Smt K Sai Rama Devi

1 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019 & I.A. No. 398 of 2020 in TR.O.P. 6 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT. K. SAI RAMA DEVI,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

Tr. O.P. No. 6 of 2019

And

I.A. No. 398 of 2020 in

Tr. O.P. No. 6 of 2019

Cause title in Tr. O.P. No. 6 of 2019:

Between:-

1.Smt. Razia Begum, W/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 77 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District 500 018

2.Sri. Mohd. Ahmed, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14- 1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018

3.Sri. Mohd. Mahaboob, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018

4.Sri. Mohd. Mahamood, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha (died) being Legal Heir his wife Smt. Shaheena Begum, Aged about: 31 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018

5.Sri. Mohd. Yousuf, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha (died) being the respondent No.1 his mother and legal heir Smt. Razia Begum, W/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District 500 018

6.Smt. Sabia Sultana, D/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar 2 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019

Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018

7.Smt. Rafia Sultana, D/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018

...Petitioners

AND

1.Sri. N. Hanumanth Reddy, S/o: Sri. Narsa Reddy, Aged about: 67 years, Occ: Agriculture/Advocate, R/o: H.No.1490 FF-I, Shreyas Apartments, Asmangadh, New Malakpet, Hyderabad

2.Sri. Mohd. Zaheed, S/o: Late Sri. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14- 1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018 …Respondents

In the matter of O.S. No. 33 of 2013 (Old O.S. No. 36 of 2001) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Zaheerabad.

1.Smt. Razia Begum, W/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 77 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District 500 018

2.Sri. Mohd. Ahmed, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14- 1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018

3.Sri. Mohd. Mahaboob, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018

4.Sri. Mohd. Mahamood, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha (died) being Legal Heir his wife Smt. Shaheena Begum, Aged about: 31 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018

5.Sri. Mohd. Yousuf, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha (died) being respondent No.1 his mother and legal heir Smt. Razia Begum, W/o: Late Mohd. Khaja 3 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019

Pasha, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District 500 018

6.Smt. Sabia Sultana, D/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018

7.Smt. Rafia Sultana, D/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018

...Petitioners/Defendant Nos. 1-4 & 6-8

A N D

1.Sri. N. Hanumanth Reddy, S/o: Sri. Narsa Reddy, Aged about: 67 years, Occ: Agriculture/Advocate, R/o: H.No.1490 FF-I, Shreyas Apartments, Asmangadh, New Malakpet, Hyderabad

..Respondent/Plaintiff

2.Sri. Mohd. Zaheed, S/o: Late Sri. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14- 1-88/2/A, Central Allapur, Tulsinagar Road, Borabanda, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District 500 018

...Respondent/Defendant No. 2

(Respondent No.2/Defendant No.5 are not necessary parties to this petition)

Cause title in I.A. No. 398 of 2020 in Tr. O.P. No. 6 of 2019:

Between:-

1.Smt. Razia Begum, W/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 77 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/12 & 13, Central Allapur, Tulasi Nagar Main Road, Opp: Essar Petrol Pump, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal District

2.Sri. Mohd. Ahmed, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14- 1-88/12 & 13, Central Allapur, Tulasi Nagar Main Road, Opp: Essar Petrol Pump, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal District

3.Sri. Mohd. Mahaboob, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 51 years, Occ: Business, 4 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019

R/o: H.No.14-1-88/12 & 13, Central Allapur, Tulasi Nagar Main Road, Opp: Essar Petrol Pump, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal District

4.Sri. Mohd. Mahamood, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha (died) being Legal Heir his wife Smt. Shaheena Begum, Aged about: 31 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/12 & 13, Central Allapur, Tulasi Nagar Main Road, Opp: Essar Petrol Pump, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal District

5.Sri. Mohd. Yousuf, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha (died) being the respondent No.1 his mother and legal heir Smt. Razia Begum, W/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/12 & 13, Central Allapur, Tulasi Nagar Main Road, Opp: Essar Petrol Pump, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal District

6.Smt. Sabia Sultana, D/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/12 & 13, Central Allapur, Tulasi Nagar Main Road, Opp: Essar Petrol Pump, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal District

7.Smt. Rafia Sultana, D/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.14-1-88/12 & 13, Central Allapur, Tulasi Nagar Main Road, Opp: Essar Petrol Pump, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal District

...Petitioners

AND

1.Sri. N. Hanumanth Reddy, S/o: Sri. Narsa Reddy, Aged about: 67 years, Occ: Agriculture/Advocate, R/o: H.No.1490 FF-I, Shreyas Apartments, Asmangadh, New Malakpet, Hyderabad

2.Sri. Mohd. Zaheed, S/o: Late Sri. Khaja Pasha, Aged about: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14- 1-88/12 & 13, Central Allapur, Tulasi Nagar Main Road, Opp: Essar Petrol Pump, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal District (Respondent No. 2 is not necessary party to this petition) …Respondents

These petitions came up before me for final hearing on 07.10.2020 in the presence of Sri. D. Subrahmanya Sarma and Sri. P. Badri Premnath, Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri. B. Anil Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No. 1, having perused the material on record; having heard both sides and 5 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019 having stood over for consideration, the Court made the following:-

C O M M O N O R D E R

The petitioners filed this Transfer O.P. praying this Court to transfer O.S. No. 33 of 2013 (Old O.S. No. 36 of 2001) from the Senior Civil Judge Court, Zaheerabad to the Senior Civil

Judge Court, Sangareddy.

2.The petitioners in the Transfer O.P. stated that respondent No. 1 herein filed O.S. No. 36 of 2001 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, for specific performance of

agreement of sale, dated 29.12.1997 in respect of suit schedule property. The petitioners who were defendants were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed. To set aside the said ex parte decree, I.A. No. 67 of 2013 in O.S. No. 33 of 2013 (Old O.S. No. 36 of 2001) along with petition in I.A. No. 151 of 2008 (Old I.A. No. 102 of 2006), to condone the delay was filed and they were allowed on 13.03.2013.

3.Questioning the said orders, respondent No. 1 filed

C.R.P. Nos. 1926 and 1927 of 2013 on the file of the Hon’ble

High Court and they were allowed by order dated 19.07.2013.

Against the said orders, the petitioners/defendants filed SLP.

(C) No. 35968, 35969 of 2013 and the same were dismissed on 6 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019 25.07.2016 and the review petition filed was dismissed on 08.12.2016 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4.Respondent No. 1 filed E.P. No. 10 of 2008 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad for execution of the ex parte

decree. While so, one V. Srinivas Reddy and others filed E.A.

No. 58 of 2013 in E.P. No. 10 of 2008 in O.S. No. 36 of 2001 against the petitioners and the respondents claiming the suit schedule property on the basis of agreement of sale dated 29.12.1997 and registered sale deed bearing document

No. 9006 of 2007 dated 03.05.2007. The said E.A. was dismissed. Against the said order an appeal vide A.S. No. 865 of 2018 was filed on the file of the Hon’ble High Court and the same vide Order dated 11.09.2018 was allowed, and the order appealed was set aside and E.A. No. 58 of 2013 was remitted to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, for fresh consideration.

5.While so, the petitioner states that their vendee and the vendee of respondent No. 2 namely V. Srinivas Reddy and others filed Transfer O.P. 418 of 2018 on the file of this Court seeking transfer of E.A. No. 58 of 2013 in E.P. No. 10 of 2008 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad to any other Court of Senior Civil Judge at Medak, and the same was allowed by order dated 29.03.2018 and E.A. No. 58 of 2013 in 7 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019

E.P. No. 10 of 2008 was transferred to the Court of the Senior

Civil Judge, Sangareddy and re-numbered as E.P. No. 19 of

2019. They are filing an application under Order 20 Rule 12-A

C.P.C. r/w. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act in the main suit for recession of contract since the balance sale consideration in the suit for specific performance filed by respondent

No.1/plaintiff, was deposited on 26.09.2005, and that respondent No.1/plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration with a delay of four years taking advantage of the non-mentioning of the date of deposit, which is impermissible in law. They stated that the grounds raised by the petitioners in

Transfer O.P. No. 418 of 2018 may be taken into consideration.

Though the E.P. was transferred, but the main suit O.S. No. 33 of 2013 (Old O.S. No. 36 of 2001) pending on the file of Senior

Civil Judge, Zaheerabad was not transferred and prayed to

transfer the suit also to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

6.Respondent No. 1 filed counter stating that the present

Transfer O.P. is not maintainable. The suit O.S. No. 33 of 2013 (Old O.S. No. 36 of 2001) was already disposed of on 08.11.2001, and the said order attained finality when Hon’ble

Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the Hon’ble

High Court, refusing to set aside the ex parte decree. The parties in the present Transfer O.P. and the parties in Transfer 8 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019

O.P. No. 418 of 2018 are different. The parties in E.A. No. 58 of 2013 are claim petitioners in E.P. No. 10 of 2008 (New E.P.

No. 19 of 2019) in O.S. No. 33 of 2013 (Old O.S. No. 36 of 2001) and they are not parties in the present Transfer O.P., therefore they are not entitled to seek any relief in this Transfer

O.P.

7.While the Tr.O.P. is pending, the petitioners filed I.A.

No. 398 of 2020 praying this Court to exercise the powers under Section 24 C.P.C. to re-transfer E.A. No.13 of 2019 in

E.P. No.14 of 2019 in O.S. No.33 of 2013 (Old O.S. No.36 of

2001) pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak to the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad.

8.The very same reasons are urged by the petitioners, as urged by them in the Tr.O.P. stating that O.S. No.33 of 2013 is on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, filed seeking reliefs under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, while E.P.

No.14 of 2019 is on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak, and E.P. proceedings being continuation of the suit proceedings, both the suit and the E.P. should go together as the territorial jurisdiction, parties and subject-matter of the property are common. The petitioners further alleged that the

Senior Civil Judge, Medak, is not granting adjournments on the

ground that there is specific direction in A.S. No.865 of 2018 9 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019

dated 11.09.2018 and that the Court has also set the

petitioners/respondent Nos. 2 to 9 in E.A. No.13 of 2019 in E.P.

No.14 of 2019 ex parte vide order dated 25.02.2020 in spite of submitting that stay has been granted by the Hon’ble Court.

9.The respondents by filing counter opposed the prayer in the I.A. stating that the petitioners cannot claim different reliefs

before different courts pertaining to the same subject matter.

The claim petitions and execution petitions and the suit decree relate to the same subject matter, and therefore, all the applications have to be heard by the same court. The respondents further stated that there is a permanent Presiding

Officer for the Senior Civil Judge Court at Medak, and not for the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Zaheerabad, and the

Presiding Officer of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Sangareddy is in-charge of Zaheerabad Senior Civil Judge Court. Hence, they prayed to reject the prayer made by the petitioners in the I.A.

10.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the record including the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

11.Now the points for consideration are:-

Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek transfer

of suit O.S. No. 33 of 2013 (Old O.S. No. 36 of 2001)

10 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019

pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court,

Zaheerabad, in which they filed claim petition or whether

E.P. be transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court,

Sangareddy? and

Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek transfer

of E.P. No. 10 of 2008 (new E.P. No.19 of 2019) in O.S.

No. 33 of 2013 (Old O.S. No.36 of 2001), pending on the file

of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Medak to the Senior Civil

Judge Court, Zaheerabad, where claim petition in the suit

is pending?

P O I N T S:-

12.Respondent No. 1 filed suit O.S. No. 33 of 2013 (Old O.S.

No. 36 of 2001) for specific performance of agreement of sale

dated 29.12.1997 in respect of the suit schedule property on

the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad. An ex parte decree was passed on 08.11.2001. To set aside the ex parte decree dated 08.11.2001, the petitioners who are the defendants filed petitions to condone the delay in filing petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 08.11.2001 and to set aside the said ex parte decree. The said petitions were allowed on 13.03.2013 by the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad.

Questioning the same, respondent No. 1 filed C.R.P. Nos. 1926 and 1927 of 2013 and the Hon’ble High Court vide Order dated 19.07.2013 allowed the said C.R.Ps by setting aside the Order

dated 13.03.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge,

Zaheerabad. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed

S.L.P. (C) Nos. 35968 and 35969 of 2013 and the Hon’ble

Supreme Court by Order dated 25.07.2016 dismissed the 11 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019 same. The review petitions filed to review the order dated 25.07.2016, were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.12.2016. Thus the ex parte decree dated 08.11.2001, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, decreeing the suit O.S. No. 33 of 2013 (Old O.S. No. 36 of 2001) attained finality.

13.Respondent No. 1 seeking execution of the ex parte decree dated 08.11.2001, filed E.P. No. 10 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad. While so, one V. Srinivas

Reddy and six others filed E.A. No. 58 of 2013 in E.P. No. 10 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad stating that the petitioners herein executed sale deed in their favour, having received the sale consideration and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said E.A., by order dated 23.03.2018, was dismissed by the

Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad. Questioning the said order,

the petitioners in E.A. No.58 of 2013 in E.P. No. 10 of 2008, filed A.S. No. 865 of 2018 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court.

The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 11.09.2018 allowed

A.S. No. 865 of 2018 with the following directions and

conditions:

“a).The executing court is directed to give an opportunity to the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence.

12 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019

b).Both the parties have to file their list of witnesses with documents etc., within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Request for adjournment shall be dealt with very strictly and on a case to case basis. Liberal adjournments should not be granted. If the Court comes to a conclusion that either parties is delaying the matter the

Court should act in compliance with the relevant provisions of the law to stop such requests. The Executive Court shall keeping in mind the law laid down in Arif Abdul

Ghani and others v. Maheshwar Rao and

others, and also endeavour to dispose of the matter as quickly as possible.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.”

14.Now the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit and who suffered ex parte decree, state that they filed an application under Order 20 Rule 12-A C.P.C. r/w. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act in the main suit for recession of contract since the balance sale consideration in the suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, was deposited on 26.09.2005, and that respondent No.1/plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration with a delay of four years taking advantage of the non-mentioning of the date of deposit, which is impermissible in law, and in Tr.O.P. prayed that the suit be 13 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019 transferred from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy and now in I.A.

prayed to re-transfer the same to the Court of the Senior Civil

Judge, Zaheerabad, pleading the grounds pleaded by them in

Transfer O.P. No. 418 of 2018, who sought transfer of E.A.

No. 58 of 2013 in E.P. No. 10 of 2008, be taken in this case also for transfer.

15.It is settled law that execution proceedings are continuation of suit proceedings. The petitioners pleaded that they want to file application under Order 20 Rule 12-A C.P.C. r/ w. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, in the main suit for recession of contract since respondent No.1/plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration after lapse of four years from the date of ex parte decree dated 08.11.2001 taking advantage of the non-mentioning the date of deposit. The petitioners in

Tr.O.P. No. 418 of 2018 and the I.A., are claim petitioners in

E.A. No. 58 of 2013 in E.P. No. 10 of 2018 (New E.P. No. 19 of 2019) who claim that they have purchased the suit schedule property from the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 to 9 therein.

16.The petitioners earlier filed Tr. O.P. No. 418 of 2018, and as per the orders dated 29.03.2019, E.P. No.10 of 2018 (old), pending on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, 14 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019

Zaheerabad, was transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil

Judge, Sangareddy. After the above said order of transfer E.P.

No.10 of 2018 was re-numbered as E.P. No.19 of 2019, and the Presiding Officer of the Senior Civil Judge Court,

Zaheerabad, was transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil

Judge, Sangareddy. On the request made by the Presiding

Officer of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, vide her letter in

Dis. No.1145/2019, dated 13.09.2019, on office note dated 17.09.2019 on the administrative side, this court passed orders for transfer of E.P. No.19 of 2019 from the Court of the Senior

Civil Judge, Sangareddy to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge,

Medak. The main suit O.S. No. 33 of 2013 (old O.S. No.36 of 2001) is still on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge,

Zaheerabad, in which the petitioners filed claim petition, and

E.P. is continuation of the suit proceedings, and in view of the allegations made by the petitioners, and to avoid the parties litigating before different courts with respect to the same subject matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that E.P. No. 10 of 2008 (E.P. No. 19 of 2019) be transferred to the Court of the

Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, where the original suit was

filed and in which the petitioners filed claim petition, even though the Presiding Officer of the Senior Civil Judge Court,

Sangareddy, is kept in-charge of the said Court. Accordingly, the points are answered.

15 TR.O.P. No. 6 of 2019

17.In the result, the prayer made in Transfer O.P. is rejected and the prayer made in I.A. No. 398 of 2020 is allowed. E.P.

No. 10 of 2008 now re-numbered as E.P. No. 19 of 2019 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Medak, is withdrawn and re-transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil

Judge, Zaheerabad, where the suit is filed and in which the

claim petition filed by the petitioners, is pending, for disposal according to law.

Typed to my Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of October, 2020.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Read by:-

Compared by:-

1G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT. K. SAI RAMA DEVI,

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

MONDAY, THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2020

Between:-

Chakali Raju, S/o: Venkaiah, Aged: 34 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-20, Chalmeda Kalan village, Munipally Mandal, Sangareddy District

In the matter of minor:-

Master Chakali Bhanu Prasad, S/o: Chakali Raju, Aged: 10 years, Occ: Student, R/o: H.No.1-20, Chalmeda Kalan village, Munipally Mandal, Sangareddy District … Petitioner

AND

To whomsoever it may concern. …Respondent/s

This O.P. came up before me for final hearing on this day (09.10.2010) in the presence of Sri. G. Mallaiah, Counsel for the Petitioner, while none appeared for Respondent/s, having perused the material on record, having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition under Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 is filed by the petitioner praying this Court to appoint him as guardian on behalf of his minor son, namely Master Chakali Bhanu

Prasad and permit him to sell away the agricultural land in an extent of

Ac.1.08 guntas, in Sy. No. 228/E1, Chalmeda Kalan village, Munipally

Mandal, Sangareddy District, standing in the name of his wife namely 2G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2020

Smt. Chakali Keerthana, who is no more and his minor son, to intending purchasers and invest the sale proceeds for the welfare, education and other necessities of the minor, in the interest of justice and equity.

2.The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner, in the

G.W.O.P. are as follows:-

The petitioner is the natural father of the minor, namely Master

Chakali Bhanu Prasad. He is the absolute owner of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-38 guntas in Sy. No. 228/E1, Chalmeda Kalan village, Munipally Mandal, Sangareddy District, vide Patta Pass Book and Title deed bearing No. Y 349084 vide Patta No. 523. Out of love and affection, he gifted an extent of Ac.1-08 guntas in favour of his wife namely Smt. Chakali Keerthana and his minor son, as his guardian, through gift settlement deed bearing document No. 2010 of 2010,

dated 29.06.2010. Since the date of gift, his wife and his minor son are

in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. His wife, who is the mother of the minor died on 25.08.2014, leaving behind the petitioner and the minor. After the death of his wife, his minor son and he being his guardian, is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. After the death of his wife, the minor is under his care, custody and guardianship. He is looking after the minor, maintaining him, providing him education and taking care of his welfare and property. Except the petitioner, there is no one to look after the minor, his welfare and education. As the property being dry land, due to 3G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2020 drought and failure of monsoon, is not fetching any income, he wants to dispose of the property standing in the name of the minor and invest the sale proceeds for the benefit, welfare and education of the minor.

Except the income from agriculture, he is not having any other source of income to meet the educational expenses and other necessities of the minor. Therefore, he decided to alienate the property in an extent of

Ac.1.08 guntas out of Ac.1.38 guntas, gifted by him to the minor and his wife, who is the mother of the minor and no more alive, in favour of intending purchasers. He being the natural father and guardian to the person and property of the minor, has no adverse interest in the property or against the minor. He is ready to comply all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court in respect of the sale proceeds that may be derived from the sale of the property standing in the name of the minor and undertakes that he will not misuse the sale proceeds, except invest for the welfare, education and other necessities of the minor. If he is not permitted to alienate the property gifted by him to the minor, it will cause undue hardship and irreparable loss and he will not be in a position to continue the welfare and education of the minor.

3.This Court having taken the G.W.O.P. on file, ordered notice to the respondent/s by way of paper publication in Nava Telangana Daily

News Paper. The petitioner having taken out notice by way of paper publication, filed proof of service. However, in response to the paper publication, none appeared and no objections were filed.

4G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2020

4.The petitioner, who is the father of the minor, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the registered gift settlement deed bearing document No. 2010 of 2010, dated 29.06.2010, Ex.A2 is the death certificate dated 25.11.2019 of Chakali

Keerthana and Exs.A3 and A4 are the xerox copies of the Aadhar

Cards of the petitioner and the minor respectively. The minor was examined as P.W.2 and the maternal grand father of P.W.2 was examined as P.W.3.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioner who is the natural father of the minor namely Master Chakali Bhanu Prasad, is entitled to be accorded permission to sell agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1.08 guntas out of total extent Ac.1.38 guntas, in Sy. No. 228/E1, Chalmeda Kalan village,

Munipally Mandal, Sangareddy District, registered vide gift settlement deed bearing document No. 2010/2010 dated 29.06.2010, registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Sadasivpet, standing in the name of the minor and his wife namely Smt. Chakali Keerthana, in the best interest of the minor, as prayed for?

P O I N T:-

7.The petitioner is the absolute owner of the agricultural land in an extent of extent Ac.1.38 guntas, in Sy. No. 228/E1, Chalmeda Kalan village, Munipally Mandal, Sangareddy District. Out of love and affection, he gifted the said land in favour of his wife namely Smt.

Chakali Keerthana and his minor son namely Master Chakali Bhanu 5G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2020

Prasad, as evident from Ex.A1-registered gift settlement deed document bearing No. 2010/2010 dated 29.06.2010. In terms of

Ex.A1-registered gift settlement deed document bearing

No. 2010/2010 dated 29.06.2010, the petitioner’s wife and his minor son became the absolute owners of the said property and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Chakali Keerthana died on 25.08.2014, and the same is evident from Ex.A2-original death certificate of

Smt. Chakali Keerthana dated 25.11.2019. After the death of his wife, his minor son, and he being his natural guardian are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. According to the petitioner, who examined himself as P.W.1, the agricultural land gifted by him to his wife and his minor son, is dry land and due to drought and failure of monsoon, it is not fetching any income. After the death of his wife, the minor is in his care and custody and he is taking care of his welfare and education. He needs money for the welfare and education of his minor son, and as the property gifted by him to his minor son and wife are not fetching any income, he wants to dispose of the same, to intending purchasers and invest the sale proceeds in the name of the minor for his welfare and benefit. The petitioner, as P.W.1 to satisfy his identity to the Court, marked Ex.A3-Aadhar card bearing

No. 2534 5976 3680. He also marked Ex.A4-Aadhar card bearing

No. 7365 7116 2122 to show that he is the father of the minor.

6G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2020

8.The petitioner apart from examining himself as P.W.1, examined

P.W.2, namely his minor son. P.W.2 who is aged about 11 years was examined by the Court and found that he was able to understand and give rational answers. Though P.W.2 was intelligent and was able to analyze the facts, but was crying and when asked as to how much amount P.W.1 was intending to deposit in his name, he stated that he does not know and that it is his maternal grandfather who knows about the facts of the case. Therefore, this Court issued notice to

Sri. Ch. Anjaiah, R/o. Chinnamamidi village, Jharasangam Mandal,

Zaheerabad. Pursuant to the notice ordered by this Court, he appeared before the Court and he was examined as P.W.3.

9.P.W.3 in his evidence stated that P.W.1 is his son-in-law and that

P.W.2 is his grandson and that the wife of P.W.1 is his daughter and that she died about five years back. Since the date of death of his daughter, he was looking after the welfare of P.W.2, that during the life time of his daughter, the petitioner, out of love and affection towards his wife and son, gifted the petition schedule property in favour of his daughter, who is the wife of the petitioner and his minor son. He stated that the petition schedule land is kept unused and is not fetching any income and therefore, P.W.1 wants to sell the land and invest the sale proceeds in the name of his minor son and that he does not have any objection to the petitioner selling the agricultural land in an extent of

Ac.1.08 guntas, as he agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of P.W.2.

7G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2020

10.From the narration of the evidence as above, it is evident that the petitioner is the owner of the agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1.38 guntas, in Sy. No. 228/E1, Chalmeda Kalan village, Munipally Mandal,

Sangareddy District, and out of the said extent he gifted an extent of

Ac.1.08 guntas, in favour of his wife namely Smt. Chakali Keerthana and his minor son namely Chakali Bhanu Prasad, as evident from

Ex.A1-registered gift settlement deed bearing document

No. 2010/2010 dated 29.06.2010. The wife of the petitioner died on 25.08.2014, as evident from Ex.A2-original death certificate of Chakali

Keerthana dated 25.11.2019. After the death of his wife, the minor and he being his guardian are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. As the petition schedule property, is dry land and is said to be not fetching any income, the petitioner wants to dispose of an extent of Ac.1.08 guntas out of the total extent of Ac.1.38 guntas, to intending purchasers and invest the sale proceeds in the name of the minor. Though the petitioner pleaded in the G.W.O.P. and as P.W.1 deposed that after the death of his wife, he is taking care of the minor, but P.W.3 in his evidence stated that he is taking care of the minor after the death of his daughter, who is the wife of P.W.1, however he stated that he has no objection to the petitioner selling an extent of Ac.1.08 guntas out of the total extent of Ac.1.38 guntas of the petition schedule property as the petitioner stated that he would deposit Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of the minor. As the petitioner is the natural father and guardian of the minor, though the minor is said to be in the custody of

P.W.3 who is his maternal grandfather, but considering the fact that the 8G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2020 petitioner who is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property, out of love and affection has gifted the same in favour of his wife and minor son and his wife being no more and as the land is said to be dry land and not fetching any income, therefore wants to dispose of the same and invest the sale proceeds in the name of the petitioner for his benefit and welfare, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer as made by the petitioner should be granted. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed. The father of the petitioner by name Chakali Raju is accorded permission to sell the petition schedule property in an extent of Ac.1.08 guntas out of the total extent of Ac.1.38 guntas in Sy. No. 228/E1, Chalmeda Kalan village, Munipally

Mandal, Sangareddy District, registered vide gift settlement deed bearing document No. 2010 of 2010, dated 29.06.2010, at

Sub-Registrar Office, Sadasivpet, standing in the name of his wife namely Smt. Chakali Keerthana, who is no more and his minor son namely Chakali Bhanu Prasad, to intending purchasers. The petitioner shall deposit the entire sale proceeds in any Nationalized Bank, in the name of the minor, till he attains majority and the interest accrued thereon, shall be made use of for the benefit and welfare of the minor and his future educational needs. No costs.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of October,

2020.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

9G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT/S

P.W.1: Chakali Raju -NIL- P.W.2: Chakali Bhanu Prasad P.W.3: Ch. Anjaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered gift settlement deed bearing document No. 2010/2010 dated 29.06.2010 Ex.A2: Original Death Certificate of Chakali Keerthana dated 25.11.2019 Ex.A3: Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner (compared with original) Ex.A4: Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of the minor (compared with original)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT/S

-NIL-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Read by:-

Compared by:-

TSME000014852019

Presented on : 24-09-2019 Registered on : 24-09-2019 Decided on : 07-09-2020 Duration : 0 years, 11 months, 13 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 -

cum--III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

MVOP/169/2019

Mohammad Abdul Samda Khan Age: 48 Occupation : Address: Occ Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No.4-36, Kothur B Vi, Zaheerabad M, Sangareddy District. 2: Smt. Ayesha @ Aisha Begum Age: Occupation VERSUS Banoth Ravidenr Age: 26 Occupation : Address: Occ Driver R/o H.No.2-3-523, Bapu Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500 013. 2:2. Thangam Sundari Age: 0 Occupation :

3:M/s Go Digit General Insurance Ltd. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Baswaraj Patil Advocate for : appearing for Banoth Ravidenr: Advocate , appearing for 2,3 respectively.

ORDER

I.A.No.432 of 2020 is allowed. This MVOP 169 of 2019 advanced from 05.10.2020 to today i.e. on 07.09.2020. The claimants 1 and 2 and respondent No.3 present. Counsel for both sides also present. At the intervention and upon advice by the members of the Lok Adalat bench and the learned counsel on either side, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into compromise. As per the compromise mutually agreed between the parties, Respondent No.3 has offered to pay an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) depositable within 30 days and in default to deposit along with interest at 7.5 percent per annum and the claimants agreed to receive the same towards full and final settlement of their claim. Out of the said amount, the Claimant No.1 is permitted to withdraw Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) in their entire share amount. Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) to the Claimant.No.2. The Claimants.No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Thus, in terms of compromise stated above, an award is passed (vide separate one).

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 -

cum--III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT : Smt.K.Sai Rama Devi Prl. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

FAC-Spl. JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT - CUM

V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

O.S.No: 66 of 2019

Between :

K.Bhaskar Reddy S/o Vittal Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ:Agriculture, H.No.1-56, R/o Mirzapur-N (V), Nyalkal(M), Sangareddy District. ….Plaintiff. AND

1. Chinnabarla Premalamma W/o Chandra Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ:House Wife.

2. Chinna Barla Chandra Reddy S/o Manik Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ:Agriculture,

3. Chinna Barla Sai Reddy S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged about 25 years, Occ:Agriculture,

4. Chinna Barla Vishnuvardhan Reddy S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged about 23 years, Occ:Agriculture, H.No.1-65/A All are R/o Mirzapur-N (V), Nyalkal (M), Sangareddy District. ….Defendants. CLAIM: This is a Suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 27-08-2018 in respect of agriculture land bearing Sy.No.16/A/1, admeasuring Ac.1.38 gts., situated at Mirzpur-N (V), Nyalkl (M), Sangareddy District. Plaint filed under order 7 Rule-1 R/w Section-26 of CPC. This is a Suit coming for settlement U/Sec.89 of CPC, Sri.Ch.Baswaraj, Counsel for Plaintiff, Sri.P.Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Counsel for Defendant.No.1 to 4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following. DOCKET ORDER DATED 03-09-2020

I.A.No.426 of 2020 is allowed. This Suit advanced from 23-09-2020 to today i.e. on 03-09-2020.

Plaintiff is present, counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of court and praying to dismiss the suit as not pressed.

Hence, The suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC-V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT : Smt.K.Sai Rama Devi Prl. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

FAC-Spl. JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT - CUM

V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

O.S.No: 21 of 2020

Between :

Sri.Yalavarthy Vamsi Kiran, S/o Sri.Yalavarthy Babu Rao, Aged 45 years, R/o Flat No.102, Vaishnavi Indra Prastha 23-B, Vengalrao nagar, Hyderabad-500038 Presently residing at Virginia, USA. Rep. By his GPA Holder namely Sri.Yalavarthy Babu Rao. ….Plaintiff. AND

1. M/S ANANDA NILAYAM CHAITANYAKIRAN HOUSING (PVT.) LTD., Having its regd. Office at 8-4-510/1. 1st floor, BL Plaza, Opp: Indian Oil Petrol Bunk, Erragadda, Hyderabad-500018, T.S. Rep. By its Chairman Sri. DasariKiran Kumar,

2. Sri.SatyaSaiBabu, Managing Director, of M/S ANANDA NILAYAM CHAITANYAKIRAN HOUSING (PVT.) LTD., Having its regd. Office at 8-4-510/1. 1st floor, BL Plaza, Opp: Indian Oil Petrol Bunk, Erragadda, Hyderabad-500018, T.S.

….Defendants.No.1 and 2. CLAIM: This is a Suit for Specific Performance Under Sec.15 and 23 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, Plaintiff filed under sec.26 of C.P.C under order VII Rule1 of CPC.

This is a Suit coming for written statements of D1 and D2, Sri.B.Vijay Kumar and Associates, Counsel for Plaintiff, Sri.Y.Venkat Srinivas, Counsel for Defendant.No.1 and Sri.P.Chandrashekar, Counsel for Defendant No.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following.

DOCKET ORDER DATED 07-09-2020

I.A.No.435 of 2020 is filed and allowed. Plaintiff and his counsel present and reported withdrawing the suit.

Heard, In the result suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC-V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.