Smt.K.MaruthiDevi

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. K.MARUTHI DEVI

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Dated on this the 24 th day of July, 2019

O.S. No. 1213 of 2012

BETWEEN:-

1. Shaik Mohammed Ali, S/o. Shaik Mastan, Aged about 57yrs, Occ: Business,

2. Shaik Muzafeer S/o. Shaik Mastan (died) per LRs

3. Shaik Ahmed S/o. Shaik Mastan, Aged about 36yrs, Occ: Business, All are R/o. H.no. 2-3-529, Main Bapu Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad – 39.

4. Sayeeda Begum W/o. Late Shaik Muzafeer, Aged about 46yrs, Occ: Housewife,

5. Shaik Azam S/o. Late Shaik Muzafeer, Aged about 24yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee

6. Shaik. Md. Aleem, S/o. Late Shaik Muzafeer, Aged about 22yrs, Occ: Student.

Plaintiffs no.4 to 6 are R/o. H.no. 2-3-529/1, Babunagar Main Road, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

Plaintiffs no. 4 to 6 are added vide order in

IA no. 1711 of 2012 dt. 04.09.2013. .…. Plaintiffs

AND

1. D. Chandrashekar Reddy, S/o. D.Raji Reddy, Aged about 44yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot no. 313, Teja Block, My Home Navadeep Apartments, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081.

2. D.Sheshirekha W/o. D.Chandrashekar Reddy, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Managing Partner of ,

M/s. Shambhavi Estates, R/o. Plot no. 313, Teja Block, My Home Navadeep Apartments, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081.

3. P. Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. P. Sheshaiah, Aged about 51yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 7-78, Nava Bharath Building, Karnool Road, Ongole, Prakasham District.

4. Sanga Raju Sudharshan Raju, S/o. Late Pichi Raju, Aged about 40yrs, Occ: Software Engineer,

5. Muppala Sarala W/o. Sanga Raju Sudharshan Raju, Aged about 39yrs, Occ: Doctor,

Defendants no. 4 and 5 are R/o. Plot no. 306, Matha Towers, Serweel Co-operative Housing Society, Yousufguda, Hyderabad – 500 045.

6. Alluri Venkata Varhala Surya Subramanya Krishnam Raju, S/o. Alluri Sitarama Raju, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Film Actor, R/o. Plot no. 301, 5th Block (Yellow), Harivillu Apartments, Manikonda, Hyderabad.

7. Sangam Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. Arjun Rao, Aged about 38yrs, Occ: Business,

8. Sangam Harish Kumar S/o. Arjun Rao, Aged about 32yrs, Occ: Business,

Defendants no. 7 and 8 are R/o. H.no. 8-1-293/A/11, Dwarakanagar, Hyderabad.

9. T. Prabhavathi W/o. T. Rama Subhaya, Aged about 48yrs, Occ: Housewife,

10. T. Rama Subhaya S/o. T.Subha Rayadu, Aged about 54yrs, Occ: Business,

Defendants no. 9 and 10 are R/o. H.no.12-2-833/13/64, Incometax colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

11. V. Vishnuvardhan Reddy S/o. V. Gopal Reddy, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 2-66/3, Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District.

12. P. Sandeep Reddy, S/o. P. Krishna Reddy,

Aged about 28yrs, Occ: Business,

13. K.Ravinder Reddy S/o. K.Bachi Reddy, Aged about 30yrs, Occ: Business,

Defendants no. 11 and 12 are R/o. 8-4-17/10, Sai Ram Nagar Colony, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal,

R.R.District – 500 079. ….. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of M/s. M.Raghunandan Reddy, Advocate

for the Plaintiff and Defendants no.1, 2, 6, 12 and 13

remained exparte, M/s. Dhulipalla V.A.S.Ravi Prasad,

Advocate for defendants no.3 to 5, 9 to 12,

Sri.N.Jagannadhan, Advocate for defendants no. 7

and 8, and having stood over 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 against the defendants to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2)The brief averments of plaint are that the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are the absolute owners and possessors of semi finished house on plot no. 1, admeasuring 200sq.yds, having plinth area of 3228sq.ft with car parking area of 724sq.ft in Sy.no. 31/A, AA, EE situated at Manikonda

Jagir Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District (hereinafter called as suit schedule A property) vide registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 3273 of 2011 dt. 30.08.2011 having purchased the same from AGPA holder of Mathur Balram. Further, the plaintiffs no.1 and 3 are absolute owners and possessors of Semi-finished Triplex house on plotn o. 8, admeasuring 200sq.yds, having plinth area of 3228sq.ft with car parking area of 724sq.ft in Sy.no.31/A, AA, EE situated at

Manikonda Jagir Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar Mandal,

R.R.District (hereinafter called as Suit schedule B property) vide registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 3274 of 2011 dt. 30.08.2011 having purchased the same from the GPA holder of Mathur Balram. Said

Mathur Balram has deposited the title deeds with A.P.Khadi and Village

Industries Board, Hyderabad under registered memorandum of Deposit of title deeds bearing doc.no. 6185/1994 dt. 14.07.1994 and raised loan.

Thereafter in the year 2009, Mathur Balram has obtained a

Reconveyance deed from AP Khadi and village industries board,

Hyderabad represented by its Dy. Director, Vishwanath Dixit by discharging the debt under a Registered Reconveyance deed bearing doc.no. 539 of 2009 dt. 25.03.2009. Thereafter, said Mathur Balram converted the said land into plots and the suit schedule A and B properties are out of the said plots and said Mathur Balaram has obtained permission on suit schedule A property for construction of

Triplex houses from the Grampanchayath vide permit no. G.P.27/2004

dt. 11.02.2004 and renewed on 12.02.2007 and also obtained the

permission on suit schedule B property for construction of Triplex houses from the grampanchayath vide permit no. GP28/2004 dt.

11.02.2004 and renewed on 12.02.2007 but could not proceed with the construction work over the suit schedule A and B property and thereafter said Mathur Balram has executed AGPA vide doc.no. 544 of 2009 dt.

25.03.2009 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1-24gts, in Sy.no. 31/A,

AA, EE which was converted into plots by him to Karedla Yella Reddy and he inturn sold the suit schedule A and B properties in favour of plaintiffs herein. That on 06.07.2012 the defendants along with their men tried to interfere with the construction work over the suit schedule A and B properties and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule A and B properties. The plaintiff with great difficulty could resist the illegal activities of the defendants and the defendants threatened the plaintiffs that they will take possession of the suit schedule A and B properties. Hence the plaintiffs are constrained to file this suit.

3)Defendant no.3 filed written statement denying the contents of plaint and further contended that originally Yalala Pochaiah and others who are pattedars of land in sy.no. 13/A, 13/AA, 13/E, 13/EE, 27, 30 and 31 of Manikonda Jagir Village have divided their lands into layout and obtained permission from grampanchayath. More than 80% plots are existing with full fledged, either individual houses or complexes developed by 2007 – 2008 and there is a Welfare Association registered in the year 2004 as “Hanuman Nagar Welfare Association” and defendant no.3 has purchased plot no. 76 vide sale deed bearing doc.no. 12220 dt. 02.06.2006 from Marreddy Venkata Subamma frpersented by her GPA holder A. Sriram Goud and plot no. 77 vide sale deed bearing doc.no. 12094 dt. 02.06.2006 from M.Siva Prasad Reddy.

The defendant no.3 is in possession of the said plots since then.

Thereafter, the defendant no.3 has obtained permission for construction of house in plot no. 76 and 77 and obtained electricity connection. That

Yella Reddy and his associates and defendants no. 12 and 13 created fictious documents, reconveyance deeds and layout covering 25plots as also filed by them in another OS no. 708 of 2012. At that time, Sai

Reddy and Yella Reddy and others without having any right over the property came to the sites of defendant no.3 and threatened him, upon that the defendant no.3 filed a police complaint on 20.05.2012 but the case was not registered and on 10.06.2012 the defendant along with others filed another police complaint and it was against K. Yella Reddy and Sai Reddy vide cr.no. 201 of 2012. Upon his filing of the said case,

K.Yella Reddy filed Writ Petition no. 20998 of 2012 before Hon’ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh and said writ petition was closed and disposed off on 29.08.2012 without any orders and in addition, Yella Reddy and another filed an injunction suit in OS no. 1331 of 2012 before VIII Addl.

Sr. Civil Judge, R.R.District seeking injunction and subsequently, the same was withdrawn by them. The plaintiffs in OS no. 1331 of 2012 have filed another suit vide OS no. 708 of 2012 and IA no. 1431 of 2012

before Special Judge for SC/ST cum Addl. District Judge, R.R.District

for injunction and said suit was posted to 22.11.2012. That the plaintiff conspired with Yella Reddy and Balram and Defendants no.12 and 13 to grab their properties. The properties covered by Sale deed no. 3273 and 3274 of 2011 which are relied upon the plaintiffs does not cover the property of the defendants, therefore, the question of defendants interfering with property of the plaintiffs does not arise. On 06.07.2012, the defendant no.3 was in Karnataka to attend his son and defendant no.4 was on duty at his office at Gachibowli and defendant no.5 was also on his duty as Medical Officer at V.R.Kota in Prakasham District and Defendant no.10 who is a Government employee was in his office, defendant no.9 who is house wife was in house, defendant no.11 was in his school. Thus, the defendants interfering with the plaintiffs possession on 06.07.2012 is false and incorrect. The documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are fraudulent documents and the boundaries of Suit A and B schedule properties were shown differently in each of the documents and after obtaining fraudulent interim orders, the plaintiffs are harassing the defendants and the plaintiffs have filed the suit by suppressing the material facts. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4)Written statement filed by the defendants no. 7 and 8 denying the averments made in the plaint and further contended that they are absolute owners and possessors of plot bearing no. 65, admeasuring 244sq.yds in Sy.no. 31/E, situated at Manikonda Jagir

Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District, having purchased the same through sale deed bearing doc.no. 6374/2005 dt. 10.05.2005 from

S.Dasharath and S.P.Satish represented by their Registered Agreement of sale cum GPA holder V.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, C.Rajender, M. Mohan

Goud and M.Manohar Goud and subsequently the came to know that there was an error in the sale deed in mentioning the suryve numbers as 31/U instead of Sy.no. 31/E, as such, the same was rectified through the

Rectification Deed bearing doc.no. 6520 of 2012 dt. 17.09.2012. The vendors of the defendants no. 7 and 8 have purchased the same vide

Registered Agreement of sale cum GPA bearing doc.no. 4208 of 2005 dt.30.03.2005. That after purchasing the property, the defendants no. 7 and 8 obtained construction permission from concerned authorities and constructed a room and compound wall and obtained electricity connection. The northern boundary of their plot is Manikonda Village

Road and therefore the plot is situated on the Southern side of

Manikonda village Road, whereas the Southern boundary of the plaitniffs is Maniknoda Village Road., i.e., Plot bearing no. 7 situated on the Northern side of the Manikonda Village and further, it is situated in

Sy.no. 31/A, 31/AA and 31/EE. Thus both the properties are different and therefore, the defendants no. 7 and 8 are absolute owners and possessors of Plot no. 65, admeasuring 244sq.yds in Sy.no. 31/E, situated at Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,

R.R.District. Defendants no. 7 and 8 further contended that the plaintiffs in collusion with Yella Reddy and his associates along with Defendants no. 12 and 13 made illegal layouts and are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the defendants no. 7 and 8 and hence the defendants have lodged a complaint with Police on 20.05.2012 and as the same was not registered defendants have lodged another complaint on 10.06.2012 and the same was registered as FIR no. 201 of 2012 and Yella Reddy and another filed suit OS no. 1331 of 2012 on the file of

Hon’ble VII Addl. Sr. Civil Judge Court, R.R.District against the

defendants and same was withdrawn subsequently and filed another suit vid OS no. 708 of 2012 before Hon’ble Special Judge for SC/ST

Cum Addl. District Judge, R.R.District and same is pending. Further, the plaintiffs have filed all fictitious documents and layout and trying to grab the property of defendants and by making all false and concocted stories the plaintiffs have obtained ex-parte interim injunction against the defendants in IA no. 1284 of 2012 in OS no. 1213 of 2012 and having obtained the said orders, the plaintiff along with Yella Reddy and his associates came to the property of defendants and trying to interfere with their possession. Hence to dismiss the suit.

5)Basing on the above pleadings following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule A and B properties as prayed in the plaint?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule A and B properties as prayed in the plaint?

3.Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the light of defence set up by the defendants in the written statement?

4.To what other relief?

6)To prove their case, the plaintiff no.1 examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A12 and in support of the evidence of

PW1, one N.Nagesh PW2 is examined. None were examined on behalf of defendants.

7)Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8)Issues no. 1 and 2 : The plaintiff contention is that plaintiffs no.1, 2 and 3 are the absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule A and B properties having purchased the same vide registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 3273 of 2011 dt. 30.08.2011 sale deed bearing doc.no. 3274 of 2011 dt. 30.08.2011 having purchased the same from AGPA holder of Mathur Balram. Said Mathur Balram has deposited the title deeds with A.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board, Hyderabad under registered memorandum of Deposit of title deeds bearing doc.no.

6185/1994 dt. 14.07.1994 and raised loan and in the year 2009, Mathur

Balram has obtained a Reconveyance deed from AP Khadi and village industries board, Hyderabad represented by its Dy. Director, Vishwanath

Dixit by discharging the debt under a Registered Reconveyance deed bearing doc.no. 539 of 2009 dt. 25.03.2009. Thereafter, said Mathur

Balram converted the said land into plots and the suit schedule A and B properties are out of the said plots and said Mathur Balaram has obtained permission on suit schedule A property for construction of

Triplex houses from the Grampanchayath vide permit no. G.P.27/2004

dt. 11.02.2004 and renewed on 12.02.2007 and also obtained the

permission on suit schedule B property for construction of Triplex houses from the grampanchayath vide permit no. GP28/2004 dt.

11.02.2004 and renewed on 12.02.2007 but could not proceed with the construction work over the suit schedule A and B property and thereafter said Mathur Balram has executed AGPA vide doc.no. 544 of 2009 dt.

25.03.2009 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1-24gts, in Sy.no. 31/A,

AA, EE which was converted into plots by him to Karedla Yella Reddy and he inturn sold the suit schedule A and B properties in favour of plaintiffs herein. That on 06.07.2012 the defendants along with their men tried to interfere with the construction work over the suit schedule A and B properties and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule A and B properties. The plaintiff with great difficulty could resist the illegal activities of the defendants and the defendants threatened the plaintiffs that they will take possession of the suit schedule A and B properties. Hence the plaintiffs are constrained to file this suit.

9)The plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 to A12. Ex.A1 is the CC of sale deed bearing doc.no. 3273 of 2011 dt. 30.08.2011, Ex.A2 is the CC of sale deed bearing doc.no. 3274 of 2011 dt. 30.08.2011, Ex.A3 is the original sanction plan and permit no. GP 27/2004 in respect of plot no. 7

dt. 11.02.2004, Ex.A4 is the Original renewal of permission in File No.

GP27/2004 in respect of plot no. 7 dt. 11.02.2007. Ex.A5 is the original sanction plan and permit no. GP 28/2004 in respect of plot no. 8, dt.

11.02.2007, Ex.A6 is original renewal of permission in file no. GP 28/2004 in respect of plot no. 8 dt. 11.02.2007, Ex.A7 is CC of pahani for the year 1989 – 90, Ex.A8 is CC of pahani for the year 1990 – 91,

Ex.A9 is CC of sale deed bearing doc.no. 2551 of 1991 dt. 27.02.1991,

Ex.A10 is Cc of Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds bearing doc.no.

6185 of 1994 dt. 14.07.1994, Ex.A11 is the CC of Reconveyance Deed bearing doc.no. 539 of 2009 dt. 25.03.2009, Ex.A12 is the CC of agreement of sale cum GPA bearing doc.no. 544 of 2009 dt.

25.03.2009.

10)On the other hand, the defendants have filed their respective written statements but they did not chose to cross examine PW1 and not chose to file the evidence to disprove the contention of the plaintiff herein. The plaintiffs have proved the possession and ownership over the suit schedule property. Hence the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction.

11)ISSUE No. 3: In the result, this suit is decreed with out costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court

on this the 24th day of July, 2019.

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : Shaik Mohammed AliNone PW2 : N.Nagesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: CC of sale deed bearing doc.no. 3273 of 2011 dt. 30.08.2011, Ex.A2: CC of sale deed bearing doc.no. 3274 of 2011 dt. 30.08.2011, Ex.A3: Original sanction plan and permit no. GP 27/2004 in respect of plot no. 7 dt. 11.02.2004 Ex.A4: Original renewal of permission in File No. GP27/2004 in respect of plot no. 7 dt. 11.02.2007 Ex.A5: Original sanction plan and permit no. GP 28/2004 in respect of plot no. 8, dt. 11.02.2007

Ex.A6: Original renewal of permission in file no. GP 28/2004 in respect of plot no. 8 dt. 11.02.2007 Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the year 1989 – 90, Ex.A8: CC of pahani for the year 1990 – 91 Ex.A9: CC of sale deed bearing doc.no. 2551 of 1991 dt. 27.02.1991 Ex.A10: CC of Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds bearing doc.no. 6185 of 1994 dt. 14.07.1994 Ex.A11: CC of Reconveyance Deed bearing doc.no. 539 of 2009 dt. 25.03.2009 Ex.A12: CC of agreement of sale cum GPA bearing doc.no. 544 of 2009

dt. 25.03.2009

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

24.07.2019

Judgment pronounced (Vide separate judgment)

In the result, this suit is decreed without costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

VII ASCJ

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. K.MARUTHI DEVI

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Dated on this the 24 th day of July, 2019

O.S. No. 1213 of 2012

BETWEEN:-

1. Shaik Mohammed Ali, S/o. Shaik Mastan, Aged about 57yrs, Occ: Business,

2. Shaik Muzafeer S/o. Shaik Mastan (died) per LRs

3. Shaik Ahmed S/o. Shaik Mastan, Aged about 36yrs, Occ: Business, All are R/o. H.no. 2-3-529, Main Bapu Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad – 39.

4. Sayeeda Begum W/o. Late Shaik Muzafeer, Aged about 46yrs, Occ: Housewife,

5. Shaik Azam S/o. Late Shaik Muzafeer, Aged about 24yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee

6. Shaik. Md. Aleem, S/o. Late Shaik Muzafeer, Aged about 22yrs, Occ: Student.

Plaintiffs no.4 to 6 are R/o. H.no. 2-3-529/1, Babunagar Main Road, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

Plaintiffs no. 4 to 6 are added vide order in

IA no. 1711 of 2012 dt. 04.09.2013. .…. Plaintiffs

AND

1. D. Chandrashekar Reddy, S/o. D.Raji Reddy, Aged about 44yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot no. 313, Teja Block, My Home Navadeep Apartments, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081.

2. D.Sheshirekha W/o. D.Chandrashekar Reddy, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Managing Partner of , M/s. Shambhavi Estates, R/o. Plot no. 313, Teja Block, My Home Navadeep Apartments, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081.

3. P. Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. P. Sheshaiah, Aged about 51yrs, Occ: Business,

R/o. H.no. 7-78, Nava Bharath Building, Karnool Road, Ongole, Prakasham District.

4. Sanga Raju Sudharshan Raju, S/o. Late Pichi Raju, Aged about 40yrs, Occ: Software Engineer,

5. Muppala Sarala W/o. Sanga Raju Sudharshan Raju, Aged about 39yrs, Occ: Doctor,

Defendants no. 4 and 5 are R/o. Plot no. 306, Matha Towers, Serweel Co-operative Housing Society, Yousufguda, Hyderabad – 500 045.

6. Alluri Venkata Varhala Surya Subramanya Krishnam Raju, S/o. Alluri Sitarama Raju, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Film Actor, R/o. Plot no. 301, 5th Block (Yellow), Harivillu Apartments, Manikonda, Hyderabad.

7. Sangam Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. Arjun Rao, Aged about 38yrs, Occ: Business,

8. Sangam Harish Kumar S/o. Arjun Rao, Aged about 32yrs, Occ: Business,

Defendants no. 7 and 8 are R/o. H.no. 8-1-293/A/11, Dwarakanagar, Hyderabad.

9. T. Prabhavathi W/o. T. Rama Subhaya, Aged about 48yrs, Occ: Housewife,

10. T. Rama Subhaya S/o. T.Subha Rayadu, Aged about 54yrs, Occ: Business,

Defendants no. 9 and 10 are R/o. H.no.12-2-833/13/64, Incometax colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

11. V. Vishnuvardhan Reddy S/o. V. Gopal Reddy, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 2-66/3, Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District.

12. P. Sandeep Reddy, S/o. P. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 28yrs, Occ: Business,

13. K.Ravinder Reddy S/o. K.Bachi Reddy, Aged about 30yrs, Occ: Business,

Defendants no. 11 and 12 are R/o. 8-4-17/10, Sai Ram Nagar Colony, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal,

R.R.District – 500 079. ….. Defendants

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to grant such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be entitled for.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose within the limits of Manikonda Jagir Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar mandal, R.R.District on 30.08.2011 when the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule A and B properties and on 06.07.2012 when the defendants and their men tried to interfere with the peace- ful possession of the plaintiff and tried to dispossess the plaintiff and the cause of action is subsisting and continuing.

Suit Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.____________/- and court fee of Rs._____________/- is paid under sec. 26(c) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient, and the same is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction.

Suit Presented on: 10.07.2012 Suit Numbered on: 10.07.2012 Suit Decreed on : 24.07.2019

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

M/s. M.Raghunandan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and

Defendants no.1, 2, 6, 12 and 13 remained exparte, M/s. Dhulipalla

V.A.S.Ravi Prasad, Advocate for defendants no.3 to 5, 9 to 12,

Sri.N.Jagannadhan, Advocate for defendants no. 7 and 8, and having

stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth Order as

follows:

1)That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is decreed without costs.

2)That the plaintiff granted permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

3)That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 24th day of July, 2019

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs.

--------------------- -------------------

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SCHEDULE A PROPERTY

All that semi-finished Triplex Houses on plot no. 7, admeasuring 200sq.yds having plinth area of 3228sq.ft with car parking area of 724sq.ft in Sy.no. 31/A, AA, EE situated at Manikonda Jagir Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District and bounded as follows:

NORTH:Plot no.4 SOUTH:30ft wide road EAST :Plot no. 8 WEST :Plot no.6

SCHEDULE B PROPERTY

All that semi-finished Triplex Houses on plot no. 8, admeasuring 200sq.yds having plinth area of 3228sq.ft with car parking area of 724sq.ft in Sy.no. 31/A, AA, EE situated at Manikonda Jagir Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District and bounded as follows:

NORTH:Plot no.3 SOUTH:30ft wide road EAST :Plot no. 9 WEST :Plot no.7

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1 SC 170 of 2017

VII ASCJ RR DT

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD

Present: K.MARUTHIDEVI

VII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge

Rangareddy District

Dated this the 26th day July, 2019

SESSIONS CASE NO. 170 of 2017

Name of the The State of T.S. through Inspector of Police, P.S. Complainant L.B.Nagar

Name of the A1Ralapally Shanker @ Shiva, S/o. Koteshwar AccusedRao, Aged about 41yrs, Occ: Brothel Business, R/o. Nalla Jullamma Street, Opp: Geetha Mother Street, Gudur of Nelore district.

A2Brahmasani Ganesh S/o. Shabmba Shiva, Aged about 34yrs, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o. Tenali of Guntur District.

A3Yelleshwaram Srinivas, S/o. Sri Hari, Aged about 40yrs, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o.H.no.16-11-409/2, Mushrambagh, Hyderabad.

A4Vamanaguntla Srinivas Rao, S/o. Rama Swamy, Aged about 40yrs, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o. J.K.Colony, Neredmet, Hyderabad.

A5Damera Ramakrishna S/o. Rama Swamy, Aged about 35yrs, Occ: Pvt. Job R/o. JLNS Nagar, Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

Charge U/Sec. U/s. 370, 370A (2) IPC, 3, 4, 5 PIT Act

Crime No.437/2014

Plea of the accused Not Guilty

Finding of the Court Not guilty

Sentence or OrderAccused/A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences U/s. 370, 370A (2) IPC, 3, 4, 5 PITA Act Prosecution conducted Addl. Public Prosecutor by

Defence conducted byM/s.K.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for accused

This case was committed by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

L.B.Nagar, vide PRC 04 of 2016 2 SC 170 of 2017

VII ASCJ RR DT

This case come before me for final hearing in the presence of the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s.K.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is the case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS L.B.Nagar against the accused for the offences U/s. 370, 370A (2) IPC, 3, 4, 5 of Immoral

Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. Brief facts of the case are that 09.05.2014 at about 6PM, on receipt of credible information about organizing prostitution at Plot no. 17-C, 2nd

Floor, Road no. 14, Co-operative Bank Colony,Nagole, L.B.nagar, the

Investigation officer K.Sudhakar, SI of Police, PS L.B.Nagar (LW1) obtained permission from ACP L.B.Nagar and secured the presence of mediators Gujje

Narendhar (LW11) S.V.Anjaneyulu (LW12) along with his staff Sathaiah, ASI of

Police PS L.B.Nagar (LW2), T.Narsimha, PC 2636 (LW3), J.Shankar, PC 2945 (LW4), Sureka WPC 5703 (LW5) and raided above said place and knocked the door and a male person opened the door and on search of the said house, they found accused in the said house. The investigation officer enquried them separately and seized two samsung mobile phones from the possession of A1 under cover of panchanama and enquired A2 and seized Lava Black colour mobile phone under cover of panchanama. Thereafter, he interrogated A3 and seized Sony Experia mobile phone from the possession of A3 under cover of confession panchanama and also interrogated A4 and seized Celkon Black

Colour mobile phone from his possession under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama and also interrogated A5 and seized Micromax White

Colour mobile phone from the possession of A5 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, at request of SI 3 SC 170 of 2017

VII ASCJ RR DT

of Police, the mediators enquired the victim and they revealed their names and stated that A1 has brought them and indulged them in prostitution, upon that the investigation officer recorded the confession statements of the victims in the presence of mediators and also seized four used condoms, some unused condoms, and Bajaj discover vehicle bearing no. 09SC 1372 from the possession of A1, Alto Car bearing no. AP11 Q 0279 from the possession of A3,

Star City bearing no. AP29 J 8432 from the possession of A4 in the presence of mediators. The Investigating officer brought A1 to A4, seized property and victims to the police station and produced them before the SHO, PS L.B.Nagar and produced the Panchanama before LW13 T.Avinash Babu, SI of Police, PS

L.B.nagar. Basing on said panchanama, LW13 registered a case in Cr.no. 437 of 2014 u/sec. 3, 4 and 5 of PIT Act and handed over further investigation to

LW14 D.Vijay, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS L.B.Nagar. During the course of investigation, LW14 examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, visited scene of offence and caused enquiries and affected the arrest of A1 to A5 and produced them before the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, LW15 E.Srinivas Reddy, Inspector of Police, PS L.B.Nagar, verified the investigation done by LW14 and filed charge sheet against all the accused.

3.This case was committed by II Metropolitan Magistrate vide PRC 04 of 2017. It was made over to this court. On hearing the accused/A1 to A5, the court framed the charges against the accused for the offences under

Section 370-A, 370A (2) IPC, 3, 4, 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. The charges were read over and explained to accused to which they denied. As such matter was posted for trial.

4 SC 170 of 2017

VII ASCJ RR DT

4. At the time of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 which are Ex.P1 is Signature of PW4 on panchanamam,

Ex.P2 is confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is First Information

Report

5. After closure of trial, the accused were examined U/s 313 (b)Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to the accused.

They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence. Hence matter was posted for arguments.

6.On closure of trial, arguments of both sides heard .

7.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3.

9. PW1 A. Sathaiah the then ASI of Police, PS L.B.Nagar has deposed that on 09.05.2014 at about 2:03PM while he was attending patrolling duty along with PC Narsimha, HG Kiran, HG Kishore at L.B.Nagar, at the instructions of LW1

Sudhakar he went to Co-operative colony and noticed LW1 along with PC Shankar and woman PC Surekha and some other civilians and they all proceeded to H.no.

17/C, 2nd floor as prostitution is going on in the said house. PW1 further deposed that LW1 knocked the door and one male person opened the door and another male was present and they informed that they are tenants of the said house and running finance business and they found three male and three female persons from three bed rooms. PW1 further deposed that their SI of police seized two cell phones, one vehicle from the possession of one person and cell phone and he 5 SC 170 of 2017

VII ASCJ RR DT

confessed that he helps to one Shankar and supplies female persons to Shankar and three persons came to participate in sex and three ladies, Shailaja, Sana and another woman confessed that one Ganesh informed them that he will give Rs.

10,000/- per each day and their SI of Police seized one car from Ramakrishna and seized cell phones and after conducting the same they brought them to police station.

10.PW2 Surekha the then WPC, L.B.Nagar has deposed that on 09.04.2014 during evening hours at the instructions of LW1 Sudhakar she along with LW1, two panch witnesses and some police staff proceeded to H.no. 17/C, Road no. 14, 2nd floor as prostitution was going in the said house. PW2 further deposed that accused were the said persons and LW1 knocked the door and one male person opened the door and another male person were present and the atmosphere looks like office and they found three male and three female persons from three bed rooms used condoms, some cell phones and vehicles, after conducting the same they brought accused to police station.

11.PW5 K. Sudhakar the then SI of Police has deposed that on 09.05.2014 at about 5PM, on receipt of credible information about running of prostitution at co- operative Bank colony, he obtained permission from his superiors and he along with PW1, LW3 Narsimha, LW4 Shankar, PW2 proceeded to P.No. 17-C, Road no.

14, Co-operative Bank colony, Nagole and obtained panch witnesses near scene of offence and requested them to act as panch witnesses and they accepted for the same. PW5 further deposed that the said building consists of G+ 3 + pent house and they went to 2nd floor and knocked the door and one male person by name Shankar opened the door and on entering the said house, another person by name Ganesh was also present and Sai Shankar informed that prostitution was going on in the house and there were total two bed rooms and one male and female person are present in the each bed room. PW5 further deposed that there 6 SC 170 of 2017

VII ASCJ RR DT

are two enterances to the said room the main entrace looks like office and in the presence of mediators of panchanama you confessed about the offence and you revealed your names as Sanaa, Shakila, Shaialaja and accused are Srinivas,

Srinivas Rao, Rama Krishna, and informed that accused are doing brothel business and on searching the house they found some used and unused Nirodhs and he seized six cell phones, one car and two vehicles and after conducting panchanama they brought all of you PS at 2100hrs and handed over to SHO.

Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama.

12.PW7 Tenali Shailaja @ Sudha has deposed that she has come to

Hyderabad in the month of May 2014 and A1 came to Razia’s house and informed her that he will send her to Dubai for household work and had taken an amount of

Rs. 20,000/- from her and after ten days A1 would inform her about the medical tests at Hyderabad as such, A1 called her on one day and she along with her friend LW8 Shakila came to L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and A1 took her to his house which is situated at Hyderabad. PW7 further deposed that A1 stated that it will take four days for medical tests and agents will come and she must do prostitution and they strongly refused for his proposal on that A1 has taken Rs. 4,000/-, silver anklets, cell phones and locked the house where they were residing at L.B.Nagar,

Hyderabad. PW7 further deposed that one person came and they both informed about the incident to him and when the police came for the raid, apart from both of them, one more lady was there in the residence and Accused was also present and in the mean while three other male persons came to the said house and accused were three male persons and police took all of Accused, herself and along with other two victims to police station and A1 threatened them with dire consequences not to reveal the incident. During the cross examination, PW7 has denied the suggestions made by the counsel for accused.

13.PW8 Shakeera has deposed that she is a native of Gajuwaka, of Vizag and 7 SC 170 of 2017

VII ASCJ RR DT

she came to Hyderabad in the month of May 2014 and A1 came to Razia’s house and informed her that A1 will send her to Dubai for household work and had taken an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from her and after ten days he will inform about the medical tests at Hyderabad as such, A1 called her on one day and she along with her friend, PW7 came to L.B.Nagar Hyderabad and A1 took her to his house which is situated at Hyderabad. PW8 further deposed that it will take two days for medical tests and agents will come to them and they have to do prostitution and they strongly refused for the proposal of accused no.1 and he locked the room and went away and on that A1 has taken Rs. 4,000/-, silver anklets, cell phones and locked the house where they were residing at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. PW8 further deposed that in the mean while one person came and they both informed about the incident to him and when police came on raid, apart from both of them, one more lady was there in the residence of A2 and also present and in the mean while three persons came to the said house and police took all of accused, herself and two other victims to the police station and A1 has threatened them with dire consequences not to reveal about the incident and A1 to A5 are said persons.

14.PW9 D. Vijay the then SI of police has deposed that on 09.05.2014 LW13 T.

Avinash Babu registered a case in Cr.no. 437 of 2014 for the offence u/sec. 3, 4 and 5 of PIT Act and entrusted investigation to her and during the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to LW5, visited scene of offence, recorded the statement of LW6 on 10.05.2014 and affected the arrest of accused and sent the victims to Ujjwala Rescue Home, Peerjadiguda,

Uppal and seized one Alto car bearing no. AP11 Z 0279 and Bajaj Discover AP09

SC 1372, TVS Star City B.No. AP29 J 8432 and 6 cell phones from the possession

of accused at the scene of offence and condoms were seized by Sudhakar, SI of pOlice and handed over to the SHO for further investigation.

15.PW10 E.Srinivas Reddy the then Inspector of police, PS L.B.Nagar has 8 SC 170 of 2017

VII ASCJ RR DT

deposed that on 18.06.2014 he took up investigation from D.Anjaiah PW9 and verified the investigation found correct and filed charge sheet on 18.06.2014.

16.PW11 T. Avinash Babu the then SI of Police, PS L.B.Nagar has deposed that on 09.01.2014 he received complaint from LW1 along with seized property, accused and victims, and basing on the confession cum seizure panchanama he registered Ex.P3 FIR in Cr.no. 437 of 2014 u/sec. 3, 4, 5 PIT Act and thereafter investigation was entrusted to PW11.

17. In the light of above evidence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of A1 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2, who are constables who accompanied the investigating officer PW5 K. Sudhakar, SI of Police, PS L.B.Nagar who received information about conducting prostitution at the scene of offence and their evidence at best will help the prosecution to prove that basing on the credible information about conducting prostitution, PW5 along with PW1 and PW2 have conducted raid and proceeded with investigation. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused no.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt without an independent evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has to rely on the evidence of the victim or any other independent witness to support the version of PW1 to PW3 who are official witnesses.

18.The prosecution has examined PW4 who is panch witness for scene of offence to prove the seizure of material objects from the possession of accused.

PW4 has totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and deposed that police obtained his signature on some papers marked as Ex.P4. Since PW4 the panch witness for panchanama has turned hostile, learned APP has cross examined him with prior permission of this court but failed to elicit anything in support of prosecution case.

9 SC 170 of 2017

VII ASCJ RR DT

19.Further the prosecution has examined and independent witness as PW3 and PW6 to prove that the prostitution is going on in the scene of offence and they too have turned hostile to the prosecution case and PW3 deposed that on receipt of information that police arrested the tenants in the first floor, he went to the house and by the time he reached the house, none were present and after one hour police obtained his signature and he does not know anything about the case. PW6 deposed that he does not know anything about the case. Since PW3 and PW6 have turned hostile to the prosecution case, learned APP has cross examined the witnesses with prior permission of this court, but failed to elicit anything in support of the prosecution case.

20. Now the only evidence available with the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused is only that of PW5 who conducted investigation. During cross examination, PW5 has admitted that he has not examined the owner of the scene of offence. The evidence of PW9, PW10 and PW11 is only to the extent of registering the case and arrest of accused and filing charge sheet.

21. Therefore, absolutely no independent evidence is available before me to come to the conclusion that the A1 to A5 have committed the offence. Further, though the property was seized at the scene of offence, no property was produced

before this court. On scrutinizing the entire evidence by the prosecution though

the police filed charge sheet against accused no.1 to 5 for the offence under section 370-A, 370-A(2) of IPC, under section 3, 4, 5 of PITA Act, but no cogent evidence was placed before this court to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

22.In the result, the accused no.1 to 5 are acquitted undersection 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offences under section 370-A, 370(A)(2) of IPC, under section 3, 4, 5 of PITA Act. Unmarked vehciles shall be returned to their owners after expiry 10 SC 170 of 2017

VII ASCJ RR DT

of appeal time. Unmarked mobile phones shall be returned to their owners after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked condoms shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time. .

Typed to dictation by Stenographer, Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 26th day of July, 2019

VII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution : For Defence

PW1: A. Sathaiah -None- PW2: Surekha PW3: Nagendra PW4: G. Narender PW5: K. Sudhakar PW6: N. Varahalu PW7: Tenali Shailaja @ Sudha PW8: Shakeera PW9: D. Vijay PW10:E.Srinivas Reddy PW11:T.Avinash Babu

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW4 on panchanamam Ex.P2 : Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3 : First Information Report

For Defence : Nil

Material objects Marked

FOR PROSECUTION: Nil For Defence : Nil

VII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District 11 SC 170 of 2017

VII ASCJ RR DT

SC no. 170 of 2017

26.07.2019

Accused no.1 to 5 are present. Judgment

pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.

In the result, the accused no.1 to 5 are acquitted under section 235(1) of

Cr.P.C for the offences under section 370A(2), 370-A, of IPC, under section 3, 4 and 5 of PITA Act. Unmarked vehicles shall be returned to their owners after expiry of appeal time, unmarked mobile phones shall be returned to their owners after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked condoms shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time.

VII AASJ

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. K.MARUTHI DEVI

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Dated on this the 24 th day of July, 2019

O.S. No. 1265 of 2012

BETWEEN:-

D. Prameela W/o. D.Sridhar Reddy, Aged about 53yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.no. 3-5-964, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. .…. Plaintiff

AND

1. D. Chandrashekar Reddy, S/o. D.Raji Reddy, Aged about 44yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot no. 313, Teja Block, My Home Navadeep Apartments, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081.

2. D.Sheshirekha W/o. D.Chandrashekar Reddy, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Managing Partner of , M/s. Shambhavi Estates, R/o. Plot no. 313, Teja Block, My Home Navadeep Apartments, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081.

3. M. Mohan Goud S/o. M.Yadaiah Goud, Aged about 47yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 8-1-293/A/1, Dwarakanagar Colony, Shaikpet Dargah, Post Golkonda, Hyderabad – 500 008.

4. P.Sandeep Reddy S/o. P.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 28yrs, Occ: Business,

5. K.Ravinder Reddy S/o. K.Bachi Reddy, Aged about 30yrs, Occ: Business,

Defendants no. 4 and 5 are R/o. 8-4-17/10, Sai Ram Nagar Colony, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal,

R.R.District – 500 079. ….. Defendants

2

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of M/s. M.Raghunandan Reddy, Advocate

for the Plaintiff and Defendants no.1, 2, 4 and 5

remained exparte, M/s. E.Venkatratnam, Advocate for

defendant no.3, and having stood over 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 against the defendants to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2)The brief averments of plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of semi finished house on plot no. 1, admeasuring 200sq.yds, having plinth area of 3278sq.ft with car parking area of 595sq.ft in Sy.no. 31/A, AA, EE situated at Manikonda Jagir

Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District (hereinafter called as suit schedule property) vide registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4478 of 2011 dt. 12.12.2011 having purchased the same from AGPA holder of Mathur Balram. Said Mathur Balram has deposited the title deeds with A.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board, Hyderabad under registered memorandum of Deposit of title deeds bearing doc.no.

6185/1994 dt. 14.07.1994 and raised loan. Thereafter in the year 2009,

Mathur Balram has obtained a Reconveyance deed from AP Khadi and village industries board, Hyderabad represented by its Dy. Director,

Vishwanath Dixit by discharging the debt under a Registered

Reconveyance deed bearing doc.no. 539 of 2009 dt. 25.03.2009.

3

Thereafter, said Mathur Balram converted the said land into plots through his vendors and obtained permission on suit schedule property for construction of house from the Grampanchayath vide permit no.

G.P.21/2004 dt. 04.02.2004 and renewed on 05.02.2007 but could not proceed with the construction work over the suit schedule property and thereafter said Mathur Balram has executed AGPA in favour of Karedla

Yella Reddy and he inturn sold the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. That on 06.07.2012 the defendants along with their men tried to interfere with the construction work over the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff with great difficulty could resist the illegal activities of the defendants and the defendants threatened the plaintiffs that they will take possession of the suit schedule property. Upon that the plaintiff approached police Raidurgam for making a complaint against the defendants, but the police refused to register a case as the matter is civil in nature. Hence this suit.

3)Defendant no.3 filed written statement denying the contents of plaint and further contended that the defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of plots bearing no. 50 to 59 in Sy.no. 31/A & 31/EE admeasuring 2333sq.yds by virtue of registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 1275 of 2002 dt. 18.02.2002, 10918 of 2003 dt. 30.08.2003 and 14295/2003 dt. 13.11.2003 having purchased from S.Dasharath and

S.P.Satish who in turn purchased the said land from the legal heirs of the pattedars by virtue of sale deed doc.no. 10104/2002 dt. 26.12.2001 4 and 9631/2001 dt. 11.12.2001. This defendant has entered into development cum General Power of Attorney in favour of M/s.

Shambhavi Estate by virtue of doc.no. 4811 of 2007 dt. 15.03.2007 and delivered the possession to M/s. Shambhavi Estates on condition to develop the 10duples houses in the above said land out of which 50% of the duplex houses shall be handed over to this defendant.

Subsequently this defendant has entered into supplementary agreement cum General Power of Attorney with the Shambhavi Estate Vide registered doc.no. 6706 of 2007 dt. 26.04.2007 this defendant also arranged a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- towards hand loan to Shambhavi estate represented by its Managing Partner D. Chandrashekhar Reddy who is a Defendant no.1 in this suit. The defendant no.1 raised 10 duplex houses in the above said land which are in semi finished stage.

Due to non availability of the funds, defendant no.1 has stopped the construction and unable to complete the same hence this defendant has cancelled the development cum general power of attorney vide registered cancellation doc.no. 1339 of 2010 dt. 06.05.2010. The defendant no.1 suppressed the factum of registration from the partnership firm i.e., M/s. Shambhavi Estate and inducted his brother-in- law namely T. Umesh and got filed a suit against this defendant on 07.04.2011 vide OS no. 28 of 2011 on the file of Hon’ble XVII Addl. Jr.

Civil Judge at Rajendranagar on the ground that this defendant has

interfered with the above said land and obtained ad-interim order vide IA no. 209 of 2011. Subsequently this defendant filed a counter and upon 5 the contest the Hon’ble XVII Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Rajendranagar was pleased to confirm the orders of injunction in favour of M/s. Shambhavi

Estate. This defendant wish to prefer CMA against the said orders. This defendant further submits that the M/s. Shambhavi Estate Rep. By

D.Shashirekha W/o. D.Chandrashekhar reddy filed impleading petition to implead K.Yella Reddy and Ram Subba Reddy as a parties to the proceedings on 27.04.2011 vide IA no. 248 of 2011. On contest the said petiton was dismissed. It is pertinent to mentioned that K.Yella Reddy filed a counter in IA no. 248 of 2011 on 08.07.2011 and has knowledge that the above said property was given in development to the M/s.

Shambhavi Estate who constructed to an extent of semi finished stage which are presently existing threafter due to paucity of funds the construction was stopped and cancelled for AGP and supplementary agreement AGPA vide doc.no. 1339 of 2010 dt. 06.05.2010 since then this defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the above said land. IN view of the above facts and circumstances, the suit filed by the M/s.

Shambhavi Estate rep. By D.Shashirekha on 07.04.2011 against this defendant is pending on the file of XVII Addl. Jr. Civil Judge,

Rajendranagar. The suit document created by the plaintiff in collusion with K.Yella Reddy vide doc.no. 4478 of 2011 dt. 12.12.2011. The present suit is filed by plaintiff is on 13.07.2012 which clearly shows the plaintiff and K.Yella Reddy having knowledge of the suit of OS no. 28 of 2011 on the file of XVII Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Rajendranagar and willfully filed a suit and suppressed the facts before this court in respect of the 6 dispute pending between M/s. Shambhavi Estate and this defendant no.3. This defendant also lodged a complaint before PS Raidurgam by the Hanuman Nagar Colony people and M/s. Shambhavi Estate and this defendant no.3. Police Raidurgam has registered a case against K. Yella

Reddy and Sai Reddy vide cr.no. 201 of 2012 dt. 11.06.2012 under section 419, 468 and 420 of IPC. Another case also registered vide cr.no. 239 of 2012 dt. 14.07.2012 u/sec. 447, 506 of IPC. The said facts were wilfully suppressed by the plaintiff befoe this court hence the plaintiff has ot approached this court with clean hands. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief of permanent injunction against this defendant. The plaintiff also failed to establish prima facie and balance of convenience and principles of natural justice to seek the relief of injunction. The plaintiff is in collusion with K.Yella Reddy and others trying to interfere with possession of this defendant under the guise of the orders of this court. In fact the plaintiff nor her vendors are never in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff under the guise of fraudulent document trying to set up a false claim to seek the relief against this defendant. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4)Basing on the above pleadings following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession of plaint schedule property?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed in the plaint?

7

3.To what relief?

5)To prove her case, the plaintiff examined her husband

Sridhar Reddy as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9 and in support of the evidence of PW1, one N.Nagesh PW2 is examined. None were examined on behalf of defendants.

6)Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7)Issues no. 1 and 2 : The plaintiff contention is that she purchased the property from their vendor Mathur Balaram through

Agreement of sale cum GPA holder Karedla Yella Reddy vide doc.no.

4478 of 2011 dt. 12.12.2011. Later the plaintiff raised private loan by forging the original sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff filed certified copyof the sale deed. Originally the property belongs to one Rajaiah,

Dayala Pochaiah, Dayala Balaiah who are residents of Manikonda Jagir

Village, Rajendranagar Mandal and they are the owners and possessors of the land in Sy.no. 31/A, admeasuring Ac.0-18gts and Sy.no. 31/EE admeasuring Ac. 0-28gts total admeasuring Ac. 1-24gts of Manikonda

Jagir Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District.

After purchasing the property by Mathur Balram he was deposited the title deeds with A.P. Khadi and Village Industries under the registered memorandum of deposit of title deeds bearing doc.no. 6185/1994 dt.

14.07.1994 and raised loan in the year 2009, Mathur Balram obtained reconveyance deed from A.P.Khadi Industries Board, Hyderabad by depositing the deed under registered reconveyance deed bearing doc.no. 539 of 2009 dt. 25.03.2009. Said Mathur Balram converted the 8 said land in the plots through his vendors and obtained layout and the suit schedule property is out of said plots and said Mathur Balram obtained permission of suit schedule property for construction of house from the Grampanchayath vide permit no. GP 21/2004 dt. 04.02.2004 and renewed on 05.02.2007 he errected duplex houses. But due to lack of funds, Mathur Balram could not proceed with the construction. Later

Mathur Balram executed agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of

K.Yella Reddy. After purchasing the same K.Yella Reddy commenced the construction over the suit schedule property and constructed a triplex house and stopped the construction at semi-finished level due to lack of funds. Then the K.Yella Reddy sold away the semi-finished triplex house i.e., suit schedule property to the plaintiff herein and since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. That on 06.07.2012 the defendants along with their men tried to interfere with the construction work over the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff with great difficulty could resist the illegal activities of the defendants and the defendants threatened the plaintiffs that they will take possession of the suit schedule property.

Upon that the plaintiff approached police Raidurgam for making a complaint against the defendants, but the police refused to register a case as the matter is civil in nature. Defendant no.3 filed written statement with false allegations by claiming that they purchased the plots and gave the property to M/s. Shambhavi Estate represented by 9

Defendants no.1 and 2 who are husband and wife. The plaintiff denied that the defendant no.3 not purchased the plots in Sy.no. 31./A, 31/AA and 31/EE and he also denied that they are in possessino of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is claiming the suit schedule property situated in Sy.no. 31/A, 31/AA which was purchased from Mathur

Balram through his AGPA holder.

8)The plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.no. 4478 of 2011, Ex.A3 is the renewal of permission. Through these documents it reveals that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Ex.A4 and A5 are the pahanies for the year 1989 – 90, 1990 – 91 and Ex.A6 is the certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.no. 2551 of 1991, Ex.A7 is the certified copy of memorandum of deposit of title deed. Any financial institution shall not grant any loan for the performance. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of reconveyance deed dt. 25.03.2009, Ex.A9 is the certified copy of agreement of sale cum GPA.

9)On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement but he did not chose to cross examine PW1 and not chose to file the evidence to disprove the contention of the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff has proved the possession and ownership over the suit schedule property. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction.

10)ISSUE No. 3: In the result, this suit is decreed with out costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from 10 interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court

on this the 24th day of July, 2019.

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : Sridhar ReddyNone PW2 : N.Nagesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: CC of sale deed bearing no. 4478 of 2011 Ex.A2: Original sanction plan along with receipt Ex.A3: Renewal of permission Ex.A4: Pahani for the year 1989 - 90. Ex.A6: CC of sale deed bearing no. 2551 of 1991 Ex.A7: CC of memorandum of deposit of title deeds Ex.A8: CC of reconveyance deed dt. 25.02.2009 Ex.A9: CC of agreement of sale cum GPA

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

11 24.07.2019

Judgment pronounced (Vide separate judgment)

In the result, this suit is decreed without costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

VII ASCJ

12

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. K.MARUTHI DEVI

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Dated on this the 24 th day of July, 2019

O.S. No. 1265 of 2012

BETWEEN:-

D. Prameela W/o. D.Sridhar Reddy, Aged about 53yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.no. 3-5-964, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. .…. Plaintiff

AND

1. D. Chandrashekar Reddy, S/o. D.Raji Reddy, Aged about 44yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot no. 313, Teja Block, My Home Navadeep Apartments, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081.

2. D.Sheshirekha W/o. D.Chandrashekar Reddy, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Managing Partner of , M/s. Shambhavi Estates, R/o. Plot no. 313, Teja Block, My Home Navadeep Apartments, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081.

3. M. Mohan Goud S/o. M.Yadaiah Goud, Aged about 47yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 8-1-293/A/1, Dwarakanagar Colony, Shaikpet Dargah, Post Golkonda, Hyderabad – 500 008.

4. P.Sandeep Reddy S/o. P.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 28yrs, Occ: Business,

5. K.Ravinder Reddy S/o. K.Bachi Reddy, Aged about 30yrs, Occ: Business,

Defendants no. 4 and 5 are R/o. 8-4-17/10, Sai Ram Nagar Colony, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal,

R.R.District – 500 079. ….. Defendants

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to grant such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be entitled for.

13

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose within the limits of Manikonda Jagir Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar mandal, R.R.District on 12.12.2011 when the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property and on 06.07.2012 when the defendants and their men tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and tried to dispossess the plaintiff and the cause of action is subsist- ing and continuing.

Suit Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.____________/- and court fee of Rs._____________/- is paid under sec. 26(c) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient, and the same is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction.

Suit Presented on: 13.07.2012 Suit Numbered on: 13.07.2012 Suit Decreed on : 24.07.2019

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

M/s. M.Raghunandan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and

Defendants no.1, 2, 4 and 5 remained exparte, M/s. E.Venkatratnam,

Advocate for defendant no.3 and having stood over for consideration

till this day, this Court doth Order as follow s:

1)That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is decreed without costs.

2)That the plaintiff granted permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

3)That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 24th day of July, 2019

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs.

--------------------- -------------------

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

14

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that semi-fiunished House on plot no. 1, admeasuring 200sq.yds having plinth area of 3278sq.ft with car parking area of 595sq.ft in Sy.no. 31/A, AA, EE situated at Mnikonda Jagir Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District and bounded as follows:

NORTH:Road SOUTH:Plot no. 10 EAST :Neighbour’s plot WEST :Plot no.2

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1 SC 667 of 2014

VII ASCJ RR DT

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD

Present: SMT.K.MARUTHIDEVI

VII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District

Dated this the 31st day July, 2019

SESSIONS CASE NO. 667 Of 2014

Name of the Complainant P.S. Narsingi Name of the A1. Golia Dhasharath Singh, S/o. Ghan Shayam AccusedSingh, Aged about 53yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mirzaguda Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R.District.

A2. Golia Man Singh S/o. Dhasharath Singh, Aged about 27yrs, Occ: Technician, CT Vision, R/o. Mirzaguda Village, Rajendranagar, R.R.District.

Charge U/Sec. 306 of IPC.

Crime No.380/2013

Plea of the accused Not guilty.

Finding of the Court Acquitted.

Sentence or OrderAccused no.1 and 2 found not guilty for the offence U/s.306 of IPC accordingly they are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence.

Prosecution conducted byAddl. Public Prosecutor

Defence conducted byM/s.B.Srinivas, Advocate for Accused.

This case was committed by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Rajendranagar, vide PRC 70 of 2014

This case having come before me in the presence of the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s. B.Srinivas, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is the case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Narsingi against accused for the offences under Section 306 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.10.2013 at about 11:30AM, on receipt of telephonic information about admission of Golia Hanuman Singh at OGH in ABC ward, upon instructions of Inspector of Police, PS Narsingi, H.Veerbal Reddy, HC 375 went to OGH, 2 SC 667 of 2014

VII ASCJ RR DT

Hyderabad and recorded the statement of Golia Hanuman Singh in which he stated that on 02.10.2013 at about 3:30AM, he attempted to commit suicide by dousing with kerosene and set himself ablaze at his residence as he was scolded by his brother Dasharath Singh and his son Maan Singh as he asked to give share in an agriculture bore and gold and silver articles, but the same was rejected by them. In this regard, he fed up with his life and attempted to commit suicide and while making hue and cries, the neighbours extinguished and flames and then shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. As a result, he sustained 80% burn injuries and V ACMM, Nampally recorded the Dying Declaration of Golia Hanuman

Singh and requested for necessary action.

3. Basing on the above complaint, LW11 P.Anjaiah, Sub-Inspector of police, PS

Narsingi, registered a case in Cr.no. 380 of 2013 under the head Man burns and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW11 examined and recorded the statement of complainant, visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and seizued one five liters kerosene plastic bottle in the presence of mediators LW5 Bayyara Raja

Ram Singh, LW6 Noorwar Sathyanarayana Singh. During the course of investigation, on 07.10.2013 on receipt of information about the death of victim at Osmania General Hospital, the investigation officer altered the section of law from the head man burns to Sec. Sec. 306 of IPC and on 07.10.2013, the investigating officer went to Mortuary of Osmania General

Hospital and collected Death Summary of deceased conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators Gondla Narsimha Goud LW7 and Pantham

Sanjeev Kumar LW8 and subjected the body to autopsy. A1 and A2 obtained anticipatory bail and surrendered before the court and released on bail. LW10 Dr. G.Deva Raju Asst.

Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased has opined that the death was due to “Burns with their complications” and issued PME Report. After completion of investigation the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.This case was committed by VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at 3 SC 667 of 2014

VII ASCJ RR DT

Miyapur and it was made over to this court. On hearing accused this court framed the charges against Accused no.1 and 2 under section 306 of IPC.

5.The charge was read over and explained to them, for which they denied. As such matter was posted for trial.

6.At the time of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P2 is rough sketch, Ex.P3 is requisition, Ex.P4 is dying declaration, Ex.P5 is PME report, Ex.P6 is Section of law alteration memo.

7.After closure of trial the accused were examined U/s 313 (b) Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to them. They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence. Hence matter was posted for arguments.

8.On closure of trial arguments of both sides heard.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 306 of IPC the prosecution has examined PW 1 to PW7 and got marked Ex. P1 to P6.

11. As the prosecution has filed charge sheet against accused no.1 to 2 for the offences u/sec. 306 of IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused have abated the accused to commit suicide.

12. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW1 is wife of deceased, PW2 is the uncle of the deceased, PW3 is the relative of the deceased, PW4 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch, PW5 is the Judicial Officer who recorded the dying declaration of deceased, PW6 is the Medical Officer who conducted

PME over the dead body of the deceased, PW7 is the Investigating officer who conducted 4 SC 667 of 2014

VII ASCJ RR DT

entire investigation in this case.

13.The prosecution story is that on 02.10.2013 at about 11:30AM, he received telephonic message from Osmania General Hospital stating that G.Hanuman Singh is admitted in hospital with burn injuries and immediately, the investigating officer rushed to Osmania

General Hospital and recorded the statement of victim wherein the victim stated that his brother Dasharath Singh and his smon Maan Singh have rejected to give his share of agriculture bore and gold and silver articles. Upon that he attempted to commit suicide by dousing himself with kerosene and set himself ablaze. The victim sustained 80% burn injuries, upon that he filed requisition and got recorded the Dying Declaration of victim by name G.Hanuman Singh from V. ACMM, Nampally, Hyderabad. Thereafter, on receipt of information about the death of deceased on 06.10.2013, the investigating officer filed section of law alteration memo and aletered the section from the head Man burns to Sec. 306 of IPC and visited Osmania General Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and subjected the body to autopsy and examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch. While investigation was in progress, the investigating officer affected the arrest of accused and produced them before the court for judicial custody and after obtaining PME report and other relevant documents, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2.

14.PW1 Jyothi Bai has deposed that her husband died in the year 2013 and A1 is brother of her deceased husband and A2 is son of A1 and there was a dispute between A1 and her husband in respect of money of Rs. 2,00,000/- and also in respect of gold and silver share and A1 and A2 did not allow her husband to take water, and fed up with the same, her husband poured kerosene on himself and burnt himself.

15.PW2 G. Narsingh father of PW1 has deposed his son-in-law died and A1 and A2 did not give share of land of his son-in-law deceased LW1 and even took money from him and did not pay the same and his son-in-law asked A1 and A2 for the said amount and A1 and A2 5 SC 667 of 2014

VII ASCJ RR DT

stated that they would not give anything and asked the deceased to do whatever he likes to do.

16.PW3 D.Shankar Singh relative of PW1 and PW2 has deposed that he knows A1 and

A2 and deceased Hanumansingh who is his co-brother-in-law has burnt himself due to disputes with his brothers

17. PW4 Raja Ram Singh has deposed that police called him and asked him to witness the place where Hanumansingh burnt himself and thereafter he died and he witnessed the scene and Ex.P1 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P2 is rough sketch of scene of offence.

18.PW5 G. Rajani, who is the Judicial Officer who recorded the dying declaration of the victim has deposed that on receipt of Ex.P3 requisition dt. 02.10.2013, from PS Narsingi for recording dying declaration of Hanuman Singh at Osmania General Hospital she proceeded to Osmania General Hospital and the patient was identified with the help of duty doctor Dr.

Krishna Murthy and doctor certified that the patient is in fit state mind to give statement. PW5 further deposed that on getting satisfied with the condition of patient, she has recorded the statement, where in Hanuman Singh i.e., victim has stated that there was a quarrel with his brothers and they did not give him milk pots and containers and therefore, he poured kerosene on himself and set ablaze and committed suicide. In her cross examination she stated that the declarant did not state before her that with which brother he quarreled and the declarant did not state before her who is responsible for his death.

She also admitted that the declarant did not state before her for which reason the quarrel took place.

19.From the above it clearly shows that there is no evidence to prove the guild of the accused. As per the version of PW1 to PW3 who stated that there are civil and criminal disputes between deceased with the accused, but as per the dying declaration there is no 6 SC 667 of 2014

VII ASCJ RR DT

such whisper about the quarrel between accused and the deceased.

20.PW6 Dr.G.Devaraju who is Asst. Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine at

Osmania Medical College has deposed that on 07.10.2013, on requisition from SI of

Police, PS Narsingi he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased G.Hanuman Singh from 12:30PM to 1:30PM and found anti-mortem infected burn injuries all over the body involving about 80% of the body surface area and the deceased expired in Osmania General Hospital at 10PM on 06.10.2013 while undergoing treatment and the cause of death was due to burns with their complications and he issued

Ex.P5 PME Report.

21.PW7 P.Anjaiah, investigating officer in this case has deposed that on 02.10.2013 at 11:30AM on receipt of telephonic message from Osmania General Hospital that

G.Hanuman Singh was admitted in burns ward, basing on the statement, he registered a case under Ex.P5 FIR and later visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW3 and later LW1 G. Hanuman singh who is complainant and victim died and he sent a requisition to PW5 to record the dying declaration of G. Hanuman singh. PW7 further deposed that as LW1 succumbed to injuries he filed section of law alteration memo altering the section from the head men burns to Sec. 306 of IPC under Ex.P6 amd he sent requisition to PW6 to conduct autopsy over the dead body of deceased and after receiving

Ex.P7 PME report, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 and Accused have obtained anticipatory bail and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

22.In the cross examination PW7 stated that the incident took place on 02.10.2013 and they issued FIR on 03.10.2013 there is a delay of one day and before recording the statement of deceased, they came to know that the deceased was shifted to Osmania

General Hospital on 108 ambulance. He also admitted that there is no house number of deceased in Ex.P1 and in charge sheet. He also admitted that he did not cross examine 7 SC 667 of 2014

VII ASCJ RR DT

the brothers and sisters of the deceased and how many family members are there and without issuing FIR, he sent a requisition to concerned magistrate to record the dying declaration of the deceased. He also admitted that he did nto collect any partition deed about the alleged allegations made by the deceased and he also not examiend the next brother of the deceased. He also admitted that he himself issued FIR and he was the investigating officer even though two Sub-inspectors and one Inspector of Police are present. He does not know whetehr deceased threatened his wife that he may commit suicide and he also admitted that he did not mention the word abetment in the charge sheet.

23.From the above discussion and submissions made by both the counsels it reveals that there is no conspiracy or abatting the deceased. As per the eviden of PW1 to PW3 it discloses that there are disputes about the property, gold and silver articles. But PW1 and

PW2 did not disclose that how much of gold and silver was given to the accused and

before committing suicide thee is no threat or abatment to commit suicide by the

deceased. In the dying declaration he stated that the dispute regarding the milk pots and containers he did not utter even a single word about the disputes between the deceased and the accused and the investigatin officer also not collected the partition deed or other documents relating to the dispute. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

24.In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 235(1) of

Cr.P.C for the offences under section 306 of IPC. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open

Court on this the 31st day of July, 2019.

VII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

8 SC 667 of 2014

VII ASCJ RR DT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence PW 1 : Jyothi Bai -Nil- PW 2 : G.Narsingh PW 3 : D.Shankar Singh PW 4 : Raja Ram Singh PW 5 : G.Rajani PW 6 : Dr. G.Devaraju PW 7 : P. Anjaiah Exhibits Marked For Prosecution :

Ex.P1 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P2 : Rough sketch Ex.P3 : Requisition Ex.P4 : Dying declaration Ex.P5 : PME report Ex.P6 : Section of law alteration memo

For Defence: -Nil- Material Objects Marked

For Prosecution : NilDefence: -Nil-

VII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District.

9 SC 667 of 2014

VII ASCJ RR DT

10 SC 667 of 2014

VII ASCJ RR DT

31.07.2019

A1 and A2 are present. Judgment

pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.

In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offences under section 306of IPC. Unmarked property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time.

VII AASJ

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. K.MARUTHI DEVI

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Dated on this the 30 th day of July, 2019

O.S. No. 2296 OF 2018

BETWEEN:-

1. P. Sugriv Jeer S/o. Late P. Jeer, Aged about 51yrs, Occ: Service, Rep. By its Power of Attorney G.S.Pavan Kumar, S/o. G.Aageshwar Rao, Aged about 35yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat no. 302, Megna Gowri Shanker, Residency, Plot no. 192, West Maredpally, Secunderabad, Telangana State.

2. M/s. Ishika Constructions, Rep. By its Prop. G.S.Pavan Kumar, S/o. G. Agashwar Rao, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat no. 302, Megna Gowri Shanker Residency, Plot no. 192, West Maredpally, Secunderabad, Telangana State. .…. Plaintiff

AND

1. Md. Ahmed Khan S/o. Late Md. Jahangir Khan, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 6-1-149/A/6, Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad.

2. Md.Rahamath Khan, S/o. Late Md. Jahangir Khan, Aged about 36yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 6-1-149/A/6, Padmarao Nagar,

Secunderabad. ….. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of M/s. Sri. Hari Hara Kumar, Advocate for

the Plaintiff and Sri. Avinash Karankoti, Advocate for

defendants and having stood over for consideration

till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

1)This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2)The brief averments of plaint are that the plaintiff no.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of H.no. 1-10-72/5/1/5 and 1-10-72/5/1/6 on the plot no. 6 forming part of premises bearing No. 1-10-66/A (old) in

Sy.nos. 29 and 189 comprising of land admeasuring 451sq.yds consisting of Ground and first Floor, situated at Cheekoti Gardens,

Begumpet, Balanagar Mandal, Hyderabad (hereinafter called as suit schedule property) by virtue of registered will deed bearing doc.no. 5 of 2004 dt. 23.01.2004 executed by the father of plaintiff no.1. That the plaintiff no.1 entered into Registered Development agreement cum

Irrevocable General Power of Attorney vide doc.no. 1279 of 2016 dt.

20.07.2016 executed by Plaintiff no.1 with plaintiff no.2 and obtained sanction plan for construction of residential complex consisting of stilt and upper flour floors over the suit schedule property and started construction by demolishing the old building constructed by the father of plaintiff no.1 by obtaining permissions and the plaintiff no.2 has completed brick work upto second floor. While the construction work is being carried out, on 30.10.2018, the defendants who are totally strangers to the suit schedule property started interfering with the construction work and the plaintiff no.2 has shonw all the relevant documents and asked the defendants to show the relevant documents.

3

But the defendants left the place but again on 03.11.2018, the defendants once again demanded the employees of plaintiff no.2 to stop the work and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff no.2, but the plaintiff no.2 and its employees resisted the unlawful acts of the defendants.

Hence the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit for perpetual injunction.

3)On receipt of suit summons, Sri. Avinash Karankoti,

Advocate filed Valakath on behalf of defendants but failed to file written statement inspite of availing ample opportunity. Hence the right to file written statement by defendant is forfeited and posted the suit for plaintiff’s evidence.

4)To prove his case, the plaintiffs examined their General

Power of Attorney as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8.

5)Heard learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

6)Now the point for determination is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property?”

7)POINT: As plaintiffs filed this suit, it is the prima-facie burden on the shoulders of the plaintiffs to prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. To substantiate their contention, the plaintiffs examined their GPA as PW1 and got marked 4

Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the registered will deed bearing doc.no. 05 of 2004 dt. 23.10.2004 through which the plaintiff no.1 has acquired the suit schedule property, Ex.A2 is the Registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 1659 of 1979 dt. 22.06.1979 through which the father of plaintiff no.1 who executed Ex.A1 has acquired the suit schedule property,

Ex.A3 is the original building permit sanction 216 of 1992 obtained by the father of the plaintiff no.1 to make construction over the suit schedule property, Ex.A4 is the copy of building permit sanction, Ex.A6 is the Registered Development agreement cum Irrevocable GPA no.

1279 of 2016 dt. 20.07.2017 executed by plaintiffs and Ex.A8 is original photographs and CD.

8)The evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to A8 are prima-facie establishing that Plaintiff has acquired the suit schedule property from his father and Ex.A2 is showing the flow of title in respect of suit schedule property from the father of plaintiff no.1 to plaintiff no.1 and

Ex.A3 and A4 are establishing that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. Further Ex.A7 municipality property tax receipts which shows that the father of plaintiff no.1 has paid the property tax in respect of suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, defendants are trying to interfere into the suit schedule property. The evidence of

PW1 was not rebutted by the defendant. Further, on receipt of suit summons, Sri. Avinash Karankoti. Advocate filed Vakalath on behalf of defendants but subsequently failed to file written statement on behalf of defendants. Which shows that inspite of having knowledge of the suit, 5 the defendants failed to come forward to defendant the case. Hence the evidence of PW1 can be considered and it can be safely held that when the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of suit schedule property, the defendants are trying to interfere into the suit schedule property. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction.

9)In the result, this suit is decreed without costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court

on this the 30th day of July, 2019.

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : G.S.Pavan KumarNone

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Registered will no. 05 of 2004 dt. 23.10.2004 Ex.A2 : CC of registered sale deed no. 1659 of 1979 dt. 22.06.1979 Ex.A3 : Original Building permit sanction no. 216 of 1992 Ex.A4 : Copy of building permit sanction Ex.A5 : Original Death certificate of Late P.Jeer dt. 18.06.2007 Ex.A6 : CC of registered development agreement cum irrevocable GPA no. 1279 of 2016 dt. 20.07.2017 Ex.A7 : Original Municipality property tax receipts Ex.A8 : Photographs with CD

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

6

OS no. 2296 of 2018

30.07.2019

Judgment pronounced (Vide separate judgment)

In the result, this suit is decreed without costs restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property in any manner.

VII ASCJ

7 03.07.2019

Judgment not ready, for judgment Call on 08.07.2019

VII ASCJ

8

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. K.MARUTHI DEVI

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Dated on this the 30 th day of July, 2019

O.S. No. 2296 OF 2018

BETWEEN:-

1. P. Sugriv Jeer S/o. Late P. Jeer, Aged about 51yrs, Occ: Service, Rep. By its Power of Attorney G.S.Pavan Kumar, S/o. G.Aageshwar Rao, Aged about 35yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat no. 302, Megna Gowri Shanker, Residency, Plot no. 192, West Maredpally, Secunderabad, Telangana State.

2. M/s. Ishika Constructions, Rep. By its Prop. G.S.Pavan Kumar, S/o. G. Agashwar Rao, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat no. 302, Megna Gowri Shanker Residency, Plot no. 192, West Maredpally, Secunderabad, Telangana State. .…. Plaintiff AND

1. Md. Ahmed Khan S/o. Late Md. Jahangir Khan, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 6-1-149/A/6, Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad.

2. Md.Rahamath Khan, S/o. Late Md. Jahangir Khan, Aged about 36yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 6-1-149/A/6, Padmarao Nagar,

Secunderabad. ….. Defendants

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant or his men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to grant such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be entitled for.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose within the limits of Cheekoti Gar- dens, Begumpet, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District on 20.07.2016 when the plain- tiff no.2 entered into development agreement cum GPA with plaintiff no.1 and on 30.10.2018 and 03.11.2018 when the defendants attempted to encroach on the suit schedule property and the cause of action is subsisting and continuing.

9

Suit Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.____________/- and court fee of Rs._____________/- is paid under sec. 26(c) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient, and the same is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction.

Suit Presented on: 20.11.2018 Suit Numbered on: 20.11.2018 Suit Decreed on : 30.07.2019

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence

of M/s. Sri. Hari Hara Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri.

Avinash Karankoti, Advocate for defendants and having stood

over for consideration till this day, this Court doth Order as

follows:

1) That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is decreed without costs.

2)That the plaintiff is granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

3) That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 30th day of July, 2019

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs.

--------------------- -------------------

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

10

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that H.no. 1-10-72/5/1/5 and 1-10-72/5/1/6 on the plotn o. 6, forming part of premises bearing No. 1-10-66/A (Old) in Syno.s 29 and 189 comprising land admeasuring 451sq.yds or 376sq.mtrs consisting of ground and first floors, situated at Cheekoti Gardens, Begumpet, Balanagar Mandal, Hyderabad, R.R.District and bounded as follows:

NORTH:Plot no.5 SOUTH:Plot no. 7 EAST :Neighbours land WEST :Road

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT