Sri KVS Harish Babu

1 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT DEVARAKONDA

PRESENT: SRI K.V.S HARSIH BABU

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DEVARAKONDA

FAC: ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DEVARAKONDA

(Dated this the 28thday of November, 2025)

DVC.No. 2 of 2022

BETWEEN:-

1) Varikuppala Devi, W/o.Naresh, Aged:33 years, Occ:Household, R/o.Lingotam Village, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District

2) V. Niharika, D/o.Naresh, Aged:12 years

3) V. Megalatha, D/o.Naresh, Aged:10 years

4) V. Gowthami, D/o.Naresh, Aged:6 years ….Aggrieved Persons/petitioners

AND

1) Varikuppala Naresh, S/o.late Ettaiah, Aged:40 years, Occ:Tractor Driver

2) V. Venkatamma, W/o.lat Ettaiah,

3) V. Raju, S/o.late Ettaiah

4) Jahangeer, S/o.Mathemohamad All are R/o. Near Gramapanchayath Office, Vaddera Bakkamma Bazar, Pedda Ambaripeta, Ranga Reddy District ……Respondents

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Gajula Anjaneyulu, Advocate

for Petitioner/aggrieved party and Respondent No.1 to 4 are

set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following order:- 2 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022

:: O R D E R ::

1.The aggrieved person filed a complaint before the

Protection Officer, Nalgonda against her husband/respondent no.1 and her mother-in-law and father-in-law/respondent no.2 & 4 and her brother-in-law /respondent no.3 alleging that she was subjected to domestic violence. The Protection Officer forwarded the domestic incident report to this court in Form -I along with Forms – II and III as prescribed under the Protection of Women from Domestic violence Rules,2006.

2. Brief Facts of the case:

The Petitioner No.1 is submits that she is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent No.1 and they both belongs to

Hindus by religion. She submits that the marriage between herself and respondent no.1 is an arranged marriage and it was performed on 22.04.2006. She submits that at the time of the marriage as per the demand of her in-law's her family members presented Rs.25,000/- cash, 5 tulas gold, 1 kg silver and house hold articles worth of Rs.10,000/- to the

Respondent No.1. She submits that after marriage she joined the conjugal society of the Respondent No.1 and their 3 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022 marriage was consummated and they were blessed with petitioner No.2 to 4 ie., 3 female children namely V. Niharika,

V. Megalatha and V. Gowthami. Thereafter, respondent No.1 started illegal intimacy with another lady went away by leaving the petitioner and their children. Later the respondent

No.1 came to her and promised to lookafter well, but the respondent No.1 started harassing the petitioner mentally and physically and also suspect character of petitioner. Further, the respondent No.2 to 4 are supported the respondent No.1 and they also harass the petitioner by stating that they intends to marry the respondent No.1 with another lady as the petitioner No.1 blessed with female children and all the respondents are necked out the petitioner along with children from the matrimonial home.

By submitting all the above mentioned contents the aggrieved party states that she is not having the capacity to maintain herself and her daughters, she is facing a lot of difficulties and hence she prayed the court to grant

Rs.50,000/- towards monthly maintenance by passing maintenance order towards her basic daily needs as well as 4 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022 towards her medical and other necessities; and compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the physical, mental and emotional harassment for which she was subjected to by passing monetary relief. She also prayed to grant residence order in the shared household of her mother-in-law and father-in-law.

She further stated that respondent no.1 is having enough financial capacity as he is Contractor and he is earning an income of Rs.1,00,000/- P.M. She further prayed to pass protection order from Respondents no.1 to 4.

3.This court on receipt of the above said domestic incident report, registered it as a case under protection of women from domestic violence Act, 2005 against the respondents and issued notices to them. Notices has been served to the respondents but they failed to make their appearance, as such the respondents No.1 to 4 are set-exparte.

4.Heard the counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.

Now the following points are famed for consideration.

1. Whether there is any domestic relationship between the petitioner/aggrieved person and the respondents and if so there is domestic relationship whether there is any act of domestic violence 5 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022 committed on the petitioner by the respondents ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of protection order u/sec – 18 of DVC Act?.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of

Residence order as per Sec – 19 of DVC Act?.

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for Maintenance of

Rs.50,000/-P.M from the respondent no.1 ?.

6. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-from the respondents?

7. To what relief ?

5.In order to support her contention, the petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1 and also examined and got marked

EX–P1 to P3.

6. POINT NO.1:-

1) Whether there is any domestic relationship between the petitioner/aggrieved person and the respondents and if so there is domestic relationship whether there is any act of domestic violence committed on the petitioner by the respondents ?

In order to establish that the petitioner is subjected to domestic violence as prescribed under sec – 3 of DVC Act, 2005 the petitioner must establish that-

Firstly, she is an aggrieved person as per sec – 2(a)  of Domestic Violence Act.

6 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022

Secondly, she has lived together with the  respondents at any point of time in a shared house hold by virtue of their domestic relationship.

let us have a look at definitions of aggrieved person and domestic relationship and shared household under sec – 2(a) and 2(f) and 2(s) of Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act,2005.

Sec – 2(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;

Sec – 2(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;

Sec -2 (s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the 7 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022 respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;

7.Let us first look in to the submissions made by both the learned counsels along with the facts and rule out the following.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/aggrieved party argued that the petitioner is the legally wedded of respondent no.1 and she was subjected to domestic violence in the hands of the respondents no.1 to 4 for the reasons that she blessed with female children. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner has stayed in a shared household with Respondents after her marriage and during this said period the petitioner 8 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022 was subjected to physical and emotional harassment in the hands of the respondents as they have harassed the petitioner as she blessed with female children and necked out from the house. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

8.P.W.1 reiterated their contentions of the complaint in toto and further stated in her chief examination that respondent no.1 is having enough financial capacity as he is

Contractor and he is earning an income of Rs.1,00,000/- P.M.

Hence, she prayed the court to grant Rs.50,000/- towards monthly maintenance by passing maintenance order towards her basic daily needs as well as towards her medical and other necessities; and also for grant of compensation of

Rs.20,00,000/-

9. Upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and upon perusing the entire record this court is of the opinion that, admittedly there is a marriage between P.W.1 and respondent no.1 and the same was not in dispute, because the respondents didn’t object the same by making their appearance before this court. But, as appearing from the facts and circumstances there is a strained 9 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022 relationship between the parties, P.W.1 deposed that after the marriage P.W.1 joined the conjugal society of respondent No.1 in her in laws house. It is the contention of P.W.1 that during her stay in her-in-laws house she was subjected to harassment for the reason that she blessed with petitioner No.2 to 4 ie., 3 female children by the respondents. The above said testimony of P.W.1 remained unchallenged as such this court presumes that the contention of P.W.1 is true as there is no rebuttal evidence.

10.Upon considering the above said evidence of P.W.1 and the facts stated it is evident that P.W.1 had resided together with R.1 and she had shared household with other respondents after her marriage and till 05.08.2021 and aggrieved party is successful in establishing that she had shared household with respondent no.1 to 4 by virtue of their domestic relationship through marriage.

11.Further, from the contention of P.W.1 it is evident that respondents have harassed her as she blessed with female children and she was necked out from the house along with her children and presently she is not having income source 10 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022 and she is unable to maintain herself and her children ie., petitioner No.2 to 4 and which amounts to mental and economical harassment and which is falling within the ambit of Domestic violence definition.

12.Hence, in view of the afore stated discussion this court is inclined to hold that petitioner is subjected to domestic violence in the hands of the respondents no.1 to 4 and they are falling within the ambit of sec – 3 of Domestic violence Act and the petitioner has successfully established that she is an aggrieved person.

Hence the point no.1 is answered accordingly.

13.POINT NO.2:-

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of protection order u/sec – 18 of DVC Act ?.

In order to discuss on this issue let us first have a glance in to sec -18 of Protection of women from Domestic violence Act.

Sec -18:- Protection Order - The Magistrate may, after giving the aggrieved person and the respondent an opportunity of being heard and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken place or is likely to take place, 11 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022 pass a protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and prohibit the respondent from (a) committing any act of domestic violence; (b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence;

14.Since from the above stated discussion the petitioner/P.W.1 has established that she has been subjected to domestic violence in the hands of the respondents and hence this court is inclined to pass orders under sec -18 in favour of the petitioner. The Protection order is passed in favour of aggrieved person and against the respondents no.1 to 4. The respondents no.1 to 4 are hereby prohibited from

i) Committing any act of domestic violence against aggrieved person and ii) The respondents no.1 to 4 are prohibited from aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence against the petitioner.

iii) The respondents no.1 to 4 are hereby prohibited from 12 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022 communicating the petitioner/aggrieved person in any form which may lead to domestic violence.

iv) The Officer – in charge of the nearest Police Station where the petitioner/aggrieved person resides is hereby directed to provide assistance in the implementation of protection order passed in favour of the aggrieved person.

Hence the point no.2 is answered accordingly.

15.POINT NO.3 3)Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of Residence order u/sec – 19 of DVC Act ?.

Petitioner stated in her evidence that she requires residence order. She even mentioned in her domestic incident report that she needs residence order and she was completely neglected by respondent no.1. Hence, this court is inclined to grant residence order in favor of petitioner and against respondent no.1 by directing him to provide an alternate accommodation as equivalent to her standard of living in her shared house hold and towards such accommodation respondent no.1 is directed to pay Rs.6,000/-P.M as rent to the 13 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022 petitioner. Such amount is to be paid on or before 10th of every calendar month and towards which petitioner shall furnish her bank account.

Hence the point is answered accordingly.

16. POINT NO.4.

4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for

Maintenance of Rs.50,000/-P.M from the respondent no.1 ?.

Since the aggrieved person established that she is not in a position to maintain herself and the respondent no.1 has a duty to maintain aggrieved person and his children, the respondent no.1 is earning income as a Contractor and the same remained unchallenged, hence this court hereby directs the respondent no.1 to pay a monthly maintenance of

Rs.4,000/- to the aggrieved person and an amount of

Rs.4000/- each to the petitioner No.2 to 4 ie., children namely

V. Niharika, V. Megalatha and V. Gowthami thus, totally an amount of Rs.16,000/- per month and the said amount shall by payable by the respondent No.1 on or before 10th of every month, which is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living of aggrieved person, towards which 14 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022 the aggrieved person is hereby directed to furnish her bank account.

i). A copy of this order is hereby ordered to be sent to the officer -in-charge of the Police Station within the local limits where the respondent no.1 resides.

ii). A copy of this order is hereby directed to be sent to the parties to this application.

17.POINT NO.5 (5). Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-from the respondents.

Since the aggrieved person has been subjected to physical, mental and emotional distress because of the domestic violence the aggrieved person is hereby granted an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and this application is allowed partly to that extent.

18.In view of the reasons stated above this court is inclined to allow this present application for the following reliefs in favor of aggrieved person.

Committing any act of domestic violence against aggrieved person and 15 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022

1. The respondents No.1 to 4 are prohibited from aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence against the petitioner.

2. The respondents No.1 to 4 are hereby prohibited from communicating the petitioner/aggrieved person in any form which may lead to domestic violence.

3. The Officer – in charge of the nearest Police Station where the petitioner/aggrieved person resides is hereby directed to provide assistance in the implementation of protection order passed in favour of the aggrieved person.

4. The residence order is hereby granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no.1 by directing him to provide an alternate accommodation as equivalent to her standard of living in her shared house hold and towards such accommodation respondent no.1 is directed to pay Rs.6,000/-P.M as rent to the petitioner.

Such amount is to be paid on or before 10th of every calendar month and towards which petitioner shall furnish her bank account.

16 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022

5. The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.16,000/- ie., Rs.4,000/- to the aggrieved person and an amount of Rs.4000/- each to petitioner No.2 to 4 ie., children namely, V. Niharika,

V. Megalatha and V. Gowthami on or before 10th of every month, which is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living of aggrieved person, towards the deposit of said amount the aggrieved person is hereby directed to furnish her bank account.

6. The aggrieved person is hereby granted compensation for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from respondent No.1 and this application is allowed partly to that extent.

7. The DVC with respect to other reliefs is hereby dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of November,

2025.

FAC: ADDLL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DEVARAKONDA

17 of 17 Order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR AGGRIEVED PERSON FOR RESPONDENTS

PW.1Varikuppala Devi -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR AGGRIEVED PERSON

Sl. No.Description of Document

Ex.P-1Marriage Photos

Ex.P-2Lagna Patrika

Ex.P-3Marriage Card

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

:: NIL ::

FAC: ADDLL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DEVARAKONDA

O.S.No. 240 of 2023 Decla. & Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.1

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

AT DEVARAKONDA

Present: K.V.S Harish Babu,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda

(Tuesday, this the 17th day of September, 2024)

O.S. No. 240 of 2023

BETWEEN:

Kethavath Srinivas Naik, S/o.Lalu Naik, Age: 50 years, Occ:Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 3-18-44, Pragathi Nagar, Ramanthapu, Hyderabdad.

… Plaintiff

AND

1. Kethavath Koteshwarlu @ Koti, S/o Shakru, Age:25 years, Occ:Agriculture,

2. Islavath Lokya S/o. Surya Age: 45 years, Occu: Agriculture,

3. Islavath Surender S/o. Ramesh Age: 25 years, Occu: Agriculture,

4. Islavath Pandu S/o. Sevya Age: 32 years, Occu: Agriculture,

5. Islavath Prasad S/o. Sevya Age: 28 years, Occu: Agriculture,

6. Islavath Naresh S/o. Ramesh Age: 30 years, Occu: Agriculture,

7. Islavath Ravi S/o. Chandi Age: 28 years, Occu: Agriculture,

All are R/o. Gurrapu Thanda H/o. Pervala village of Neredugommu mandal, Nalgonda district. … Defendants

The suit coming before me on 14-08-2024 for hearing and for disposal in the presence of Sri Modh. Riazuddin, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte having stood over for consideration, the Court

O.S.No. 240 of 2023 Decla. & Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.2

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to declare the plaintiff as absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule land. And grant a decree of

Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants their agents, henchmen, assignees, or anybody claiming through or under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land.

2. The averments made in Plaint in brief:

It is submitted that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 263/5 to an extent of Ac. 2-26 1½ gts, and land in Sy. No. 262/4 to an extent of Ac. 1-09 gts, totally to an extent of Ac. 3-35 ½ gts situated at the outskirts of the

Pervala village erstwhile P.A Pally Mandal and present Neredugommu mandal in Nalgonda district, the said land is having one single compact possession and commonly bounded by East: Land of Pervala Edaiaha and others, West: Canal, North: Land of Kethavath Sujatha Naik South:

Land of Islavath Dulya, further the said land herein referred as SUIT

SCHEDULE LAND.

O.S.No. 240 of 2023 Decla. & Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.3

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

3. It is submitted that, originally vendor of the plaintiff namely

Tummalapally Manohar Reddy S/o. Manikya Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy. No. 262 to an extent of Ac. 2-39 gts, and land in Sy. No. 263 to an extent of Ac. 7-11 gts, from that the then Government was acquired the land from the said Tummalapally

Manohar Reddy in Sy. 262 to an extent of Ac. 0-27 1/2 gts, and land acquired in Sy. No. 263 to an extent of Ac. 0-19 12 gts, for the purpose

Canal of Pervala project. It is submitted that the said Tummalapally

Manohar Reddy to meet his financial necessities openly offered to sale the suit land, then the plaintiff approached him and after negotiations by paying valuable sale consideration plaintiff purchased the suit land and got registered the same through registered sale deed bearing no.

2698 of 2016 dated: 08-03-2016 on the file of Sub Registrar

Devarakonda, Nalgonda district, on the same day the vendor of the plaintiff delivered the physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff became absolute owner and possessor of the suit land.

4. It is submitted that, after getting registered the suit land in to the name of the plaintiff he applied for the mutation of the suit land in to his name before the revenue authority, after due course of physical inquiry the said authority had mutated the suit land in to the name of the plaintiff and entered his name in all revenue records as owner and

O.S.No. 240 of 2023 Decla. & Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.4

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

possessor, recently the Tahasildar Neredugommu mandal also issued E pattedar Pass Book cum title deed vide Pass Book No. T28230010852 in favour of the plaintiff but mistakenly the revenue authority entered the extent as Ac. 1-12 ½ gts instead of Ac. 1-09 gts in Sy. 262/4, the said

Ac. 0-03 1/2 gts of excess land is belongs to the plaintiff's brother's son namely Kethavath Mahesh Naik S/o. Chandru for which the plaintiff intends to transfer the same in to the name of Kethavath Mahesh and plaintiff claiming Ac. 1-09 gts only in said survey number, but the original Pattedar Pass book of the plaintiff was deposited with the Bank of India, Peddamunigal Branch while obtaining the crop loan, plaintiff herein is claiming the land in No. 262/4 to an extent of Ac. 1-09 gts only and plaintiff herein filing certificate issued through Bank of India,

Peddamunigal Branch that certifying plaintiff obtained loan by depositing his original pattedar pass book, and plaintiff is giving undertaking that he will file the original pattedar pass book cum title deed of him immediate after clearing the Loan amount or when ever court orders to file the same. the plaintiff herewith filing the pahanies for the year 1995-96, 1997-98, 2007-08, 2011-12,2012-13, 2013-14 and certified copy of registered sale deed bearing no. 2698 of 2016, specimen copy of R.O.R and E pattedar pass book and pahanies obtained through Mee Seva, and physical inspection report of Deputy

Inspector of Survey Devarakonda pertaining to the suit survey number

O.S.No. 240 of 2023 Decla. & Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.5

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

for kind perusal of the Hon'ble court, which are clearly establishing the possession and ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land.

5.It is submitted that, since the date of purchasing the suit land plaintiff became absolute owner and possessor and he developed the suit land by incurring huge amounts and getting good yields from the suit property and enjoying the fruits from it without any hurdle or disturbance from any corner more particularly form the side of defendants. It is submitted that the defendants are no way concern with the suit land they are nothing to do with it at any point of time and they are the strangers to the suit land. It is submitted that the development of the suit land getting eye sore to the defendants and they cast their evil eye over the suit land and hatched a plan to grab it and thereby started their trials to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land from the southern side boundary of the suit land. Several times the plaintiff requested them not to interfere with his peaceful possession over the suit land, but they put their deaf ear over the request of plaintiff and continued their trials periodically then the plaintiff in the month of December 2021 applied to survey the suit land, on his application the Deputy Inspector of Survey with due process of law by issuing the notices to the adjacent land holders along with defendant no-1 and 3 demarcated the suit land and shown the fixed boundary pillars to the survey numbers in the presence

O.S.No. 240 of 2023 Decla. & Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.6

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

of punchas who are the relatives of the defendants herein after that the defendants maintained calm for some time.

6.It is submitted that, on 29-04-2023 while the plaintiff along with his workers carrying on agricultural operations over the suit land, all of a sudden the defendants forcibly entered into the suit land and thereby tried to dispossess the plaintiff illegally. But the plaintiff could able to resist their illegal interference and sent them out with the help of workers and neighboring cultivators. Where the defendants started claiming the suit land is exclusively belongs to them. It is submitted that defendants have no rights or authority to claim the suit land as it is exclusively belongs to the plaintiff. On hearing the same the plaintiff felt shock and asked them to show the documents pertaining to the suit land, but all the defendants kept silent and went away. It is further submitted that after some time the defendants started proclaiming in the village that the suit land is belongs to them and they will occupy the same from the hands of the plaintiff by hook or crook.

7.It is submitted that, the plaintiff again on 14-05-2023 while the plaintiff preparing the suit land to plant sweet lemon garden, the defendants along with some anti social elements came upon the suit land and tried to dispossess the plaintiff with show of force, but the plaintiff could able to resist their illegal acts and sent them out with the

O.S.No. 240 of 2023 Decla. & Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.7

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

help of workers and neighboring cultivators. Immediately on the same day the plaintiff held a panchayath in the presence of village and community elders where the elders also advised them not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, as the suit land is belongs to plaintiff and he has been continuously in possession over it but the defendants with the active support of anti social elements and local political leaders claiming that the suit land is belongs to them without having any document. Hence the suit.

8.On receipt of Summons, the Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 to 7 appeared

before the court, through their counsel and filed Vakalat, but they did

not filed their written statement and remained exparte.

9.On behalf of Plaintiff PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to

A11 were marked.

10.Heard Learned Counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the record.

11. Now the point for consideration is:

1). whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of

Declaration of title and Perpetual Injunction of the Suit Schedule

lands as prayed for ?

2). To what relief ?

12. POINT:-

In order to prove the contention, the Plaintiff has filed chief affidavit of PW1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint and got

O.S.No. 240 of 2023 Decla. & Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.8

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

marked Ex. A1 to A11. Ex.A1: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-96 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar, Neredugommu mandal.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-98 issued by the

Deputy Tahasildar, Neredugommu mandal. Ex.A3: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-2008 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar,

Neredugommu mandal. Ex.A4: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-12 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar, Neredugommu mandal.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2012-13 issued by the

Deputy Tahasildar, Neredugommu mandal. Ex.A6: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2013-14 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar,

Neredugommu mandal. Ex.A7: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing No.2698 of 2016 obtained through Mee Seva Ex.A8: Physical inspection report of Deputy Inspector of Survey Devarakonda pertaining to the suit survey number (4 pages in number) Ex.A9: C.C of

Registered sale deed bearing No.2714/2001 on the file of Sub-Registrar

Devarakonda Ex.A10: Certificate issued through Bank of India shows original pass book kept with them. Ex.A11: Specimen copy of pahanies, pass book and ROR

13.One Kethavath Chandru Naik filed chief affidavit of PW2 and examined as PW2, and One Mudavath Deeplal Naik filed chief affidavit of PW3 and examined as PW3, supported the case of plaintiff and that

O.S.No. 240 of 2023 Decla. & Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.9

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

since the Defendants were remained exparte, no evidence was recorded on their behalf, and the only evidence available on hand is the evidence let in by the Plaintiff and the documents got marked by the PW1.

14. As per the evidence of PW1 and the documents referred to above, the plaintiff is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 263/5 to an extent of Ac. 2-26 1½ gts, and land in Sy. No. 262/4 to an extent of Ac. 1-09 gts, totally to an extent of Ac. 3-35 ½ gts situated at the outskirts of the Pervala village erstwhile P.A Pally Mandal and present Neredugommu mandal in

Nalgonda district, the said land is having one single compact possession and commonly bounded by East: Land of Pervala Edaiaha and others,

West: Canal, North: Land of Kethavath Sujatha Naik South: Land of

Islavath Dulya, further the said land herein referred as SUIT

SCHEDULE LAND.

15. From the unchallenged evidence of PW1 and documents referred to above, originally vendor of the plaintiff namely Tummalapally

Manohar Reddy S/o. Manikya Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy. No. 262 to an extent of Ac. 2-39 gts, and land in Sy. No. 263 to an extent of Ac. 7-11 gts, from that the then

Government was acquired the land from the said Tummalapally

O.S.No. 240 of 2023 Decla. & Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.10

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

Manohar Reddy in Sy. 262 to an extent of Ac. 0-27 1/2 gts, and land acquired in Sy. No. 263 to an extent of Ac. 0-19 12 gts, for the purpose

Canal of Pervala project. It is submitted that the said Tummalapally

Manohar Reddy to meet his financial necessities openly offered to sale the suit land, then the plaintiff approached him and after negotiations by paying valuable sale consideration plaintiff purchased the suit land and got registered the same through registered sale deed bearing no.

2698 of 2016 dated: 08-03-2016 on the file of Sub Registrar

Devarakonda, Nalgonda district, on the same day the vendor of the plaintiff delivered the physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff became absolute owner and possessor of the suit land.

16. In the result, the suit is decreed, however without costs, declaring the plaintiff as absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule land. Also granting a decree of Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants their agents, henchmen, assignees, or anybody claiming through or under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land.

(Typed by Typist, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17 th day of September, 2024).

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Devarakonda.

O.S.No. 240 of 2023 Decla. & Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.11

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Kethavath Srinivas Naik -Nil- PW2: Kethavath Chandru Naik -Nil- PW3: Mudavath Deeplal Naik -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-96 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar, Neredugommu mandal.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-98 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar, Neredugommu mandal.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-2008 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar, Neredugommu mandal.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-12 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar, Neredugommu mandal.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2012-13 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar, Neredugommu mandal.

Ex.A6: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2013-14 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar, Neredugommu mandal.

Ex.A7: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing No.2698 of 2016 obtained through Mee Seva

Ex.A8: Physical inspection report of Deputy Inspector of Survey Devarakonda pertaining to the suit survey number (4 pages in number)

Ex.A9: C.C of Registered sale deed bearing No.2714/2001 on the file of Sub-Registrar Devarakonda

Ex.A10: Certificate issued through Bank of India shows original pass book kept with them.

Ex.A11: Specimen copy of pahanies, pass book and ROR.

Defendants remained exparte.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Devarakonda

1 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT DEVARAKONDA

PRESENT: SRI K.V.S HARSIH BABU

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DEVARAKONDA

FAC: ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DEVARAKONDA

(Dated this the 27thday of November, 2025) C.C.No.2731 of 2017 BETWEEN:

The State rep.by Station House Officer, Devarakonda …Prosecution

AND

Bodiga Shankar, S/o.Gandaiah, Aged:38 years, Occ:Business R/o.H.No.4-160, Sagar Road, Kondamallepally …Accused

This case is coming before me for disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri E. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a case filed by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Devarakonda PS in Crime No.271 of 2012 for the offences

U/Sec.447, 186, 506 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

That the accused occupied some of the Govt land vide

Sy.No.98 and selling the same to the buyers. The defacto 2 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017 complainant/LW1 came to the know the illegal constructions in the Govt land vide Sy.No.98, as such, he deputed the LW.2,

LW.3 to enquire the same and for report. Accordingly, LW.1 to

LW.4 went on to the Govt land vide Sy.No.98 and they found that the accused occupied some of the Govt land vide Sy.No.98 and when LW.2 to LW.4 enquire into the illegal occupation of the Govt land the accused threatened the LW.2 to LW.4 and obstructed them in discharging of their duties. Hence, LW.1 gave a report before the police, basing on the report Police

Devarakonda registered a case in Cr.No.271 of 2012 for the offence U/Sec.447, 186, 506 IPC and took up the investigation and upon completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On receipt of Charge Sheet, this case was taken into cognizance for the offence Under Sec.447, 186, 506 IPC. After appearance of the Accused copies of case documents are furnished to the Accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C for the sake of brevity).

3 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017

4. The Accused were examined U/S.239 Cr.P.C with reference to the allegations leveled against them in the charge sheet and charges for the offence U/S.447, 186, 506

IPC were framed against accused and same was read over and explained to Accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. After completion of prosecution evidences the Accused were examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material available against the Accused from the evidences of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence has been closed.

6.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused

7.Perused the record.

8.According to the case of the Prosecution, PW-1 &

PW-2 is victim, PW-3 is defacto complainant, PW-4 & PW-5 are eye witnesses, PW-6 & PW-7 are panchas for scene of 4 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017 offence and PW-8 is Investigating Officer. All the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are very much available on record in the form of depositions and the same are not reproduced here to avoid repetition.

9.Now the point germane for my determination is ‘Whether the Prosecution has proved and established the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the

offence punishable U/Sec.447, 186 and 506 IPC?

POINT:

10.In order to convict the Accused for the offence stated Supra, the prosecution has to establish that accused occupied some of the Govt land vide Sy.No.98 and when revenue officials enquire into the illegal occupation of the Govt land then, the accused threatened the PW.1,

PW.2 and LW.3 and also obstructed them in discharging of their duties.

11.In order to prove the guilt of Accused for the above said offences, the prosecution has placed its reliance upon the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-8 coupled with Ex.P-1 to

Ex.P-9.

5 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017

12.The learned APP would contend that from the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3, it is clear that accused has occupied the Govt land and threatened the PW.1, PW.2 and LW.3 and also obstructed them in discharging of their duties. Hence, prayed the Court to convict the accused.

13.The learned counsel for Accused would contend that

PW.4 & PW.5 eye witnesses and PW.6 & PW.7 are panchas for scene of offence did not support the prosecution’ case and they turned hostile. Remaining testimonies are also not corroborated with each other. PW.8 is the

Investigating Officer and his evidence is formal in nature.

Hence, prayed the Court to acquit the Accused.

14.Before emerging into the appreciation of the evidence on record, it is appropriate to go through the provision U/Sec.447, 186, 506 IPC.

447 IPC: Deals that unauthorized entry (or unlawful remaining) on property, with the specific intent to commit an offense, or to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person in possession. It's about the act and intention, not ingredients like chemicals.

186 IPC: voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of their public functions, with key ingredients being the 6 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017 public servant's lawful duty, voluntary obstruction by the accused, and the intent to impede that duty, not requiring physical force or assault, just an impediment like passive resistance or threats to stop their work.

506 IPC: Criminal Intimidation, and its "ingredients" aren't chemical, but legal elements: threat of injury (to person, reputation, or property) with the intention to cause alarm, leading the victim to do something they aren't legally bound to do, or omit something they are legally entitled to do, to avoid that threat, with specific severe threats (death, grievous hurt, fire, imputing unchastity) carrying heavier penalties.

15.PW.3 being the defacto complainant testified that he worked as Tahsildar, Devarakonda during the relevant time and on 07.10.2012 he received written letter from VRO/PW2 which reveals that in the government land in Sy.No.98 of

Kondamallepally Village accused has been constructing illegal buildings, making plots and upon questioning the acts of the accused, the accused also threatened the PW.1 & PW.2 and upon receiving the said letter he lodged Ex.P1 before the police. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 it was elicited that he did not issued any officer order to PW2/VRO to enquire the government land in Sy.No.98 of 7 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017

Kondamallepally Village. PW.1 did not conducted any digital survey in said government land. PW.1 stated that Surveyor did not give any report to show that land in Sy.No.98 is belongs to

Govt or patta. PW.1 denied the suggestion that PW1 & PW2 were not on duty on the date of incident, and accused never illegally encroached into the government land in Sy.No.98 of

Kondamallepally Village and threatened PW.1 & PW.2.

16.PW.1 & PW.2 being the victims/revenue officials testified that upon receiving the reliable information about the illegal constructions in the government land vide Sy.No.98 of

Kondamallepally Village. Then, they went to the scene and found that the accused made plots in the said land selling the same. They further deposed that upon their enquriy the accused also obstructed to perform their legal duties. During the cross-examination of PW.1 & PW.2 it was elicited that no surveyor was accompanied with them to visit the scene of offence. They admitted that some of the land in Sy.No.98 was given to Andugula Veeraiah, Andugula Eddaiah,Andugula

Chandraiah and some of the land was left as closed account and the said persons did not given any complaint against the 8 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017 accused regarding the illegal constructions in the said survey numbers. They admitted that they do not conduct any authorized survey to know that the accused constructing the house in the govt land. They stated that they did not issue any written notice to the concerned grampanchayat about the illegal construction of accused.

17.A perusal of evidences of PW.1 to PW.3 it is evident that they are revenue officials, admittedly no survey was conducted by the qualified surveyor to know the illegal occupation of the government land in Sy.No.98 of

Kondamallepally Village. Some of the land in Sy.No.98 given to others and they do not file any complaint regarding the illegal occupation of the government land by the accused. The testimonies of PW.1 & PW.2 is not shows that accused threatened them.

18.PW.4 & PW.5 being the eye witnesses deposed that they have not witnessed the alleged incident and they do not know anything about the case and they turned hostile. Even though the learned APP conducted lengthy cross-examination but nothing was elicited to help the prosecution case.

9 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017

19.Nextly, PW.6 & PW.7 being the panchas for scene of offence panchanama deposed that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and they do not know the contents of scene of offence panchanama and they do not support the prosecution case except admitting their signatures on scene of offence panchanama as Ex.P.6 & Ex.P.7 and they turned hostile. Even though the learned APP conducted lengthy cross-examination but nothing was elicited to help the prosecution case.

20.The evidence of PW.8, who is the Investigating Officer, spoke about their role of investigation in the matter, which is formal in nature. During the cross-examination PW.8 stated that no individual person has given the complaint regarding the survey No.98 in Kondamallepally Village. PW.8 stated that he did not receive any digital records of Sy.No.98 from concerned authorities. PW.8 stated that there were no boundary stones in Sy.No.98. PW.8 further stated that he did not take any help from the surveyor while drawing the rough sketch of disputed land. PW.8 stated that he did not receive any document to show that whether the disputed land is 10 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017 government land or not. PW.8 denied the suggestion that accused occupied the government land, no panchanama was conducted, no rough sketch was prepared and accused was no way concerned with the alleged offence.

21.As stated supra, it is crystal clear that PW.1 to PW.3 are revenue officials and their testimonies are no way helpful to the prosecution case as stated above; PW.8 is Investigating

Officers, as such, his evidence is formal in nature. Admittedly, eye witnesses ie., PW.4 & PW.5 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’ case. The contents of scene of offence panchanama/Ex.P.9 were not proved by the prosecution as panchas for Ex.P.9 ie., PW.6 & PW.7 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’ case.

22.Hence, from the above elaborated discussion and in view of the hostility of the material witnesses Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and this Court is forced to hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the

Accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly Accused is entitled for acquittal.

11 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017

23.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offene punishable U/S.447, 186, 506 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused if any shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed/returned to its owner’s, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27 th day of November, 2025.

FAC:ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DEVARAKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW.1 : Mohd. ArshadNONE PW.2 : Vangala Narsimha Reddy PW.3 : M. Venkanna PW.4 : Gandhe Venkataiah PW.5 : Maila Buchi Reddy PW.6 : Boda Ramulu PW.7 : Budida Mallesham PW.8 : R. Narsaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P.1: Complaint NONE Ex.P.2: Letter received by PW.3 from PW.2 12 of 12 Judgment in C.C.No.2731 of 2017

Ex.P.3: Pahanies for the govt land in Sy.No.98 of Kondamallepally Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P.6: Signature of PW.6 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.7: Signature of PW.7 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.8: FIR Ex.P.9: Scene of offence panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

FAC: ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DEVARAKONDA

O.S.No. 116 of 2023 Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.1

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

AT DEVARAKONDA

Present: K.V.S Harish Babu,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda

(Tuesday, this the 17th day of September, 2024)

O.S. No. 116 of 2023

BETWEEN:

Shaik Naziya, W/o.Shaik Shajid, Age:about 26 years, Occupation:Housewife, R/o.H/o.10-97, Vinjamoor Village, Chintapally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… Plaintiff

AND

Alampally Sambashivudu, S/o.Late Jagathaiah, Age:about 54 years, Occupation:Private Employee, R/o.Vinjamoor Village, Chintapally mandal, Nalgonda District, Now residing at H.No.22-65, Saraswathinagar Colony, Road No.2, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

… Defendant

The suit coming before me on 05-09-2024 for hearing and for disposal in the presence of Sri N. Gowri Shankar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to grant Permanent injunction

O.S.No. 116 of 2023 Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.2

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

against the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2. The averments made in Plaint in brief:

It is submitted that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Open

Place in House No.10-86/2/3 covered by Sy No.767 to an extent of 61.11 sq. yards Situated at Dhairapuri Thanda H/o Vinjamoor village of

Chintapally mandal Nalgonda District. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has purchased the above said open place from Smt.Shalk Niranjan Bee

W/o Shaik Niranjan R/o Jyothipuri Colony, Vinjamoor village of

Chintapally Mandal Nalgonda District through a registered Sale deed bearing document No.2638 of 2021. It is submitted that the vendor of the plaintiff namely Smt.Shalk Niranjan Bee has acquired the above said proparty from Sri.Shalk Niranjan S/o Shamiya R/o Vinjamoor village of Chintapally Mandal Nalgonda District through a Registered

Gift deed bearing document No.14074 of 2019. It is submitted that the

Vendor of Plaintiff has also obtained construction permission from the

Gram Panchayath Dhalryapuri Thanda. It is submitted that the Gram

Panchayath Dhairapuri Thanda authorities also Issued Owner ship

Certificate to the vendor of the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the vendor of plaintiff is the mother in law of Plaintiff. It is submitted that since the

O.S.No. 116 of 2023 Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.3

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

date of Purchase the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the above said Open Place. It is well known fact to one and all in the area. It is submitted that due to some domestic and financial problems the plaintiff has not constructed a temporary hut/house over the said open place and lived in it for long time. It is submitted that till today the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plot and It is un questioned one from any one. That the defendant has caste an evil eye to grab the Open Place of the Plaintiff and he is trying to encroach upon the Open Place of the Plaintiff. bounded by: It is submitted that the said

Open Place is bounded by: North: Place of Nagilla Ramulu, South:

Hyderabad-Nagarjuna Sagar PWD Road, East: Place of Rasheeda

Begum, West: House of Shalk Zareena, (Herein after called as suit schedule land)

3.It is submitted that, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the above property. That the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the above property is quite open public and un challenged one. That the Defendant is coming and Interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff's property as such the Plaintiff constrained to file this Injunction suit praying the Hon'ble court to restrain the Defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

O.S.No. 116 of 2023 Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.4

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

schedule property of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the enjoyment of plaintiff is well known to one and all in the area. That the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is un interrupted and un questioned from any corner much less from the side of the defendant.

4. It is submitted that, the defendant is a stranger. That he is nothing to do with the suit schedule property. That he has no right or authority whatsoever over the schedule property. That the defendant bore grudge and eye sore against the well being of plaintiff herein and the Defendant is bent upon to cause wrongful loss and damages to the plaintiff. That the defendant is influential in the village where as the

Plaintiff is helpless person and peace living person. That the defendant got eye sore against the plaintiff's family and trying to grab the suit schedule property Illegally without any right or authority. Further it is submitted that due the expansion of village and Increase of house plot rates in the village the Defendant is trying to grab the house plot of the

Plaintiff with show of force. That the Defendant is trying to occupy the open place of plaintiff without any right of authority, The defendants has no rights over the suit schedule property.

O.S.No. 116 of 2023 Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.5

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

5.It is submitted that, the defendant is no way concern with the sult اواد schedule property that he has no right or authority whatsoever over the sult schedule house property. That he is trying to dispossess and occupy the Open Place of plaintiff. That the plaintiff is helpless person where as the defendant has got the support of anti social elements of the village. That the defendant is taking the advantage of Innocence of the plaintiff and he Is trying to grab away the suit schedule property.

That the Defendant has no right or authority to clalm the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. That there is no one to help the plaintiff, except this Hon'ble court by way of granting injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyrnent of the suit schedule property by Plaintiff.

6.It is further submitted that, the defendant has tried to Interfere into the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule house property on: 10-03-2023 and again On: 20-03-2023 at suit schedule property at Dhairyapuri Thanda H/o Vinjamoor village of Chintapally

Mandal Nalgonda District and tried to occupy the sult schedule property of the plaintiff for all such illegal and un law full acts of the

Defendant and his henchmen, the Plaintiff raised strong objection and with great difficulty could retain Plaintiff possession over the suit

O.S.No. 116 of 2023 Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.6

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

property further It is submitted that the defendant is threatening the

Plaintiff with dire consequences and left the place. It is submitted that the defendant is day in day out throwing challenges to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property with out any right or authority.

It is submitted that the Illegal acts and unlawful acts of the defendant is to restrained forever by way of lawful means of granting injunction. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has taken all precautionary measures so far to protect her possession over the suit schedule property. In view of the above said circumstances It is only left to the plaintiff to approach the Hon'ble court for proper and adequate relief of

Injunction. Hence the Suit.

7. On receipt of Summons, the Defendant appeared before the court, through their counsel and filed Vakalath, but they did not filed their written statement and remained exparte.

8.On behalf of Plaintiff PW1 is examined and Ex.A1 is marked.

9. Heard Learned Counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the record.

10. Now the point for consideration is:

1). whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Perpetual Injunction of the Suit Schedule lands as prayed for ?

O.S.No. 116 of 2023 Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.7

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

2). To what relief ?

11. POINT :-

In order to prove the contention, the Plaintiff has filed chief affidavit of PW1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex. A1. Ex.A1: is Original Registered Sale Deed bearing No.

2638 of 2021.

12. As per the evidence of PW1 and the documents referred to above, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Open Place in House No.10- 86/2/3 covered by Sy No.767 to an extent of 61.11 sq. yards Situated at Dhairapuri Thanda H/o Vinjamoor village of Chintapally mandal

Nalgonda District. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has purchased the above said open place from Smt.Shalk Niranjan Bee W/o Shaik

Niranjan R/o Jyothipuri Colony, Vinjamoor village of Chintapally

Mandal Nalgonda District through a registered Sale deed bearing document No.2638 of 2021. It is submitted that the vendor of the plaintiff namely Smt.Shalk Niranjan Bee has acquired the above said proparty from Sri.Shalk Niranjan S/o Shamiya R/o Vinjamoor village of

Chintapally Mandal Nalgonda District through a Registered Gift deed bearing document No.14074 of 2019. It is submitted that the Vendor of

O.S.No. 116 of 2023 Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.8

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

Plaintiff has also obtained construction permission from the Gram

Panchayath Dhalryapuri Thanda. It is submitted that the Gram

Panchayath Dhairapuri Thanda authorities also Issued Owner ship

Certificate to the vendor of the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the vendor of plaintiff is the mother in law of Plaintiff. It is submitted that since the date of Purchase the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the above said Open Place. It is well known fact to one and all in the area. It is submitted that due to some domestic and financial problems the plaintiff has not constructed a temporary hut/house over the said open place and lived in it for long time. It is submitted that till today the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plot and It is un questioned one from any one. That the defendant has caste an evil eye to grab the Open Place of the Plaintiff and he is trying to encroach upon the Open Place of the Plaintiff. bounded by: It is submitted that the said

Open Place is bounded by: North: Place of Nagilla Ramulu, South:

Hyderabad-Nagarjuna Sagar PWD Road, East: Place of Rasheeda

Begum, West: House of Shalk Zareena, (Herein after called as suit schedule land) 13. From the unchallenged evidence of PW1 and documents referred to above, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the above

O.S.No. 116 of 2023 Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.9

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

property. That the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the above property is quite open public and un challenged one. That the

Defendant is coming and Interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff's property as such the Plaintiff constrained to file this

Injunction suit praying the Hon'ble court to restrain the Defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the enjoyment of plaintiff is well known to one and all in the area. That the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is un interrupted and un questioned from any corner much less from the side of the defendant.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

14. In the result, the Suit is decreed, however without costs, granting

Permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Typed by Typist, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17 th day of September, 2024).

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Devarakonda.

O.S.No. 116 of 2023 Perpetual Injunction Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.10

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Smt. Naziya -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: is Original Registered Sale Deed bearing No. 2638 of 2021.

Defendant remained exparte.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Devarakonda.

OS No. 263 of 2020 Dec & Rec. of possession Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.1

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

AT DEVARAKONDA

Present: SRI K.V.S. HARISH BABU,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda

(Tuesday, this the 17th day of September, 2024)

O.S. No. 263 of 2020

BETWEEN: Annepureddy @ Kattevirupu Sattamma, W/o.Late Annepureddy Narsaiah, Age:65 Years, occupation: Agriculture, R/o Swamulavari Lingotam village of Namaplly Mandal, Nalgonda District presently R/o H.No. 20-457/4, Ayyappanagar, Deverkonda Mandal, Nalgonda district. … Plaintiff AND 1.Jamalpuri Maraiah S/o Narinja, age:65 years, occu: Agriculture, R/o Swamulavari Lingotam, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. Jamalpuri Lakshmaiah S/o Narinja, age:63 years, occu:Agriculture, R/o Swamulavari Lingotam, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3. Jamalpuri Venkataiah S/o Narinja, age:60 years, occu:Agriculture, R/o Swamulavari Lingotam, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

4. Smt.Jamalpuri Venkatamma W/o Late Ramulu, age:44 years, occu:Agriculture, R/o Swamulavari Lingotam, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District. … Defendants

The suit coming before me on 22-08-2024 for hearing and for disposal in the presence of Sri Mohd. Showkath Ali, Advocate for the

Plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

OS No. 263 of 2020 Dec & Rec. of possession Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.2

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff praying to pass a decree the suit of the plaintiff be and hereby is to be declared as true owner and Possessor in respect of the suit land situated at Swamulavari Lingotam (SW.Lingotam) Nampally Mandal, Deverkonda Division. Nalgonda District.

Also that the Defendants 1 to 4 may be directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule lands in favour of the Plaintiff.

2. The averments made in Plaint in brief:

It is submitted that, the Plaintiff and the Defendants are permanent residents of Swamulavari Lingotam (SW Lingotam). The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and deceased Ramulu are own brothers. The Defendant No.4 is wife of Late Ramulu. The Defendants are no least concerned either to the family of the Plaintiff OR to the suit schedule lands. It is submitted that originallythelandbearingSy.No.28/6Extent

Ac.1-20Gts(Sy.No.28/AA/4,Sy.No.28/AA/5,Sy.No.28/9and

Sy.No.28/6/3) situated at Swamulavari Lingotam (SW Lingotam) is belongs to deceased husband of the Plaintiff by name Annepureddy

Narsaiah. The said Narsaiah died leaving the Plaintiff herein as his sole legal heir. After the death of husband of the Plaintiff by name Narsaiah, the Plaintiff herein being sole legal heir has became into possession and enjoyment over the said and in the capacity of true owner and possessor.

OS No. 263 of 2020 Dec & Rec. of possession Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.3

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

That the Plaintiff is being is an old aged women and widowed and In view of her illiterate and literacy and lack of knowledge did not got it implemented the said lands in her favour. However the Plaintiff has been cultivating the suit schedule lands by doing hard work by the help of her family members and getting good yields by Incurring huge amounts by raising seasonal crops from time to time. It is pertinent to note down that either the deceased husband of the Plaintiff OR the Plaintiff herein neither sold nor given the sult schedule land to the Defendants OR on koul basis at any point of time. That the Plaintiff herein is only having every right of title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands.

3.It is submitted that on dated. 10.3.2020 while the Plaintiff was attending the agricultural operations over the suit schedule lands, surprisingly the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 came there and warned the

Plaintiff saying that not to enter into the suit schedule land in future by claiming that the suit schedule lands were already got mutated in their favour and the Plaintiff is not having any right or title what-so-ever over the suit schedule lands. Having suspicion on approaching the revenue authorities it came to the notice of the Plaintiff that the defendants by colluding with each other got mutated their names in the revenue records as follows (herein after called as suit schedule lands) by suppressing the real facts with an intention to cause loss and harm to the Plaintiff. This

OS No. 263 of 2020 Dec & Rec. of possession Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.4

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

fact can be seen from the 1-8 Namuna ROR Extract dated. 18.3.2020 and also pattedar Pahani copy Fasli No.2019 dated.18.3.2020.

Sl.No.DefendantsSy.No.ExtentLocation

1.Jamalpuri Maraiah D128/AA/4Ac. 0-15 gts.Swamulavari Lingotam (SW Lingotam) Nampally Mandal

2.Jamalpuri Lakshmaiah D228/AA/5Ac. 0-15gts - do -

3.Jamalpuri Venkataiah D328/9Ac. 0-15 gts - do -

4.Jamalpuri Venkatamma D428/6/3Ac. 1-20 gts - do - Total1-20 gts., 4. It is submitted that either the Defendants or their mother by name

Late Jamalpuri Mallamma or their family members not having any manner of right or title over the suit schedule lands, However the

Defendants 1 to 4 colluding with each other came into existence of their names in revenue records On noticing the said facts, the Plaintiff conveniend a panchayath in the village on dated. 01.05.2020 in which the

Plaintiff demanded the defendants to leave the suit schedule lands immediately by handing over the Possession of it But they did not heeded their advise and forcibly continuing their illegal possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands high handedly. While leaving the panchayath, the Defendants threatened the Plaintiff with dire consequences saying that the suit schedule lands are exclusively belongs to them and once again if the panchayaths were held like so, they would

OS No. 263 of 2020 Dec & Rec. of possession Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.5

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

see the end of the Plaintiffs. But in fact the Plaintiff is only the exclusive owner and possessor in respect of the suit schedule lands. That the acts of the Defendants are illegal and unauthorized under the eye of law.

Hence this suit.

6.On receipt of Summons, the Defendants appeared before the court, through their counsel and filed Vakalat, but they did not filed their written statement and remained exparte.

7.On behalf of Plaintiff PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A9 were marked.

8.Heard Learned Counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

1). whether the plaintiff is entitled to the Declaration of title

and Recovery of possession of the Suit Schedule lands as prayed for

?

2). To what relief ?

10 . POINT : - 11. In order to prove the contention, the Plaintiff has filed chief affidavit of PW1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex. A1 to A9. Ex.A1: CC of Adangal pahani for the year 1983-1984. Ex. A2: CC of 1B Namuna ROR Extract stands I the name of Dt1 dt: 18-03-2022.

Ex.A3: CC of Adangal pahani Fasli 2019 of D1. Ex. A4: CC of 1-B

OS No. 263 of 2020 Dec & Rec. of possession Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.6

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

namuna ROR Extract stand in the name of D3. Ex. A5: CC of Adangal pahani Fasli 2019 of D2. Ex: A6: CC of Adangal pahani of D3 for the year 2013-14. Ex. A7: CC of 1-B namuna ROR Extract of D4. Ex. A8: CC of pattadar pahani Fasli No. 2019 of D4. Ex. A9: Valuatoin of certificate issued by SRO Devarakonda.

12. As per the evidence of PW1, It is submitted that, the Plaintiff and the

Defendants are permanent residents of Swamulavari Lingotam (SW

Lingotam). The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and deceased Ramulu are own brothers. The Defendant No.4 is wife of Late Ramulu. The Defendants are no least concerned either to the family of the Plaintiff OR to the suit schedule lands. It is submitted that originally the land bearing Sy.No.

28/6 Extent Ac.1-20Gts(Sy.No.28/AA/4, Sy.No.28/AA/5, Sy.No.28/9 and

Sy.No.28/6/3) situated at Swamulavari Lingotam (SW Lingotam) is belongs to deceased husband of the Plaintiff by name Annepureddy

Narsaiah. The said Narsaiah died leaving the Plaintiff herein as his sole legal heir. After the death of husband of the Plaintiff by name Narsaiah, the Plaintiff herein being sole legal heir has became into possession and enjoyment over the said and in the capacity of true owner and possessor.

That the Plaintiff is being is an old aged women and widowed and In view of her illiterate and literacy and lack of knowledge did not got it implemented the said lands in her favour. However the Plaintiff has been cultivating the suit schedule lands by doing hard work by the help of her

OS No. 263 of 2020 Dec & Rec. of possession Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.7

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

family members and getting good yields by Incurring huge amounts by raising seasonal crops from time to time. It is pertinent to note down that either the deceased husband of the Plaintiff OR the Plaintiff herein neither sold nor given the sult schedule land to the Defendants OR on koul basis at any point of time. That the Plaintiff herein is only having every right of title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands.

13. From the above said unrebutted testimony on record and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A9 it is clear that, on dated.

10.3.2020 while the Plaintiff was attending the agricultural operations over the suit schedule lands, surprisingly the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 came there and warned the Plaintiff saying that not to enter into the suit schedule land in future by claiming that the suit schedule lands were already got mutated in their favour and the Plaintiff is not having any right or title what-so-ever over the suit schedule lands. Having suspicion on approaching the revenue authorities it came to the notice of the

Plaintiff that the defendants by colluding with each other got mutated their names in the revenue records as follows (herein after called as suit schedule lands) by suppressing the real facts with an intention to cause loss and harm to the Plaintiff. This fact can be seen from the 1-8 Namuna

ROR Extract dated. 18.3.2020 and also pattedar Pahani copy Fasli

No.2019 dated.18.3.2020. Accordingly, Point is answered.

OS No. 263 of 2020 Dec & Rec. of possession Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.8

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

14.In the result, the Suit is decreed, however without costs, declaring true owner and Possessor in respect of the suit schedule land situated at Swamulavari Lingotam (SW.Lingotam) Nampally Mandal,

Deverkonda Division, Nalgonda District. Also that the Defendants 1 to 4 may be directing to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule lands in favour of the Plaintiff.

(Typed by Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17 th day of September, 2024).

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Devarakonda.

OS No. 263 of 2020 Dec & Rec. of possession Suit; Dt: 17-09-2024.9

COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Annepureddy @ Kattevairupu Sattamma-Nil-

PW2: Vattikodu Narsamma -Nil- PW3: Annepuri Istari -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: CC of Adangal pahani for the year 1983-1984.

Ex. A2: CC of 1B Namuna ROR Extract stands I the name of D1 dt:

18-03-2022.

Ex.A3: CC of Adangal pahani Fasli 2019 of D1.

Ex. A4: CC of 1-B namuna ROR Extract stand in the name of D3.

Ex. A5: CC of Adangal pahani Fasli 2019 of D2.

Ex: A6: CC of Adangal pahani of D3 for the year 2013-14.

Ex. A7: CC of 1-B namuna ROR Extract of D4.

Ex. A8: CC of pattadar pahani Fasli No. 2019 of D4.

Ex. A9: Valuation of certificate issued by SRO Devarakonda.

Defendants remained exparte.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Devarakonda.