Smt. M. Aruna

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT: MEDCHAL

PRESENT:- Smt. M.Aruna, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Original Suit No.188 of 2015

On this the 11 th day of March, 2020

Between:- Mulagiri Srinivas Chary, S/o.Venkatadri, Aged about 46 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.6-189, Hanuman Nagar, Near High School, Medchal Village And Mandal, R.R.District … Plaintiff

and

Koduri Subba Rao, S/o.K.Venkat Raju, Aged about 74 years, Occ:Homeopathy Doctor, Presently R/o.Devidic Vanaprastha Ashramam, Hanamapuram Village, Bhongir Mandal,

Nalgonda District 508 117 ... Defendant

This suit came before me on 27-02-2020 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. P.Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri. M.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:

-:JUDGMENT:-

1.This suit is filed to cancel the cancellation of Agreement of sale-cum-

General Power of Attorney bearing document No.2240/2001 dated 20-03- 2001 in respect of the suit schedule property.

2.The brief averments of plaint are that: The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule plot No.152 admeasuring 266 Sq.yards in

Sy.No.1091/Part and 1092 situated at Medchal Village, Ranga Reddy District and it is purchased from the defendant through the Agreement of sale-cum-

General Power of Attorney document bearing No.5129/1999 dated 03-09- 1999 by paying entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-, the defendant has not handed over original sale deed document bearing No. 988 of 1987 dated 09-02-1987 and said that the document was misplaced. The original

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.2

document of the plaintiff i.e. Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of

Attorney bearing document No.5129 of 1999 also misplaced, therefore now the plaintiff has filed the certified copies. The defendant purchased the property through the registered sale deed vide document bearing No.988 of 1987 dated 09-02-1987 and after purchase the defendant has sold to the plaintiff through the agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney vide document bearing No.5129 of 1999 dt. 03-09-1999, since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property but on 20-06-2015 the plaintiff came to know through the real estate broker namely M.Krishna that the defendant cancelled the Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff through the document No.2240/2001 dated 20-03-2001, it was without consent of the plaintiff, then plaintiff immediately obtained the certified copy of cancellation of agreement of sale-cum-General Power of

Attorney from the concerned authorities and came to know that the document of the plaintiff was unilaterally cancelled by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, therefore the defendant has no right to cancel the Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff unilaterally without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and without following due process of law and the Sub-Registrar, Medchal also has no authority to cancel the document of the plaintiff, so the cancellation of the

Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff vide

Cancellation Deed bearing document No.2240/2001 dated 20-03-2001 is illegal, void and nonest and as per Rule 26(i)(k) relating to Andhra Pradesh

Registration Act under section 69 which debars the registering authorities from unilaterally entertaining the deed of cancellation, as such the the cancellation deed of the plaintiff is to be declared as Null and void, therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the Cancellation deed dated 20-

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.3

03-2001 vide document bearing No.2240/2001.

3. The defendant filed written statement and submitting that: The defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property claiming by the plaintiff which is purchased through the registered sale deed bearing document No. 988 of 1987 dated 09-02-1987 but this defendant never sold the property to the plaintiff through the alleged Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney and one Venkat Rao is the friend of this defendant, as this defendant is working as Homeopathy Doctor, the said

Venkat Rao approached this defendant as patient and in those situations the defendant had more acquaintance with the Venkat Rao who worked in railway department as Ticket checking Inspector and through the said Venkat

Rao the defendant got acquainted with the plaintiff who is doing the real estate business, therefore the defendant intends to sell the suit schedule property and the defendant requested the plaintiff to sell the property, for that the plaintiff agreed and he got prepared a document which is General

Power of Attorney to deal with the suit schedule property but instead of that he executed Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney by suppressing the material fact as the defendant has no legal knowledge, therefore believing that it is General Power of Attorney and after lapse of one year plaintiff not responded with regard to the said plot, so that finally in the month of March, 2001, the defendant approached the plaintiff and asked the document and on verifying the document he came to know that the plaintiff suppressed that it is an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney and it is executed without paying entire sale consideration, therefore immediately this defendant approached the Registrar and cancelled the document of the plaintiff i.e. Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.4

attorney which is executed by cheating the defendant and later the property was sold in the year of 2001 after cancellation of the document and the document of the plaintiff dated 03-09-1999 does not speak about the delivery of possession as the defendant had no intention at any point of time to alienate the property to the plaintiff. Therefore the cancellation deed which is alleged to be cancelled the Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney is a valid document, as such this suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on pleadings and material records this court framed the following issues:-

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney document bearing No.2240 of 2001 dated 20-03-2001 as prayed for? 2)To what relief.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6. After framing of issues, the plaintiff is examined as PW1 and marked

Ex. A1 to Ex.A3 and also examined PW2 who is third party to the suit. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant is examined as DW1 through the

Advocate Commissioner but no document is marked.

7. ISSUE NO.1:

(a). To prove this issue, the entire burden lies on the plaintiff that he is the owner and possessor and he purchased the property from its original owner.

To prove the same the plaintiff is examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3. Apart from Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 the contention of the plaintiff counsel is that the suit schedule property purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant through the registered Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.5

under Ex.A1 in the year of 1999 and the vendor of the plaintiff who is none other than the defendant had purchased the suit property from its original owner through the Ex.A2 document in the year of 1987, therefore since from the date of purchase the vendor of the plaintiff was in possession and after selling to the plaintiff he is in possession and enjoyment of the property but on 20-06-2015 the plaintiff came to know through one real estate broker

M.Krishna that the Ex.A1 was cancelled by the defendant unilaterally without notice or consent of the plaintiff, therefore the contention of the plaintiff is that the unilateral cancellation is not valid as per Rule 26(i)(k) of the

A.P.Registration Act under section 69, therefore either the defendant or registering authority has no right or power to cancel the Ex.A1 unilaterally, therefore the plaintiff counsel submitting that to cancel the Cancellation of

Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney under Ex.A3, he filed the suit immediately after receiving of notice, therefore the plaintiff counsel submitting that the document under Ex.A3 is to be cancelled as the document is executed unilaterally without consent of the party to the document as every document is to be cancelled bilaterally, therefore he is praying this court to pass the relief sought by the plaintiff.

(b).But the defendant counsel contending that by playing fraud Ex.A1 is created by the plaintiff by making misrepresentation that it is General Power of Attorney but instead of that the plaintiff prepared Agreement of sale-cum-

General Power of Attorney and on verifying the entire contents of Ex.A1, there is no content with regard to the delivery of possession and the plaintiff also not paid entire sale consideration, therefore instead of General Power of

Attorney by misrepresenting the defendant Ex.A1 got executed, therefore it is rightly cancelled by the defendant unilaterally, therefore it is a valid document, so it cannot be cancelled and he further contending that the

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.6

defendant filed written statement in which he has taken plea that the defendant sold the property after execution of Ex.A3 to third parties but the plaintiff not made the third party as party to the suit, therefore it is nothing but the non-joinder of the necessary parties, so that the suit is not maintainable and Ex.A1 is executed in the year of 2001 itself, therefore the suit is to be filed within three years but instead of that the plaintiff filed the suit in the year of 2015, therefore the suit is barred by limitation, hence requesting to dismiss the same.

(c).As per the above said arguments of both sides and on considering the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that the defendant was the owner who purchased the property through the Ex.A2 but the defendant counsel contending that the Ex.A1 is executed by making false representation that it is General Power of Attorney to sell the suit property to third parties through the plaintiff i.e. PW1 but instead of that by cheating, the plaintiff got executed Ex.A1 as an Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of attorney and also in which it is mentioned that the entire sale consideration is paid, so without paying sale consideration then the plaintiff executed the

Ex.A1, so it is false document. But, as per the contents of Ex.A1 it is named as Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of attorney and the contents at page No.2 and 3 of this document goes to show that the vendor is the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property and he offered to sell for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- and accordingly the vendor who is the defendant accepted and also received the entire sale consideration of

Rs.40,000/-, therefore as per this document it is deemed as a Sale Deed but unfortunately it is named as an Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of

Attorney but the body of the document is to be considered. As per the contents the entire sale consideration is paid to the defendant by the plaintiff

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.7

and the defendant also accepted to register the property to the plaintiff or to any other third parties, so that the entire contents are seems to be of the

Sale Deed but the defendant counsel contending that there is no delivery of the property, therefore the physical possession is in the hands of the defendant. But, admittedly it is a house site through the registered document of Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney which means that title follows possession because there will be no physical possession.

The document itself follows the possession of the parties why because if there is any structure then the possession follows the title of the parties. But, admittedly it is an open plot, if it is an open plot then the title of the parties will follow the possession, therefore the defendant cannot say that he is in physical possession of the property.

(d). As per the entire averments of the written statement and also evidence of PW1 the plaintiff was introduced to the defendant by one Venkat

Rao working as Ticket checking Inspector in Central Railway and he acted as a mediator between the plaintiff and defendant and at the time of registration on Ex.A1 also the said Venkat Rao was accompanied with the defendant but the defendant counsel contending that the plaintiff is not having any legal knowledge about the execution of Ex.A1. Therefore, he thought that Ex.A1 is General Power of Attorney but instead of that it is executed by the plaintiff by suppressing the fact as Agreement of sale-cum-

General Power of Attorney, therefore the counsel for the defendant submitting that it is not a valid document, so document is cancelled by the defendant himself through the Ex.A3. As per the evidence and also documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 the occupation of the defendant is mentioned as Doctor. So, defendant is not a layman, he is working as a

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.8

Doctor, so that he should have known the contents, atleast about the sale consideration mentioned in Ex.A1 document but now he is saying that he has not received entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. If the defendant i.e.

DW1 has not received entire sale consideration why he put his signature in

Ex.A1 without reading the contents of Ex.A1, but the defendant counsel contending that there is no delivery of possession mentioned in Ex.A1 but

Ex.A1 is silent with regard to the delivery of possession, so it does not mean that the possession is in the hands of the defendant. It may be true that the contents of Ex.A1 is not disclosing with regard to the delivery of possession but the defendant cannot take that objection that there is no delivery of possession, so that the defendant who is vendor under Ex.A1 is in possession and however any document which is registered one is to be cancelled bilaterally only and the party who intends to cancel the document he should issue notice to the opposite party but without giving any notice to the plaintiff and without knowledge of the plaintiff, the document under Ex.A1 cannot be cancelled through Ex.A3. The contents mentioned in Ex.A3 at page No.2 mentioned that the DW1/defendant executed the Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff but the plaintiff failed to pay consideration and also not looked after the schedule property even after lapse of one year, so that he cancelled unilaterally, but when we consider the contents of the document with regard to the consideration amount in Ex.A1, the entire consideration is paid, therefore how in the document under Ex.A3, it is mentioned that the plaintiff who is the vendee under Ex.A1 not paid the sale consideration, so that the

Ex.A1 was cancelled through Ex.A3. Ex.A2 document is admitted by both parties, therefore there is no dispute with regard to Ex.A2 but the defendant counsel further submitting that in written statement of the defendant he has taken a plea that after execution of Ex.A1 in the year of 2001 itself the

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.9

defendant sold property to the third parties but the plaintiff has not made the third party as a party to the suit because he is necessary party. To support the same the defendant has not given any particulars of the document or the person to whom the defendant alleged to be sold the property after execution of Ex.A3 and the defendant also not filed the alleged sale deed alleged to be executed in favour of the third parties after execution of Ex.A3, therefore without giving particulars of the person to whom the defendant alleged to be sold or the document through which the defendant registered the property, then how the plaintiff can take steps and why the said party has become the necessary party to the suit. Therefore, the plea taken by the defendant is not sufficient and the further contention of the defendant is that Ex.A3

Cancellation of Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney is executed in the year of 2001 itself, therefore the plaintiff would have to file the suit within three years i.e. in the year of 2003 or 2004 i.e. from the date of execution of Ex.A3 but Ex.A3 is is executed unilaterally, so the plaintiff has no knowledge with regard to the execution of Ex.A3 but he is submitting that in the year of 2015 he came to know about the execution of Ex.A3 through one real estate broker by name Krishna, then immediately obtained Certified copy of Ex.A3 and filed the suit, therefore the limitation is to be calculated from the date of knowledge, then if it is considered that the plaintiff had knowledge in the year of 2015, so that the plaintiff has to file the suit within limitation period but the contention of the plaintiff counsel is that any document which is registered one is to be cancelled bilaterally, if not the document itself is void. Therefore the plaintiff counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in between Haji Mohammed

Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Citation 2011 Law Suit (AP) 853. As per point No.2 it is clearly mentioned that if any document which is registered

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.10

one intends to be cancelled by either of the parties, the only remedy is by way of Civil Suit for Cancellation or with the consent of both parties i.e.

bilateral cancellation. But, in this suit the DW1 clearly admitted that as the plaintiff cheated him, so that he cancelled Ex.A1 through the Ex.A3 document. But, to support this version that the unilateral cancellation is valid, if there is no coercion, threat or misrepresentation for the cancellation but whereas the plaintiff counsel clearly taken a plea and submitted the above said decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it is clearly attracting with regard to the aspect of cancellation.

(e).The defendant counsel simply submitted that the entire transaction taken place in presence of one Venkat Rao and DW1 also admitted his presence and stated that Venkat Rao accompanied him to the Registration office at the time of execution of Ex.A1. Therefore, when the both persons are literate and well educated persons, how they can take such plea that they do not know with regard to the legal terminology, so that the defendant i.e.

DW1 put his signature on Ex.A1 as he thought that it is General Power of attorney and if the Ex.A1 is Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of

Attorney but not only GPA, then would have to examine the attestors or witnesses to Ex.A1 but he did not do so and also not examined the said

Venkat Rao who is the friend of the DW1 and also who knows the entire facts since from the date of execution till today. But, in cross examination of DW1 he simply stated that he do not have legal knowledge therefore he put his signature on Ex.A1 and later he came to know that Ex.A1 executed by cheating the defendant that it is an Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of

Attorney. Therefore, the plea taken by the defendant is not sufficient and except the DW1 there are no other witnesses examined to support his

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.11

version.

(f).The PW1 who is plaintiff is examined, he clearly stated that in the year of 2015 he came to know about the existence of Ex.A3 but the entire cross examination of the PW1 by the defendant counsel is not useful to the defendant why because at that time there will be less market value but the sale consideration may be more than the market value, therefore as per offer and acceptance the parties can purchase the property, so as per Ex.A1 the defendant offered the property for sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- even though the market value is less, then the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same as per the sale consideration, the plaintiff paid registration and stamp duty, therefore at this stage the defendant cannot take such plea that there is no such market value of Rs.40,000/- at the time of selling property in that locality. PW2 who is third party has also supported the version of PW1, but in entire cross examination of DW1 through the Advocate Commissioner he stated that he himself and his friend Venkat Rao who accompanied him went to the registration office, they both are education and he admitted that he has not issued any legal notice for cancellation of Ex.A1 at the time of Ex.A3.

Ex.A3 contents also not disclosing with regard to the mischief or fraud alleged to be played by the plaintiff. Ex.A3 is disclosing that as the plaintiff has not paid sale consideration within time, so that the document was cancelled. If really the plaintiff has not paid sale consideration after execution of Ex.A1 it is duty of the defendant to issue legal notice by intimating the same to cancel the document, therefore the pleas taken by the defendant is not proved but whereas the plaintiff proved his case that the

Ex.A1 is executed by the defendant and without notice he cancelled Ex.A1 through the Ex.A3 unilaterally, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to cancel the

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 188 of 2015 Page No.12

Ex.A3 document. As per the discussion above, this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

8. ISSUE NO.2:

As per the discussion at issue No.1, the plaintiff has proved his case, hence he is entitled for cancellation of Ex.A3 vide document No. 2240 of 2001 dated 20-03-2001.

9.In the result: the suit is decreed by canceling the Cancellation of

Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No.

2240/2001 dated 20-03-2001 registered at SRO, Medchal, in respect of the suit schedule property. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of March, 2020.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiffs PW-1: Mulagiri Srinivas Chary/Plaintiff PW-2: D.Shanker/Witness Defendant DW-1: K.Subba Rao/Defendant

Exhibits marked on behalf of For Plaintiffs Ex.A1 Certified Copy of Agreement of sale-cum-GPA bearing document No.5129/1999 dt. 03-09-1999 Ex.A2 Certified copy of sale deed doc.No.988 of 1987 dt. 10-12-1987 Ex.A3 Certified copy of Agreement of sale-cum-GPA document bearing No.2240/2001 dt.20-03-2001

For Defendant -NIL- Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.275 of 2018 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT: MEDCHAL

PRESENT:- Smt. M.Aruna, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Original Suit No.275 of 2018

On this the 12 th day of March, 2020 Between:- Tattari Satyanarayana, S/o.Late T.Kistaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Private Service, R/o.H.No.1-33, Laxmapur Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal District 500 101 … Plaintiff

and

Kukkala Swamy, S/o.K.Mallaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Auto Driver, C/o.Gaaja Shardaiah Mudhiraj, R/o.h.No.2-114, Laxmapur Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal District,

Telangana State 500 101 ... Defendant

This suit came before me on 10-03-2020 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.B.Mahesh Babu, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri K.Upender, learned Counsel for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:

-:JUDGMENT:-

1.The suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.1,70,000/- from the defendant.

2. The brief averments of plaint are that: The plaintiff and defendant are belongs to the same village, so that they are having acquaintance with each other and they are friends, so by keeping the friendship the defendant approached the plaintiff on 02-09-2015 and requested to arrange the hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and due to that acquaintance the plaintiff arranged

Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant on 02-09-2015 and on the same day executed bond paper in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay 2% interest per month and also assured that he will repay the entire

Rx.1,00,000/- within six months, but even after six months defendant failed to repay the same, therefore the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 02-04-

Date: 12-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.275 of 2018 Page No.2

2016 through his counsel, but even after receiving of legal notice, the defendant neither arranged amount nor replied ot the legal notice, therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant.

3. Defendant filed written statement admitting that both are belongs to same village and having acquaintance with each other but denied with regard to the suit claim and further submitting that: In the month of August, 2015 the defendant approached the plaintiff for hand loan of Rs.60,000/- for his family necessities and the defendant and his wife approached the plaintiff for taking the hand loan of Rs.60,000/- but the plaintiff arranged Rs.55,000/- only and further plaintiff submitted that he will arrange Rs.5,000/- later and also called one B.Mohan who is common friend to the plaintiff and defendant and in his presence the plaintiff paid Rs.55,000/- only and executed the bond paper in his presence and further promised that he will pay Rs.5,000/- later but he did not pay the same and the defendant used to pay monthly interest regularly and finally in the month of March, 2016 as per the promise made by the defendant, he paid entire Rs.55,000/- in presence of B.Mohan and when the defendant demanded to return the non-judicial stamp paper worth of

Rs.20/-, but plaintiff said that it was misplaced and whenever traced out he will return the same, but without return the said stamp paper filed this false suit to grab the amount from the defendant, therefore there is no legally enforceable debt and there is no cause of action, hence requesting to dismiss the same.

4.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5.Basing on pleadings and material available on record this court framed the following issues.

Date: 12-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.275 of 2018 Page No.3

1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?”

2. “To what relief?”

After framing of issues, plaintiff is examined as PW1 and also marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. On behalf of the defendant, defendant himself is examined as DW1 but no document has been marked.

6. Issue No.1:

(a). The contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendant belongs to the same village and having good relationship, due to that acquaintance defendant approached the plaintiff for hand loan of

Rs.1,00,000/- and on considering the request of the defendant, the plaintiff gave amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and on the same day executed bond in presence of B.Mohan and the defendant given assurance that he will return the amount within six months and till then he paid 2% interest on every month, but later the defendant failed to repay the same within six months, hence filed this suit.

(b).On the other hand, defendant counsel contending that there is no suit transaction taken place for alleged suit claim of Rs.1,00,000/- but in the month of August, 2015 the defendant and his wife approached the plaintiff for personal loan of Rs.60,000/- for personal necessities and the plaintiff gave

Rs.55,000/- only and he said that he will pay the remaining amount of

Rs.5,000/- within short period and also plaintiff demanded to execute the bond paper but due to friendship between the plaintiff and defendant the bond paper is executed for loan of Rs.60,000/- in presence of B.Mohan who is common friend of plaintiff and defendant and who stood as witness to the transaction, but in the month of March, 2016 defendant repaid entire loan amount of Rs.55,000/- and also regularly paid monthly interest, but when the

Date: 12-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.275 of 2018 Page No.4

defendant demanded to return the bond paper, the plaintiff said that it was misplaced and said that whenever it is traced out it will be returned to the defendant and by believing the same, the defendant kept silent but plaintiff used the said bond paper in this case. Therefore, there is no cause of action as there is no legally enforceable debt, hence requesting to dismiss the same.

(c).To prove the above said version of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Ex.A1 is the bond paper.

Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice. Ex.A3 is the postal receipt, Ex.A4 is the track report from the postal authorities. Apart from the Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, plaintiff is examined as PW1 and also cross examined by the defendant counsel. In cross examination of PW1 he clearly stated that the bond paper is scribed by Balram, but the defendant counsel taken plea that the plaintiff gave only Rs.55,000/- and took the signature of the defendant on Ex.A1 in prsence of B.Mohan and Balram, but to prove the same the defendant would have to examine either B.Mohan who is the witness to the Ex.A1 or Balram who scribed the Ex.A1, but the defendant counsel mere taken a plea that the witness to the Ex.A1 by name B.Mohan is common friend to the plaintiff and defendant, in his presence the entire transaction taken place, but the plaintiff paid Rs.55,000/- out of Rs.60,000/- which is asked by the defendant, therefore defendant counsel submitting that there is no suit transaction taken place for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and it was for Rs.55,000/- only. To support the same, said B.Mohan is the proper and crucial witness to the matter in dispute, but the defendant neither examined the said Mohan nor

Balram who is the scriber of the Ex.A1. The further contention of the defendant is that in the month of March, 2016 he repaid Rs.55,000/- in presence of B.Mohan, but to prove the same, there is no evidence filed by the

Date: 12-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.275 of 2018 Page No.5

defendant and in cross examination of defendant/DW1 he clearly admitted that he has not filed any supportive evidence to show that he paid

Rs.55,000/- in the month of March, 2016 in presence of B.Mohan. In entire cross examination of PW1 by the defendant counsel, there is only one plea taken by the defendant counsel that defendant requested Rs.60,000/- and out of that plaintiff gave Rs.55,000/- and he assured that he will pay the remaining Rs.5,000/- later, but without paying Rs.5,000/-, plaintiff took the signatures of the defendant and also witness by name B.Mohan on Ex.A1.

But, to support this version, the witness by name Mohan is the proper person to examine on behalf of the defendant to prove the version of defendant and disprove the version of plaintiff, but the defendant did not taken any step to summon the said B.Mohan as witness and also not taken any step atleast to summon the said Balram as witness to prove his version. Therefore, the plea taken by the defendant is not proved.

(d).In cross examination of DW1 he stated that he took the hand loan of

Rs.55,000/- from the plaintiff and he paid the said amount by way of installments in every week by selling vegetables, but when we consider the written statement filed by the defendant at page No.3, point No.5 it is mentioned that he paid entire amount of Rs.55,000/- to the plaintiff in the month of March, 2016 in presence of Mohan. Therefore, both versions are contra to each other and as per the version of the defendant if there is no suit transaction taken place then the defendant should have examine either the scriber of the document or witness to the Ex.A1. But, as per Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4, the Ex.A1 signature is admitted by the defendant and further stated that the legal notice under Ex.A2 is served to his in-laws, they are also residing beside the house of the defendant, but they did not inform the same to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant do not have any knowledge

Date: 12-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.275 of 2018 Page No.6

about the legal notice. So, at this stage it is not the fault of the plaintiff that the notice is not served properly, it is served to the family member of the defendant. The track report under Ex.A4 is also clearly showing that Ex.A2 legal notice is served to the family member of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has clearly proved that there is legally enforceable debt through the

Ex.A1, therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant.

7. Issue No.2: As per the discussion at issue No.1 the plaintiff has proved his case, hence he is entitled for suit claim.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs against the defendant to recover an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- with an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of decree on the Principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and further, with interest @ 6% from the date of decree to the date of realization on the above Principal amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of March, 2020.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintif Defendant PW-1: T.Satyanarayana/plaintiff DW-1: K.Swamy/Defendant

Exhibits marked on behalf of For Plaintif For Defendant Ex.A1 Original bond paper dated 02-09-2015 -NIL- of Rs.20/-non-judicial stamp paper Ex.A2 Copy of legal notice dt. 02-04-2016 Ex.A3 Original postal registration slip dt. 06-04-2016 Ex.A4 Copy of track record from India Postal Website for proof of service

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

Date: 12-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 189 of 2019 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT: MEDCHAL

PRESENT:- Smt. M.Aruna, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Original Suit No.189 of 2019

On this the 11 th day of March, 2020 Between:- 1.Syed Raza Hussain Abedi, S/o.Late Syed Yousuf Hussain, Age 49 years, Occ:Business, R/o.D.No.B-66, Apurropa Colony, Near Apuroopa Colony Bus Stop, Quthbullapur, IDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad District, Medchal-TS

2. Syed Taqee Hussain, S/o.Late Syed Yousuf Hussain, Age 45 years, Occ:Business,

3. Syed Nasr Hussain, S/o.Late Syed Yousuf Hussain, Age 39 years, Occ:Business,

4. Syed Shakeer Hussain, S/o.Late Syed Yousuf Hussain, Age 38 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee Plaintiff No.2 to 4 are R/o.D.No.C-133, Apurropa Colony, Near Apuroopa Colony Bus stop, Quthbullapur, IDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, District Medchal – T.S.500 055 … Plaintiffs

and

1.Tahsildar, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

2. All Concerned ... Defendants

This suit came before me on 03-03-2020 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. Mohd. Mustaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and right to file the written statement by the defendant No.1 is forfeited and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:

-:JUDGMENT:-

1. The suit is filed for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are only the legal heirs and successors of the deceased Zainab Begum.

2. The brief averments of plaint are that: The father of the plaintiff name is late Syed Hussain who died on 08-10-2012 and the mother of the plaintiff’s name is Late Zainab Begum who died on 21-01-2019 by leaving the plaintiffs

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 189 of 2019 Page No.2

are only the legal heirs and successors of their estate like movable and immovable properties. After death of the parents of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs approached various authorities for the benefits of the deceased late

Zainab Begum, but they are asking for legal heir certificate. On 20-05-2019 the plaintiffs approached the Tahsildar, but he suggested to approach the

Court of Law, hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for Declaration to declare that they are the only legal heirs to the late Zainab Begum.

3.After numbering of the suit, summons served to the defendant No.1,

Tahsildar, Medchal and filed Memo of appearance but later failed to file written statement within stipulated period, hence defendant No.1 was set exparte and for defendant No.2 i.e. All concerned, publication issued, but no objection from anybody.

Plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex. A1 to Ex.A11.

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

5.Now the point for consideration is “whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to declare that they are the only legal heirs of deceased late Zainab Begum as prayed for?” 6(a).To prove the above said version, plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW1 and marked the Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. Apart from the above said evidence, the contention of the plaintiffs is that all plaintiffs are the children of late Zainab

Begum, W/o.Late Syed Yousuf Hussain and the father of the plaintiff died on 08-10-2012 and mother of plaintiff died on 21-01-2019 by leaving the plaintiffs are only their legal heirs to succeed their properties and after death

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 189 of 2019 Page No.3

of the mother of the plaintiffs, they approached the concerned authorities who demanded for production of legal heir certificate, therefore they approached Tahsildar but they stated that they have no authority to issue the legal heir certificate, hence filed the suit.

(b).To prove the above said version, plaintiff filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A11.

Ex.A1 is death certificate of Zainab Begum, Ex.A2 is death certificate of Syed

Yousuf Hussain, Ex.A3 to Ex.A7 are the Aadhaar Cards of the plaintiffs, Ex.A8 is the Certified copy of registered sale deed vide document bearing No.4529 of 1991 , Ex.A9 is Encumbrance certificate from 01-01-1983 to 30-09-2007,

Ex.A10 is the online receipt, Ex.A11 is the Valuation Certificate. But, as per the prayer portion of the plaintiffs, they are seeking the declaration of their status. So to declare the status of the plaintiffs, they have to establish that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased Zainab Begum, but to prove the same plaintiffs have not filed any single document, why because to prove the relationship of the plaintiffs with deceased late Zainab Begum they have to produce the family member card or any other related document, but there is no such document filed by the plaintiffs and the document under Ex.A3 to

Ex.A7 are not disclosing with regard to the relationship of the plaintiffs with deceased Zainab Begum and the plaintiffs also not filed any proof to show that they approached the Tahsildar and that Tahsildar advised to approach the Civil Court, therefore the cause of action is also not proper. The pleadings also are not specific with regard to the relief of declaration, why because the plaintiffs simply stated that after death of their parents they approached various authorities and they demanded legal heir certificate, so that they approached Tahsildar, but the Tahsildar advised to approach the

Civil Court and to support the same there is no document filed by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs also not mentioned for what purpose they approached

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 189 of 2019 Page No.4

the various authorities and who are the authorities and what is their grievance is also not specifically mentioned, therefore the pleadings of the plaintiffs also not clear and the documents on which the plaintiffs relied are not supporting their version, hence there are no merits to grant the declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, this suit is dismissed.

In the result: the suit is dismissed. No Costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of March, 2020.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiffs Defendant

PW-1: Syed Raza Hussain Abedi/plaintiff No.1 -None-

Exhibits marked on behalf of For Plaintiffs Ex.A1 is Original Death Certificate of Late Zainab Begum Ex.A2 is Original Death Certificate of Late Syed Yousuf Hussain Ex.A3 is Original Adhar Card of Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A4 is Original Adhar Card of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A5 is Original Adhar Card of Plaintiff No.3. Ex.A6 is Original Adhar Card of Plaintiff No.4. Ex.A7 is Original Adhar Card of Late Zainab Begum Ex.A8 is Certified Copy of Sale Deed Vide Doc.No.4529/1991 Ex.A9 is Statement of Encumbrance on property dated 03.03.2020. Ex.A10 is Acknowledgement of Application receipt filed

before M.R.O. for family member certificate.

For Defendants NIL Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

Date: 11-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 173 of 2019 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT: MEDCHAL

PRESENT:- Smt. M.Aruna, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Original Suit No.173 of 2019

On this the 10 th day of March, 2020 Between:- 1.Bandela Sathama, W/o.Late Bandela Ramulu, Age 52 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.5-32, Ravalkole Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State

2. Smt.Manjula, D/o.Late Bandela Ramulu, W/o.Gaddam Prashanth Kumar, Age 30 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.5-32, Ravalkole Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State … Plaintiffs

and

1.Tahsildar, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

2. All Concerned ... Defendants

This suit came before me on 03-03-2020 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. J.Venugopala Chary, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and right to file the written statement by the defendant No.1 is forfeited and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:

-:JUDGMENT:-

1. The suit is filed for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are only the legal heirs to the deceased Bandela Ramulu, W/o.Late Pochaiah.

2. The brief averments of plaint are that: The plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff No.2 is the adopted daughter of plaintiff No.1 and deceased

B.Ramulu, but the marriage of the plaintiff No.1 with the deceased Ramulu performed long back, but they are issueless so that they adopted plaintiff

No.2 and performed the marriage of plaintiff No.2 with Gaddam Prashanth

Kumar on 09-02-2007, now the plaintiff No.1 and 2 are only the legal heirs to the deceased B.Ramulu to succeed the properties belongs to him. During the life time of B.Ramulu he worked as a village servant at Ravalkole Village,

Medchal Mandal and he died on 14-10-2018 leaving behind the plaintiffs are

Date: 10-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 173 of 2019 Page No.2

only legal heirs to him and after demise plaintiffs approached defendant No.1 authorities on 26-11-2018 for issuance of family member certificate but the defendant No.1 authorities stated that they have no authority to issue legal heir certificate, so issued Family Member Certificate only, therefore the plaintiffs approached this court for grant of declaration to declare that they are the only legal heirs of B.Ramulu.

3.After numbering of the suit, summons served to the defendant No.1,

Tahsildar, Medchal and filed Memo of appearance but later failed to file written statement within stipulated period, hence defendants No.1 was set exparte and 3 and for defendant No.2 i.e. All concerned, publication issued, but no objection from anybody.

Plaintiff No.1 filed her chief examination and in lieu of her chief examination she is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex. A1 to Ex.A7.

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

5.Now the point for consideration is “whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to declare that they are the legal heirs of deceased

Bandela Ramulu as prayed for?” 6(a).To prove the above said version, plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW1 and marked the Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. Apart from the above said evidence, the contention of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is wife of deceased B.Ramulu and their marriage performed long back, but they were issueless, therefore they adopted plaintiff No.2 and during the lifetime of B.Ramulu he worked as a Village Servant and he died on 14-10-2018 leaving behind the plaintiff No.1

Date: 10-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 173 of 2019 Page No.3

and 2 are only his legal heirs, therefore after death plaintiffs approached the defendant No.1 authorities for issuance of legal heir certificate but they did not issue the same, so that they filed the suit.

(b).To support the above said version, they relied on documents those are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. Ex.A1 is the memo dated 04-07-2019 issued by the Tahsildar. Ex.A2 is the Death certificate of Ramulu, Ex.A3 is the

Household card of plaintiff No.1 and 2 with deceased Ramulu. Ex.A4 is the

Family Member Card. Ex.A5 is the Aadhaar card of plaintiff No.1, Ex.A6 is the

SSC marks Memo and Ex.A7 is the invitation card. As per these documents,

Ex.A1 Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Plaintiff No.1 is the wife, Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of deceased Ramulu, as per Ex.A2 he died on 14-10-2018 and Ex.A3 discloses that the plaintiff No.1 and 2 are family members of deceased B.Ramulu, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 also supporting the relationship of deceased B.Ramulu with plaintiff No.1 and 2, Ex.A6 is the marks memo of plaintiff No.2 in which father name of the plaintiff No.2 is mentioned as B.Ramulu. Ex.A7 is the marriage invitation card of the plaintiff

No.2, these documents are supporting the version of the plaintiffs that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Bandela Ramulu. Therefore, on considering the documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 these are supporting the version of the plaintiffs, hence plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs to the deceased B.Ramulu.

In the result: the suit is decreed that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Bandela Ramulu. No Costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of March, 2020.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

Date: 10-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No. 173 of 2019 Page No.4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintif Defendant

PW-1: Bandela Sathama/plaintiff No.1 -None-

Exhibits marked on behalf of

For Plaintif For Defendant

Ex.A1 Memo dated 04-07-2019 -NIL- Ex.A2 Original death certificate dt. 29-10-2018 Ex.A3 Original ration card Ex.A4 Original Arogya Stree Health Card Ex.A5 Original Aadhaar card of plaintiff No.1 Ex.A6 Original SSC Memo of plaintiff No.2 Ex.A7 Original marriage card

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District

Date: 10-03-2020 Prl.JCJ, Medchal