Smt.M.Kanaka Durga

1 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC)

L.B. NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present: SMT. M. KANAKA DURGA

X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC),

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

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2021.

O.S. No. 923 of 2 011

Between:-

1.Smt.Maddi Sobha Reddy, W/o.M.Srinivasa Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.7-4-71/2, Ferozguda, Boinapally, Secunderabad.

2.Smt M.Ramanjamma, W/o.Late Bhaskar Reddy, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Thummalur Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3.M.Vidyasagar Reddy, S/o.M.Venkata Narsi Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Agriculutre, R/o.Thummalur Village ,Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

.... Plaintiffs

AND

1. Smt C.Swayam Prabha, W/o.C.Govardhan Reddy, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Household,

2.Smt Shilpa Reddy, W/o.Konda Venkat Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ: House wife,

3.Smt Malini Mithra, W/o.Sudeep Mithra, Aged about 42 years, Occ: House wife,

X ADJ 2 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

(S.No.1 to 3 are R/o.H.No.3-4-829/A/2, 151 Line, Apartments, Barkatpura, Hyderabad)

4.Smt Maddi Anasuyamma, W/o.Raghupathi Reddy, Aged about 70 years,

5.Smt Maddi Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Ragupathi,

6.Maddi Shiva Prasada Reddy, S/o.Janga Reddy, Aged 27 years,

7.Maddi Surya Prakasa Reddy, S/o.Janga Reddy, Aged about 25 years,

8.Smt Maddi Ram Reddy, S/o.Raghupathi Reddy, Aged about 45 years,

S.No.4 to 8 are R/o.Thummaloor Village, Maheshwaram Mdl. Ranga Reddy District.

(Defendant No.8 is brought on record as LR of Defendant No.4 as per orders in IA No. Of 2017 dated 05.01.2018)

….. Defendants

This suit is coming before be for final hearing in the presence of Sri. PSP Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri. K.Raji Reddy, Advocate for the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and Defendant Nos.4 and Defendant No.8 died and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 and 2, r/w Section 26 of

Civil Procedure Code, praying the court a) to declare the plaintiffs

X ADJ 3 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

as the absolute owners and possessors of the schedule of property,

b) to direct the defendants to hand over possession of the schedule of property to the plaintiffs, c) to declare that the Regd. Sale deed

Doc.No.1155 of 2005, dated 23.03.2005, registered in the Sub-

Register Maheshwaram, Regd. Sale deed No.1383 of 2005, dated 07.04.2005, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Maheswaram

Mandal, Sale deed No.4516 of 2005 dated 30.08.2005 registered in the office of Sub Register, Maheshwaram Mandal as sham, bogus, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of agriculture lands admeasuring Ac 7.01 in Sy.No.209, Ac 3-10 gts in

Sy.No.213 totaling Ac 10-11 gts,m situated at Thummaluru Village,

Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Originally one

Kannaiah Lal is the original Pattadar of vast extents of land situated in Sy.Nos.209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 202, 206, 207 and 208 etc,. Further contends that Smt Maddi Laxmamma and Maddi

Buchamma are protected tenants over the said lands and their names were duly recorded in the Revenue Records as Protected tenants. He further pleaded that considering their possession over the lands, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East division, was pleased to issue certificate bearing No.A/9619/85,

X ADJ 4 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

dated 13.11.1985 under Section 38A of A.P. (Telangana Area)

Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 in respect of Ac 13-28 gts,

Sy.No.209, Ac .15-13 gts in Sy.No.210, Ac 19-09 gts, in SY.No.211,

Ac 7-12 gts, in Sy.No.212, Ac 11-13 gts, in Sy.No.213 i.e., total area admeasuring Ac 66-35 gts.

2(b).The plaintiffs further pleaded that the son of Kannai Lal namely Suresh Chander raised some disputes over the said lands taking advantage of the demise of his father and as such matter was settled due to intervention of elders and well wishers and they have compromised the matter. Accordingly the said Suresh

Chandra, Lakshmamma, Buchamma having jointly alienated the lands to various persons of their choices. Accordingly herein have purchased an extent of Ac 10-11 gts, (i.e., Ac 7-01 gts in Sy.No.209,

Ac 3-10 gts in Sy.No.213), situated in Tummaluru Village,

Maheshwaram Mandal, RR District (hereinafter called as Schedule

Property) from the said Suresh Chandra, Lakshmamma, Buchamma have executed registered sale deed bearing No.564/1989 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad.

Accordingly the plaintiffs have become the absolute owners of the schedule property and they are in possession and enjoyment of Ac 10-11 gts situated in Sy.No.209 and 2013 situated in Tummaluru

Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, RR District. The names of the

X ADJ 5 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

plaintiffs vendors were clearly mentioned in the pahanies from 1955 to 1989 i.e., till the date of purchase. The sale transaction was also clearly reflected in the E.C.

2(c).The plaintiffs further pleaded that, the above property is a dry land and due to the jobs and other purposes, the plaintiff herein have shifted their families for some time to Hyderabad due to their pre-occupation and taking this as an advantage, the defendant No.4 to 7 claiming to be owners of the said lands executed the registered sale deeds in favour of the defendant

Nos.1 to 3 herein. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 have executed a sale deed on 23.03.2005 vide Doc.No.1155 of 2005 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram, RR District in favour of the defendant No.1 to an extent of Ac 0-30 gts, in Sy.No.209, Ac 0-22 gts in Sy.No.212 and Ac 0-12 gts, in Sy.No.213 totaling to Ac 1-24 gts. Similarly the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 have executed sale deed on 07-04-2005 vide Doc.N.1383 of 2005 registered in the office of

Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram, RR District, in favour of defendant

No.1 to an extent of Ac 0-30 gts in Sy.No.212, Ac 0-30 gts in

Sy.No.213 and Ac 0-2 gts in Sy.No.209 total Ac 1-22 gts. The defendant Nos. 6 and 7 have also executed sale deed doc.No.4516 of 2005 on 30.08.2005 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar,

Maheshwaram, RR District in favour of defendant No.2 to an extent

X ADJ 6 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

of land admeasuring Ac 0-38 gts, in Sy.No.209 and Ac 2-02 gts in

Sy.No.207 total admeasuring Ac 3-00 gts. The defendant Nos. 6 and 7 have also executed sale deed No.517/205 on 30.08.2005 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram, RR district in favour of defendant No.3 to an extent of land admeasuring Ac 1- 16 gts in Sy.No.207 and Ac 0-02 gts in Sy.No.206 total admeasuring

Ac 01-18 gts. Now the total land covered under the above four registered sale deed of defendant Nos.1 to 3 is 304 guntas or Ac 7- 24 gts and as per the sale deed of defendant No.3, the land is falling under Sy.No.207 and 206 of Thummalur Village,

Maheshwaram Mandal, RR District.

2(d).The plaintiffs further pleaded that, the plaintiffs herein are having interest over the property of lands covered under the

Sy.No.209 and 2013 situated at Thummalur Village, Maheshwaram

Mandal, RR District to an extent of Ac 2-32 gts, covered under the above stated four sale deeds as detailed under each survey

Number as indicated against each. Basing on the above stated fictitious sale deeds, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have got mutation of their names in the Revenue records and they have also obtained pattadar passbooks. The details of the property of the plaintiffs herein out of their entire land of Ac 10-11 gts, covered under their sale deed is as under:

X ADJ 7 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

Sl.No Regd. Doc. No. & Description Extent of Sy.No.

Date, registration of whom the Land Under which in the office of Sub- Doc. belongs to the land fell Registrar, Pertaining the plaintiffs in Maheshwaram to the that was to Thummalur Defendants be Village, recovered Maheswara from the m Mandal, defendant RR District Nos.1 to 3 11155/2005DefendatnAc 0-30 gts209 dt.23.03.2005No.1 2 - do -- do -Ac 0-12 gts213 31383/2005,- do -Ac 0-30 gts213 dt.7-4-2005 4- do -- do -Ac 0.02 gts209 54516/2005Defendant No. Ac 0.38 gts209 dt.30.08.2005

TotalAc 2-32 gts, or 112 gts., against 304 gts, or Ac 7- 24 gts 2(e).The plaintiffs further pleaded that, they are not at all aware about the said sale transaction of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed a false suit against the plaintiffs and their family members vide OS No.1882 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for perceptual injunction and after receipt of summons from the court, the plaintiffs have came to know about the above said sale deeds and understood that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed a false

X ADJ 8 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

suit basing on the false documents. The plaintiffs have contested the said suit, thereafter the matter was transferred to VII Addl.

Senior Civil Judge, RR District and the plaintiffs could not lead the

evidence since during the course of trial, of the said suit, the close family members of plaintiffs have suffered from severe health problems apart from that the husband of plaintiff No.2 herein died on 09.12.2008 and the mother of plaintiff No.3 died on 28.03.2009 and the court was pleased to pas exparte decree and judgment on 11.08.2010 granting perceptual injunction in their favour. However till the date of judgment the plaintiffs herein are in possession of the suit schedule property. But however after passing of the said decree and judgment dated 11.08.2010 in OS No.1882 of 2005, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have taken possession of the schedule property on 01.09.2010 along with their men and disposed the plaintiffs herein. Though the defendant No.3 is not concerned with the plaintiffs land, but they field civil suit and obtained injunction and showing the decree she also joined other defendants and grabbed the property. Now the defendant Nos.1 to 3 taking advantage of the decree and Judgment in OS No.1882 of 2005 are trying to alter the suit land and if the defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein could succeed to do so, the plaintiffs herein will be put to irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any manner.

X ADJ 9 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

2(f).The plaintiffs further pleaded that, the defendant Nos.4 to 7 are no way concerned to the scheduled property and taking advantage of the non availability of the plaintiffs herein frequently in their village, the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 have executed the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have grabbed the suit schedule property basing on the sale deeds and took the possession as per the Perpetual Injunction granted in OS No.1882 of 2005 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge,

RR District, but as the matter of fact, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors by virtue of Registered sale deed and they made an application at the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram

Mandal, RR District for mutation of the names and same was numbered as case No.D/1688/06 and notices were also issued to the defendant Nos.1 to 3. thereafter the proceedings went on

before the then MRO, Maheshwaram Mandal and the defendant

Nos.1 to 3 have dragged the matter in one way or other and the plaintiffs herein have also filed objections questioning the delay tactics played by the defendant Nos.1 to 3. After several adjournments the MRO Maheshwaram Mandal, RR district gave a letter No.B/21/2009 dated 07.01.2009 stating that the file

No.B/1688/2006 is not traced out. Further it was also stated that the action taken in the above file will be informed after tracing out

X ADJ 10 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

the concerned file. But till date, the file was not traced and the matter was not taken up by the Revenue authorities. All these shows the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have purposefully dragged the matter with a view to defeat the interest of the plaintiffs and filed the said civil suit on the basis of fictitious sale deed and revenue records. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have pleaded that they are in possession of the suit schedule property, but however they are not actually in possession of the suit of property, but however they are not actually in possession of the schedule property, but only after passing of the decree, they highhandedly took the possession of the schedule of property taking the advantage of the decree and

Judgment in the said suit and taking advantage of non availability of plaintiffs frequently in their village due to old aged dependents and their treatment in city.

2(g).The plaintiffs further pleaded that, the Revenue Record viz., pahanies for the years 1955-58, 1971-72, 1973-74, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 clearly disclose the names of the Pattedars i.e., Vendors of the plaintiffs herein in the ownership and possession columns of various extents of lands including the lands purchased by the plaintiffs herein and more particularly the suit schedule property. So, the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 have fabricated the revenue records and succeeded to execute the sale deed in

X ADJ 11 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein by alienating the suit schedule property for their illegal again taking advantages of non availability of plaintiffs in their village frequently due to their pyre- occupation. Even the defendant Nos.1 to 3 also colluded with the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 for getting mutation of their names in respect of suit schedule property using their influences so as to grab away the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs herein. In view of this, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 did not appear before the

MRO, Maheswaram Mandal, in case No.B/1688/2006. The action of defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein is with malafide intention since they have proceeded with the proceedings in the suit but they did not choose to appear before the MRO, Maheswaram Mandal taking adjournments by saying one or other reason.h 2(h).The plaintiffs further pleaded that, in fact the defendant

Nos.1 to 3 are not at all having any rights over the suit schedule property since the sale deeds executed in their favour by defendant Nos.4 to 7 in respect of the suit schedule property are false, sham bogus. There is no title to defendant Nos. 4 to 7 and without any tittle they executed the sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. since the defendant No.4 to 7 are not having title, they cannot pass a letter title to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and hence the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no title over the

X ADJ 12 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

schedule property and showing the sale deeds, they are claiming title over the property. They also obtained Revenue records, showing these fictitious sale deed which will not confer any title and they cannot claim any title basing on the said Pattedar pass books and title deeds. But still they filed civil suit seeking injunction and the said decree will not be helpful to the defendant

No1. To 3. By virtue of the decree and Judgment, obtained the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are trying to alter the nature of schedule property. The plaintiffs herein have filed their documents already in the said OS No.1882 of 2005 which shows clearly that the source of title of defendant Nos.1 to 3 is false, but only due to sudden death of M.Bhaskar Reddy on 09.12.2008, who is the husband of plaintiff

No.2 herein and sudden death of Smt M. Laxmamma on 28.03.2009 who is the mother of plaintiff No.3 herein. The suit was not contested effectively since a prolonged time was elapsed in contacting their counsel, the suit field by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 was decreed.

2(i)The plaintiffs further pleaded that the plaintiffs have already filed an application dated 23.05.2006 before the then

Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram Mandal, RR District requesting to incorporate the plaintiffs names in the Revenue

Records by placing the Registered Sale deed to the extent of Ac.10-

X ADJ 13 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

11 gts, giving their vendors detail by duly furnishing all the details required. The same was numbered as case No.B/1688/2006.

Thereafter the plaintiffs herein have also gave complaint to the

Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, RR District that some unlawful elements are trying to disturb their possession with some forged documents and sought their help to protect them and their property. The then MRO Maheshwaram mandal, was pleased to give notice dated 06.06.2006 to all the parties except the defendant No.3 herein who is also none other than the daughter of defendant No.1 by fixing the date of enquiry on 16.06.2006.

thereafter the plaintiff No.1 herein has submitted an objection memo on 05.07.2006 to the then MRO, Maheshwaram

Mandal,requesting not to grant long adjournments as sought by the representative of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 herein since they have suppressed certain material facts. Thereafter, after vigorous persuasions on behalf of the plaintiffs vide another representation

dated 27.12.2008 made to the then Tahsildar, Maheswaram

Mandal, RR District, he was pleased to intimate the action taken in the File No.B/1688/2006 is not traced out and the action taken in the above file will be informed after tracing out the file. Thereafter no information from the Revenue authorities. The in action of the

Revenue Authorities discloses that they are not ready to do justice to the plaintiffs herein in the subject matter and they have dragged the matter till date. Even the defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein have

X ADJ 14 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

intentionally suppressed before the court, about the pendency of proceeding before the then MRO, Maheshwaram Mandal, RR district in the suit field by them and did not disclose it at any point of time. So it is clear that the defendant Nos. to 3 have convincingly played fraud to get mutation of the Revenue records in their favour in collusion with the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 herein.

But by virtue of the registered sale deeds, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are claiming tittle over the property. On the other hand, the defendant Nos.4 to 7 are claiming tittle over the entire property and also trying to alienate the remaining property. Even they have colluded with defendant Nos.1 to 3 and all of them have taken possession on 01.09.2010 for the entire schedule property showing the decree which is only for Ac 2-32 gts. As such, without any other alternative, the plaintiffs are approaching the court seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession and also to declare the Registered sale deed document No.1155 of 2005 dated 23.03.2005 registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Maheswaram

Regd. Suit deed No.1383 of 2005 dated 07.04.2005 registered in the Office of Sub- Registrar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Sale deed Nos.

4516 and 4517 of 2005 dated 30.08.2005 registered I n the office of Sub- Registrar, Maheshwaram Mandal, as sham, bogus, null and void, non-est in the eyes of Law and not binding on the plaintiffs.

Hence, the suit.

X ADJ 15 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

3(a).The Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 filed written statement denying the entire adverse allegations leveled against the plaint except those allegations which are specifically admitted hereinafter.

3(b).The defendant Nos. 5 and 6 further contended that the real and true facts are that, it is absolutely false to say that the

Maddi Buchamma and Maddi Laxmama has got Ac 66-35 guntas, in

Sy.Nos.200, 201, 211, 212, 213 of Thummaloor Village,

Maheshwaram Mandal, RR District and the certificate which is granted in file No.A/9619/1985 dated 13.11.1985 has been set aside by the Joint Collector and after deno enquiry the Rdo has issued a revised certificate of sale under Sec. 38-A of A.P.

(Telangana Area) Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 in File

No.L/5926/1986 dated 02.05.1992 and by virtue of the said revise order, the said Maddi Buchamma, W/o. Bhupal Reddy and Maddi

Laxmamma, W/o. Venkat Narsi Reddy is got allotted only Ac.40-04 guntas covered in the above mentioned survey numbers and after 2-5-1992, only the said Maddi Buchamma and Maddi Laxmamma has got full pledged owner in respect of the schedule property and till then she doesn’t have any right title over the suit schedule property to alienate the same in favour of prospective purchasers

X ADJ 16 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

and if any alienation has been made by Maddi Buchamma and

Maddi Laxmamma, are declared as null and void and the present case the plaintiff got obtained a sale deed bearing

Doc.No.564/1989 executed on 06.01.1989 from Maddi Buchamma and Maddi Laxmamma is a sham document she doesn’t have any right title or interest over the suit schedule property and any right title or interest over the suit schedule property and by virtue of the file No.L/5926/86 dated 02.05.1992 the said Maddi Buchamma and

Maddi Laxmamma has become absolute owners and possessors of

Ac.40-04 guntas covered in Sy.No.209 to 213 and much prior for granting of sale certificate, the plaintiff has got purchased and as on the said date neither Maddi Buchamma nor Maddi Laxmamma they doesn’t have any title to execute the sale as such the sale deed relayed by the plaintiff is not tenable in eye of law and the said sale deed is a sham document and also to cheat this defendant, the mother of the plaintiff have got executed the same in favour of his sons and daughter-in-laws and when the Maddi

Laxmamma is no other than the mother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and 2 and mother of plaintiff No.3 and there is no necessity to the plaintiffs to purchase the suit schedule property from her own mother and till 2005 the said document never placed anywhere that itself goes to show that the said document is a sham document and the plaintiff is claiming the right under the guise of

X ADJ 17 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

the said document they doesn’t accrue any right title or interest over the suit schedule property.

3(b).The defendant Nos.5 and 6 further contends that, the grand father of the defendant Nos. 5 to 7 Maddi Venkat Narsimha

Reddy is a protected tenant in respect of the above survey numbers and after death of said Venkat Narsimha Reddy his both sons Raghupathi Reddy and Janga Reddy themselves cultivating the schedule property and after death of Raghupathi Reddy his wife and son who are the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 along with another son by name Ram Reddy are cultivating the schedule property along with the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 and their father

Janga Reddy and by considering their long standing possession the original pattedar of the Sy.No.209 to 2013 by name Kannaya Lal has sold the scheduled property in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 7 through un registered sale document and the said un regathered sale document has been regularized under ROR in File

No.B/362/1997 and by virtue of the said proceeding, the defendant

Nos. 4 to 7 has become an absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and their names also reflected in patta and as sell as possessory column and the revenue authorities also issued pattedari pass books and title deed in the name of defendant Nos. 4 to 7 and since more than 50 years the defendant

X ADJ 18 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

Nos. 4 to 7 are enjoying the suit schedule property along with other survey numbers and in the year 2005, due to his personal and family necessities, the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have sold an extent of Ac 0-30 guntas in Sy.No.2090 and Ac 0-12 guntas in Sy.No.213 in favour of the defendant Nos.1 through a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1155/2005 and after purchasing the said land the defendant No.1 approached the revenue authorities and got mutated their names in revenue records and the revenue authorities by deleting the names of defendant Nos.4 and 5 got implemented defendant No.1 name in pahanies in pattedari column as well as possessory column and the revenue authorities also issued pattedari pass books and title deeds in the name of defendant No.1 and since the date of purchase the defendant No.1 alone enjoying the said property without any interruption form anybody. Likewise the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 also got sold an extent of Ac 0-02 guntas in Sy.No.209 and Ac.0-30 guntas in

Sy.No.213 in favour of defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1383/2005 and after purchasing the same the defendant No.1 got mutated their name revenue records and the revenue authorities by deleting defendant Nos. 6 and 7 names from the revenue records got implemented the name of defendant

No.1 in the revenue records and the revenue authorities also got issued pattedari pass books and title deed in the name of defendant No.1 to the said extent and since the date of purchase

X ADJ 19 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

the defendant No.1 herself enjoying the said extent without any interruption from anybody and the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 also got sold an extent of Ac 0-38 guntas in Sy.No.2009 in favour of defendant No.2 through the registered sale deed bearing

Doc.No.4516/2005 and after getting the sale deed the defendant

No.2 got implemented the same in revenue records and the revenue authorities also got implemented the defendant No.2 name in revenue records and also issued pattedar pass books and title deeds in the name of defendant No.2 and since the date of purchase the defendant No.2 herself enjoying the said extent without any interruption from anybody.

3(c).The defendant further contended that, out of suit schedule property, the defendant Nos.4 and 5 has got sold in

Sy.No.209 to an extent of Ac 0-30 gts and Sy.No.213 Ac 0-12 gts and the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 have sold Ac 1-00 gts in Sy.No.209 and Ac 0-30 gts in Sy.No.213 and both extents have been sold in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and why the defendant No.3 has made as a party to the present suit and further the plaintiff has not filed the latest pahanies and by seeking the declaration of his title the plaintiff ought to have choose to made all the parties who are physical possession and enjoyment of the Sy.No.209 and 213 and except the defendant Nos.1 to 7 they have not made all the parties

X ADJ 20 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

those who are physically enjoying the land in Sy.No.209 and 213 as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground, the non-joinder of necessary parties.

3(d).The defendant further contends that in the year 2005, when the plaintiff No.1 and her husband Srinivas Reddy and husband of the plaintiff No.2 and plaintiff No.3 is trying to interfere into peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land belongs to

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein and with the help of neighbours and well -wishers they resisted the interference of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and her husband and finally the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 constrain to file a suit against the plaintiff No.1 and her husband and husband of plaintiff No.2 and plaintiff No.3 vide OS No.1882/2005 and the plaintiffs made appeared and filed their written statement and fail to adduce the evidence on their behalf and this court was pleased to pass a decree against them on 11-08.2010 in OS NO.1882 of 2005 on the file of VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District and till this day the plaintiff has not chosen to file an appeal against the said Judgment and decree and the said Judgment and decree has become final and still the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are suffering with the injunction in respect of part of the suit scheduled property.

X ADJ 21 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

3(e).The defendant further submits that the plaintiff has not approached before the court with clean hands and by suppressing the entire real and true facts, he got filed the present suit as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

3(f).The defendants further submits that though the plaintiff got obtained the sale deed on 06.01.1999 till the date they never approached before any authority for the implementation of the sale deed and the plaintiff has not filed any single piece of paper before the court to show that they have got approached the MRO

Maheshwaram Mandal for implementation of their sale deed and the plaintiff is very well known that they got obtained the alleged sale deed without any possession as such they never approached any authority for implementation by time filing the suit the property was got mutated in third party names and without making them as a parties to the suit the present suit is not maintainable as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and in the Sy.No.209 a layout has been approved by the

Grampanchayath, Thummaloor Village and most of the area has been covered in the said layout and without making them as a party to the present suit, the suit for declaration and recovery of possession does not maintainable as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

X ADJ 22 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

3(g).The defendant further submits that the plaintiffs known very well that the defendant nos.4 to 7 are enjoying the suit schedule property since from 1970 onwards till they alienated the suit schedule property in favour of third parties and till this day the plaintiff has not taken any steps for recovery of possession and if really they got obtained the alleged sale deed claiming by the plaintiff they could have taken a steps in time they knows very well that the scheduled property is not in their possession and according to the plaint averments also they made application

before the MRO Maheshwaram Mandal in the year 2006 and by the

time the property was changed from the possession of defendant

Nos. 4 to 7 to defendant No.1 to 3 and some third parties and the plaintiffs have not taken any steps for recovery of the possession as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the limitation period was expired long back and the present suit is not filed within limitation as such this ground alone is sufficient to dismiss the present suit.

3(h).The defendants further contended that even assuming that after getting the decree in OS No.1882/2005 the defendants entered into the possession of suit schedule property but the said contention is not supported by the revenue records and since 1989

X ADJ 23 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

onward the name of the defendants and their fathers names were reflected and till 2011 the plaintiff not taken any steps for getting the possession of the suit schedule property as such the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground.

3(i).The defendants further contends that the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties and the Sy.No.209 most of the area is covered under layout and without making the plot owners as party the present suit has been filed and most of the area is not in possession of the defendant

Nos.4 to 7 and the third parties are in possession of Sy.No.209 and 213 and without making them as a party, the present suit is not maintainable as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

4(a).The plaintiff filed Rejoinder pleading that he has field the suit against the defendants for recovery of possession and cancellation of sale deed and after filing the suit, the defendant nos. 5 and 6 filed written statement and other defendants filed adoption memo by raising false and frivolous averments and

X ADJ 24 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

hence, to bring the real facts and to clarify the factual position, the plaintiffs are filing the present rejoinder. The plaintiff stated that in reply to paras 1 to 3 of written statement of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 except denying the averments of the plaintiffs no new pleadings were pleaded and there is no valid base for such denial.

4(b).The plaintiff further pleaded that in reply para 4 of the written statement the averments made are not correct and the allegations that the orders dated 13.11.1985 were set aside by

RDO and revised sale certificate was issued allowing only Ac 40.01 cents in favour of the Butchamma and Laxamma on 02.05.1992 is false and the defendants are put to strict proof of the same.

Further plaintiff pleaded in the plaint about the purchase of property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 06.01.1989 vide document No.564/1989 and the said face was not denied except stating that the said document is not valid one and even though there is such revised order, the property purchased by the plaintiff is not effected. Further the allegations that the plaintiffs vendors have no right is also not correct since the defendants have not filed any piece of document to show that they got any right or title over the suit schedule property, except formally denying the title of the plaintiffs. Not even a single piece of paper was filed to show that they are the lawful owners and possessors of the suit schedule

X ADJ 25 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

property. Hence, it is clear that the defendants, more particularly the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 have grabbed the plaintiffs property by mutating their names in the revenue records and basing on such false revenue entries they executed registered sale deeds in favour of the defendant Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos. 4 to 7 cannot claim any title much less a better and valid title over the plaintiffs. Hence, the contention of the defendants in para No.4 are specifically denied since they are false averments.

4(c).The plaintiff further submits that in reply to para No.5 of written statement the contention is that the defendant Nos. 5 to 7 are cultivating as owners is absolutely false and the same was invented for the purpose of justifying their illegal actions. The plaintiffs filed the copy of the pahanies from 1971-1972 to 1989- 1990. Th plaintiffs also filed the original memo dated 07.01.2003 issued by the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, RR District wherein it was specifically stated that the file No.B/1688/2006 was not traced out. In fact it is issued on the plaintiffs compliant about the matter and plaintiffs filed objections before the Tahsildar for correcting all revenue records. Hence, it is clear that the original file in the Tahsildar Office itself was not traced out. Hence, it is

X ADJ 26 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

clear that the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 are more influential and tried at all the levels to grab the property.

4(d).The plaintiffs further submits that the defendants contended that by considering their long standing possession, the owner and pattadar of the property namely Mr. Kannaiah Lal sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants Nos. 4 to 7 through un registered deed and the same was regularized in ROR in the file No.B/362/1997 and hence they got the suit schedule property. But the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 have not filed any such proceedings to substantiate their claim and hence it is clear that there is no such Regularization order. Even the said Kannaiah Lal is not alive by the year 1997 and he expired long back. The son of

Kannaiah Lal namely Suresh Chandra executed registered sale deed to the plaintiffs along with the said M.Butchamma and

M.Laxmamma on 06.01.1989. In the said registered sale deed, it is specifically mentioned that the said Kannaiah Lal expired and the name of Suresh Chander was specifically mentioned as “SURESH

CHANDER S/O. LATE KANNAIAH LAL”. Hence, it is clear that the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 are claiming title based on fake,l false and fraudulent documents which are obtained from a dead person by impersonation. The said act itself is an offence and hence they have not filed the said documents before this court. The defendant

X ADJ 27 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

Nos. 4 to 7 on one hand are claiming the title from the said

M.Butchamma, and M.Laxmamma, and on the other hand they are claiming the Title through unregister sale deed alleged to have been executed by the dead person. Hence, the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 miserably failed to prove their acquiring of title of suit schedule property. When their ancestors M.Laxmamma and Butchamma themselves sold the land to the plaintiff through registered sale deed, the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 cannot deny the same and cannot claim title. Hence, the subsequent sale transactions made by the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are not sustainable under law. Further the defendants are not having any single document to show that they are the rightful owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and hence they cannot pass on title in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Hence, the contention that the Revenue Authorities implemented the registered sale deed in the Revenue Records will not give any right to the defendants for claiming title over the property, since the

Revenue entries will not confirm any right or title in the property.

4(e).The plaintiffs further pleaded that in reply to para Nos. 6 and 7 of the written statement the defendants admitted about the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant Nos.1 to 3.

The plaintiffs came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are

X ADJ 28 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

proper and necessary parties as they are purchasers from defendant Nos. 4 to 7. if at all the plaintiffs came to know that any third parties also purchased the property, they will be impeaded to the suit. Further the contention that the plaintiffs tried to enter into the suit schedule property in the year 2005 and hence, they filed the suit in OS No.882 of 2005 is not correct. The defendants filed the said suit only to cover up their illegal acts. Due to unavoidable circumstances and health problems, the plaintiffs could not contest the said suit. The said pleadings are specially pleaded in the main plaint and there is no question of suppression and there is no question of approaching the court with unclean hands. The defendants approached the court in the earlier suit by placing false pleadings and obtained injunction. After obtaining the injunction, the defendants taken the possession from the plaintiffs and without any other alternative the plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking recovery possession along with declaration of title and cancellation of all the sale deeds, which is proper and correct method of taking possession of the property and the same is in accordance with law.

4(f).The plaintiff further pleaded that in reply to para Nos. 9 to 12, the allegations that the plaintiffs never approached any authorities for mutation of sale deeds is not correct, even

X ADJ 29 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

otherwise, the non approaching the authorities will not get right to the defendants more particularly to the defendant Nos.4 to 7 to grab the property of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed encumbrance certificate in the list of documents, which clearly shows that entries of registered sale deed and hence it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are not owners of the property. The other allegations that layout was prepared and land was sold to various persons is not correct and these facts are falsely pleaded without filing any piece of documents. Further, if any such document to executed and layout is prepared during the pendency of the present suit, the same are hit by provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act.

The further contention that the said suit is barred by limitation is not correct and the suit is well in time of limitation and the other allegations made in para Nos. 11 and 12 are not correct and they are false and frivolous and that the layout was made by various plot owners purchased the property is not correct and no document was filed. If at all such transactions are traced in future, plaintiffs will take necessary steps for impleading them also.

4(g).The plaintiffs further pleaded that the plaintiffs have already initiated criminal cases against the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 in FIR No.144 of 2012 Police Maheshwaram, Cyberabad and police also field charge sheet before the Magistrate Court of

X ADJ 30 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

Ibrahimpatnam against the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 for their illegal act of forgery, cheating and other criminal acts under Sections 418, 420, 423, 447, 471, 120B r/w Section 34 IPC. Hence, it is clear that the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 have resorted all sorts of illegal acts and executed sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3.

Hence, they will not get any title over the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in the main suit as they got absolute documentary evidence in support of their claim.

5.Heard both side and perused the entire material on record and arguments of the plaintiff and defendants.

6.Basing on the above averments, the following issues have been framed.

ISSUES:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled declaration of title to the schedule property and for possession?

2)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the sale deed No.1155 of 2005 dated 23.03.2005, sale deed No.1383 of 2005 dated 07.04.2005, sale deed

No.4516 of 2005 dated 30.08.2005 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?

X ADJ 31 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

3)To what relief?

7.ISSUE NO.2 : -

In order to substantiate the plea of the plaintiff, it is for the plaintiff to establish that the documents dated 23.03.2005 doc.

No.1155/2005 sale deed 1383 of 2005 dated 07.04.2005 and sale deed No.4516 of 2005 dated 30.08.2005 as null and void by way of oral and documentary evidence. As per Section of 101 of Indian

Evidence Act, which reads as following “Whoever desires any court to give Judgment as to any legal rights or liability, defendant on the existence to facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exists. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that, the burden of proof lies on that person”.

8.Here in the instant case, the plaintiff allegedly purchased Ac 10.11 gts from Suresh Chandra, Maddi Laxmamma,

Maddi Butchamma having jointly alienated the lands to various persons of their choice since the father of Suresh Chandra, Late Sri

Kanaiah Lal was the original pattedar of vast extent of lands situated in Sy.Nos.209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 202, 206, 207 and 208 etc,. Further contends that Smt Maddi Laxmamma and Maddi

Buchamma are protected tenants over the said lands and their

X ADJ 32 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

names were duly recorded in the Revenue Records as Protected tenants. He further pleaded that considering their possession over the lands, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East division, was pleased to issue certificate bearing No.A/9619/85,

dated 13.11.1985 under Section 38-A of A.P. (Telangana Area)

Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 in respect of Ac 13-28 gts,

Sy.No.209, Ac .15-13 gts in Sy.No.210, Ac 19-09 gts, in SY.No.211,

Ac 7-12 gts, in Sy.No.212, Ac 11-13 gts, in Sy.No.213 i.e., total area admeasuring Ac 66-35 gts. The said Suresh Chandra, Laxmamma,

Butchamma have executed registered sale deed bearing No.564 of 1989 registered in the name of the plaintiffs and thereby the plaintiffs become absolute owners of the schedule properties and they are in possession and enjoyment of Ac 10.11 gts situated in

Sy.No.209 and 213 situated in Thummaluru Village, Maheshwaram

Mandal. The names of the plaintiff’s vendors were clearly mentioned in the Pahanies from 1955 to 1989 till the date of purchase and the sale transaction was reflected in Encumbrance

Certificate. The defendant Nos. 4 to 7 claiming to be the owners of the said lands executed registered sale deed in favour of the defendant Nos.1 to 3. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 have executed sale deed on 20.03.2005 vide document No.1155 of 2005 registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Maheshwaram in favour of Defendant No.1 to an extent of Ac 0.30 gts, in Sy.No.209 Ac 0.22 gts in Sy.No.212 and Ac 0.12 gts in SY.No.213, totaling Ac 1.24 gts.

X ADJ 33 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

Similarly the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 have executed sale deed on 07.04.2005 vide document No.1383 of 2005 registered in the office of Registrar, in favour of defendant No.1 to an extent of Ac 0.30 gts in Sy.No.212, Ac 0.30 gts in Sy.No.213 and Ac 0.02 gts in Sy.No.209, total Ac 1.22 gts. The defendant Nos. 6 and 7 have also executed sale deed vide document No.4516 of 2005 on 30.08.2005 registered in Sub- Registrar Office, in favour of defendant No.2 an extent of land admeasuring Ac 0.38 gts, in Sy.No.209 and Ac 2.02 gts in Sy.No.207, total admeasuing Ac 3.00. The defendant Nos. 6 and 7 also executed sale deed No.517 of 2005 on 30.08.2005 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, in favour of defendant

No.3 to an extent of land admeasuring Ac 1.16 gts in Sy.No.207 and Ac 0.02 gts in Sy.No.206, total admeasuring Ac 1.18 gts. Now the total land covered under the above four registered sale deeds of defendant Nos.1 to 3 is Ac 0.304 gts or Ac 7.24 gts and as per the sale deed of defendant No.3, the land is falling under Sy.No.207 and 206 of Thummaluru Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, RR District.

Now the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish that the vendor of the sale deeds for the above mentioned land under above mentioned sale deed numbers in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 have no right title to execute the sale deeds in favour of defendant

Nos.1 to 3 by defendant Nos.4 to 7. In order to establish the case of the plaintiffs, he has got valid title over the schedule land i.e., Ac 10.11 gts in Sy.No.209 and 213 and his vendor has got valid title to

X ADJ 34 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

execute sale deed bearing No.549 of 1989 dated 06.01.1989, for which he himself examined as PW1, on his behalf PWs 2 to 4 examined. PW1 in her evidence categorically admitted that she purchased suit schedule property from Kannaiah Lal, Maddi

Butchamma and Maddi Laxmamma. Maddi Laxmamma is her mother-in-law. She further admitted that herself and her brother-in- laws, Bhaskar Reddy and Vidyasagar, jointly purchased schedule property by paying sale consideration to Maddi Laxmamma, Maddi

Butchamma and Kannaiah Lal. Maddi Laxmamma and Maddi

Butchamma, have got acquired right over the property. They are the purchasers of the property from Kannaiah Lal, in which the

Government issued Section 38-E Protected tenancy certificate in favour of Kannaiah Lal, Maddi Laxmamma and Butchamma on 13.11.1985 issued by Revenue Divisional Authorities, Hyderabad

East Division, which is marked as Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is registered sale deed document No.564 of 1989 dated 06.01.1989. On the date of filing of the suit, the suit schedule property is in possession of

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are claiming right through defendant Nos. 4 to 7. Except defendant Nos.1 to 3, no one is in the possession over the suit schedule property.

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in possession by the date of filing of the suit. She further stated that, she do not know how much extent is purchased by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in Sy.No.209 and 213. PW2 M.

Vidyasagar Reddy, who is third plaintiff herein examined as PW2.

X ADJ 35 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

He also categorically stated in his evidence that, they purchased the suit schedule property from his mother and Satish Chandra.

The contention of defendants are that, the 38 E certificate issued in favour of Maddi Laxmamma and Butchamma was cancelled by the Joint Collector, as such they have no right to sell the property i.e., Maddi Laxmamma herein in favour of plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3, for which he denied that, he do not know about the cancellation of 38E certificate. The counsel for defendant gave suggestion that, Maddi

Raghupathi Reddy, Janga Reddy and his father Venkat Narasimha

Reddy were in physical possession of suit schedule property, but the said Maddi Raghupathi Reddy, Janga Reddy and his father

Venkat Narsimha Reddy were not parties herein, and their sons / defendant Nos. 5 to 8 are claiming that they are the owners of the properties, for which this witness denied the suggestion given by the counsel for the defendant that Maddi Raghupathi Reddy, Janga

Reddy and his father Venkata Narasimha Reddy are in physical possession of the suit schedule property. He further denied that, said Maddi Raghupathi Reddy and Janga Reddy have purchased the suit schedule property along with some other survey numbers from original pattedhar Kannaiah Lal. It is pertinent note that the defendant Nos.4 to 7 on their behalf filed Exs.B1 to 21 are Adangal pahanies and Khasara pahanies filed to show that they are in possession of the properties and the said document under which said Raghupathi Reddy and Janga Reddy purchased property was

X ADJ 36 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

not filed. The same fact was admitted by DW1 in his evidence as follows “ My grand fGrand father Venkat Narasimha Reddy, purchased suit schedule land from Kannaiah Lal by way of unregistered sale deed and the same is not filed in the court, but the name of Maddi Venkata Narasimha Reddy entered in the

Revenue records. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that, mere mentioning the name of the person in Revenue records, such as

Adangal pahanies and other Khasara Pahanies I.e, Ex. B1 to B21 from 1965 -1966 , 1968-1969, 1971 to 1972, 1975-1976, 1982- 1983, 1985 – 1986, 1986-1989, 1986-1987, 1987-1988, 1993- 1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996 and 1998-1999, in which possessor column i.e., Anubhavadharu the names of the said Janga Reddy,

Venkat Reddy were mentioned, but the said documents they did not mention the owner ship of the property allegedly owned by the grand father and father of the defendant Nos.4 to 8. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that, the adangal pahanies did not confer any title or ownership over the property allegedly sold away to defendant Nos.1 to 3 by defendant Nos. 4 to 7 under the above mentioned sale deeds.

9.PW3 M.Srinivas Reddy, is the husband of PW1. He categorically reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint as well as chief affidavit of PW1. This witness also reiterated that, the

Raghupathi Reddy, Janga Reddy are not in physical possession of

X ADJ 37 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

the property. Suresh Chandra was the legal heir of Kannaiah Lal and he executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Soon after purchase of the property, the plaintiffs have applied for mutation

before the MRO. Ex.A14 is the application dated 23.05.2006

submitted by the plaintiff to MRO for mutation. This witness in his cross-examination categorically stated that, they have purchased suit schedule property for Rs.8,500/- per acre and they paid sale consideration to Suresh Chandra son of Kannaiah Lal and they did not pay any sale consideration to Butchamma and Laxmamma.

Further he denied that the sale deed under which the land purchased by them has no legal sanctity and he denied that

Raghupathi Reddy and Janga Reddy are the absolute owners of the property, as such their legal heirs defendant Nos. 4 to 7 have sold the property to defendant Nos.1 to 3.

10.PW4 G.Venkatesh is the neighbouring land owner of the plaintiff. He categorically stated that, the plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule property from their vendor. He was Ex-MPDC member in their village as such he got acquaintance with the plaintiff.

During cross-examination, he voluntarily stated that, defendants have occupied the suit schedule property by creating false and bogus documents.

X ADJ 38 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

11.As per the evidence of Pws 1 to 4, the plaintiffs purchased the schedule property under Ex.A2 from one Suresh

Chandra son of Kannaiah Lal after paying sale consideration under document No.564 of 1989 dated 06.01.1989 in an extent of Ac 10.11 gts in Sy.Nos.209 and 213 after paying sale consideration of

Rs.8,500/-. Further contends that Maddi Laxmamma and

Butchamma are the protected tenants of the said lands declared by the Government vide document No.A/9619/85 dated 13.11.1985 under Ex.A1. Ex.A4 is the CC of Registered Sale Deed Bearing

Document No.1155/2005, Dt.23-03-2005, Ex.A5 is the CC of

Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1383/2005, Dt.06- 01-1989, Ex.A6 is the CC of Registered Sale Deed bearing

Document No.4516/2005, Dt.30-08-2005 and Ex.A7 is the CC of

Registered Sale Deed bearing document No. 4517/2005, Dt.30- 08-2005, allegedly executed by the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 having no manner of right to execute the same, since they have no right, title over the property executed by them in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Ex.A8 is the CC of pahanies for the year 1955-58, Ex.A9 is the cc pahanies for the year 1971-1972, Ex.A10 is the cc of pahanies for the year 1973- 1974, Ex.A11 is the cc of pahanies for the year 1987-1988, Ex.A12 is the CC of pahanies for the year 1988-1989, Ex.A13 is the CC of the pahanies for the year 1989-1990. In fact defendant Nos.1 to 3 did not file any written statement, they adopted the written

X ADJ 39 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

statement of defendant Nos 4 to 7 and they have not step into the witness box and denied the contention of the plaintiffs that their documents are not valid documents since their vendor have no valid title. The plaintiff presented a complaint to Police

Commissioner stating that, they have purchased the agricultural land admeasuring Ac 10.11 gts in Sy.No.209 and 213 under registered document No.564 of 1989, one Goverdhan Reddy with the help of unlawful elements trying to dispossess the property with some forged documents as such to take necessary action against him. The said complaint was given by PW1 to PW3 on 26.05.2006 which is marked as Ex.A15. Ex.A14 is application made by the plaintiffs for mutation on which the MRO has given a notice to all plaintiffs and defendants contending that, the case has been taken up for hearing before MRO on 16.06.2006 at 2.00 pm and they were requested to attend before him, which is marked as

Ex.A16. The plaintiffs contended that the said MRO has not taken up and adjourned the matter from time to time as such they made a representation to MRO on 05.07.2006 seeking two weeks time for the respondents by way of filing objections which is marked as

Ex.A17. Ex.A18 is the memo dated 07.01.2009 from MRO office by stating that File No.B/1688/2006 is not traced out, the action taken in the above file will be informed after tracing out the concerned file. But the plaintiffs after issuance of Ex.A18 the said MRO has not taken up the matter and dragged the matter without mutating

X ADJ 40 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

their names in the records. It is for the Revenue Authorities who did the act that they have not taken up the matter in time as such their names were not mutated in the Revenue Records, but in the year 2005 the defendants Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit for injunction in OS

No.1882 of 2005 stating that, they are the owners of the properties and they sought for grant of permanent injunction against the plaintiffs herein in which the plaintiffs have not contested on account of several reasons, as such the said suit was ended in exparte decree and the same was not contested by him. Ex.A19 is the death certificate of Laxmamma, dated 28.03.20090, Ex.A20 is the original death certificate of Bhaskar Reddy, darted 05.01.2009,

Ex.A21 original discharge summary of KIMS Hospital, dated 22.12.2010, Ex.A22 is the CC of decree and Judgment dated 11.08.2010 passed in OS No.1882 of 2005 on the file of VII Addl.

Senior Civil Judge and Ex.A23 sis the original market value

certificate, dated 15.11.2011, Ex.A24 is the original encumbrance certificate of two numbers 1650 and 5167 dated 15.11.2011, issued by Sub- Registrar, Maheshwaram Mandal. The contention of the plaintiff is that, the defendants herein who are the plaintiffs in the said suit have not filed any document to show that they have got valid title over the suit schedule property. The injunction was granted in the said suit based on possession of the property since it is a comprehensive relief sought by the plaintiffs in the said suit.

X ADJ 41 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

12.In order to establish that the plaintiffs have got valid title, they must prove the same by way of oral and documentary evidence. In the instance case, the plaintiff filed certificate dated 13.11.1985, registered sale deed dated 06.1.1989, revenue records pahanies for the year 1955-58. 1971-72, 1973-1974, 1987- 1988, 1988-1989 and 1989-90 i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 clearly disclose that, the plaintiffs and their vendors have clear ownership, title, possession in respect of suit scheduled properties. But the defendants Nos.4 to 7 have not pleaded or placed any documents to show that they got right title or interest over the suit schedule property, they falsely executed documents in favour of defendant

Nos.1 to 3 such as Ex.A4 to Ex.A7 without having any valid title, right and ownership over the suit schedule properties alienated by them under registered sale deed i.e., Ex.A3 to Ex.A7. The defendants failed to establish their right title and ownership over the schedule property executed by them under Ex.A3 to Ex.A7. It is settled proposition of law that no one can convey a better title then what he has. Even if the version of defendants that original pattedhars namely Maddi Laxmamma and Maddi Butcham got only

Ac 40. of lands and revised order given Revenue authorities by conducting denovo trial they have only Ac 40.04 Gts instead of Ac 66.35 gts, even then it will not take away the rights of the plaintiffs since the lands purchased by the plaintiffs is only Ac 10.11 gts.

The document filed by the defendant under Ex.B22 will not prove

X ADJ 42 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

the contention of the defendants since the said certificate itself establishes that, said Maddi Laxmamma, Butchamma are the protected tenants who purchased the property from Kannaiah Lal and they have got issued 38 E Protected Tenant Certificate, as such they have right to sell away the property under ROR Act.

13.The counsel for the plaintiff argued that, mere registration of a document does not confer title, vendors cannot transfer better title that what he possess for which he relied on the decision reported in Tirumala Venkata Reddaiah Chowdary Vs

Potla Krishna Prasad, 2009 (3) ALT 18 , the Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in which the Hon’ble High Court held that, in para 5, “the transactions relating to transfer of immovable property is governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908, while the title capacity of the parties to transfer the property etc are governed by different laws such as Law of Succession, Testamentary or otherwise, etc. The normal understanding of the general public is that once a document is registered under the provisions of the Registration

Act, 1908 they get tittle to the property. But that is not so. The execution of or registration of a document by itself will not create any new title, and the execution of or reintegration of such document covering an immovable property is governed by the

X ADJ 43 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

principle Nemo Dat Quard Non Habet, which means ‘no person can transfer/ pass a better title than what he possesses in the property so transferred’. Given the fact that transfer of an immovable property is governed by this principle, the registering authority when receives a document and registers it, does not decide title of the persons executing the document. Therefore, mere registration of a document will not confer any new title, and in the case of any title disputes arising out of such registration, they are subject to and decided under the provisions of various other laws, governing the transfer of immovable property”.

14.The counsel for the plaintiff also relied on the decision reported in Dr.Yadla Ramesh Naidu Vs. Sub-Registrar,

Sabbavaram, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in which the Hon’ble High Court held that, in para 19 “Section 17 of the Registration Act deals with documents of which registration is compulsory, and inter alia states that the sale of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, has to be registered compulsorily. Therefore, every immovable property, whose value is one hundred and upwards, requires compulsory registration under the Registration Act. Whether mere registration of transfer of such immovable property by execution of a document by the transferor in favour of the transferee, confers title on the

X ADJ 44 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

transferee. The validity or otherwise of transfers of immovable property, are subject to the provisions of the Transfer of Property

Act, 1882. Nemo dat qoud non habit, is the salutary principle enunciated in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which means that no person can pass or transfer a better title in a property than that he possesses therein. Such being the case, and having regard to the fact that the registration of a document by the registration authority under the provisions of the Registration Act, merely records the transaction having taken place between the transferor and the transferee in the jurisdiction of the said registering authority, I am of the considered opinion that such registration by itself will not confer any title or right in the property so transferred on the transferee unless the transferor is the rightful and lawful owner of the property and was competent to transfer the property and has put the transferee in possession of the property, upon executing and registering the document. In that view of the matter, it has to be held that mere registration of a document by the registering authority under the provisions of the Registration Act, does not confer any title”.

15.In the instant case, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 got sale deeds i.e., Ex.A4 to Ex.A7 through defendant Nos. 4 to 7 which are registered sale deeds. But, the defendants failed to file the link documents that the defendant Nos.4 to 7 have got valid title to get

X ADJ 45 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

the registered the land through the sale deeds. With reference to the above citations it is clear that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 mere registration of document i.e., Ex.A4 to Ex.A7 does not confer any valid title through defendant Nos. 4 to 7.

16.The counsel for the plaintiff argued that, the defendant

Nos.1 to 3 obtained sale deeds which are now sort to be declared as null and void, but they have not filed any written statement and only adopted the stand of the defendant Nos.4 to 7. further they also not choose to examine themselves by way of entering into witness box, hence it is clear that, an adverse inference is to be drawn against them for their failure to examine themselves as witness.

17.For which the counsel for the plaintiff relied on the decision reported in Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and others, 1999(3)

SCC 573 it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 17 that “Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and

Anr. . This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v.

X ADJ 46 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

Ajaipal Singh and Ors. AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931)

Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in

Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana

High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand and Ors. , drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box.

18.The counsel for the plaintiff also relied on 1999 (3)

Supreme Court Case 457, Iswar Bhai C. Patel & Bachu Bhai ... vs

Harihar Behera and another, it was held in para 17, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that “adverse presumption must be drawn against the defendant who does not present himself for cross- examination and refused to enter the witness box in order to refute allegations made against him or to support his pleadings in his written statement.

19.In the instant case, defendant Nos.1 to 3 never chose to file written statement, but they simply adopted the written statement filed by defendant No. 4 to 7 and never choose to

X ADJ 47 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

examine themselves to prove their case. Therefore, an adverse inference case can be drawn under Section 114 of Indian Evidence

Act. The above citations on which the plaintiff counsel relied are aptly applicable to this case.

20.It is settled proposition of law that Revenue records will not confer title. In the instant case, defendant Nos. 1 to 7 are relying on the Exs.B1 to B21 are the revenue records in which the father of the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 reflects in revenue records, as such they believe that they have got valid title to execute the sale deeds Ex.A1 to A7 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that, without any proof of title, the claim based on pattedar pass book is not per usable under law and the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 cannot pass on title to the defendant Nos. 4 to 7, for which he relied on the decision reported in State of A.P.

and others Vs. Star Bone Mill and Fertilizers company, 2013

(9) SCC 319, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 7 . Section 90 of the Evidence Act is based on the legal maxims : Nemo dat quid non habet (no one gives what he has not got); and Nemo plus juris tribuit quam ipse habet (no one can bestow or grant a greater right, or a better title than he has himself).

This section does away with the strict rules, as regards requirement of proof, which are enforced in the case of private documents, by giving rise to a presumption of genuineness, in respect of certain documents that have reached a certain age. The

X ADJ 48 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

period is to be reckoned backward from the date of the offering of the document, and not any subsequent date, i.e., the date of decision of suit or appeal. Thus, the said section deals with the admissibility of ancient documents, dispensing with proof as would be required, in the usual course of events in usual manner.

In the above said citation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Supreme Court mentioned in

10. In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors. v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 901, this Court held as under:- “A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act.”

11. In Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander & Ors. & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1165, dealing with the provisions of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, this Court held as under:- “Possession may prima facie raise a presumption of title no one can deny but this presumption can hardly arise when the facts are known. When the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides.”

12. In Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1805, this Court held that :

“Presumption, which is rebuttable, is attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title.”

13. The principle enshrined in Section 110 of the Evidence Act, is based on public policy with the object of preventing persons from committing breach of peace by taking law into their own hands, however good their title over the land in question may be. It is for this purpose, that the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Sections 154 and 158 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, were enacted. All the afore- said provisions have the same object. The said presumption

X ADJ 49 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

is read under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and applies only in a case where there is either no proof, or very little proof of ownership on either side. The maxim “possession follows title” is applicable in cases where proof of actual possession cannot reasonably be expected, for instance, in the case of waste lands, or where nothing is known about possession one-way or another. Presumption of title as a result of possession, can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party. Possession of the plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful, and title of the plaintiff is not proved. It certainly does not mean that because a man has title over some land, he is necessarily in possession of it. It infact means, that if at any time a man with title was in possession of the said property, the law allows the presumption that such possession was in continuation of the title vested in him. A person must establish that he has continued possession of the suit property, while the other side claiming title, must make out a case of trespass/encroachment etc. Where the apparent title is with the plaintiffs, it is incumbent upon the defendant, that in order to displace this claim of apparent title and to establish beneficial title in himself, he must establish by way of satisfactory evidence, circumstances that favour his version. Even, a revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act.

21.The above two citations on which the counsel for the plaintiff relying are aptly applicable to this case.

22.The counsel for the plaintiff further argued that, the defendants failed to discharge their burden by showing that they got title over the property. It is settled principle that, unless there is a registered conveyance from the father of the defendants Nos.4

X ADJ 50 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

to 7 to the defendant Nos. 4 to 7, they cannot have title. For which the counsel for the plaintiff relied on the decision reported in

G.Shyam Lal vs. Eswaraji and others, 2018(4) ALT 343, High

court of Telangan and Andhra Pradesh (at Hyderabad), the

Hon’ble High Court held in para 31 that “ the entries in the revenue

records of municipal tax records cannot support the case of title.

This Court does not seek to repeat the law on the subject, it is so well settled that entries in revenue records, tax receipts are not proof of title”.

23.In the instant case, the defendants filed Ex.B1 to Ex.B21 are the revenue records does not confer any title to the defendant

Nos. 4 to 7 to alienate the property under Ex.sA4 to A7 to defendant Nos. 1 to 3.

24.The counsel for the plaintiffs further argued that, though the plaintiffs are having right, title and interest over the schedule of property, but the defendants Nos. 4 to 7 created a fictitious sale deeds and alienated the property to defendant Nos. 1 to 3.

Moreover the file relating to application made to the office of

Thasildar, Maheswaram Mandal was not traceable as per the endorsement of the Office of Thasildar’s office vide Ex. A15 to

EX.A18. In view of this the plaintiffs have chosed to file the

X ADJ 51 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

present suit for declaration of title, to declare the sale deeds as null l and void and also for Recovery of Possession of the suit schedule property and as per the section 8(2) of ROR Act, 1971, if any dispute arose with regard to the entries in revenue record, the aggrieved party has to approach Civil Court and shall seek appropriate relief of declaration of title.

25.The plaintiffs are relying on the following Judgment in support of their plea, Airabelli Prabhakar Rao Vs. Emmadi

Koteswar and others, 2009(3) APLJ 126, 2010 ALT (Revu)

79, 2009 (5) ALD 97, 2009(6) ALT 35, it was held was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, at para No.20 that “ whenever any party disputes the entry registered in the record of rights, his remedy is only by way of civil suit to declare his right as provided under Section 8(2) of the Act but not otherwise. The only course having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case open to the revision petitioner therefore is only to get his title declared to the property by decree of a competent civil Court and then approach the revenue authorities to register his name in the record of rights. Further basing on the material available on record, the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Joint Collector gave concurrent findings to the effect that the Mandal Revenue Officer issued certificate in favour of the revision petitioner without

X ADJ 52 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

conducting any enquiry and without even issuing notices to the respondents and also that the land in question is the non- agricultural land for which the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass

Books Act, 1971 has no application. Since the findings are based on evidence and strictly in accordance with law, they cannot be assailed in this revision. This Court in exercise of powers of revision under Section 115 C.P.C. or by exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of Constitution of India is not supposed to issue directions to the revenue authorities to make entries in a particular way or to strike out the entries, which were already made. The entries have to be effected only in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 by the revenue authorities. The Act provides a complete mechanism in respect of making entries in the revenue records. When once the order in respect of the entry made in revenue records became final, after confirmation by the Collector by exercising powers under Section 9 of the Act, the only remedy left open to the party aggrieved is to obtain a decree getting his rights declared by a competent civil

Court, as provided under Section 8(2) of the Act.

26.On perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence on record and on perusal of the citation on which the counsel for the plaintiff relied on are aptly application to this case. Further the

X ADJ 53 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

defendants never choose to file any of the citation and also not filed any other documents except Ex.s B1 to Ex.B22. The plaintiff clinchingly establish his case by way of filing oral and documentary evidence as per Ex.A16 and Ex.A18, the revenue authorities never entered the names of the plaintiffs into revenue records and same is kept pending with them till today, the remedy is only left to teh plaintiffs is only filing the suit for declaration. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deeds i.e., Ex.A4 to Ex.A7 and declared them to be null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs since Ex.A2 supports his case.

The defendants failed to establish their case. Therefore, this issue is settled in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Ex.sA4 to Ex.A7 are declared null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

27.ISSUE N o .1:-

In view of the discussion in the above issue, the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title to the schedule property and for possession since they established their case by way of both oral and documentary evidence.

Hence, this issue is settled in favour of the plaintiffs.

X ADJ 54 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

28.ISSUE N o .3:-

In the result, suit is decreed with costs, declaring the plaintiffs as the absolute owners and possessors of the schedule of property and further defendants are directed to hand over possession of the schedule of property to the plaintiffs. Further it is declared that the Regd. Sale deed Doc.No.1155 of 2005, dated 23.03.2005, registered in the Sub-Register Maheshwaram, Regd.

Sale deed No.1383 of 2005, dated 07.04.2005, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Maheswaram Mandal, Sale deed No.4516 of 2005 dated 30.08.2005 registered in the office of Sub Register,

Maheshwaram Mandal as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

Dictated to the Steno on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of August,

2021.

X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Maddi Sobha ReddyDW1 : M.Shiva Prasad Reddy

PW2: M.Vidyasagar Reddy

PW3: M.Srinivas Reddy

PW4: Gatagalla Venkataiah

X ADJ 55 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1:CC of Certificate Date.13-11-1985 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East Division (2 sheets).

Ex.A2:CC of Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.564/1989, Dt.06-01-1989 (5 sheets).

Ex.A3: CC of Encumbrance Certificate, Dt.24-05-2006(1 sheet).

Ex.A4: CC of Registered Sale Deed Bearing Document No.1155/2005, Dt.23-03-2005 (6 sheets)

Ex.A5:CC of Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1383/2005, Dt.06-01-1989 (8 sheets).

Ex.A6:CC of Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.4516/2005, Dt.30-08-2005 (6 sheets).

Ex.A7:CC of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No. 4517/2005, Dt.30-08-2005 (7 sheets).

Ex.A8: CC of Pahani for the Year 1955-58 (2 sheets).

Ex.A9:CC of Pahani for the Year 1971-72 (1 sheet).

Ex.A10: CC of Pahani for the Year 1973-74 (1 sheet). 3 Ex.A11: CC of Pahani for the Year 1987-88 (2 sheets).

Ex.A12: CC of Pahani for the Year 1988-89 (2 sheets).

Ex.A13: CC of Pahani for the Year 1989-90 ( sheet).

Ex.A14:Application, Dt.23-05-2006 made by the plaintiff to MRO, Maheshwaram Mandal (1 sheet)

Ex.A15:Complaint copy Dt.26-05-2006 made by the plaintiffs to the commissioner of police, Cyberabad (1 sheet).

Ex.A16:Original Notice Dt.06-06-2006 issued by the then MRO, Maheshwarammandal in case No.D/1688/06 (1 sheet).

X ADJ 56 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

Ex.A17: Memo of Objection statement made by the plaintiff No.1, Dt.05-07-2006 the then MRO, Maheshwaram Mandal. (1 sheet).

Ex.A18: Original Memo No.B/21/2009, Dt.07-01-2009 issued by the Tahasildar, Maheshwaram Mandal (1 sheet).

Ex.A19: Original Death Certificate of Late M.Laxmamma, Dt.28- 03-2009 issued by the Secretary, Thummalur (V), Maheshwaram Mandal (1 sheet).

Ex.A20: Original Death Certificate of Late M.Bhaskar Reddy, Dt.05-01-2009 issued by the Secretary, Thummalur (V), Maheshwaram Mandal (1 sheet).

Ex.A21: Original Discharge Summary, Dt.22-12-2010 issued by KIMS,Secunderabad (2 sheets).

Ex.A22: CC of Decree and Judgment, Dt.11-08-2010 passed in

OS.No.1882/2005 on the file of VII Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

R.R.District (8 sheets).

Ex.A23: Original Market Valuation Certificate, Dt.15-11-2011 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram Mandal (1 sheet).

Ex.A24:Original Encumbrance Certificate (two) Nos.6015 and 5167, Dt. 15-11-2011 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram Mandal (2sheets).

FOR DEFENDANT S :

EX.B1: CC of Pahani for the year 1965-66 EX.B2: CC of Pahani for the year 1968-69 EX.B3: CC of Pahani for the year 1971-72 EX.B4: CC of Pahani for the year 1975-76 EX.B5: CC of Pahani for the year 1982-83 EX.B6: CC of Pahani for the year 1985-86 EX.B7: CC of Pahani for the year 1986-87 EX.B8: CC of Pahani for the year 1987-88 EX.B9: CC of Pahani for the year 1993-94 EX.B10:CC of Pahani for the year1994-95 EX.B11:CC of Pahani for the year1995-96 EX.B12:CC of Pahani for the year 1998-99 EX.B13:CC of Pahani for the year 2000-2001 EX.B14:CC of Pahani for the year 2001-2002 EX.B15:CC of Pahani for the year 2005-2006

X ADJ 57 of 57

OS No.923 of 2011

EX.B16:CC of Pahani for the year 2006-2007 EX.B17:CC of Pahani for the year 2007-2008 EX.B18:CC of Pahani for the year 2008-2009 EX.B19:CC of Pahani for the year 2010-2011 EX.B20:CC of Pahani for the year 2013-2014 EX.B21:CC of Pahani for the year 2014-2015 Ex.B22: Order dated 02.05.2005 vide RDO , Hyderabad East Division.

X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

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

X ADJ

1 OS 183 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

L.B. NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present: SMT. M.KANAKA DURGA

X Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), L.B. Nagar, R.R. District.

Dated this the 16th day of April, 2021.

O.S. No. 183 of 2011

Between:-

M/s Poshak Feeds Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Ofce and Factory at Turkh Yamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District rep. By its Managing Director Mr. R.C Chadha. ...Plaintif AND

P. Suresh Babu, (Died as per legal Heirs.

1. Smt. P. Renuka Devi, W/o. Late Sri. P. Anjaneyulu, aged 50 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Plot No. 22, H.No.1-104/A, SGR Township, Ragannaguda Village, Sagar Road, R.R. District.

2. P. Subba Rao, S/o. Late Sri. P. Anjaneyulu, aged 32 yrs, Occ: Photographer, R/o. Plot No. 22, H.No.1-104/A, SGR Township, Ragannaguda Village, Sagar Road, R.R. District.

3. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., Ofce at 3rd Floor, Bonsai S.D. Road, Secunderabad. Represented by its Branch Manager.

4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Farteast Plaza, II Floor, 3-6-111/8, Street No. 18, Main Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029. Rep. By its Branch Manager.

5. Central Bank of India, Koti, CBS Branch, Hyderabad. Rep. By its Chief Manager.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before be for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri.CH. Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri. C.L. Kamli, Advocate for the defendant No. 1 and of Sri. L.R. Sridharan, Advocate for the defendant No. 3 and of Sri. V.M. Krishna Reddy, advocate for the defendant No. 4 and the defendants No. 2 and 5 were set ex-parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit fled under Order VII, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintif to pass judgment and decree for recovery of money of Rs.32,25,340/- against the properties of the defendant No. 1, 2 and 5 and the amount due under the policies on the life of the deceased by the defendant No. 3 & 4 and to grant future interest 2 OS 183 of 2011 @ Rs.6% per annum on the principal out-standing amount of Rs.22,25,340/- from the date of suit to till realization and award costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that: The plaintif is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered and factory at

Turkh Yamjal Village – Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District engaged in the business of Manufacturing and sale of Poultry and cattle feeds. The plaintif represented by its Managing Director Mr. R.C Chadha is authorized to represent the plaintif company. Copy of the certifcate of incorporation and Board of Resolution of the plaintif authorizing the Managing Director to fle the suit are fled.

(ii) It is contended that in pursuance of the aforesaid objects, the plaintif has maintained its Bank account with Central Bank of India, CBS Branch, Koti,

Hyderabad i.e. defendant No. 5 herein under Account No. CC. No. 1033303668 so as to receive the payments if any from the suppliers as well as issue cheques for payment through the said bank account etc. It is contended that the Managing

Director of the plaintif company Mr. R.C Chadha and Smt. Saroj Chadha are authorized to operate the said Bank account as either or survivor of the plaintif as its authorized signatory and as part of the same given specimen signature to the Bank for the purpose of releasing payments through the cheques issued from its bank account. Copy of the bank pass book/statement is fled.

(iii) It is contended that the plaintif appointed one Mr. P. Suresh Babu, S/o. P.

Anjaneyulu as its Accountant w.e.f 25-04-2008 who used to look after not only maintaining the plaintif company accounts but also the Bank transaction including the custody of concerned records and he used to reside at Plot No. 22,

H.No.1-104/A, SGR Township, Ragannaguda Village, Sagar Road, R.R. District along with his family i.e. his mother (Defendant) No. 1) and brother (Defendant No. 2) as he remained unmarried. Further the said P. Suresh Babu is the permanent resident of H.No.9-80, 9th Ward, near Clock Tower, Macherla, Guntur District, Andhra

Pradesh. Copy of the letter of appointment of Mr. P. Suresh Kumar as Accountant by the plaintif Company, is fled and his application for job is fled.

3 OS 183 of 2011

(iv) It is contended that while so, the plaintiffs accountant namely Mr. P.

Suresh Babu died in the motor accident on 22-07-2010 leaving behind the defendants 1 & 2 as his sole legal heirs. Copy of the Death certifcate of Mr. P.

Suresh Kumar is fled.

(v) It is contended that on account of the death of Mr. P. Suresh Kumar, the plaintif asked other Account Executive Mr. Y. Subba Rao to look after the accounts work of the company. As usual the plaintif is required to get audit their annual account and as part of the same in August, 2010 the plaintif got audited its accounts/reconciliation of Bank account and shocked to noted on 13-09-2010, the deceased Mr. P. Suresh Babu has drawn certain cheques on behalf of the plaintif in the name of diferent persons by forging the signature of its Managing Director

Mr. R.C. Chadha during the fnancial year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 who are none other than his friends, relatives and his business associates. The details of the cheques forged by the said deceased Mr. P. Suresh Babu from the Bank account of plaintif paid to various persons details in the table given as under:

Sl.ChequeChequeClearingAmountParty nameCheque Deposit No.No.DatedateRs.and Account No. 153133629-04-200905-05-200992,600/- SwethaPNB Secfbad. Infotech 253167923-05-200930-06-20094,62,900/- Chandra SBI, Mouli P.Musarambagh 353195106-08-200911-08-200981,300/- ChandaraSBI Mouli P.Vanasthalipuram 453423902-09-200907-09-20091,02,350/- T.VijayaICICI Bank Ltd., BabuHyderabad. 553454006-11-200911-11-200998,400/- T.VijayaICICI Bank Ltd., BabuHyderabad. 653804206-01-201015-01-20102,66,200/- V. SaidaiahSBI Vanasthalipuram 753848412-03-201017-03-20102,68,480/- V. SaidaiahSBI Vanasthalipuram 853894917-05-201019-05-20104,68,210/- V. SaidaiahSBI Vanasthalipuram 954044710-07-201016-07-20103,84,900/- CocoonzSBI EnterprisesVanasthalipuram

(vi) It is contended that the said amount drawn from the plaintif account by forging the signature on the cheques maintained in the 5th defendant/Central Bank 4 OS 183 of 2011 of India and confrmed benefts in favour of various persons indicated in the above table. The amount of misappropriation of funds of plaintif by the said deceased P.

Suresh Babu with the active collusion of the ofcials of 5th defendant Bank and to confer unjust beneft to the 3rd parties since none of the parties in whofs favour the cheques were drawn, the plaintif is unaware of them and never had any personal or business dealings.

(vii) It is contended that in the said background, the plaintif was left with no option except to lodge the complaint dated 21-09-2010 to the SHO

Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Cyberabad, R.R. District informing the brief facts, forgery and misappropriation of Rs.22,25,340/-. The Station House Ofcer received the said complaint on 25-09-2010 and registered the FIR No. 727/2010, issued the same on 26-09-2010 under Section 408 of IPC for the purpose of investigation. Copy of the complaint and the FIR are fled.

(viii) It is contended that on enquiry, the plaintif came to note that the deceased Mr. P. Suresh Babu while he alive, utilized the misappropriated funds, has obtained the following 3 life insurance policies from defendant No. 3 and one from defendant No. 4 detailed as below:

Sl. Policy No. Nature of PolicyDated No. 113701510Micro Phynical ICICI26-03-2010 213130303Life Time Mixima ICICI28-12-2009 312876658Medical Policy ICICI11-12-2009 4BZ0803822314Vehicle Insurance Policy13-06-2010

(ix) It is contended that the deceased P. Suresh Babu has utilized the misappropriate funds for Rs.10,02,890/- by purchasing land from one Mr. V.

Sadaiah and by paying cash and purchased 110 Hyundai Car with Registration No.

AP 29 BF 8041, covering Insurance Policy No. BZ0803822314, dated 13-06-2010.

(x) It is contended that the defendant No. 1 and 2 being Legal heirs of deceased Mr. P. Suresh Babu have taken steps ;to claim the benefts under said policies and trying to receive mainly from defendant No. 3 & 4. It is in this back ground that on 4-10-2010 the plaintif address letters to the defendant No. 3 & 4 5 OS 183 of 2011 referring the policy numbers brief facts in issue and requested not to entertain any claims/disburse any money due under policy to the legal heirs of the deceased i.e., defendant No. 1 and 2 since the complaint is pending from SHO,

Vanasthalipuram fled by the plaintif and without the consent of the investigation ofcer. The defendant No. 3 and 4 have received acknowledgment the said letters. Copy of the three letters dated 4-10-2010 to the defendant No. 3 and representation dated 4-10-2010 to the defendant No. 4 are fled.

(xi) From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is contended that prima- facie the cheques drawn in the name of plaintif for various amounts in favour of 3rd parties and the cheques drawn and signed by forging the signature of the

Managing Directors of the plaintif (Mr. R.C. Chadha) by Mr. P. Suresh Kumar has established in the investigation by the police having regard to the statement obtained from the concerned bank ofcials of 5th defendant as well as the parties whofs favour the cheques were drawn having verifed the signature on the aforesaid cheques with the specimen signature of the Managing Director of plaintif. The investigating ofcer of the crime has also send the relevant documents/comparison of signature to the Forensic Department, Government of

Andhra Pradesh and the report is awaited.

(xii) It is therefore contended that the acts of collusion/conspiracy of the deceased benefts derived and bank ofcials by wrongfully misappropriated the funds of the plaintif company.

(xiii) Therefore, the plaintif is entitled to recover the misappropriated suit claim from the legal heirs of deceased i.e. defendant No. 1 and 2 and the money due to the deceased from defendant No. 3 to 5 and also from the Estate of the deceased in case any shortfall to the suit claim. Hence, the plaintif is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.22,25,340/- towards misappropriate amount and Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages on account of non utilization of funds and loss of interest, totaling to Rs.32,25,340/- from defendant No. 1 and 2 and 5 and the amount due under the policies on the life of the deceased by the defendant No. 3 and 4.

Therefore, the plaintif company prays the court to pass judgment and decree for 6 OS 183 of 2011 a sum of Rs.32,25,340/- against the properties of the defendant No. 1, 2 and 5 and the amount due under the policies on the life of the deceased by the defendant No. 3 & 4, ii) To grant future interest @ 6% per annum on the principal outstanding amount of Rs.22,25,340/- from the date of suit till realization and costs of the suit.

3.Written statement fled on behalf of defendant No. 1. He contended that the defendant denied all the allegations in the plaint except those that are specifcally admitted hereunder and put the plaintif for strict proof of the same. He admitted that the plaintif is a company is under the Companies Act, 1956, and engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of poultry and cattle feeds. The plaintif company is represented by its Managing Director, Mr. R.C. Chadha who is not authorized person by the Board to represent the case before court of law. Hence, he has no locus standi to represent the plaintiffs company on the ground alone the suit may be dismissed.

(ii) He denied that the plaintif company is having account with the 5th defendant to operate business transactions by the Managing Director, Mr.

R.C.Chadha and Smt. Saroj Chadha, who are authorized to operate the said account to the knowledge of defendant No. 1.

(iii) He admitted that the plaintif company has appointed one Mr. P. Suresh

Babu, S/o. Late P. Anjaneyulu as its accountant w.e.f 25-04-2008, who is younger son of the defendant. He denied that the said P.Suresh Babu used to look after bank transactions including custody of concern records. He admitted that he was appointed as Accountant and did his services with more loyal to the Management till his demise in road accident on 22-7-2010. He denied that P.Suresh Babu was residing along with his family members. He admitted that he is residing alone at

Plot No. 22, H.No.1-104/A, S.G.R. Township, Ragannaguda village, Sagar Road, R.R.

District, his family members are residing in their native place at Mancherla in

Guntur District.

(iv) He admitted that the said Suresh Babu died in the motor accident on 22-7-2012 leaving behind the defendant No. 1 and elder brother as his legal heirs.

7 OS 183 of 2011

He denied that the deceased P.Suresh Babu has drawn entire cheques on behalf of the plaintif in the name of diferent persons by forging the signatures of its

Managing Director during the fnancial year 2009-2010, 2010-2011, who are none other than his friends, relatives and business associates. He denied that the deceased P. Suresh Babu paid the amounts to various persons from the bank account of plaintif (mentioned in the table in para-3(V) of plaint). The mentioned persons in the table are not known to the deceased P. Suresh Babu and the said transactions are nothing to do with the deceased P. Suresh Babu.

(v) He denied that the deceased Sri. P.Suresh Babu has drawn amounts from plaintiffs account by forging the signatures on the cheques and confrmed the benefts in favour of various persons indicated in the table mentioned in para- 3(V) of the plaint and the deceased P.Suresh Babu misappropriated the funds of the plaintif with the collusion of the 5th defendant and confer unjust beneft to the 3rd parties. He admitted that the said deceased P.Suresh Babu has no need to do unjust beneft to the third parties by involving himself in such alleged misdeeds and the said transactions done by the plaintif alone in the process of its business activities and it is not correct that the plaintif is unaware of the alleged third parties (benefciaries) and never had any personal or business dealings.

(vi) He contended that the deceased No. 1 has no knowledge about the complaint dt. 21-09-02010 to the SHO vanasthalipuram P.S, saibarabad and registration of FIR No. 727/2010 under Section 408 of I.P.C.

(vii) He denied that on enquiry, the plaintif came to know that the deceased

Mr. P. Suresh Babu while he alive, utilized the misappropriated funds for obtaining three life insurance policies from defendant No. 3 and 4. He admitted that the said deceased P. Suresh Babu obtained two policies from the 3rd defendant i.e. 1.

Life insurance policy No. 13701510 Micro Phynical ICICI on 26-03-2010 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and its frst premium Rs.50,000/- has been paid on 28-03- 2010. 2. Life Time Maxima ICICI bearing No. 13130303 dt. 28-12-2009 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and its frst premium Rs.30,000/- has been paid on 28-12- 8 OS 183 of 2011 2009. The third policy bearing no. 12876658 dt. 11-12-2008 has obtained for coverage of health for an amount of Rs.5,732.26 ps.

(viii) He admitted that the deceased P. Suresh Babu has purchased 110

Hyundai Car with registration No. AP 29 BF 8041 covering Insurance policy No.

BZO 0803822314 dt. 13-06-2010. The said car purchased by spending all his family members savings for the purpose of to increase the income of the family by giving rental to software company, in order to that the deceased P.Suresh Babu negotiated with the Managing Director of “Software Solutions Ltd.,” for monthly hire basis. Meanwhile, accident was occurred on 22-07-10`0. The insurer of the car i.e., 4th defendant herein has settled the claim and paid to the 1st defendant by cheque bearing No. 043443 drawn on Axis Bank dt. 23-12-2010. The deceased

Suresh Babu purchased the car paying the amounts from savings of his and his family members. He denied that the said Suresh Babu has utilized the misappropriated funds for purchase of the said car or any land from Mr. V.

Saidaiah or any one. He admitted that the said P.Suresh Babu and his legal heirs do not have any landed properties except the house allotted under Rajiv

Swagruha Scheme in Macherla Town in favour of defendant No. 1.

(ix) He admitted that the defendant No. 1 is being the legal heir of deceased P.Suresh Babu has taken steps to claim benefts under said policies.

The 4th defendant has settled claim and paid by cheque dt. 23-12-2010. With regard to Life insured policies from 3rd defendant are pending for settlement and other medical insurance policy claim was settled and paid to the 1st defendant vide cheque bearing No. 044456 dt. 19-11-2010 for an amount of Rs.5,732.26 p.s.

He admitted that 3rd defendant has not settled the claim made by the defendant

No. 1. The plaintif has no right either to attach or to claim the amounts under Life insured policies of the deceased.

(x) He denied that late P.Suresh Babu forged the signatures of Managing

Director of the plaintif and drawn the cheques in favour of 3rd parties. The said allegation is not based on any material. The said P.Suresh Babu was very honest and sincere and has discharged his duties in a committed manner, is not looking 9 OS 183 of 2011 after any transactions with the bank and he has no knowledge and about the alleged misappropriation. He denied that the deceased and the ofcials of the 5th respondent colluded and misappropriated the funds of the plaintif. The alleged fraudulent transactions were made by the plaintif company in the process of its business only.

(xi)The plaintif is not having any locus standi to claim the amounts against the legal heirs of the deceased P. Suresh Babu to recover the alleged misappropriated amounts. The Life Insured amount will be automatically devolved on the estate of the nominee and it is an independent transaction which is nothing to do with the plaintif. Hence, the plaintif is not entitled to claim a sum of Rs.22,25,340/- towards the misappropriate amounts and Rs.10,00,000/- towards the damages on account of non-utilization of funds and loss of interest totaling Rs.32,25,340/- from defendant No. 1, 2 and 5 is not liable to pay the suit claim.

(xii) There is no cause of action for fling the suit against 1st defendant. The plaintif has not come to the court with clean hands and the plaintif is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the plaint.

(xiii) It is contended that unless an accrued legal right for recovery, the plaintif cannot recover any amounts from the legal heirs of the deceased P.

Suresh Babu. All the transactions mentioned in the plaint are not concerned to the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 came to know that all the alleged transactions mentioned in para-3(v) of plaint are in relating to the plaintiffs business transactions only. There were no personal transactions in between the plaintif and the deceased. Whatever the transactions have taken place in the account of plaintif, are to be considered as its business transactions only, hence the personal liability cannot be attributed. The plaintif company has not taken any steps about the alleged misappropriation during the life time of deceased employee. After his death the plaintif company has made the frivolous allegations against the deceased P.Suresh Babu and has fled the present suit for 10 OS 183 of 2011 that the reasons best known to the management of plaintif company. The present suit is fled on frivolous allegations to harass the defendant No.1, which is nothing but causing mental agony and inconvenience to the defendant No. 1. Hence, it is a ft case to award damages in favour of the defendant No. 1 and she is reserving her right to fle a separate suit for damages against the plaintif.

(xiv) It is further stated that no properties have been inherited from the deceased to defendant No. 1, to the knowledge of the defendant No. 1 there are no debts or any amounts payable by the deceased P.Suresh Babu either to plaintif or to anybody in the connection with any transaction including the claim made in the plaint. Unless the liability of the deceased is established in his personal capacity the properties are being succeed by the legal heirs, the plaintif is not entitled to make any claim against the defendant No. 1

(xv)It is further stated that the life has been insured with the 3rd defendant for the beneft of his nominee in the event of unforeseen death. Therefore, the beneft of insurance policies are exclusive property of the nominee only. No claim can be entertained against the insurer. It is an independent transaction.

(xvi) The plaintif has not made the benefciaries in the alleged misappropriation as parties to the suit, where the specifc allegations are made against them and hence the suit itself is misconceived for non-joinder of the necessary parties on the ground alone it can be dismissed. There is no cause of action to fle the present suit. Hence, the plaintif is not entitled for the relief as prayed in the plaint.

Hence, in the above facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed this court may be pleased to dismiss the above suit with exemplary costs.

4.Written statement fled on behalf of defendant No. 3. He contended that

M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited is an Indian Insurance

Company registered under Section 3 of the Insurance Act, 1938 having its registered ofce at ICICI Prudential Life Towers, 1089 Appa Saheb Marathe Marg,

Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 carrying inter-alia business of life insurance and has established its branches countrywide. The following facts shall demonstrate 11 OS 183 of 2011 the details and the information pertaining to the Policies bearing No. 13130303, 13701510 and 12876658, which are necessary for this court to adjudicate the issue pending adjudication.

(a) The defendant No. 3 received three proposal forms duly fled and signed by P. Suresh Babu (hereinafter referred as “Life Assured”) seeking insurance on his life and health plan mentioned below. The complete details of the subject policies are enumerated in the table below:

Proposal FormHS00564199LL36742952LL34741609

No. Policy No.128766581370151013130303 PlanICICI PRU HEALTHU64 ICICI PruU64 ICICI Pru Life

SAVER (U56)PinnacleTime Maxima Proposal12-11-200924-03-201026-12-2009

Received Date Premium10000.00vide50000.00 on 26-30000.00vide

Amountanddemanddraft03-2010 by cash.D.D. No. 140306 detailsof363160 on 12-11-on 26-12-2009 payment2009 FrequencyYearlyYearlyYearly Sum AssuredRs.2,00,000/-2,50,000/-3,00,000/-

Annual Limit) NomineeRenuka Devi. P.RenukaDeviRenuka Devi P (Wife)(Wife)(Wife)

(b) On the basis of the information provided in the above proposal forms and other documents received and considering it to be true and correct in all aspects policies bearing Nos. 12876658, 13701510 and 13130303 were issued on 28-12- 2009, 14-11-2009 and 14-11-2009 respectively in favour of the Life Assured.

Copies of the policy certifcates under the subject policies are collectively marked as Annexure D3-2.

(c) In all the above policies, the Life Assured nominated Renuka Devi, his

Wife as “Nominee”.

12 OS 183 of 2011

(d) The defendant No. 3 received only the frst premium payments at the time of issuing the subject policies and no renewal premiums were received for any of the policies thereafter.

(e) The Life Assured was reported to have died on 22-07-2010 and hence

Ms. Renuka Devi being the wife/nominee of the deceased LA, has submitted the death claim intimation cum Claimantfs statement forms under the subject Policies, which were received by the defendant on 30-10-2010. In the said claim statement forms, the defendant No. 1/wife of the deceased Life Assured sought for the claim benefts payable under the subject policies. Copies of the Claim

Statement forms under the subject policies are marked as Annexure D3-3.

(f) The defendant after the receipt of the death intimation of the Life

Assured acted earnestly and registered the death of the Life Assured. It is further contended that the defendant acted in accordance with the rules and regulations as specifed in the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of

Policy Holderfs Interests) Regulations, 2002 and with an earnest intention that the subject policies were procured by the deceased Life Assured with genuine funds and hence initiated the claim process.

(g) Pursuant to the receipt of the Claim Statement, the defendant duly processed the claim request of the claimant and duly informed the Claimant about the payment details pertaining to the claims beneft under the subject Policies.

The details are as under:

Policy No.Beneft AmountPlan 13705102,50,000/-(sumU63ICICIPru

Assured)Pinnacle 128766585,732/-ICICI Pru Health

Saver 131393933,00,000/-(SumICICI Pru Life Time

Assured)Maxima

(h) It is contended that before the defendant could fnally send the payment to the claimants, the defendant received an ad-interim ex-parte order from this court restraining the defendant from disbursing the claim amount to the 13 OS 183 of 2011 claimants. Hence, the defendant soon after receipt of the said order has forthwith stopped the pay out process.

II. The defendant has also received summons to appear before this court in a civil suit for recovery of money fled by M/s. Pushak Feeds. From a perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plaintif has fled the present suit alleging therein that the funds/monies used under the subject policies belong to the plaintif and the same were misappropriated by the deceased Life Assured and hence used in buying the subject policies.

III. It is contended that the defendant is running the insurance business in accordance with the procedure established by law and strictly follows the norms and regulations established by IRDA. It is germane to mention at this juncture that the case had actually taken a diferent turn and the matter was exacerbated regarding the fraudulent procurement of the subject policies by the deceased Life

Assured. At this juncture and on the basis of the averment mentioned in the present suit, the defendant belabours the following submissions which are of paramount importance for this court to consider at the time of passing any order:

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

It is contended before this court that the insurance policy is a contract between the Insurer and the insured which involves consideration in the form of premium amount. In the instant case, the consideration amount which was used for procurement of the subject policies by the Life Assured is challenged by the

Plaintif on the account of the alleged misappropriation of funds by the deceased

Life Assured. In such a situation, if this court upholds the contention of the plaintif, it would be established that the deceased insured has misappropriated the funds which allegedly belonged to the plaintif. Hence, the subject contracts would be null and void ab-intio. Thus, the defendant contends that in such circumstances, the defendant is only liable to refund the premium under the subject policies to the plaintif and not the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

14 OS 183 of 2011

It is contended that the subject policies were issued in the name of the deceased Life Assured and not the plaintif. Hence, no death beneft is payable to the plaintif under the policy bearing No. 13701510 and 13130303.

Reply On merits:

Before replying on the merits of the case, the contents of brief facts of the

case and the preliminary contention shall be related as part and parcel in response to the respective paras and anything contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith are wrong and denied and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

The contents in Paras I, II, III, IV and V are denied due to want of knowledge,.

Moreover, the same do not pertain to the defendant. Hence, the same are denied in toto. However, with regard to the payment for procurement of the subject policies are concerned, details of the payments received by the defendant are given below:

Policy No.128766581370151013130303 Premium10000.00vide50000.00on30000.00vide

Amountanddemanddraft26-03-2010byD.D No.140306 on detailsof363160 on 12-11-cash26-12-2009 payment2009

The contents of para VI are wrong and denied for want of knowledge.

3. That save and except the matters of record, the contents of Para VII are wrong and denied.

IV. That the contents in Para VIII are admitted with respect to issuance of frst three policies by the defendant as mentioned in the table supra. The complete details of the policies are mentioned below:

Proposal FormHS00564199LL36742952LL34741609

No. Policy No.128766581370151013130303 PlanICICI PRU HEALTHU63 ICICI PruU64 ICICI Pru Life

SAVER (u56)PinnacleTime Maxima Proposal12-11-200924-03-201026-12-2009

Received Date 15 OS 183 of 2011

FrequencyYearlyYearlyYearly Sum AssuredRs.2,00,000/-2,50,000/-3,00,000/- (Annual Limit) NomineeRenuka Devi. P.RenukaDeviRenuka Devi, P.

(Wife)(Wife)(Wife)

V.The contents in para IX are wrong and denied for want of knowledge.

VI.That save and except the matters of record, the contents of Para X are wrong and denied for want of knowledge. However, it is contended that the defendant received the death claim statement from the defendant No.1. Further, it is submitted that the defendant was in receipt of the letter of the plaintif informing about the alleged misappropriation of the fund by the deceased, Mr. P.

Suresh Babu.

VII.The contents of Para 4 of the plaint are wrong and denied for want of knowledge and hence need no reply from the defendant. However, it is contended that the amount under the subject policies would be payable by defendant to the plaintif only if this court upholds the contentions of the plaintif and in such a situation, the defendant will only refund the premium amount which was received at the time of procurement of the policy and the same is under challenge in the instant suit. Further, it is denied that the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim with future interest.

VIII. The para 5 of the plaint are denied due to want of knowledge and hence needs no answer. The averments under the concerned para are not against the defendant and hence need no answer. Further, it is denied that the cause of action arises in favour of the plaintif by sending the letter to the defendant to withhold the amounts paid since the defendant has not disbursed any payment to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

IX.The contents of para are matters of record and the para 7 is disputed and denied as the value of the suit amount is disputed and denied.

The contents in para 8 are wrong and denied as the plaintif is only entitled for the refund of premium, if this court upholds the contention of the plaintif.

Proposal Received 16 OS 183 of 2011

5.Written statement fled by defendant No. 4. He contends that all the material allegations made in the above suit are false and the suit is not maintainable either on facts or in law against the defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs against this defendant.

(ii) This defendant does not admit and denies all the allegations made in the plaint and the plaintif is put to strict proof of all the allegations except those, which are specifcally admitted hereunder:

(iii) The defendant does not aware of most of the averments and allegations made by the plaintif against the deceased P. Suresh Babu and the defendant No.

1 to 3 & 5 to the above suit and further those allegations are no way concerned to the defendant and as such, there is no need to answer to those allegations. But this defendant admits that the said P. Suresh Babu when he was alive insured his

Car bearing No. AP 29 BF 8041 with this defendant No. 4 under the Insurance

Policy vide Policy No. OG-10-1831-1818-00000265 for the period from 23-07-2009 to 22-07-2010 and the said Policy covered O.D. Personal Accident beneft as well as Third Parties, subject to the terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof.

(iv) The defendant No. 4 further contends that the Insured P. Suresh Babu died in a Motor Accident on 22-07-2010 leaving behind him the defendant No. 1 &

2. After the death of the said P. Suresh Babu his legal heir defendant No. 1 herein placed claim of O.D as well as Personal Accident Beneft under the above said

Policy. After the enquiry, this defendant company approved the claims of the defendant No. 1 subject to the terms and conditions of the subject policy and paid to the defendant No. 1 an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- vide Cheque No. 043443 dated 10-12-2010 towards personal Accident Beneft and an amount of Rs.1,11,500/- vide Cheque No. 043442 towards Own Damage claim of the car, totaling a sum of

Rs.3,11,500/-. The said two cheques were received by the defendant No. 1 from this defendant towards full and fnal discharge of the above claims under the subject policy on 21-12-2010 and to that efect the defendant No. 1 also acknowledged the receipt of the same.

17 OS 183 of 2011 v. The defendant soon after the claim intimation acted earnestly and with utmost good faith to meet up the obligations as laid down in accordance with the rules and regulations as specifed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development

Authority and hence initiated the claim process. The defendant denies the receipt of any letters from the afore mentioned plaintif, hence denied.

vi. This defendant further contends that the averments mentioned in sub para viii of para 3 of the plaint regarding the details of the policy obtained by P.

