Smt.M.Eunice

1 of 7 OS No.626/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CYBERABAD

AT L.B.NAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. M. Eunice III ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM-

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JDUGE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 15 th DAY OF APRIL, 2021.

OS. No.626 of 2020

Between:-

1.Kaya Anjaiah, S/o. Late K. Maraiah, Aged 54 years, Occ: Govt Employee, R/o. H.No.Munipumpula (V), Rammanapet Mandal, Yadagiri-Bhonagiri District.

2.Smt. R. Jyothi, W/o. Sathyanarayana, Aged 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.B.S Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

3. Smt. Kaya Mangamma, W/o. Late Venkatesh, Aged 48 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-4-63/7, Aravindnagar, Ramanthapur, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

4. smt. Kaya Vanitha, W/o. Late Narasimha, Aged 40 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.2-5-39, Nuvvullabanda, Nagole, Hyderabad.

5. Kaya Madhu Babu, S/o. Late K. Venkatesh, Aged 37 years, Occ: Pvt Employee, R/o.H.No.3-4-63/7, Aravinda Nagar, Ramanthapur, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

6. Kaya Manoj Kumar, S/o. Late Narasimha, Aged 25 years, Occ: Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No.2-5-39, Nuvvulabanda, Nagole, Hyderabad.

7. Smt. Kaya Sai Kumar, S/o. Late Narasimha, Aged 22 years, Occ: Pve Employee, R/o. H.No.2-5-39, Nuvvulabanda, Nagole,

Hyderabad. ….. Plaintiffs.

And

1. The Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. All concern.

….. Defendants.

2 of 7 OS No.626/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of K. Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for the plaintiffs and Defendants are set ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for declaration declaring the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of the deceased Kaya Chilakamma and to declare them as absolute owners and possessor of the suit schedule property.

2.It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff No.1 is the son,

Plaintiff Nos.2 is the daughter, Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are the daughter-in- laws, Plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 are the grand sons of the deceased Smt. Kaya

Chilakamma, W/o. Late K.Maraiah, who died on 15.05.2009. It is further submitted that during life time of Smt. Kaya Chilakamma, she acquired the suit schedule property i.e., Plot bearing No.139, admeasuring 200

Sq.yds or 167.02 Sq. meters in Sy.No.91 and 93 at Boduppal village, presently Municipal Corporation, Uppal Mandal, RR District and she was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

3.It is further submitted that the Smt. Kaya Chilakamma has expired on 15.05.2009 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and successors of all her properties movable and immovable including the suit schedule property. That soon after the death of Kaya Chilakamma the plaintiffs are possession and enjoyment of the same till today without any interference from anybody whatever in the nature.

4.The plaintiffs submit that Smt.Kaya Chilakamma was died on 15.05.2009 by intestate by leaving behind the plaintiffs are her legal heirs and successors. The father of Plaintiff No.5 also died on 02.06.2007 due to ill health. The father of Plaintiff Nos.6 and 7 also died on 05.06.2005.

3 of 7 OS No.626/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

Except plaintiffs there are no other legal heirs to the suit schedule property.

5.The Plaintiffs further submitted that recently they have approached the defendant No.1 and made an application the concerned

MRO for issuance of Family member certificate through Mee-Seva on 27.07.2020, but the authorities return the application by stating that they are not competent authority for issuance of legal heir certificate, as the legal heir certificate will be issued to Government Employees only but not non-government employees and advice them to approach the civil court.

Hence, the plaintiffs prayed to declare them as the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Kaya Chilakamma and to declare them as owners and possessor of the suit schedule property.

6.After numbering the suit, summons were issued to

Defendants and filed publication. On receipt of summons Defendants did not choose to appear before the court neither in person nor through counsel. Hence, Defendants were set ex-parte on 15.03.2021 and proceeded with trial.

7.In support of the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 is examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. Defendants were set ex-parte.

8.Heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of declaration as Legal heirs and absolute owners and possessor of the suit schedule property as prayed for”?

4 of 7 OS No.626/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

10. POINT:

The Plaintiff No.1 being PW.1 reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed No.7192/1993, Ex.A2 is the original death certificate of late Smt. Kaya Chilakamma, Ex.A3 is the original death certificate of Kaya Venkatesh, Ex.A4 is the original death certificate of

Kaya Narsimha, Ex.A5 is the market value certificate issued by SRO Uppal on 28.07.2020, Ex.A6 is the EC issued by SRO Uppal Dt.28.07.2020, Ex.A7 is the original Aadhar card of Kaya Anjaiah, Ex.A8 is the original Aadhar card of R.Jyothi, Ex.A9 is the original aadhar card of K. Mangamma,

Ex.A10 is the original aadhar card of Kaya Anitha, Ex.A11 is the original aadhar card K. Madhu Babu, Ex.A12 is the original aadhar card of Manoj

Kumar Kaya, Ex.A13 is the original aadhar card of Sai Kumar Kaya.

11.On perusal of the plaint, it is found that Plaintiff No.1 is the son of the deceased Smt. Kaya Chilakamma. Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of Smt. Kaya Chilakamma. The deceased Smt. Kaya Chilakamma have got two more sons by name Kaya Venkatesh and Kaya Narsimha who predeceased the deceased Smt.Kaya Chilakamma. Plaintiff No.3 is the wife and Plaintiff No.5 is the son of late Venkatesh respectively. Plaintiff

No.4 is the wife and Plaintiff Nos.6 and 7 are the sons of said Narasimha respectively who is the son of late Smt. Kaya Chilakamma. Since both the sons i.e., Venkatesh and Narasimha have predeceased the deceased

Chilakamma, the plaintiff Nos.3 to 7 being the legal heirs of the said

Venkatesh and Narsimha, they are declared as legal heirs of the deceased

Smt. Kaya Chilakamma as they are the legal heirs of Venkatesh and

Narsimha.

5 of 7 OS No.626/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

12.On perusal of Ex.A3 and A4 aadhar cards of late Kaya

Venkatesh and Kaya Narsimha respectively shows that they are the sons of deceased Smt. Kaya Chilakamma. Ex.A9 aadhar card of K. Mangamma shows that she is the wife of Late Kaya Venkatesh and daughter-in-law of the deceased Smt. Kaya Chilakamma. Ex.A10 aadhar card of Kaya Vanitha shows that she is the wife of Late Kaya Narasimha and daughter-in-law of the deceased Smt. Kaya Chilakamma. Ex.A11 aadhar card of K. Madhu

Babu shows that he is the son of late K. Venkatesh and grand son of deceased Smt. Kaya Chilakamma. Ex.A12 Aadhar card of Kaya Manoj

Kumar and Ex.A13 Aadhar card of Kaya Sai Kumar shows that they are sons of Late Narasimha and grand sons of the deceased Smt. Kaya

Chilakamma. Since the Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 are the wives of Late

Venkatesh and Late Narsimha respectively and they are the sons of deceased Smt. Kaya Chilakamma, plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Kaya Chilakamma. Since the Plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 are the sons of the Late K.Venkatesh and Late K.Narsimha they are the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Kaya Chilakamma. Admittedly, the defendants were set exparte. Thus, the oral evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A13 are unchallenged and unrebutted.

13.On careful reading of the plaint, the plaintiffs seeking the interlinked relief i.e., declaring them as legal heirs of deceased Kaya

Chilakamma and the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property in the capacity of legal heirs and successors of Kaya Chilakamma.

But, this court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the matter with regard to succession as the topic of succession will comes under the provisions of Indian Succession Act. Hence, this suit can be declared 6 of 7 OS No.626/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT partly in respect of declaring the plaintiffs as legal heir of deceased

Smt.Kaya Chilakamma. In respect of declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule property being the successor of

Smt.Kaya Chilakamma the suit is dismissed. Accordingly, point is answered.

14.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed by declaring the plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 as the legal heirs of the deceased

Smt.Kaya Chilakamma. In respect of declaring the plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 as owners and possessors of suit schedule property being successors of

Smt.Kaya Chilakamma is dismissed without costs. This judgment is in respect of declaring the legal status of plaintiffs only and not for any other purpose.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this 15 th day of April, 2021.

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR, HYD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

P.W.1: Kaya Anjaiaha-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed No.7192/1993 Ex.A2 is the original death certificate of late Smt. Kaya Chilakamma Ex.A3 is the original death certificate of Kaya Venkatesh Ex.A4 is the original death certificate of Kaya Narsimha Ex.A5 is the market value certificate issued by SRO Uppal on 28.07.2020 Ex.A6 is the EC issued by SRO Uppal Dt.28.07.2020 Ex.A7 is the original Aadhar card of Kaya Anjaiah 7 of 7 OS No.626/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

Ex.A8 is the original Aadhar card of R.Jyothi Ex.A9 is the original aadhar card of K. Mangamma Ex.A10 is the original aadhar card of Kaya Vanitha Ex.A11 is the original aadhar card K. Madhu Babu Ex.A12 is the original aadhar card of Manoj Kumar Kaya Ex.A13 is the original aadhar card of Sai Kumar Kaya.

FOR DEFENSE: NIL

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR.

1 of 5 OS No.164/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CYBERABAD

AT L.B.NAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. M. Eunice III ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM-

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JDUGE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR.

WEDNESDAY, ON THIS THE 16 th DAY OF JUNE, 2021.

OS. No.164 of 2020

Between:- Kotha Padma, W/o. Ilaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.7-13/2, Maqtha village, Choudari guda, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

….. Plaintiff.

And

1.S. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Janardhan Reddy, Aged 45 years, Occ: Real Estate Business.

2. S. Rajendhar Reddy, S/o. Janardhan Reddy, Aged 42 years, Occ: Real Estate Business, Both are R/o. H.No.3-113, Bheem Reddy Nagar colony, Boduppal, Ranga Reddy District,

Telangana – 500092. ….. Defendants.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Rapolu Bhaskar, Counsel for the plaintiff and Defendants are set ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to grant

Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants from interferinh in the open plot bearing plot No.317 in Sy.No.746 admeasuring 200 Sq.yds situated at

Korremula village of Ghatkesar Mandal (herein after referred to as suit schedule property for brevity).

2.It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule plot. He purchased the same from one K.Suresh under a registered sale deed vide Doc No.127/2020 on the file of SRO, 2 of 5 OS No.164/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

Narapally. The vendor of the plaintiff by name K. Suresh purchased the said plot from his vendor by name K.Rupa @ Swarupa W/o. Siddi Ramulu through a registered sale deed vide Doc No.2508/2015 on the file of SRO, Narapally and she purchased the same from one G.Das and K.Krishna Kumari through a registered GPA Holder by name Md. Iqbal, S/o. Shamik Khadi through a registered sale deed bearing Doc No.4813/2004 on the file of SRO, Narapally.

3.It is further submitted that the vendors of the vendor of the vendor of the plaintiff by name G. Das and K. Krishna Kumari purchased the suit land from the original owners by name Cherukuri Dasaratha, Cherukuri Balamma,

Munukuntla Lachaiah Goud, Munukuntla Shankar, Munukuntla Narsimha Goud,

Munukuntla Kumar through their registered GPA Holder P. Sundarrammurthy and Nadyala Prabhakar Reddy and the same is registered through registered sale deed vide Doc No.327/1987 on the file of SRO, Uppal.

4.It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the own brothers and they are the real-estate brokers. They used to purchase the plots and agricultural lands for cheaper rates and used to resale the same for higher rates to other parties. It is further stated that the defendants used to prepare fake documents by observing the open plots by making entries in the revenue records and old pattadar. The vendor of the plaintiff intended to sell the suit schedule land for his personal and family needs. Meanwhile, the defendant approached the vendor of the plaintiff and demanded to sell the suit schedule land on cheaper rate to them but they denied and the same is purchased by the plaintiff for a valuable consideration under a registered sale deed. On 10.01.2020 he cleared the bushes and unwanted plants in the suit schedule land due to which, the defendant developed grudge against the plaintiff and as such, they came to the suit 3 of 5 OS No.164/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT schedule property and threatened the plaintiff by stating that “Emira memu

thakkuva daraku konalanna bhumini nuvvu ekkuva dhara petti konnav, ee

plot maaku kaavali enni rojulu nuvvu vunna ee plot ni neeku dhakkanivvam,

maryadaga maaku registration chesi icchindi thisukoni po, lekunte nee plot

poddi, nee pranam poddi” and threatened with dire consequences. In the meanwhile, the neighbours came to rescue the plaintiff and the defendants went away. Again, on 20.01.2020 when the plaintiff intended to construct the compound wall and digging basement pits, the defendants along with unsocial elements came to the schedule property and tried to occupy the suit schedule property but somehow, the plaintiff could resist their illegal deeds with the help of panchayath elders. Again on 04.02.2020 the defendants came to the suit schedule property and tried to occupy the same. Hence, the plaintiff approached the police and lodged a complaint against the defendants but the police stated that they cannot interfere as the matter pertains to civil disputes and hence, approached the court by way of filing suit. The defendants are no way connected with the suit property but with the help of unsocial elements, tried to occupy the schedule property as such, prayed to decree the suit.

5.After receipt of summons Sri.D. Madhukar Reddy, Advocate filed vakalath on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 and 2, but inspite of availing sufficient time, they failed to file written statement and as such, the right of filing written statement is forfeited and since the defendants and their counsel called absent on 15.02.2021 and as there is no representation on behalf of defendants, the defendants were set exparte.

6. On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff herself is examined as PW.1 and also examined one P.Sahadev as PW.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7.

7.Heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff.

4 of 5 OS No.164/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of Perpetual Injunction as prayed for”?

POINT:9.

In support of the case of the plaintiff, PW.1 is examined. The neighbouring plot owner is examined as PW.2 and Ex.A1 to A7 are marked.

Ex.A1 is the original sale deed Doc No.127/2020 Dt.06.01.2020, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed Doc No.127/2020, Dt.06.01.2020, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of agreement of sale deed – cum - General power of attorney with possession Doc No.2508/2015 issued by mee seva Dt.09.06.2015, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of sale deed Doc No.4813/2004, Dt.02.04.2004 issued by Mee

Seva, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of sale deed Doc No.3831/2004, Dt.16.03.2004 issued by Mee Seva, Ex.A6 is the marked value certificate issued by SRO,

Narapally Dt.05.02.2020, Ex.A7 is the encumbrance certificate issued by SRO,

Narapally, Dt.05.02.2020.

10.From the material available on record and from the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2 couple with the documents under Ex.A1 to A7, it is clear that from the date of execution of Ex.A1, plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the defendants were set exparte.

11.In the above said circumstances, if really the defendants are having any right or title, the defendants would have contested the suit by taking steps to disprove the case of the plaintiff but till today the defendants did not appear

before this court and did not take any steps. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1

and the contents of Ex.A1 to A7 are remained unchallenged and unrebutted and proved the case of the plaintiff that as on the date of filing of suit, she was in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and without 5 of 5 OS No.164/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT any right, the defendants have tried to interfere with her possession.

Accordingly, the Point is answered.

12.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed without costs restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

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

the open court on this 16 th day of June, 2021.

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR, HYD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

P.W.1: Smt. K. Padma-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE: NIL

Ex.A1: Original sale deed Doc No.127/2020 Dt.06.01.2020 Ex.A2: Certified copy of sale deed Doc No.127/2020, Dt.06.01.2020 Ex.A3: Certified copy of agreement of sale deed – cum - General power of attorney with possession Doc No.2508/2015 issued by mee seva Dt.09.06.2015. Ex.A4: Certified copy of sale deed Doc No.4813/2004, Dt.02.04.2004 issued by Mee Seva Ex.A5: Certified copy of sale deed Doc No.3831/2004, Dt.16.03.2004 issued by Mee Seva. Ex.A6: Market value certificate issued by SRO, Narapally Dt.05.02.2020 Ex.A7: Encumbrance certificate issued by SRO, Narapally, Dt.05.02.2020.

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUD GE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR.

1 of 5 OS No.179/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CYBERABAD

AT L.B.NAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. M. Eunice III ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM-

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JDUGE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 06 th DAY OF May, 2021.

OS. No.179 of 2020

Between:-

1.Ravindranath Lam, S/o. Prakash Rao Lam, Aged 54 years, Occ: Business,

2. Vivek Nath Lam, S/o. Ravindranath Lam, Aged 22 years, Occ: Student,

3. Navya Lavina Lam, D/o. Ravindranath Lam, Aged 16 years, Occ: Student, (being minor Represented by her father as natural guardian) All R/o.364, Tennesseeln, Palo alto, California – 94306, USA. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are represented by their GPA holder, M. Vijaya Vara Prasad S/o. M. Syam Sundara Rao, Aged 48 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 84-386, 410, Lalith Towers, New Sastry Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

….. Plaintiffs.

And

1.Malagari Upender Reddy, S/o. M. Yadi Reddy, Aged 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.5-41 & 42, RB Reddy Nagar colony, Almasguda village, Balapur (M), Ranga Reddy District.

2. All concerned.

….. Defendants.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of R. Devender Reddy, Counsel for the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and Defendant set ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration declaring the plaintiffs as the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property having succeeded the same being the legal heirs of late Saritha

Ravadi who died on 19.07.2013.

2 of 5 OS No.179/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

2.It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff No.1 is the husband and Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the son and daughter of Late Saritha Ravadi who died on 19.07.2013. It is further stated that the said Saritha Ravadi

W/o.Ravindranath Lam during her life time got the property by way of sale deed No.2015/1989, Dt.10.02.1989 i.e., Plot No.14 admeasuring 305

Sq.yds in Sy.No.57/B, situated at Karmanghat village, LB Nagar

Municipality (herein after referred to as suit schedule property for brevity). The said Saritha Ravadi was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property of the said property till her death and after the death, the plaintiffs have succeeded the same as legal heirs of the late Saritha

Ravadi.

3.It is further submitted that the plaintiffs intended to alienate the above said property to the prospective purchasers to meet their urgent financial needs and expressed the same in general public.

Accordingly, the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiffs and expressed his interest to purchase the above said property but he insisted to produce the legal heir certificate by denying the legal status.

4.It is submitted that to prove their legal status the plaintiffs herein approached the concerned MRO, Saroornagar on 31.01.2020 with a request to issue legal heir certificate, for which, they advised the plaintiffs to approach the concerned civil court of law to obtain legal heir certificate as they are not having power to issue the same since the deceased is not a Government Employee. Hence, the plaintiffs approached the court to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of Late

Saritha Ravadi and also the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property being the legal heirs of the deceased.

3 of 5 OS No.179/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

5.After numbering the suit, this suit is made over to this court from the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, RR District at LB Nagar by issuing summons to the Defendant No.1. Publication also filed but none appeared on their behalf claiming that they are the legal heirs of the deceased.

6.On receipt of notice Defendant No.1 did not choose to appear before the court neither in person nor through counsel. Hence,

Defendant was set ex-parte on 24.02.2021 and proceeded with trial.

7.The present suit is filed by the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 through their GPA holder M.Vijaya Vara Prasad. The GPA holder of Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 is examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A3 are marked.

8.Heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of declaration as prayed for”?

10. POINT:

In support of the case of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 their GPA holder is examined as PW.1 and and Ex.A1 to A3 are marked. Ex.A1 is the original death certificate of Saritha Ravadi. Ex.A2 is the original sale deed vide

Doc bearing No.2015/1989, Dt.10.02.1989. Ex.A3 is the valuation certificate Dt.08.02.2020.

11.PW.1 is the GPA holder of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 by name M.

Vijaya Vara Prasad deposed that late Saritha Ravadi died on 19.07.2013 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs and successors as she died intestate and left the suit schedule property under occupation and possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs intend to alienate the above said property to the prospective purchasers to meet their urgent financial 4 of 5 OS No.179/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT needs and express the same in general public and accordingly, Defendant

No.1 approached the plaintiffs and expressed his interest to purchase the same and insisted them to produce the legal heir certificate by denying the legal status. Hence, filed the present suit.

12.Thereafter, the plaintiffs approached the MRO concerned on 31.01.2020 with a request to issue legal heir certificate. But they were advised to approach the concerned civil court of law to obtain legal heir certificate. In support of his case, he filed Exs.A1 to A3. On perusal of

Ex.A1 death certificate of Saritha Ravadi issued by GHMC, wherein it is shown that Saritha Ravadi W/o. Ravindranath Lam died on 19.07.2013.

Ex.A2 is the sale deed wherein Saritha Ravadi, D/o. Ravadi Veeresha

Lingam purchased the suit land from one Urmila Devi through her GPA holder R. Laxma Reddy on 10.02.1989. Except PW.1 none were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs.

13.On perusal of the entire record, it is found that PW.1 is said to be the GPA Holder of Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. But the GPA issued by plaintiff

Nos.1 to 3 in favour of PW.1 is not marked before this court. On perusal of the cause title, it is found that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 were residing at USA.

On perusal of the entire chief of PW.1 no where he mentioned that he is the GPA holder. The GPA executed by plaintiffs in favour of PW.1 is also not filed before this court to show his bonafides and legal status to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 to declare them as the legal heirs of Saritha Ravadi. Even on the sale deed also the name of the deceased is mentioned as Ravadi Saritha, D/o. Ravadi Veeresha Linga

Vijaya Shekar. Though it is mentioned that the plaintiff No.1 is the husband, Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Ravadi

Saritha and Ravindranath Lam, but no document is filed before this court 5 of 5 OS No.179/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT to establish the same. Though the defendant is set exparte, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are the legal heirs of Saritha Ravadi.

Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to establish their legal status as legal heirs of Late Saritha Ravadi. Accordingly, the point is answered.

14.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this 06 th day of May, 2021.

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR, HYD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

P.W.1: M. Vijaya Vara Prasad-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.A1: Original death certificate of late Saritha Ravadi

Ex.A2: Original Sale Deed Doc No.2015/1989, Dt.10.02.1989

Ex.A3: Original valuation certificate Dt.08.02.2020

FOR DEFENSE: NIL

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR.

1 of 5 OS No.212/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CYBERABAD

AT L.B.NAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. M. Eunice III ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM-

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JDUGE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR.

TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 20 th DAY OF APRIL, 2021.

OS. No.212 of 2020

Between:-

1.Smt. Adapala Varalaxmi, W/o. Late Adapala Nageshwar Rao, Aged 74 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Plot No.15, Road No.1, Rajya Laxmi colony, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Adapala Nagasrinivasa, S/o. Late Adapala Nageshwar Rao, Aged 44 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.2-1-146/10, Road No.1, Venkataramana colony, Tatti Annaram, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Adapala Shiva Shankar, S/o. Late Adapala Nageshwar Rao, Aged 42 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.2-1-349/1, Environ Towers Road, Sairam Nagar colony, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District.

4.Adapala Mahesh, S/o. Late Adapala Nageshwar Rao, Aged 38 years, Occ: Privat Employee, R/o. H.No.1-7-24/5B, JSN colony, Street No.8, Jamai Osmania, Hyderabad.

….. Plaintiffs.

And

1. The Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Telangana State.

2. All concerned. ….. Defendants.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of P. Sanjeeva Rayudu, Counsel for the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and Defendants set ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for declaration declaring the plaintiffs as the surviving legal heirs of the deceased Adapala Nageshwar Rao.

2.It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife and

Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of the deceased Adapala Nageshwar Rao 2 of 5 OS No.212/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT who died on 13.10.2013. It is further submitted that during life time of

Adapala Nageshwar Rao, he purchased an immovable property i.e., Plot

No.163, admeasuring 220 Sq.yds in Sy.No.338, situated at Ragannaguda,

H/o.Turkayamjal village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide sale deed bearing No.5047/2008, Dt.08.12.2008 (herein after referred to as suit schedule property for brevity) and it is the self acquired property of late Adapala Nageshwar Rao.

3.It is further submitted that the Adapala Nageshwar Rao has expired on 13.10.2013 leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 as his surviving legal heirs succeeded to the estate of said property. The plaintiffs with an intention to take bank loan, they approached the

Banker, after scrutinizing the said sale deed document, they advise the plaintiffs to produce legal heir certificate in order to start loan process.

For which, on 04.02.2020 the plaintiffs approached the concerned office of the Defendant No.1 for issuance of legal heir certificate, but said authority has refused to issue the legal heir certificate and advised the plaintiffs to approach the civil court for getting such legal heir certificate.

Hence, the plaintiffs prayed to declare them as the legal heirs of the deceased Adapala Nageshwar Rao.

5.After numbering the suit, this suit is made over to this court from the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, RR District at LB Nagar by issuing summons to the Defendant No.1. Publication also filed but none appeared on their behalf claiming that they are the legal heirs of the deceased.

6.On receipt of notice Defendant No.1 did not choose to appear before the court neither in person nor through counsel. Hence, 3 of 5 OS No.212/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

Defendant was set ex-parte on 18.03.2021 and proceeded with trial.

7.In support of the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are examined as Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Defendants were set ex-parte.

8.Heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of declaration as prayed for”?

10. POINT:

In support of the case of the plaintiff, Pws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. They reiterated the contents of the plaint in their evidence. Ex.A1 is the original death certificate of late Sri.

Adapala Nageshwar Rao issued by GHMC Dt.09.11.2013, Ex.A2 is the original Aadhar card of Adapala Varalaxmi, Ex.A3 is the original Aadhar card of Adapala Shiva Shankar, Ex.A4 is the original Aadhar card of

Adapala Mahesh, Ex.A5 is the CC of sale deed Doc No.5047/2008, dt.08.12.2008, Ex.A6 is the original Aadhar card of late Adapala

Nageshwar Rao.

11.On perusal of Ex.A1 death certificate and Ex.A6 Aadhar of

Adapala Nageshwar Rao and as per Exs.A2 to A4 Aadhar cards of palintiffs, it goes to show that the deceased Adapala Nageshwar Rao is the Husband of PW.1 and father of Pws.2 to 4. Admittedly, the defendants were set exparte. Thus, the oral evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A6 are unchallenged and unrebutted. In view of the documentary evidence available under Ex.A1 to A6 showing the plaintiff No.1 is the wife and Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of the deceased Adapala Nageshwar Rao and as such, they are 4 of 5 OS No.212/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT the legal heirs of the deceased. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

12.On careful reading of the plaint, the plaintiffs seeking the interlinked relief i.e., declaring them as legal heirs of deceased Adapala

Nageshwar Rao and the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property in the capacity of legal heirs and successors of Adapala

Nageshwar Rao. But, this court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the matter with regard to succession as the topic of succession will comes under the provisions of Indian Succession Act. Hence, this suit can be declared partly in respect of declaring the plaintiffs as legal heir of deceased Adapala Nageshwar Rao. In respect of declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule property being the successors of Adapala Nageshwar Rao the suit is dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed partly by declaring the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 as the legal heirs of the deceased

Adapala Nageshwar Rao. In respect of declaring the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 as owners and possessors of suit schedule property being successors of

Adapala Nageshwar Rao is dismissed without costs. This judgment is in respect of declaring the legal status of plaintiffs only and not for any other purpose.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this 20 th day of April, 2021.

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR, HYD.

5 of 5 OS No.212/2020 III M.M. R.R.DT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

P.W.1: Adapala Varalaxmi-NIL-

PW.2: Adapala Shiva Shankar

PW.3: Adapala Mahesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.A1: Original death certificate of late Sri. Adapala Nageshwar Rao issued by GHMC Dt.09.11.2013

Ex.A2: Original Aadhar card of Adapala Varalaxmi

Ex.A3: Original Aadhar card of Adapala Shiva Shankar

Ex.A4: Original Aadhar card of Adapala Mahesh

Ex.A5: CC of sale deed Doc No.5047/2008, dt.08.12.2008

Ex.A6: Original Aadhar card of late Adapala Nageshwar Rao.

FOR DEFENSE: NIL

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR.

1 of 4 OS No.171/2021 III M.M. R.R.DT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CYBERABAD

AT L.B.NAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. M. Eunice III ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM-

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JDUGE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR.

MONDAY, ON THIS THE 14 th DAY OF JUNE, 2021.

OS. No.171 of 2021

Between:- M. Dhanraj, S/o. Late Yadagiri, Aged 47 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.4-49, EWS Colony, Ghatkesar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

….. Plaintiff.

And

Bodige Jangaiah Goud, S/o. Narsimha, Aged 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.1-103, Weaker Section colony, Chowdaryguda, Narapally, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

….. Defendant.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s.K. Raghava Reddy, Counsel for the plaintiff and Defendant set ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff U/Order 37 of CPC to direct the defendant to repay the principal of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 2% per month from 10.05.2018 to 31.02.2021 amounting to Rs.31,666/- aggregating to Rs.81,666/- with future interest till realization of the same.

2.The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and defendant are acquainted with each other since many years and the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to advance hand loan of Rs.50,000/- to meet his lawful needs. Accordingly, on 10.05.2018 the plaintiff has advanced the said amount to the defendant and the 2 of 4 OS No.171/2021 III M.M. R.R.DT defendant promised to repay the same on demand and he has executed a promissory note to that effect and also agreed to pay interest @ 2 % per month. Thereafter, the defendant failed to repay the amount. Then the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant to repay the loan amount along with accrued interest within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice Dt.31.12.2020 and the same has been served on the defendant on 04.01.2021, but he did not chose to comply the demand nor he has replied to it. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.50,000/- and accrued interest of Rs.31,666/- due under promissory note Dt.10.05.2018.

3.After numbering the suit, this suit is made over to this court from the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, RR District at LB Nagar by issuing summons to the Defendant.

4.This is a summary suit. The summons were served on defendant and on receipt of summons, defendant did not choose to appear before the court neither in person nor through counsel in this matter within a span of 10 days. As such, the defendant was set exparte on 01.04.2021.

5.Heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount as prayed for”?

POINT:7.

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant U/Order XXXVII Rule 3 of CPC. In support of the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff filed documents i.e., promissory note and the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. The promissory note establishes that the defendant has 3 of 4 OS No.171/2021 III M.M. R.R.DT obtained hand loan from the plaintiff to a tune of Rs.50,000/- agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest of 2% per month on demand by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the amount on the demand made by the plaintiff.

8.From the material available on record, it is clear that on 10.05.2018 the plaintiff has advanced Rs.50,000/- to the defendant and the defendant promised to repay the same on demand and he has executed a promissory note and agreed to pay @ 2 % per month.

Admittedly, the defendant was set exparte.

9.In the above said circumstances, if really the defendant had repaid the amount, the defendant would have contested the suit by taking steps to disprove the case of the plaintiff but till today the defendant have not appeared before this court and not taken any steps.

Therefore, the contents of documents remained unchallenged and unrebutted and proved the case of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Point is answered.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.81,666/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff with future interest @ 6 % p.a on the principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this 14 th day of June, 2021.

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR, HYD.

4 of 4 OS No.171/2021 III M.M. R.R.DT

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

NIL

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR.