 29

Z 2145 (Hyderabad-2 Depot) at Mahatma Gandhi Bus station at the same time the driver of the bus drover the bus fast with rash and negligent manner, due to which he fell down from the bus and got crush injuries to his left foot. Immediately after the accident the bus conducted shifted him to

Omni Hospital through 108 ambulance and after First Aid he was shifted to

Care Hospital, Nampally, Hyderabad where he was admitted as inpatient vide MR No. 000000541011 (Regd. No. 140109121486) and he was underwent surgery on his left food + ORIF left 4/5 toes + POP application +

ORIF calcaneum + Suturing of heel pad avulsion. The said accident was occurred only due to to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

TSRTC Bus bearing AP 29 Z 2145.

b).The Police, Afzalgung, Hyderabad have issued FIR in Cr.No.17/2014 under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the above said bus.

c).At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 53 years and hale and healthy and he worked as Traffic Inspector Grade-3, TSRTC,

Hyderabad -2 Bus depot, Ranga Reddy Region and used to draw monthly salary of Rs.50,000/-. Due to sudden death of the deceased, entire family

Page No. 3 of 7 MVOP 113-2016 become destitute, and that the deceased is the only earning member in their family, more particularly the petitioner No.1 and 3, have been deprived of the contribution of the deceased apart from love and affection.

d).The respondent No.2 and No.3 are the owner of the RTC bus and the respondent No.1 is the driver and they are liable to pay compensation.

4.The respondent No.1 driver of the RTC Bus remained ex-parte.

5. PLEADINGS OF THE RESPONDENT No.2 AND 3:

Respondent No.2 and 3 filed counter, which shows that the

Corporation did not admit the accident as narrated by the petitioners and involvement of the RTC bus, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and also did not admit the death of deceased in the said accident. It is further the case of the corporation that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners in the claim petition against different heads are highly excessive, arbitrary, and out of all proportions, the petitioners are not entitled for any amount, and that the petitioners are also not entitled to protect the litigation by not commencing the trial, as such the corporation is not liable to pay compensation and sought to dismiss the petition.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, this Tribunal settled the following issues:-

i)Whether the accident occurred on 09.01.2014 at about 01:00 hours at MGBS, Hyderabad causing death of Sri K. Ravinder Reddy, due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bus bearing No. AP-29-Z-2145 driven by respondent No.1?

ii)Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

iii)To what relief?

Page No. 4 of 7 MVOP 113-2016 7.EVIDENCE:

On behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW-1 and in support of his evidence, one eyewitness is examined as PW2 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 documents are marked. On behalf of the Respondents, no evidence is adduced.

8.Heard the arguments from both sides.

9. ISSUE No. (i) :-

According to PW1 her husband K. Ravinder Reddy who was working as

Traffic Inspector- Grade-III of Regional Enforcement Squad in TSRTC, Ranga

Reddy Region has met with an accident on 09.01.2014 as he fell down from the moving bus and got crush injuries to his left foot and thereafter shifted to Omni Hospital for treatment and thereafter shifted to Care Hospital

Nampally for better treatment and has undergone surgery on his left foot and subsequently discharged from the hospital.

10.She, then, further deposed that her husband K. Ravinder Reddy made complaint to police Afzalgung, Hyderabad on 10.01.2014 upon which the police has registered a case in Cr. No. 17/2014 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 2145 and on completion of investigation also laid charge sheet for the offence under

Section 338 of IPC. Ex.P1 to P3 are the first information report, complaint and charge sheet.

11.She, then, further deposed that after discharging from the hospital on 23.01.2014 again got admitted on 05.03.2014 for the purpose of removal of implantation and got discharged from the hospital on 14.03.2014 and

Page No. 5 of 7 MVOP 113-2016 inspite of best treatment at Care Hospital, Nampally and other private hospitals her husband succumbed to injuries on 26.09.2014.

12.In all it is the testimony of PW1 because of injury in a road traffic accident on 09.01.2014 her husband died on 26.09.2014.

13.The petitioner in support of her claim has relied upon Ex.P1 to P11 and further examined Sri. Bakthula Mallesh as PW2 who deposed and corroborated with the evidence with regard to accident and injuries.

14.PW1 and 2 are cross examined by the insurance company on the ground that the deceased has not died on account of injuries caused in a road traffic accident and death of the deceased is not on account of rash or negligent act of the driver of the RTC bus.

15.Ex.P1 to P3 documents goes to show that the deceased K. Ravinder

Reddy has received grievous injuries on his left foot. Ex.P4 to P8 further goes to show that after taking treatment at Care Hospital, Nampally the deceased has been discharged from the hospital on 23.01.2014. Ex.P9 is the original death report issued by Care Hospital on 26.09.2014 which goes to show that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to Brady arrest (Cardiac Arrest). Therefore, Ex.P9 certificate is sufficient enough to show that the deceased has died due to cardiac arrest but not due to injury. The evidence of PW1 further goes to show that the deceased after discharge from the hospital on 23.01.2014 has also attended the normal duties. The death of the deceased should be on account of rash or negligent act of the driver of the RTC Bus. But, whereas, Ex.P9 original death report goes to show that the deceased died because of Cardiac Arrest. PW1 did not report

Page No. 6 of 7 MVOP 113-2016 the matter to the police after death of her husband for taking further action. Moreover, the deceased K. Ravinder Reddy died after 8 ½ months from the date of accident. Even, the Care hospital did not informed to the concerned police about the death of the deceased. Ex.P3 charge sheet reveals that the deceased has received grievous injuries. The petitioners did not chose to examine the medical officer from Care Hospital in order to show that the deceased has died only on account of grievous injuries. The deceased who met with an accident did not filed any application under the

Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensation towards medical expenditure or loss of earnings. Ex.P9 death report falsifies the claim made by the petitioners.

16.On careful examination of the entire oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with Ex.P1 to P11 this court feels that there is no negligence or rashness on the part of first respondent in causing death of the deceased and therefore, all the respondents are absolved from liability.

Issue No.1 answered accordingly.

17.ISSUE No. (ii) :-

Since, the petitioners failed to prove that the deceased Sri K. Ravinder

Reddy died due to rash or negligent driving of the RTC Bus by respondent

No.1 and in view of finding of Issue No.1, the petitioners are not entitle for any compensation. The Judgment relied upon by the petitioners can be made applicable only in case the petitioners establishing their claim of causing death by negligent act on the part of first respondent.

Issue answered accordingly.

Page No. 7 of 7 MVOP 113-2016 18. ISSUE NO. (iii):

In the result, this Petition dismissed.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2022.

Chairman MACT-cum-

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Petitioners On behalf of the Respondents:

PW1 Kancherla Manmada.NIL PW2 Baktula Mallesh.

Exhibits marked

On behalf of the Petitioners:- Ex. P1 CC of FIR, dt. 10-01-2014 in Cr.No. 17/2014, Ex. P2 CC of Police report, dt. 10-01-2014, Ex. P3 CC of Charge Sheet, dt. 06-03-2014 Ex. P4 CC of Injury certificate, dt. 07-02-2014 issued by Care Hospitals, Ex. P5 Original Discharge Summary, dt. 14-03-2014 issued by Care Hospitals Ex. P6 Original X-Ray Report, dt. 24-5-2014 issued by DBR Diagnostics Services Private Ltd., Ex. P7 Original X -Ray Report, dt. 24-05-2014 issued by DNR Diagnostic Hospitals Ex. P8 Original X-Ray Report, dt. 24-5-2014 issued by DNR Diagnostic Services Pvt. Ltd. Ex. P9 Original Death Report issued by Care Hospitals, dt. 26-09-2014, Ex. P10 Original death certificate issued by the GHMC, dt. 22-12-2017, Ex. P11 letter issued by the Depot Manager, Hyderabad Depot, TSRTC dated 06.11.2018 with regard to pay particulars, Date of Birth and Date of appointment as well as the Date of retirement.

On behalf of the Respondents:-

NIL

Chairman MACT-cum-

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Page No. 1 of 5

Crl.A.278-2020

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: Sri K.Kusha, III-Addl.MSJ, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2022

Crl.Appeal No. 278 of 2020

Between:-

N. Ranjith Kumar S/o. Sri N. Sariah, aged about 35 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1-1-1277/1, Venkatadri Nagar, Warangal.

...Appellant/Respondent

AND

1.Smt. G. Pranitha Vikasini W/o. Ranjith Kumar, aged about 35 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 4-1-60, Plot No. 206, Kesava Apartment, I floor, Snehapuri Colony, Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Medchal District.

2.The State of Telangana, through Addl. Public Prosecutor.

...Respondents/Petitioner/State.

Against: Order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 238 of 2019 in DVC No.143 of

2018, dated 02.03.2020 by IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

Between:- Smt. G. Pranitha Vikasini W/o. Ranjith Kumar, aged about 35 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 4-1-60, Plot No. 206, Kesava Apartment, I floor, Snehapuri Colony, Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Medchal District.

...Petitioner

And

N. Ranjith Kumar S/o. Sri N. Sariah, aged about 35 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1-1-1277/1, Venkatadri Nagar, Warangal.

...Respondent

This criminal appeal is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J. Rajeswar, Counsel for the Appellant/respondent and Smt Lavanya Kuntala, Counsel for respondent/petitioner (legal Aid) and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The challenge in the present appeal is to the Order passed in Crl.M.P.No.

238 of 2019 in DVC No. 143 of 2018 dated 02.03.2020 by IV Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein and

whereby the appellant was directed to pay monthly interim maintenance to an

Page No. 2 of 5

Crl.A.278-2020

amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) per month to the respondent from the date of order till disposal of the main DVC on or before 5th of every succeeding month.

2.The appellant is the respondent and the Respondent is the petitioner.

3.For brevity, the rank of the parties as were referred to in the trial court is maintained.

4.The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that petitioner is mentally and physically suffered in the hands of the respondent as such the petitioner filed the above DVC and that the petitioner has no source of income as she is housewife and respondent is running a business of medical transaction at Nacharam and earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month.

5.Therefore, the petitioner sought maintenance of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty five thousand only) per month for her maintenance. The lower court awarded Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) per month to the petitioner.

6.Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed the present appeal.

7.Heard both sides.

8.The points for consideration are as follows:

1.Whether the respondent/complaint is entitled for any maintenance amount for herself from the appellant?

2.Whether the respondent/complainant has proved the means of the appellant and his negligence, inspite of having means to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/-?

3.To what relief?

Page No. 3 of 5

Crl.A.278-2020

9.POINT No.1 and 2:-

The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the appellant, then, there is no point for granting interim maintenance @ Rs.3,000/-. But, the trial court has considered oral contention with regard to live-in relationship and wrongly granted the interim maintenance which is liable to be set aside.

10.According to appellant the respondent married to one Md. Naimathullah in the year 2004 and blessed with two childrens who are majors then, there is no weight in saying that the appellant lived with the respondent as live-in relationship and without there being any proper evidence the trial court has committed error in granting maintenance. The trial court at para No. 8 of the order dated 02.03.2020 has observed that :

“the petitioner/respondent and respondent/appellant herein lived together, the petitioner/respondent filed the copy of Judgment in CC No. 178/2015wherein the respondent/ appellant is shown as accused and he was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 417, 420, 323 and 506 of IPC. On perusal of the Judgment, it is prima facie establishes that the petitioner/respondent and respondent/appellant had domestic relationship and presently, the petitioner is living separately from the respondent. Though, the respondent denied the relationship with the petitioner but the same can be decided after full-fledged trial. Hence, the petitioner/respondent is entitled for maintenance”.

11.It is true that, the respondent did not file any proof showing that she and the appellant are lived together like a live-in relationship.

12.The respondent has admitted about her marriage with Mohd.

Naimathullah in the year 2004 but, she obtained divorce as per Muslim rites and customs. Now, there is a dispute with regard to appellant and respondent are living together as “Live-in relationship”. The learned counsel for the

Page No. 4 of 5

Crl.A.278-2020

respondent has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1978 Law Suit (SC) 181 between Badri Prasad Vs. Dy. Director Of

Consolidation dated 01-08-1978. Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed at para No. 1 as under :

“A strong presumption arises in favour of wed-lock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heave burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. If man and woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove, half a century later, by eye-witness evidence that they were validly married, few will succeed.

13.The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon a Judgment of

Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in between Gurvinder Singh and

another Vs State of Punjab and Others dated 13.10.2021. Where in it was held as under :

“The concept of live-in-relationships has crept into our society from western nations and initially, found acceptance in the metropolitan cities, probably because, individuals felt that formalization of a relationship through marriage was not necessary for complete fulfillment. Education played a great role in development of this concept. Slowly, the concept has percolated into small towns and villages also as is evident from this petition. This shows that social acceptance for live-in- relationships is on the increase. In law, such a relationship is not prohibited nor does it amount to commission of any offence and thus, in my considered view such persons are entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the country. The law postulates that the life and liberty of every individual is precious and must be protected irrespective of individual views.

14.Therefore, whether the appellant and respondent lived together in the form of live-in relationship is a point to be considered in the due course of enquiry.

Page No. 5 of 5

Crl.A.278-2020

15.The learned trial court has taken into consideration of Judgment in CC

No. 178/2015 in establishing the relationship. The appellant except denying the averments made by the respondent of live-in relationship did not filed any other document in rejecting the claim made by the respondent. So, therefore, the claim of the respondent with regard to live-in relationship cannot be thrown out at threshold which paves for enquiry. Moreover, the respondent has sought interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month. But, the learned trial court has granted Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance which is a meagre. The appellant aggrieved by the said order has preferred the appeal on various grounds which are to be considered in due course of enquiry not at this stage.

16.Granting of interim maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent does not found to be illegal. The trial court has rightly appreciated the contention of the respondent with regard to prima facie case of live-in relationship and has granted a small amount of maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month which does not requires any interference at all. The appeal fails and liable to be dismissed.

Points answered, accordingly.

17. POINT NO.3:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order in Crl.M.P.

No. 238/2019 in DVC No. 143/2018 dated 02.03.2020 on the file of IV-Addl.

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12 th day of April, 2022.

III-ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.