Sri. M.Arjun

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

PRESENT : Sri M.Arjun, Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District, Medchal

Dated this the 28th day of August, 2025

I.A.No.402 of 2024 IN

OS No.28 of 2023

Between :-

1.Smt. Syeda Shajaha Begum W/o. Syed Nazeem Hussain, D/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 46 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 17-2, Gurumuthynagar, Opp IDPL Colony, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 072.

2. Smt. Syeda Nusrath jaha Begum W/o. Syed Arif Hussain, D/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 38 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 17-2, Gurumuthynagar, Opp IDPL Colony, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 072.

...Petitioners/Plaintiffs

AND

1. Smt. Fazilunnisa Begum, W/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 66 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 8-96, Srinivas Nagar, Chintal, HMT Road, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 054.

2. Syed Habeeb Hussain, S/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 48 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-96, Srinivas Nagar, Chintal, HMT Road, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 054.

3. Syed Mustaq Hussain, S/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 44 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-96,

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 2

Srinivas Nagar, Chintal, HMT Road, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 054.

4. Syed Ateeq Hussain, S/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 36 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-96, Srinivas Nagar, Chintal, HMT Road, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 054.

5. Smt. Noorjaha Begum, W/o. Md Afzal Khaja, Aged about 42 Years, Occ: Household, R/o.Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura Mandal, Hyderabad District. -5000.

... Respondents/Defendants

AND Syeeda Arifa Begum, W/o Syed Habeeb Hussain Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-96, Srinivas Nagar, Chintal, HMT Road, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. ….Respondent No.6/ Proposed Defendant No.6

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s.Syed Reyaz, Counsel for the Petitioners/plaintiffs and S/o. G.Rajesh Babu, counsel for Respondents/defendants No.1, 2, 3 & 4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:-

: : C O M M O N O R D E R : :

1.This petition IA.No.402 of 2024 under Order 1 Rule 3 of C.P.C is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking permission to implead respondent/proposed party as Defendant No.6 in OS.No.28 of 2023.

Brief averments of the petitioners/plaintiffs as per petition

IA.No.402 of 2024 are as follows :-

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 3

2.It is averred that the Petitioner No.1/Plaintiff No.1, and sister of the Petitioner No.2/Plaintiff No.2 herein well acquainted with the facts of the case.

3. It is averred that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the

Respondents/Defendants are the related by blood, and the legal heirs of Late Syed Ismail died intestate on 09/09/2017 leaving behind the

Plaintiffs and the Respondents/Defendants herein as his legal heirs to his estate.

4. It is averred that the above suit for partition and separate possession and the same is pending before this Hon'ble Court. It is averrred that she along with her younger sister filed the above suit on 27/02/2023, and prior to the filling of the suit the Defendants sensing the filling of the suit for partition in order to evade the share of the

Plaintiffs got executed the five Gift Deed's in favour of the Defendant

No.2 to 4 and in favour of the wife of the Defendant No.2 " Syeeda

Arifa Begum" by creating the bogus Legal heir Affidavit.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 4

5.It is averred that the Petitioner demanded in the month of

December 2022 for partition, as there was several demands for partition, the Defendants with ulterior motto in order to usurp the property, and to evade the lawful share of the Plaintiffs created a dubious Legal heir Affidavit and using the same the Defendants created bogus gift deeds in their favour on 22/02/2023 vide Doc No.

4644/2023, 4645/2023, 4646/2023, 4647/2023, 4648/2023 registered at

SRO Quthbullapur, by suppressing the fact that the Plaintiffs as a legal heirs of the deceased Late Syed Ismail.

6. It is averred that the deceased late Syed Ismail father of the

Plaintiffs though his hard earned money purchased the schedule C &

D Property in the name of the Defendant No.1, but the Defendant

No.1 being the ostensible owner has transferred the part of the

Schedule C & D Property in the name of the Defendant No.2 and the

Proposed Defendant No.6 (wife of the Defendant no.2) vide Gift Deed

Doc No. 4646/2023, 4647/2023, 4648/2023 DT: 22/02/2023, and the same is nonest in the eyes of law and not binding on plaintiffs.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 5

7. It is averred that the no prejudice would be caused if the "Syeeda Arifa Begum" is made as a party to the suit, on other hand if the "Syeeda Arifa Begum" is made a party it will help in proper appreciation and adjudication of the matter.

8.Therefore, petitioners/plaintiffs prayed to permit the

Respondent/ Proposed Party to be added as Defendant No. 6 in suit

O.S No. 28 of 2023, and Respondent No.6 in I.A No. 402 of 2024.

9. Counsel for Respondent/defendant No.6 filed a counter and R2 to R6 filed a memo adopting the counter in amendment petition filed by respondent/ defendant No.1. it is averred that the respondent/proposed defendant No.6 in 1.A No. 402 of 2024 herein and the in this I.A Plaintiffs impleading her as the proposed defendant

No.6 filed implead petition under Order 1 Rule 3 of C.P.C. and deposing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 as authorized to do so.

10. It is averred that the present Interlocutory Application is not maintainable either on law nor on facts and the same is liable to dismissed in limine.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 6

11. It is averred that Respondents/defendants and is humbly submitted that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs are related by blood, plaintiffs are the daughters of defendant No.1 and Sisters of defendant No. 2 to 4, and also plaintiffs are daughters of deceased late Syed Ismail who was died on 09/09/2017, and defendant no.1 is the wife of the deceased and defendants No. 2 to 4 are the sons and Respondent

No.6 Proposed defendant no.6 is the daughter-in-law of

Respondent/defendant No.1 respondent/defendant no. 2 as well as deceased and wife of the respondent /defendant No.2.

12.It is averred that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed for partition and separate possession, mesne profit the same is pending before this court, meanwhile now the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the implead petition under order 1 rule 3 R/w section 151of Civil procedure code, 1908. Impleading the daughter-in-law of respondent/ defendant no.1 as well as deceased and wife of the respondent/defendant no. 2. It is humbly submitted that the averments in this IA the respondents/defendants explained briefly in main suit counter and written statement about the averments made in this IA and

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 7 respondents/defendants registered the gift deeds by virtue of registration prior to the filing of this suit, the defendant no.1 is the wife of the deceased i.e., late syed ismail purchased the land under the name of the Defendant No.1 (wife) and defendant no. 1 transferred the property to D2 to D4 and wife of D2, i.e, Syeeda Arifa

Begum W/o Syed Habeeb Hussain and Daughter-in-law of Defendant

No.1 transferred some extent of land of 96.33 square yards, explained in the main suit counter as well as written statement of Di to D4. The defendants D2 to D4 applied for family member certificate by approaching the Hon'ble city civil court, Secunderabad, under the guidance of stamp vendor, in Non Judicial Stamp paper under the signature of Hon'ble XVI Spl Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

In the year 2022.

13. It is averred that the Schedule-C and D properties extent of 289 square yards and it divided into three shares Respondent/Defendant

No.1 (Mother) transferred to Respondent/defendant No.2 and in name of wife of respondent/defendant No. 2 virtue of gift deed vide document no.4646/2023 & 4647/2023 dated 22/2/2023,

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 8

Respondent/defendant No.1 transferred through love and affection towards daughter-in-law she was the wife of Respondent/Defendant no.2 virtue of gift deed to wife of Respondent defendant no, 2 vide bearing document no. 4648/2023 dated 22/2/2023. Admeasuring of 289 divided into 3 parts virtue of gift deed vide document no.

4646/2023 admeasuring of 96.33 square yards and vide document no.

4647/2023 admeasuring of 96.33 square yards, vide document no.

4648/2023 admeasuring of 96.33 square yards.

14. It is averred that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed implead petition for the implead the defendant No.2 wife has permissible in law, gift deeds and it comes under the section 122 and 126 of proposed defendant to suit is not The Transfer of property Act, 1882. It is submitted that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs themselves admitted about the Schedule C & D property in this IA Paragraph No.5 i.c. "The deceased late Syed Ismail father of the Petitioners/plaintiffs though his hard earned money purchased the schedule C & D property in the name of the Defendant No.1, but the Defendant No.1 being the ostensible owner has transferred the part of the Schedule C & D

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 9 property in the name of the Defendant No.2 and the proposed

Defendant No.6 (wife of the Defendant No.2) vide Gift Deed Document

No. 4646/2023, 4647/2023 and 4648/2023 Dated: 22/2/2023". The

Petitioners/Plaintiffs themselves admitted that their father purchased the schedule property in the name of the Defendant No.1 (wife). It shows that the it not comes into the Ostensible owner under section 41 Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

15.It is therefore prayed to dismiss IA No.402 of 2024 in OS.28 of 2023 on the file of this Hon'ble court with exemplary costs.

16.Heard counsel for the petitioner and Respondent.

17.Now the point is:

Whether the petitioner/proposed party can be impleaded

respondent No.6 as defendant No.6 in the main suit OS.No.28 of

2023 ?

POINT :-

18.This petition is filed under order 1 Rule 3 of CPC praying the

Court to permit respondent/proposed party to be added as defendant

No.6 in the above suit in OS.No.28/2023.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 10

19.According to the petitioner, petitioner is plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2 is her sister and defendants are blood relatives and legal heirs of late Syed Ismail who died intestate on 09.09.2017 leaving behind the plaintiffs and respondents as legal heirs to his estate.

20.It is asserted that the suit is filed for partition and Separate possession along with the petitioner filed the suit along with her younger sister on 27.02.2023 and just before filing of the present suit defendants anticipating and sensing the filing of the suit and to evade share of the plaintiffs got executed five gift deeds in favour of

Defendant No.2 to 4 and in favour of wife of defendant No.2 Syeda alifa Begum by creating bogus legal heir certificate. It is also alleged by the petitioner learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner demanded the partition in December 2022, on several occasions subsequently. The defendant with alterial motive to usurp the property and evade the lawful share of the plaintiff, created dubious legal heir affidavit and manipulated bogus gift deeds listed in the petition in their favour in order to suppress the fact that the plaintiffs are also legal heirs of the deceased late Syed Ismail.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 11

21.Learned counsel for the petitioner further put forth before this Court that late Syed Ismail father of the plaintiff purchased C and

D schedule properties with his heard earned money. Defendant No.1 who is being the ostensible owner and transferred a part of C and D schedule property in favour of Defendant No.2 and proposed

Defendant No.6 (wife of D2) which are invalid, nonest in the eye of law and not binding upon the plaintiffs. According to the version of the petitioners it is necessary to bring Syed Arifa Begum wife of

Defendant No.2 as Defendant No.6 in the main suit in the interest of justice and to give the binding force of the judgment.

22.Other side filed a counter and resisted the petition.

23.According to the case of the respondent the suit is filed for partition and separate possession along with the mesne profits in the meanwhile the petitioner /plaintiff filed the impleadment petition under order 1 Rule 3 r/w 151 CPC seeking to implead daughter-in-law of defendant No.1 as well as deceased wife of defendant No.2. It is further averred that Syed Ismail purchased the land in the name of his wife defendant No.1.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 12

24.Defendant No.1 in turn transferred the property to Defendant

No.2 to 4. Defendant No.2 is Syed Arifa Begum and Defendant No.1 transferred some extent of land 96.3 Sq.yards. It is further averred in the counter that Defendant No.2 to 4 applying for family member certificate by approaching 16 Special Magistrate Secunderabad who issued affidavit by affixing the signature. As per the version of the respondent /defendant No.1 transferred the property in favour of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 by virtue of gift deed document bearing No.4646/2023 and 4647/2023 dated 22.02.2023 out of love and affection towards daughter-in-law who is a wife of defendant

No.2. Similarly, document bearing No.4648/2023 dated 22.02.2023 admeasuring 289 Sq.yards divided in to three parts. The respondent counter answered the argument of the petitioner that defendant No.1 is ostensible owner of Syed Ismail under Sec.41 of Transfer of Property

Act, 1872 although the gift transaction is covered under Sec.122 and 126 of Transfer of property Act 1872.

25.Skimmed the material on record and heard arguments on both sides. The present petition is moved before this Court to bring wife of

Defendant No.2 Syed Arifa Begum as Defendant No.6 for the main suit

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 13 on the ground that the property was gifted just prior to the filing of the suit in order to deprive the share of the petitioner/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. In the present case in hand there is no dispute with regard to jural relationship with the parties. It is also pertinent to note that alleged transaction under the gift settlement deeds are undisputed facts. Whether defendant No.1 is the ostensible owner of late Syed Ismail or not is a point of consideration in the main suit and it is also the main issue to be decided as to under what capacity defendant No.1 gifted the property in favour of wife of defendant No.2 Syed Arifa Begum.

26.While considering the application for impleadment it is obligation of the part of the Court to see whether the proposed impleader is necessary and proper party for the adjudication of the lis and determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties in conclusive manner. At this interlocutory stage, particularly when there is no dispute with regard to jural relationship of the parties coupled with the facts which are admitted on the aspect of the gift settlement deeds made by defendant No.1 in faovur his daughter in law Smt.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 14

Arifa Begum who is wife of defendant No.2. Whether those transactions are legally tenable and whether defendant No.1 is empowered to make such transactions in favour of wife of defendant

No.2 to be considered in the light of the law laid down in the

Mohammadan law which is possible only upon full fledged trial after giving a fair opportunity to both sides to adduce their evidence on that aspect.

27.Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that as per the very case of the petition itself in para No.5 admitted that Syed

Ismail father of the plaintiffs purchased C and D schedule property with his hard earned money in the name of Defendant No.1. Hence, defendant No.1 is an exclusive owner and possessor as such she is entitled to since transfer the property or convey the property in any of the modes as per her wish and will. As already observed whether the defendant No.1 empowered to transfer the same in favour of wife of defendant No.2 in the capacity of the title owner or she is a ostensible owner and merely holding the property nominally will be considered and decided in the main suit.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 15

28.In this context particularly, in view of the fact that the transaction are not disputed on jural relationship is admitted this

Court does not find any impleadment in allowing this petition. It is also further satisfied the proposed party who is sought to be impleaded as defendant No.6 is necessary and proper for the adjudication of the lis and conclusive determination of rights and liabilities of the parties with regard to subject matter of the property.

Therefore, I do not find any prejudice to either side if proposed party is added as Defendant No.6 in the main suit and permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to incorporated the pleading which are sought to be added in the original plaint. It is need less to reiterate the fact that defendant /respondents will be given a fair opportunity to deny the case of the petitioner/plaintiffs to test the veracity by producing rebuttal evidence. The point is answered as per the above findings.

29.In the result, the petition is liable to be allow and accordingly allowed. No cost.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, At Medchal.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 16

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners/plaintiffs: None

For Respondents/Defendants:None

Documents marked on behalf of Petitioners/Plaintiffs:NIL

Documents marked on behalf of Respondent/Defendant: NIL

Sd/-

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, At Medchal.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

PRESENT : Sri M.Arjun, Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District, Medchal

Dated this the 28th day of August, 2025

I.A.No.402 of 2024 IN

OS No.28 of 2023

Between :-

1.Smt. Syeda Shajaha Begum W/o. Syed Nazeem Hussain, D/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 46 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 17-2, Gurumuthynagar, Opp IDPL Colony, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 072.

2. Smt. Syeda Nusrath jaha Begum W/o. Syed Arif Hussain, D/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 38 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 17-2, Gurumuthynagar, Opp IDPL Colony, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 072.

...Petitioners/Plaintiffs

AND

1. Smt. Fazilunnisa Begum, W/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 66 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 8-96, Srinivas Nagar, Chintal, HMT Road, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 054.

2. Syed Habeeb Hussain, S/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 48 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-96, Srinivas Nagar, Chintal, HMT Road, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 054.

3. Syed Mustaq Hussain, S/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 44 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-96,

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 2

Srinivas Nagar, Chintal, HMT Road, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 054.

4. Syed Ateeq Hussain, S/o. Late Syed Ismail, Aged about 36 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-96, Srinivas Nagar, Chintal, HMT Road, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. -500 054.

5. Smt. Noorjaha Begum, W/o. Md Afzal Khaja, Aged about 42 Years, Occ: Household, R/o.Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura Mandal, Hyderabad District. -5000.

... Respondents/Defendants

AND Syeeda Arifa Begum, W/o Syed Habeeb Hussain Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-96, Srinivas Nagar, Chintal, HMT Road, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. ….Respondent No.6/ Proposed Defendant No.6

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s.Syed Reyaz, Counsel for the Petitioners/plaintiffs and S/o. G.Rajesh Babu, counsel for Respondents/defendants No.1, 2, 3 & 4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:-

: : C O M M O N O R D E R : :

1.This petition IA.No.402 of 2024 under Order 1 Rule 3 of C.P.C is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking permission to implead respondent/proposed party as Defendant No.6 in OS.No.28 of 2023.

Brief averments of the petitioners/plaintiffs as per petition

IA.No.402 of 2024 are as follows :-

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 3

2.It is averred that the Petitioner No.1/Plaintiff No.1, and sister of the Petitioner No.2/Plaintiff No.2 herein well acquainted with the facts of the case.

3. It is averred that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the

Respondents/Defendants are the related by blood, and the legal heirs of Late Syed Ismail died intestate on 09/09/2017 leaving behind the

Plaintiffs and the Respondents/Defendants herein as his legal heirs to his estate.

4. It is averred that the above suit for partition and separate possession and the same is pending before this Hon'ble Court. It is averrred that she along with her younger sister filed the above suit on 27/02/2023, and prior to the filling of the suit the Defendants sensing the filling of the suit for partition in order to evade the share of the

Plaintiffs got executed the five Gift Deed's in favour of the Defendant

No.2 to 4 and in favour of the wife of the Defendant No.2 " Syeeda

Arifa Begum" by creating the bogus Legal heir Affidavit.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 4

5.It is averred that the Petitioner demanded in the month of

December 2022 for partition, as there was several demands for partition, the Defendants with ulterior motto in order to usurp the property, and to evade the lawful share of the Plaintiffs created a dubious Legal heir Affidavit and using the same the Defendants created bogus gift deeds in their favour on 22/02/2023 vide Doc No.

4644/2023, 4645/2023, 4646/2023, 4647/2023, 4648/2023 registered at

SRO Quthbullapur, by suppressing the fact that the Plaintiffs as a legal heirs of the deceased Late Syed Ismail.

6. It is averred that the deceased late Syed Ismail father of the

Plaintiffs though his hard earned money purchased the schedule C &

D Property in the name of the Defendant No.1, but the Defendant

No.1 being the ostensible owner has transferred the part of the

Schedule C & D Property in the name of the Defendant No.2 and the

Proposed Defendant No.6 (wife of the Defendant no.2) vide Gift Deed

Doc No. 4646/2023, 4647/2023, 4648/2023 DT: 22/02/2023, and the same is nonest in the eyes of law and not binding on plaintiffs.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 5

7. It is averred that the no prejudice would be caused if the "Syeeda Arifa Begum" is made as a party to the suit, on other hand if the "Syeeda Arifa Begum" is made a party it will help in proper appreciation and adjudication of the matter.

8.Therefore, petitioners/plaintiffs prayed to permit the

Respondent/ Proposed Party to be added as Defendant No. 6 in suit

O.S No. 28 of 2023, and Respondent No.6 in I.A No. 402 of 2024.

9. Counsel for Respondent/defendant No.6 filed a counter and R2 to R6 filed a memo adopting the counter in amendment petition filed by respondent/ defendant No.1. it is averred that the respondent/proposed defendant No.6 in 1.A No. 402 of 2024 herein and the in this I.A Plaintiffs impleading her as the proposed defendant

No.6 filed implead petition under Order 1 Rule 3 of C.P.C. and deposing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 as authorized to do so.

10. It is averred that the present Interlocutory Application is not maintainable either on law nor on facts and the same is liable to dismissed in limine.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 6

11. It is averred that Respondents/defendants and is humbly submitted that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs are related by blood, plaintiffs are the daughters of defendant No.1 and Sisters of defendant No. 2 to 4, and also plaintiffs are daughters of deceased late Syed Ismail who was died on 09/09/2017, and defendant no.1 is the wife of the deceased and defendants No. 2 to 4 are the sons and Respondent

No.6 Proposed defendant no.6 is the daughter-in-law of

Respondent/defendant No.1 respondent/defendant no. 2 as well as deceased and wife of the respondent /defendant No.2.

12.It is averred that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed for partition and separate possession, mesne profit the same is pending before this court, meanwhile now the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the implead petition under order 1 rule 3 R/w section 151of Civil procedure code, 1908. Impleading the daughter-in-law of respondent/ defendant no.1 as well as deceased and wife of the respondent/defendant no. 2. It is humbly submitted that the averments in this IA the respondents/defendants explained briefly in main suit counter and written statement about the averments made in this IA and

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 7 respondents/defendants registered the gift deeds by virtue of registration prior to the filing of this suit, the defendant no.1 is the wife of the deceased i.e., late syed ismail purchased the land under the name of the Defendant No.1 (wife) and defendant no. 1 transferred the property to D2 to D4 and wife of D2, i.e, Syeeda Arifa

Begum W/o Syed Habeeb Hussain and Daughter-in-law of Defendant

No.1 transferred some extent of land of 96.33 square yards, explained in the main suit counter as well as written statement of Di to D4. The defendants D2 to D4 applied for family member certificate by approaching the Hon'ble city civil court, Secunderabad, under the guidance of stamp vendor, in Non Judicial Stamp paper under the signature of Hon'ble XVI Spl Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

In the year 2022.

13. It is averred that the Schedule-C and D properties extent of 289 square yards and it divided into three shares Respondent/Defendant

No.1 (Mother) transferred to Respondent/defendant No.2 and in name of wife of respondent/defendant No. 2 virtue of gift deed vide document no.4646/2023 & 4647/2023 dated 22/2/2023,

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 8

Respondent/defendant No.1 transferred through love and affection towards daughter-in-law she was the wife of Respondent/Defendant no.2 virtue of gift deed to wife of Respondent defendant no, 2 vide bearing document no. 4648/2023 dated 22/2/2023. Admeasuring of 289 divided into 3 parts virtue of gift deed vide document no.

4646/2023 admeasuring of 96.33 square yards and vide document no.

4647/2023 admeasuring of 96.33 square yards, vide document no.

4648/2023 admeasuring of 96.33 square yards.

14. It is averred that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed implead petition for the implead the defendant No.2 wife has permissible in law, gift deeds and it comes under the section 122 and 126 of proposed defendant to suit is not The Transfer of property Act, 1882. It is submitted that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs themselves admitted about the Schedule C & D property in this IA Paragraph No.5 i.c. "The deceased late Syed Ismail father of the Petitioners/plaintiffs though his hard earned money purchased the schedule C & D property in the name of the Defendant No.1, but the Defendant No.1 being the ostensible owner has transferred the part of the Schedule C & D

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 9 property in the name of the Defendant No.2 and the proposed

Defendant No.6 (wife of the Defendant No.2) vide Gift Deed Document

No. 4646/2023, 4647/2023 and 4648/2023 Dated: 22/2/2023". The

Petitioners/Plaintiffs themselves admitted that their father purchased the schedule property in the name of the Defendant No.1 (wife). It shows that the it not comes into the Ostensible owner under section 41 Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

15.It is therefore prayed to dismiss IA No.402 of 2024 in OS.28 of 2023 on the file of this Hon'ble court with exemplary costs.

16.Heard counsel for the petitioner and Respondent.

17.Now the point is:

Whether the petitioner/proposed party can be impleaded

respondent No.6 as defendant No.6 in the main suit OS.No.28 of

2023 ?

POINT :-

18.This petition is filed under order 1 Rule 3 of CPC praying the

Court to permit respondent/proposed party to be added as defendant

No.6 in the above suit in OS.No.28/2023.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 10

19.According to the petitioner, petitioner is plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2 is her sister and defendants are blood relatives and legal heirs of late Syed Ismail who died intestate on 09.09.2017 leaving behind the plaintiffs and respondents as legal heirs to his estate.

20.It is asserted that the suit is filed for partition and Separate possession along with the petitioner filed the suit along with her younger sister on 27.02.2023 and just before filing of the present suit defendants anticipating and sensing the filing of the suit and to evade share of the plaintiffs got executed five gift deeds in favour of

Defendant No.2 to 4 and in favour of wife of defendant No.2 Syeda alifa Begum by creating bogus legal heir certificate. It is also alleged by the petitioner learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner demanded the partition in December 2022, on several occasions subsequently. The defendant with alterial motive to usurp the property and evade the lawful share of the plaintiff, created dubious legal heir affidavit and manipulated bogus gift deeds listed in the petition in their favour in order to suppress the fact that the plaintiffs are also legal heirs of the deceased late Syed Ismail.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 11

21.Learned counsel for the petitioner further put forth before this Court that late Syed Ismail father of the plaintiff purchased C and

D schedule properties with his heard earned money. Defendant No.1 who is being the ostensible owner and transferred a part of C and D schedule property in favour of Defendant No.2 and proposed

Defendant No.6 (wife of D2) which are invalid, nonest in the eye of law and not binding upon the plaintiffs. According to the version of the petitioners it is necessary to bring Syed Arifa Begum wife of

Defendant No.2 as Defendant No.6 in the main suit in the interest of justice and to give the binding force of the judgment.

22.Other side filed a counter and resisted the petition.

23.According to the case of the respondent the suit is filed for partition and separate possession along with the mesne profits in the meanwhile the petitioner /plaintiff filed the impleadment petition under order 1 Rule 3 r/w 151 CPC seeking to implead daughter-in-law of defendant No.1 as well as deceased wife of defendant No.2. It is further averred that Syed Ismail purchased the land in the name of his wife defendant No.1.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 12

24.Defendant No.1 in turn transferred the property to Defendant

No.2 to 4. Defendant No.2 is Syed Arifa Begum and Defendant No.1 transferred some extent of land 96.3 Sq.yards. It is further averred in the counter that Defendant No.2 to 4 applying for family member certificate by approaching 16 Special Magistrate Secunderabad who issued affidavit by affixing the signature. As per the version of the respondent /defendant No.1 transferred the property in favour of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 by virtue of gift deed document bearing No.4646/2023 and 4647/2023 dated 22.02.2023 out of love and affection towards daughter-in-law who is a wife of defendant

No.2. Similarly, document bearing No.4648/2023 dated 22.02.2023 admeasuring 289 Sq.yards divided in to three parts. The respondent counter answered the argument of the petitioner that defendant No.1 is ostensible owner of Syed Ismail under Sec.41 of Transfer of Property

Act, 1872 although the gift transaction is covered under Sec.122 and 126 of Transfer of property Act 1872.

25.Skimmed the material on record and heard arguments on both sides. The present petition is moved before this Court to bring wife of

Defendant No.2 Syed Arifa Begum as Defendant No.6 for the main suit

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 13 on the ground that the property was gifted just prior to the filing of the suit in order to deprive the share of the petitioner/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. In the present case in hand there is no dispute with regard to jural relationship with the parties. It is also pertinent to note that alleged transaction under the gift settlement deeds are undisputed facts. Whether defendant No.1 is the ostensible owner of late Syed Ismail or not is a point of consideration in the main suit and it is also the main issue to be decided as to under what capacity defendant No.1 gifted the property in favour of wife of defendant No.2 Syed Arifa Begum.

26.While considering the application for impleadment it is obligation of the part of the Court to see whether the proposed impleader is necessary and proper party for the adjudication of the lis and determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties in conclusive manner. At this interlocutory stage, particularly when there is no dispute with regard to jural relationship of the parties coupled with the facts which are admitted on the aspect of the gift settlement deeds made by defendant No.1 in faovur his daughter in law Smt.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 14

Arifa Begum who is wife of defendant No.2. Whether those transactions are legally tenable and whether defendant No.1 is empowered to make such transactions in favour of wife of defendant

No.2 to be considered in the light of the law laid down in the

Mohammadan law which is possible only upon full fledged trial after giving a fair opportunity to both sides to adduce their evidence on that aspect.

27.Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that as per the very case of the petition itself in para No.5 admitted that Syed

Ismail father of the plaintiffs purchased C and D schedule property with his hard earned money in the name of Defendant No.1. Hence, defendant No.1 is an exclusive owner and possessor as such she is entitled to since transfer the property or convey the property in any of the modes as per her wish and will. As already observed whether the defendant No.1 empowered to transfer the same in favour of wife of defendant No.2 in the capacity of the title owner or she is a ostensible owner and merely holding the property nominally will be considered and decided in the main suit.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 15

28.In this context particularly, in view of the fact that the transaction are not disputed on jural relationship is admitted this

Court does not find any impleadment in allowing this petition. It is also further satisfied the proposed party who is sought to be impleaded as defendant No.6 is necessary and proper for the adjudication of the lis and conclusive determination of rights and liabilities of the parties with regard to subject matter of the property.

Therefore, I do not find any prejudice to either side if proposed party is added as Defendant No.6 in the main suit and permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to incorporated the pleading which are sought to be added in the original plaint. It is need less to reiterate the fact that defendant /respondents will be given a fair opportunity to deny the case of the petitioner/plaintiffs to test the veracity by producing rebuttal evidence. The point is answered as per the above findings.

29.In the result, the petition is liable to be allow and accordingly allowed. No cost.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, At Medchal.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal 16

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners/plaintiffs: None

For Respondents/Defendants:None

Documents marked on behalf of Petitioners/Plaintiffs:NIL

Documents marked on behalf of Respondent/Defendant: NIL

Sd/-

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, At Medchal.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Medchal

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 1 of 14

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT : Sri M.Arjun,

Addl.Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of November, 2025

SESSIONS CASE NO.11 OF 2023

1.Name & description of : The State through Sub-Inspector of the ComplainantPolice, P.S., Shamirpet.

2.Name & description of : A1. Konga Mahesh, S/o. Shankaraiah the accused (Died. Hence abated)

A2. Konga Sathamma @ Laxmi W/o Shankaraiah r/o H.No.4-56, Aliyabad Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District

A3. Konga Shankaraiah S/o Balaiah (Died. Hence abated)

3.Crime No.: 468/2019

4.Offence with which : Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian charged Penal Code

5.P.R.C. No.: 47/2021

6.Plea of the accused: Not guilty

7.Finding of the Judge: Not guilty

8.Sentence or Order: In the result, accused A2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly she is acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 2 of 14

for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No order as to property.

9.Prosecution conducted by : Smt Sujana Reddy:Addl. Public Prosecutor.

10. Accused defended by: Sri B.Ram Mohan, Advocate

This case having come before me for final hearing on 24-11- 2025 for disposal in the presence of Smt Sujana Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri B.Ram Mohan, Advocate

for the Accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing material

papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by LW.15/Sri

M.Ravi Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, Shamirpet police station against the accused A1 to A3 herein in Crime No.468/2019 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short “IPC”).

2.The case of the prosecution in brevity is as follows:

On 19-11-2019 Defacto complainant/LW.1/Yamjala

Harish (PW.1) lodged a report with the police Shamirpet, stating that his elder sister name Konga Manjula, about 13 years back her

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 3 of 14

marriage was performed with the accused No.1/Konga Mahesh S/o

Konga Shankaraiah in the presence of elders, on their matrimonial life they blessed two childrens by namely one son Manoj, and one daughter Varshita from marriage on wards the accused No.1 was addicted for alcohol land every day he drunk and quarreled with his sister Smt Konga Manjula and accused parents A2 and A3 also supported to the A1, in this regard so many times panchayath were held before the village elders, on 16.11.2019 also held panchayath at Aliyabad Village, but the accused did not changed their manner, due to which Konga Manjula vexed on her life. On 18.11.2019 at about 09.00 hours she told her childrens and accused No.1 that she was going to duty, and went to agricultural fiel nala (Vagu), near Ramalayam, Aliyabad Village, Shamirpet

Mandal and committed suicide by drowning in to the water due to unbearable harassment by the accused persons.

3.On the strength of the report, LW.15/Sri M.Ravi Kumar,

Sub Inspector of Police, Shamirpet, registered a case in

Cr.No.468/2019 u/h Woman missing and investigation entrusted to

L.W.14/Sir M.Bhaskara Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Shamirpet

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 4 of 14

police station. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW.1in police station, Shamirpet, visited the Aliabad Village, Shamirpet Mandal and caused enquiry about the missing woman to their neighbours, later while the investigation is in the progress the Lw.14 received an information that the missing woman’s footwear found beside their agricultural field nala (Vagu) at Aliabad village. On that suspicious manner the

L.w.14 secured the L.W.5 who has the expert in swimming and on the instructions of L.W.14, the L.W.5 descended in to agricultural field nala (Vagu) and searched and found the dead body of missing woman Smt. Konga Manjula and brought out her corpse from thepond, then the L.w.1 identified that the corpse was his sister

Manjula. Then the L.W.14 re-examined the L.W.1 and recorded his statement. Basing on the statement of the L.W.1, the L.W.14 altered the Section of law from U/h women missing to 498-A, 306 of IPC and sent the section alteration memo’s to concerned authorities. During the course of investigation, he examined the blood relative of the deceased and recorded their statements of

LW.2/Y.Shiva Shankar (PW.2), LW.3/D.Lavanya (PW.3),

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 5 of 14

LW.4/Boina Krishna, L.w.5/K.Sanjeeva (PW.4). Later L.W.14 secured the LW.6/Konga Balakrishna and instructed him to photograph the scene of offence after the photography the L.W.14 also examined the L.W.6, later L.W.14 secured three panch witnessesi.e.,L.W.9/Smt.ChallaMalleshwari,L.W.10/

Smt.Kanaboina Sattamma, L.W.11/Tadem Rajaiah VRA and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of said panchas, after inquest the dead body was shifted to Gandhi

Hospital for preservation. Later L.W.14 secured another two panch witnesses i.e., L.W.7/Vangari Hruday Kumar, L.W.8/Baini Chandu and conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized one pair of black and red colour paragon footwear which were wore by the deceased person. After L.W.14 proceeded to Gandhi Hospital where the dead body of the deceased preserved, then the L.w.14 filed a requisition for PME, on requisition L.W.12 conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased, after completion of PME the dead body was handed over to her blood relatives for final rites.

4.On 22.11.2019 he along with his men apprehended A1 and during the course of investigation, A1 voluntarily confessed to have

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 6 of 14

committed this offence. After compliance of due formalities of arrest, A1 was produced before the Court for judicial remand on 03.01.2020 remaining accused persons A2 and A3 were surrender

before the Hon’ble XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad

at Medchal and obtain bail.

5. Subsequently, L.w.15 took up the investigation and scrutiny the CD filed of L.W.14 and found it in proper lines and found correct, in this case A1 to A3 involvement only establish and other persons involvement is not establish. Duty Medical Officer, Gandhi

Hospital, Secunderabad issued opinion that the cause of death due to “Drowning”. After completion of investigation, investigation officer filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.

6. The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and registered the case as PRC No.47/2021. The record reflects, on appearance of the accused, case papers were furnished to accused as contemplated Under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 7 of 14

record to the Court of Sessions Division i.e., Hon’ble Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri vide committal order dated 06-10-2022

since the offence is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. On committal, Hon’ble Prl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Malkajgiei has taken P.R.C.No.47/2021 on file as SC No.11/2023 against accused and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

7. On appearance of the accused, after perusal of the report, statements of witnesses and material papers on record and upon hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and accused this court framed charges against A1 and A2 Under Section 228 Cr.P.C. for the offence Under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. Having understood the same, A1 and A2 denied the charge and opted for trial. A3 died on 02.02.2022 case against A3 is abated. Later on 07.08.2024 A1 died, case against A1 is abated.

8. Prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P9. Ex.P1 is Signature of PW.1 on report, Ex.P2 is

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 8 of 14

Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1, Ex.P3 is

Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2, Ex.P4 is

Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3, Ex.P5 is

Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4, Ex.P6 is F.I.R.

Ex.P7 is the CDF-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P8 is Inquest

Panchanama, Ex.P9 is PME Report.

9.On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, as there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused No.2 in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused No.2 under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Case of the accused No.2 is one of the total denial.

10.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned defense counsel.

11.Now the point that emerges for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could prove the charges against the accused A2 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts?”

12.The case against the accused No.2 in a nutshell is that, on 18.11.2019 brother of deceased i.e., P.W.1 lodged a complaint

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 9 of 14

with the police that the deceased Konga Manjula was married to accused No.1 and blessed with two children out of their wedlock the complainant reported that A1 to A3 used to harass her sister both mentally and physically for which panchayath was held in the presence of their elders but there is no change in his attitude. On 16.11.2019 the accused quarreled with the deceased and panchayat was held before the elders of Aliabad village where A1 husband of deceased undertakes to look after the deceased happily. On the following day the deceased went to attend the duty in the morning but did not return the home. On knowing the same through telephonic information P.W.1 brother of deceased suspected his brother in law/ Konga Mahesh and his parents A2 and A3 and lodge a complaint. Initially, women missing complaint was registered thereafter, Section alteration memo was accepted by the Magistrate and the case was converted to Sec.498-A, 306 of

IPC. On investigation it is found that A1 was addicted to alcohol and every day he used to drunk and quarrel with the deceased.

Deceased vexed with the attitude of the accused committed suicide by drowning in the water agricultural field nala (Vagu) unable bear

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 10 of 14

with the torture meated out in the hands of A1 to A3.

13.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined five witnesses in all. PW.1 is the defacto complainant younger brother of deceased, who lodged report. Ex.P1 is the signature marked on the complaint. It is the version of PW1 that, his sister died due to the harassment of A1 as he used to doubt her fidelity. A1 is main accused who died, P.W.1 have no grievance.

However, he identified his signature on report, which is marked under Ex.P1. He further testified that police obtained his signature on some paper and he do not know the contents of the same. He does not have any grievance against A2 who is no way concerned with the commission of offence. He deposed that the reason for the death of his deceased sister. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor sought permission to cross examine the witness as he resiled from her earlier statement given to the police. Nothing incriminating against the accused was elicited and the contents of report under Ex.P1 are denied by PW.1. PW.1 also denied that he stated before the police as in Ex.P2 relevant portion of his 161

Cr.P.C statement.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 11 of 14

14.PW.2 is younger brother of deceased and PW.3 is sister of deceased. Both the witnesses in unanimously voiced that, their deceased sister died by jumping into the well. They do not know the reason the death of their sister. Their sister never shared any information regarding the cause or reasons for her death with her.

15.P.W.4. who is close relative of the deceased deposed that he does not know the cause of the death of the deceased and he was not present at the time of the commission of offence he also stated that he does not know anything about the case.

16.P.W.5 is an investigating officer who issued who has taken the charge from the L.W.14 and handed over the CD file to

L.W.15for further investigation who collected PME Report and filed charge sheet after having completed the investigation. Since non of the prosecution witnesses could support the case of the prosecution, the learned APP had given up the evidence of L.W.6 to

13. Since there is no incriminating material against the accused the examination U/sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed. Since there is no

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 12 of 14

material on record to establish the guilt of the accused moreover it is elicited from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the main accused i.e., A1 who is the husband of the deceased was died, as such, the prosecution witnesses expressed that they have no grievance whatsoever against A2 who is old aged lady about 80 years.

17.There is no incriminating evidence against the accused was elicited from the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.5. The evidence of

P.W.5 who is an investigating officer is formal in nature and cannot be given credence in the absence of support rendered by the defacto complainant and other material witnesses. Therefore, the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.5 are not useful to establish the case of the prosecution and liable to be discarded. From the discussion supra, this Court is of the view that there is absolutely no incriminating evidence on record against the accused to prove the charges. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly this point is answered.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 13 of 14

In the result, accused A2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal

Code. Accordingly, she is acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C.

for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused No.2 shall remain in force for further period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No order as to property. Unmarked case property if anything shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For the prosecution:

PW.1 (LW.1)Yamjala HarishDefacto complainant and brother of deceased

PW.2 (LW.2)Yamjala Shiva Shankar Younger brother of the deceased

PW.3 (LW.3)Dandu LavanyaSister of the deceased

PW.4 (LW.5)Konga SanjeevaCir.Witness

PW.5 (LW.14)M.Bhaskara RaoI.O.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

SC No.11 of 2023 Page 14 of 14

For the defence:

--- Nil ---

Exhibits marked For the prosecution:

Ex.P1Signature of PW.1 on report

Ex.P2Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.P3Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P4Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P5Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P6F.I.R

Ex.P7CDF-cum-seizure panchanama

Ex.P8Inquest Panchanama

Ex.P9PME Report

For the defence:

---Nil---

Material Objects Marked:

---Nil---

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal.

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 1 of 12

IN THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL -MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT , AT MEDCHAL

Present : Sri.M.ARJUN, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District At Medchal

Dated this the 24 th day of March, 2025

I.A.No. 501 of 2024

IN

O.S.No.89 of 2024

Between :

Tummala Suresh Chandra Chatterjee, S/o Late T. Venkata Krishna Rao Aged about 64 years, Occ : Business. R/o. H.No.8-2-310/B/33/A, Road 14 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

…..Petitioner/Defendant

AND

Chinta Balnarsimha @ Chintala Bala Narsimha S/o. Late C. Kistaiah, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-50, Maisammaguda, Gundlapochampally (v) Medchal Mandal Medchal – Malkajgiri District. ….Respondent/Plaintiff

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Burma Chakra Pani, Advocate for Petitioner/Defendant and Sri S. Kamalakar, Advocate for Respondent/Plaintiff, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Order-VII Rule-11, of CPC praying this court to reject the plaint.

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 2 of 12

The brief averments of the petition are as follows :-

2. It is submitted that the petitioner/defendant is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the agriculture Dry Land to an Extent Ac.0- 27 Gts or 0.273 Hectors in bearing Sy.No 622, situated at Maissammaguda,

Gundlapochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal District., purchased from Chintha Narsimha and 3 others vide document No. 7191/07,

dated 13-04-2007 registered at SRO at Medchal.

3. So also, petitioner / defendant is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the agriculture land to an extent of Ac. 0-27 Gts, in

Survey No.622/admeasuring to and Ac. 0-04 Gts, in Sy. No. 624/an extent of

A.c.0-31 Gts, Situated total at Gundlapochampally (V) Medchal District., purchased from Chintha Mallamma and 4 others vide document No.

279/2014 dated. 22-01-2014 registered at SRO at Medchal.

4. It is further averred that, originally his vendors are the absolute owners and Pattadars and possessors of the agriculture Dry Land to an

Extent Ac.0-27 Gts or 0.273 Hectors in bearing Sy.No 622, situated at

Maissammaguda, Gundlapochampally Village which was acquired the same from their ancestral and later their names were mutated in the revenue records and were issued pattadar and pass books vide no. 102317, and title

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 3 of 12

deeds No.32382, Vide Patta No.372, issued by MRO Medchal and the same has been purchased by the plaintiff.

5. It is further averred that, originally his vendors are the absolute owners and Pattadars and possessors of agriculture land to an extent of Ac.

0-27 Gts, in Survey No.622/ and Ac. 0-04 Gts, in Sy. No. 624/, total admeasuring to an extent of A.c.0-31 Gts, Situated at Gundlapochampally village which was acquired the same from their ancestral and later their names were mutated in the revenue records and were issued pattadar and pass books vide no. 515369, and title deeds No. 515369, Vide Patta No.

1563, issued by MRO Medchal and the same has been purchased by the plaintiff.

6.It is further submitted that, after the purchasing the above mentioned properties petitioner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment without the third party interference. While so, the respondent/plaintiffandhishenchmenclaimingthrough respondent/plaintiff started interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/defendant over the said properties from the month of April 2024 claiming that the part of the above said properties has belongs to this respondent/plaintiff upon the alleged claim of the

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 4 of 12

respondent/plaintiff the petitioner/defendant filed an application before the Tahsildar of Medchal Mandal and District for demarcating the land of petitioner/defendant vide application No. E/136/2024 dated 05-03-2024 upon his application the Mandal surveyor caused notices to neighbouring pattedars to fixing the date of survey for which the neighbouring pattedars objected the survey and demarcating his land that the Tahsildar issued letter No. A/796 of 2024 dated 22-05-2024 stating that the survey cannot be conducted due to objections by neighbouring pattedars that after objecting the survey the respondent/plaintiff herein filed a caveat No. 122 of 2024 and subsequently filed this present suit vide O.S. No. 89 of 2024

before this court for perpetual Injunction against the petitioner /

defendant and in this suit vide O.S.No. 89 of 2024 respondent/plaintiff filed certain documents which encroaching rights and infringing the title of the petitioner, which pertains to the above mentioned properties.

7. It is averred that, when the Tahsildhar refused to survey the patta land of the above mentioned properties then petitioner / defendant filed a suit vide O.S. No. 276 Of 2024 before I Addl. Junior Civil Judge court at Medchal and due to pendency of caveat this the petitioner could not get the orders, in the said suit filed by me for perpetual Injunction.

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 5 of 12

8. I further averred that, after receiving of summons in O.S.No. 89 of 2024 filed by respondent/plaintiff before this court, he has filed vakalat and collected the material papers of O.S.NO. 89 of 2024 in which the petitioner could lays hands on certain documents which were brought into being to grab his lawful property, the respondent/plaintiff in the suit O.S.

No. 89 of 2024 filed certified copies of the registered GPA bearing document No. 04/1994 dated 05-01-1994 regd. At SRO Medchal which is executed by Chinta Ramulu and Chinta Balakrishna in favour of Chinta

Pedda Kistaiah in this GPA Document No. 4/1994 the executants Chinta

Ramulu and Bala Kistaiah claims that they are absolute owners and peaceful possessors of agricultural lands in Sy.No. 621 and 622 to an extent of

Ac.1-20 gts situated at Maissamaguda, Gundlapochampally village, Medchal

Mandal and District., they have executed the regd. GPA in respect of their claim of their land in Sy.No. 621 and 622 to an extent of Ac.1-20gts in favour of Chinta Pedda Kistaiah and this document is principal and parent document of claim of the respondent/plaintiff and more particularly the respondent/plaintiff and this parent document does not specify as to what extent of land in Sy.No. 621 and 622 of Maissamaguda, Gundlapochampally village, Medchal Mandal and District., is the claim of the executants. It is pertinent to mention here that the principal and the parent document there are no specific boundaries of the land upon which the authorization is

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 6 of 12

executed in favour the GPA Holder Chinta Pedda Kistaiah.

9. It is further submitted that, the Chinta Pedda Kistaiah is the

GPA Holder of Chinta Ramulu and Chinta Bala Kistaiah with the unspecified extent of land in Sy.No. 621 and 622 without any specific boundaries in GPA document No. 4/1994 brought being the sale deed document No.

6978/1994 dated 17-10-1994 registered in SRO Medchal in favour of Chinta

Bala Narasaiah @ Chinta Bala Narsimulu the respondent/plaintiff and it is the strange to find in the claim of the vendor of this registered sale deeds that vendor Chinta Ramulu and Chinta Pedda Kistaiah claims the ownership of land in Sy.No. 622 situated at Maissamaguda, Gundlapochampally village,

Medchal Mandal and District., Whereas in GPA Document No. 4/1994 their claim is also in Sy.No. 621 but coming to sale deed document No. 6978/1994 their claim is only in Sy.No. 622 to an extent of Ac.1-20gts and strangely the boundaries were also specified as follows in Sy.No. 622 North: Raja Reddy,

South: Neighbour land, East: Chinta Ramulu, West: Veera Reddy.

10. It is further averred that the above document bearing No.

6978/1994 in favour of respondent/plaintiff is a fraud document as the GPA holder a conveyed the land the total extent of Ac.1-20gts in Sy.No. 622 whereas he is holder of GPA for unspecified land in Sy.No. 621 without any specific boundaries, whereas in conveyed sale deed the boundaries were

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 7 of 12

brought into being the squeezed into the land of the neighbouring pattedars in Sy.No. 622.

11. It is further averred that the respondent/plaintiff with the fraud created document No. 6978/1994 as brought being the subsequent document upon the document of respondent/plaintiff. Thus , the respondent/plaintiff and others with the fraud and parent document squeezed into the part of above mentioned properties of the petitioner, who purchased the same and claiming as belonging to the respondent / plaintiff by creating permissions and sanctions behind his back and are hectically making constructions day and night to deprive his lawfully purchased properties upon which he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment since past several decades.

12. It is further submitted that, the hectic activity of respondent/plaintiff and others only after April 2024 when I applied for demarcation of the above mentioned purchased properties then this respondent/plaintiff and along with his anti social elements started dumping the construction material and started laying foundation upon my land. That the illegal activity of the respondent/plaintiff and others needs to curtail by way of Injunction. Since the respondent / plaintiff and others with

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 8 of 12

fraud documents and commenced construction upon his purchased properties.

Thus the petitioner is in specific possession according to the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and same may be demarcated by issuing a direction to the Mandal Surveyor for demarcation. The claim of the respondent / plaintiff on the fraudulent document as such, there is no cause of action arose to respondent / plaintiff to file this present suit. The present suit is filed without having any legal right to seek injunction with fraud and created document as such the plaint is liable to be rejected. Hence prayed to reject the plaint.

13.Counter filed by the respondent / plaintiff contending that petition is not maintainable either under law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The allegations in the petition affidavit filed by the petitioner contra to the allegations mad in the plaint are totally falls and are here by dined. As could be seen from the allegations in the petition affidavit, the claim of the petitioner is that there are no specific boundaries, that the respondent created documents and he is in possession of the property etc. Those aspects can be considered and determined only during the trial of the suit and they are not at all grounds for rejection of the plaint.

14. It is submitted that for seeking rejection of the plaint the petitioner must establish any one of the ingredients enumerated under

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 9 of 12

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC . As seen from the allegations made in the petition affidavit absolutely there are no grounds to reject the plaint. It appears that the petitioner filed the present petition in order to confuse the Court. As such absolutely there are no ground to allow the petition and to reject the plaint. Hence pleased to dismiss the petition.

15.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

16. NOW THE POINT IS : “Whether the present petition is liable to be allowed?”

17.POINT : At the outset the petitioner knocked the doors of this court with the contention that plaint is liable to be rejected on the grounds stated in order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

18. According to the petitioner/ defendant filed the present application seeking to reject the plaint in entire petition the petitioner attributed allegations and counter allegations against the respondent / plaintiff and denied the pleadings of the plaintiff by putting forth certain counter allegations. It is settled position of law that the plaint shall be rejected only on any one or more of the grounds stated in order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 10 of 12

19.In this connection, it is pertinent to recollect the legal position contemplated under Order-VII Rule-11 of CPC.

20.On perusal of Order-7 Rule-11 of CPC which reads as follows :-

Rejection of Plaint :-The Plaint shall be rejected in the following cases :

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp- paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) Where the plaint fails to comply with the provisions of Rule

21. In order to reject the plaint , the petitioner has to prove that the grounds taken in the petition clearly attracts and covers any one or more of the above grounds but not any other. In the present case on hand the petitioner sought to reject the plaint, but failed to specify under which clause of order VII Rule 11 CPC attracts under which the plaint is liable to be rejected. Mere making of bald allegations against the respondent /plaintiff seeking to reject the plaint is not sufficient unless and until the petitioner / defendant could establish under what circumstances of the

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 11 of 12

case and ground which contemplated under order VII Rule 11 CPC the pliant is liable for rejection. It is also settled law that while considering the application for rejection of plaint the contents of the plaint alone are relevant and germane and plaint should be read in whole, but not in separation or isolation. In otherwords the defence put forth by the defendant or the contents of the application of rejection of plaint, nor even the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are relevant and germane to look into at the time of deciding the application for rejection of plaint. But it is not desirable on the part of this court to entertain preconceived notions, at this stage, holding that plaintiffs are not in joint possession of the suit schedule property, particularly in absence of oral and documentary evidence on record. Therefore, this court inclined to hold that the court cannot venture in to the discussion and jump in to hasty conclusion that plaint is liable for rejected basing on the allegations levelled in the present application. Accordingly the point is answered.

22.IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay compensatory cost of Rs. 1000/- under order 35(B) of CPC to otherside.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2025.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

IA No.501 of 2024 IN OS No. 89 of 2024 12 of 12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner/ Defendant : For Respondent/ Plaintiff :

None None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner/Defendant: For Respondent/Plaintiff:

- NIL -- NIL -

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

1 of 11

S.O.P. 7/2023

IN THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MEDCHAL,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT.

Present : Sri M. ARJUN Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

Dated this the 27th day of March , 2023

S.O . P. No. 7 of 2023

Between:

1. Balivada Gopi, S/o. Late. Balivada Shankar Rao, Aged about 33 yrs , Occ: Pvt Job

2. Balivada Anand, S/o. Late. Balivada Shankar Rao, Aged about 31 yrs , Occ: Pvt Job

Both R/o. H.No.42-488/3/1, Road No. 9, Mysamma Nagar, Jagathgirigutta, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

...Petitioners

AND

1. The Branch Manager, Sri Ram City Union Finance Limited, Regd. office: 123, Angappa, Naickan Street, Chennai -600001.

Branch Office: H.No. 71-615, Flat No. 204 & 205, Rahmat Complex, 1st Floor, Main Road. Ameerpet-500016. Hyd Ph: 040 23431601.

2. The Branch Manager, Sriram Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd office: 3-6-478, 3rd Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-29.

3. All Concerned

...Respondents

2 of 11

S.O.P. 7/2023

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Burma Chakrapani, Advocate for petitioners and Sri B. Vijay Gopal Rao, Advocate for respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 and 3 having remained exparte; and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1. This Succession Original Petition is filed by petitioner under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (for short herein after referred as ‘the

Act’), for grant of Succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to claim

Three fix deposits and one insurance amount of Late Balivada Anasury W/o B.

Shankar Rao from respondent No.1 and 2.

T he averments of the petition in brief are that:

2. The Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are sons of the deceased Late. Balivada

Anasuya, who died 29-05-2023 leaving behind petitioner No. 1 and 2 are Legal heirs and successors. During her life time Late. Balivada Anasuya had Three fix deposits and one insurance, Vide Fix Deposit No. 50933267 an amount of

Rs.6,03,371/-, Fix Deposit No.50948764 an amount of Rs. 1,74,723 and fix

Deposit No. 50916782 an amount of Rs. 1,34,361/- and all the deposits common

Customer ID B0165422 total Fix Deposits amount of Rs.9,10,455/-(Rupees Nine

Lakhs Ten Thousands Four Hundred Fifty Five only) of respondent No.1. So also she one insurance policy number NP071100053011 an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for total amount of Rs. 10,10,455/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Ten Thousands Hundred

Fifty Five Only) These deposits tuner is different dated Deposit No. 50933267 3 of 11

S.O.P. 7/2023

dt:01-09-2023, Deposit No.50948764 dt: 25-09-2023 died Deposit No.50916782

dt.25-09-2023. But unexpectedly she was natural died on 29.5.2023, leaving behind petitioners 1 and 2 are legal heirs and successors.

3. The petitioners further submit the, the forenamed Fix Deposits and one insurance still exists and total amount of Rs. 10.10.455/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs

Ten Thousands Four Hundred Fifty Five Only)) in remained in that fix deposit and asurance policy. Except the petitioners herein there are no other legal heirs or successors to the deceased person i.e. Late. Balivada Anasuya, Late. B.

Shankar Rao. As such the petitioners herein are only the legal heirs and successors of Late. Balivada Anasuya, W/o. Late. B. Shankar Rao and they are entitled to succeed the properties such as movable and immoveable properties, bank accounts, employment of deceased, etc., left behind her including the above said fix deposits amounts which was left by her fix deposits and one insurance policy, and also they are eligible for to claim/withdraw fix deposits amount and the insurance policy total amount of amount Rs. 10,10,455/-.

(Rupees Ten Lakhs Ten Thousands Four Hundred Fifty Five Only) from Finance

Companies, and to settle/close fix deposits and the insurance policy with the respondent No.1 and 2. And the respondent No.land 2 herein has given oral statement to the petitioners on 29-08-2023 by directing them to furnish legal heir certificate / succession certificate from the court of law. It is further 4 of 11

S.O.P. 7/2023 averred that Late Balivada Anasuya W/o Late B. Shankar Rao, she has mentioned her husband as nominee for the fix deposists, but he was also expired on 19-10- 019.

4.It is averred that the Late Balivada Anasury W/o Late B. Shankar

Rao, is house hold her son’s and husband deposited the above said fix deposits and insurance policy. Upon his death the petitioners being the legal heirs entitled to with draw the same. Hence the petition.

5.Notice duly served on the respondent No.1 but failed to appear

before the court. No objects are received from Respondent No.3/All concerned.

Hence respondent No.1 and 3 remained exparte.

6.Counter filed by Respondent No.2 Shriram Life Insurance company limited stating that Mrs. B. Anasuya had proposed for an Insurance policy on her life by submitting a proposal form and by paying the proposal deposit amount.

That Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company after underwriting the proposal issued a policy covering the life of Mrs. B. Anasuya vide Policy No:

NP071100053011, under the plan "Shriram Akshay Nidhi" which has commenced from 11.06.2011. for a term of 15 years, for a sum assured amount 5 of 11

S.O.P. 7/2023 of Rs. 1,00,000/- with annual Base premium of Rs.8,973/- payable for a period of 15 years and mentioned her spouse Mr. B Sankar Rao as Nominee.

7. The Respondent No.2 submits that after generation of the policy document the same was delivered to the Policyholder along with covering letter, Policy Schedule, First Premium Receipt and Terms and Conditions governing the policy issued by the Company.

8. It is submitted that only on receipt of notice from this Court they came to know about said demise of life assured Mrs. B. Anasuya, who said to be died on 29.05.2023. It is pertinent to mention here that before receipt of notices from this Court, there was no death intimation from the petitioners as such, the death of Mrs. B. Anasuya was not registered in the records of

Respondent Insurance Company. The Respondent Insurance company submits that on submission of following documents the death claim can be registered in its records.

1.Death certificate.

2. Death Summary and treatment reports from Hospital.

3. Duly filled Claim Forins (Claim Form-A, B, C, E).

4. Clear and pre-printed Lank proof of the claimant.

6 of 11

S.O.P. 7/2023

5. FIR, Post-mortem, Final Report/Charge-sheet in case of death due to accident."

9.That, only on receipt of the above documents, the Respondent

Insurance Company can be in a position to register the death of the life assured and can process the same as per terms and conditions of the contract of insurance.

10. It is submitted that after receipt of required documents from the complainant and after examination of the documents only, the Respondent

Insurance Company will be able to process the claim. As per the guidelines of

Insurance Regulatory (IRDAI), submission of above basic documents are must to register the death of life assured and to process the same.

11. It is submitted that the liability of this Respondent No: 2 if any is in compliance with express terms, conditions, limitations as to use and exceptions there on, which is mentioned in the policy, otherwise this Respondent No: 2 is not liable to pay any amount to the nominee.

12. It is submitted that after receipt of required documents only, the

Respondent Company will be in a position to register the death of the 7 of 11

S.O.P. 7/2023 policyholder in its claim records and process the same as per terms and conditions.

13. It is submitted that the liability of this Respondent No.2 if any is in compliance with express terms, conditions & limitations as to use and exceptions thereon, which is mentioned in the policy terms and conditions, otherwise this respondent is not liable to pay any amount to the Nominee. That the Respondent No.2 reserves its right to file additional counter, if any, if new facts come to its notice or advised so, at the later stage. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

14. During enquiry, petitioner No.2 Anand Babu is examined himself as

P.W-1 and got exhibited Ex.P-1 to P7. Petitioner No.1 is examined as PW-2.

Whereas the respondents has not adduced any evidence.

15. Heard and perused the record.

16. Now the point for consideration is that:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get succession

certificate to claim Three fix deposits and one insurance

amount of late Balivada Anasuya from the respondent no.1 and 2 ?

2. To what relief?

8 of 11

S.O.P. 7/2023

17. POINT No: 1

The evidence of P.W-1 and 2 shows that on the intestate death of deceased Balivada Anasuya , they being the sons are entitled to claim fixed deposits and insurance certificate, Ex.P1 is the original death certificate of deceased, which show the deceased died on 29.5.2023. Ex.P2 to P3 are the

Fixed deposits issued by respondent No.1 in the name of deceased. Ex.P5 photostat copy of Insurance policy, shows that deceased was holding policy with respondent No.2 vide certificate No.NP071100053011 Ex.P6 is the death certificate of B. Shankar Rao who is father of petitioners also no more and died on 19.10.2019. Ex.P7 is the photo copies of Aadhar cards of the petitioner No.1 and 2 reveals the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased.

18. The assertion of Pw-1 and PW-2 that they being the legal heir of deceased are entitled to claim the fix deposits and insurance policy amount of

Late Balivada Anasury W/o B. Shankar Rao from respondent No.1 and 2. The

Respondent No.2, who appeared also stated that upon submitting after receipt of required documents only, the Respondent Company will be in a position to register the death of the policyholder in its claim records and process the same as per terms and conditions. Respondent No.1 upon service of summons, did not choose to appear and raise and objection. Inspite of paper publication no objections with regard to claim of the petitioners, none had appeared to resist 9 of 11

S.O.P. 7/2023 the petition filed by the petitioner. In the circumstance as the evidence of PW-1 and 2 remained unchallanged, thereby they are entitled for the succession certificate as prayed for.

19.It is evident from the record that the police holder Smt Balivada

Anasuya died on 29.5.2023, and she recorded her husband Sri B. Shanker as her nominee who was also died subsequently on 19-10-2019. Now children of the deceased police holder i.e. petitioner No.1 and 2 approached this court claiming for succession certificate. The present case on hand although the respondent No.2 cross examined PW-1 and PW-2 and tried to contradict the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. As seen from the cross examination of PW-1 and

PW-2 there is no much inconsistency or short coming on material aspects pointed out by the respondent No.2 in order to dis entitle the petitioners from claiming the succession certificate. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of their deceased mother and father. The only contention raised by the respondent No.2 that petitioners did not approach the

Respondent No.2 company seeking for insurance claim by following property procedure. The respondent No.2 did not putforth any evidence, so as to rebut or disprove the case of the petitioners. In this existing set of facts and circumstances I do not find any impediment in holding that the petitioners are 10 of 11

S.O.P. 7/2023 entitled to be declared as legal heirs and issue succession certificate accordingly. Point is answered as per the above findings.

20. In the result, this petition is allowed, issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners No.1 and 2 declaring that they are legal heirs and successors of deceased Late Balivada Anasuya W/o Late B. Shankar Rao and are entitled to claim the three fix deposits and one insurance, Vide Fix Deposit

No. 50933267 an amount of Rs.6,01,371/-, Fix Deposit No.50948764 an amount of Rs. 1,74,723 and fix Deposit No. 50916782 an amount of Rs. 1,34,361/- and all the deposits common Customer ID B0165422 total Fix Deposits amount of

Rs.9,10,455/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Ten Thousands Four Hundred Fifty Five only) of respondent No.1. So also one insurance policy number NP071100053011 an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for total amount of Rs. 10,10,455/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs

Ten Thousands Hundred Fifty Five Only) The petitioners are directed to pay required court fee for engrossing the succession certificate. In the circumstances of the case, there shall no orders as to costs.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th March, 2025)

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

11 of 11

S.O.P. 7/2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners For Respondents :

PW-1 : B. Anand NIL PW-2 : B. Gopi

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1 : original death certificate of deceased t. 29.5.2023.

Ex.P2 : Fixed deposit receipt No. 50933267 an amount of Rs.6,01,371/-,

Ex.P3 : Fix Deposit receipt No.50948764 an amount of Rs. 1,74,723

Ex.P4 : Fix Deposit receipt No. 50916782 an amount of Rs. 1,34,361/-

Ex.P5 : Photostat copy of Insurance policy, vide Police No.NP071100053011

Ex.P6 : Death certificate of B. Shankar Rao.

Ex.P7 : Photo copies of Aadhar cards of petitioner No.1 and 2.

For Respondents:

NIL

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District