Suresh Babu from this defendant are incorrect and as such this defendant is denying the same by putting the plaintif to the strict proof of the same.

vii. This defendant further contends that the claim benefts under the said subject policy were paid by this defendant No. 4 company to the defendant No. 1 as per the procedure laid down by law even prior to fling the subject suit and moreover there was no Court Order was pending restraining this defendant to disburse the monitory benefts under the subject policy to the defendant No. 1 and as such the present suit and the relief prayed in the suit against this defendant No. 4 is not maintainable as there is no cause of action arose against this defendant to fle the present suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed against this defendant No. 4.

viii. In addition to above mentioned averments, the defendant contends

before this court that the insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and

the insured which involves consideration as premium amount. In the instant matter, as alleged in the plaint if the consideration amount was used for the purchase of the said Hyundai Car with Regn. No. AP 29 BF 8041, which in turn was insured therein with this defendant by way of consideration in the time of premium of Rs.10,507/-. In such a situation, if this court upholds the contention of the plaintif, then it would be established the deceased insured has misappropriated the funds which alleged belonging to the afore mentioned plaintif. Hence, the said insurance would be null and void contract due to fraud and misappropriation committed by the deceased. Thereby, even though the defendant has acted up in due course to meet up its claim requirements. He 18 OS 183 of 2011 contends that in such circumstances, a direction may be passed by this court to refund the said amount of Rs.3,11,500/- which has been duly paid by the defendant to nominees of the deceased insured i.e. defendant No. 1 and 2 out of utmost good faith.

ix. The defendant reserves it right to amend its written statement at any stage of the case, as and when some new facts come to our knowledge.

In view of the above facts, this defendant No. 4 prayed that may be pleased to dismiss the above suit against this defendant No. 4 with costs. Otherwise the defendant company will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

5.Basing on the above averments, the following issues have been framed.

I. Whether one P. Suresh Babu has drawn some cheques on behalf of the plaintif company by of forgery of the signature of Managing Director of the plaintif company during the fnancial year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011?

II. Whether Defendant No.5 is liable for the suit claim jointly and severally along with other defendants?

III. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit claim from the monies payable by the defendants 3 & 4 on account of the death of P. Suresh

Babu?

IV. Whether the plaintif is entitled for damages from defendants 1, 2 and 5?

V. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the estate of the deceased P. Suresh Babu?

VI. Whether the plaintif is entitled for suit claim?

VII. To what relief?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES:

I. Whether late P. Suresh Babu has misappropriated the funds by forging the signature of Managing Director of Plaintif Company during the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011?

19 OS 183 of 2011

II. Whether by utilizing the misappropriated funds, Late P. Suresh Babu obtained insurance from defendant No. 4?

III. Whether Late P. Suresh Babu has by utilizing the funds allegedly misappropriateed, purchased land from V. Sadaiah?

IV. Whether Late P. Suresh Babu has utilized the misappropriated funds and purchased Hyundai Car bearing Registration No. AP 29 BF 8041?

V. Whether plaintif is entitled for recovery of Rs.22,25,340/- against the properties of defendant No. 1 to 5 and the amount due under policies of the life of the deceased Late P. Suresh Babu by defendant No. 3 and 4?

VI. To what relief?

ISSUE NO. I:

Whether one P. Suresh Babu has drawn some cheques on behalf of the plaintif company by way of forgery of the signature of Managing Director of the plaintif company during the fnancial year 2009-10 and 2010-11?

ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO. I:

Whether late P. Suresh Babu by forging the signatures of Managing Director of plaintif company during the year 2009-10-2010-11?

(i) To substantiate the plea of the plaintif, plaintif herself examined as PW 1 on her behalf Ex. A1 to A12 marked. Ex. A1 Is attested copy of corporation certifcate, Ex. A2 is true copy of Board resolutions, Ex. A3 is bank statements of 2009-10 and 2010-11, Ex. A4 is ofce copy of appointment letter of deceased P.

Suresh Babu dated 22-04-2008, Ex. A5 is Certifed copy of death certifcate, Ex.

A6 ofce copy of complaint given to police, Ex. A7 is letter dated 4-10-2010 of D3,

Ex. A8 is letter dated 4-10-2010 of D3, Ex. A9 is letter dated 4-10-2010 of D3, Ex.

A10 is letter dated 4-10-2010 of D3, Ex. A11 is certifed copy of charge sheet, Ex.

A12 is FSL report.

(ii) Now it is to see whether the company has given cheque power to the deceased accountant to issue cheques in lieu of the business transactions on behalf of the company. If so, the plaintif has to fle a letter of authorization authorizing the deceased to issue cheques in favour of the persons as directed by 20 OS 183 of 2011 the company of Board of Directors. Whether the said letter fled by the plaintif or not it is to see?

(iii) The PW 1 V. Krishna Kumar was authorized by the plaintif company to initiate action against deceased Suresh Babu under both in civil and criminal cases and to recover the amounts from the estate of the deceased/from the insurance amount. Ex. A2 is authorization letter given by the company by passing resolution in favour of PW 1 for fling this case on behalf of the company and also to give evidence on behalf of the company. He categorically reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint in his chief afdavit. In support of his contention he marked Ex. A1 to A12 to substantiate the case against the deceased Suresh Babu.

The burden lies on the plaintif to establish that the deceased Suresh Babu was appointed as an accountant and he was to look after the afairs of the company.

The appointment letter fled by the plaintif did not contain that he was authorized to issue cheques on behalf of the company with his signatures. PW 1 in his cross examination categorically stated that the cheques issued by the company with the signatures of managing director but not by any body else. But the contention of the plaintif is that the said Suresh Babu forged the signatures of Managing

Director and misappropriated the amounts by presenting the cheques to the banks into various accounts belonged to friends of Suresh Babu as well as his family members. But the plaintif did not fle any of the accounts in which the said transactions was done by Suresh Babu belonged to the members of the family as well as relatives. The plaintif company is registered company incorporated under companies act. Therefore, the company accounts usually audited every year but in the instance case no audit report fled by the plaintif to establish the said fact.

Moreover, the accounts such as ledgers and other fnancial transaction books and accounts were not fled to show that said Suresh Babu misappropriated the accounts by way forging the cheques. Ex. A12 FSL report in which the expert has mentioned “The person who wrote the red enclosed signature as marked S1 to

S23 did not write the red enclosed signatures marked Q1 to Q12. The FSL report it seems that the signatures are not tallied with P. Suresh Babu. In order to establish 21 OS 183 of 2011 the misappropriation is concerned the burden lies on the plaintif to prove the same with oral and documentary evidence as per Indian Evidence Act, Section 104 the ‘burden of prooff is based on the ‘coincumbentf Prabario, quidicit, non que negat—the burden of proving of a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the afrmative of the issue not upon the party who denies it. The issue must be proved by the party who asserts it and not by party who denies it.

(iv) The doctrine of onus probandi applies to a situation in which the mind of the judge determining the suit is left in doubt as to the point on which side the balance should fall informing a conclusion. The question of burden of proof may also assume importance where no evidence at all is led on the question in dispute by either side. In such a contingency, the party on whom the onus lies to prove certain fact must fail. Where, however, evidence has been led by the contesting parties on the question in issue, abstract considerations of onus are out of place.

In the instant case, the plaintif neither examined anybody on his behalf i.e., either by co-employee of the company or Managing Director or Chartered

Accountant of the company to establish that certain alleged amounts of

Rs.22,25,340/- (Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Forty

Only) was misappropriated by the deceased Suresh Babu as such he failed to establish the fact in issue.

(v) The onus of proof is not discharged by producing evidence which is just as consistent with the allegation of the party on whom the onus of proof lies with the denial of the opponent. In the instant case the alleged misappropriation was done by deceased Suresh Babu is no more and the suit is fled after his death.

The said Suresh Babu was died on 22-07-2010. The suit fled on 7-04-2011 i.e. 9 months after the death of the deceased against the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. defendant No. 1 is mother, defendant No. 2 is brother. Further PW 1 except documents Ex. A1 to A12 none of the documents such as Auditing reports, ledgers, bank statements of the friends and relatives of the deceased to show that the cheques allegedly forged by Suresh Babu and transfer the alleged amounts into the company accounts belonged to company to a tune of Rs.22,25,340/- 22 OS 183 of 2011 (Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Only). Further the plaintif alleges that the said deceased Suresh Babu purchased a house site worth of Rs.10,02,890/- from one V. Sadaiah but no documentary evidence on record to prove the same.

(vi) Where the best evidence has not been produced by a party adverse inference may be drawn against him even though the burden of proof lay on the other party. There is an essential diference between burden of proof and onus of proof. Burden of proof lies on the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts. But the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence.

(vii) The burden lies on the plaintif to establish that the defendant misappropriated the amounts while he was working as an accountant. The initial burden lies on the plaintif who asks for accounts to show that the deceased liable to pay the amounts as not discharged his burden in regard to sum of money that has come into his accounts. In the instance case neither the plaintif did not produce any sort of accounts before the contra to show that the deceased how he misappropriated the amounts for which he can claim amounts from the estate of the deceased through his legal heirs, are succeeding the properties of deceased.

(viii) Whether the said amounts are genuine or not? The entries regular are to be taken correct and the burden of other party to show that the entries are fctitious.

(ix) Moreover, the plaintif has to sent the signatures allegedly forced by the account as to be sent to Forensic Scientifc Laboratory for expert opinion but there is no instance since the accountant is no more. As per Section 104 of Indian

Evidence Act.

(x) The business transactions run by the company must be audited every year in which the monetary transactions is to be corrected and deducted if any misappropriation and the company is properly audited every year. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased Mr. P. Suresh Babu credited the 23 OS 183 of 2011 company amounts by way of cheques to diferent accounts of his friends and relatives by way issuing forged cheques. If really he did so, it would refect in the accounts of his friends and relatives by way of cheque number in the statement given by the banks. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased P. Sruresh Babu had obtained policies from defendants 3 to 5 by misappropriating the company amounts. No documents fled to show the same.

PW 1 categorically admitted that she has not fle any document to show that the deceased P. Suresh Babu paid premium to defendant No. 4 by misappropriating the funds of plaintif. Further admitted that as per bank statement i.e. Ex. A3 the amounts of Rs.10,507/- towards premium to defendant No. 4 was not refected in

Ex. A3. PW 1 further admitted the plaintif company not made the parties in the suit to whom serial No. 1 to 9 cheques were issued to the third parties mentioned in the plaint. It is necessary on the part of the plaintif that to add the parties to whom the cheques were allegedly issued by the deceased in the suit for recovery of the said amounts under the cheques allegedly issued by the deceased Suresh

Babu. Further admitted that defendant No. 1 who is mother of the deceased is no way connected with this case. It is clearly admitted that the documents fled by the plaintif company no way connected with defendant No. 1. She further admitted that she do not know how much amount was misappropriated. Further she has not fled any document to show that the deceased has colluded with defendant No. 5 in misappropriation of funds except fling police case. As per the evidence of PW 1 there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the deceased Suresh Babu misappropriated the amounts except bank statement fled by the plaintif company which was not compared with on any ledger of the company amounts and also the cheques allegedly issued by the deceased D.

Suresh Babu.

(xi) The deceased allegedly purchased house plot from one V. Sadaiah by paying Rs.10,02,890/- through cheques. The said Sadaiah was not made a party in the suit for for recovery of the amount of Rs.10 lakhs allegedly issued by the deceased Suresh Babu by misappropriating company amounts. There is no 24 OS 183 of 2011 evidence on record to show that allegedly amount paid by Suresh Babu as misappropriating the amounts of the company.

In support of the contention of the plaintif did not examine Managing

Director of the company and also the other employees of the company along with documentary proof to establish that the deceased Suresh Babu allegedly misappropriated the amounts of Rs.22,25,340/-. The burden is on the plaintif to establish his plea against the defendant that the deceased Suresh Babu allegedly misappropriated the amounts by way of forging cheques amount of Rs.22,25,340/- (Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Only). There is no oral and documentary evidence on record to show that the deceased Suresh

Babu had taken polices out of the companies amounts by way of issuing cheques.

With the above discussion, on perusal of both oral and documentary evidence on record the plaintif failed to establish the misappropriation allegedly took place during the tenure of the deceased Suresh Babu and the same was not established either by oral evidence or by documentary evidence.

5.On behalf of defendant DW 1 (mother) was examined, she categorically stated that she do not know her deceased son obtained polices from ICICI Life

Insurance Company and also Bajaj Allience Insurance Company on the car purchased by him and she received the amounts from ICICI Life Insurance

Company and Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company as a legal heir of the deceased P.

Suresh Babu. Further she stated that she fled case before the Consumer Forum claiming the insurance amounts belonging to his deceased son P. Suresh Babu from ICICI Prudential Insurance Company. The Consumer Forum ordered to pay the

Insured amount to DW 1 who is none other than the mother of the deceased and awarded an amount of Rs.5,15,000/-. She further shows that the deceased Suresh

Babu had not movable and immovable properties on his name. Similarly her husband had no properties acquired by him during his life time. On behalf of defendant No. 4 examined as DW 2 his Senior Executive of Bajaj Alliance. He categorically stated that during his chief examination the deceased Suresh Babu obtained insurance over his car bearing No. AP 29 BF 8024vide Insurance police 25 OS 183 of 2011

No. 4G 10-1831 1818 – 00000265 for the period from 02-03-2009 to 22-07-2010 and the said policy covered with O.D personal accident policy as well as third parties subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. After death of the deceased Suresh Babu, the company paid an amount of Rs.3,11,500/- to the defendant No. 1 as legal heir of the deceased Suresh Babu. The present suit is not maintainable against the company. There is no contract between the plaintif and the defendant company. The entire cross examination of DW 2 relating to payment made to the legal heirs of the deceased Suresh Babu as per the rules of

Insurance Company.

6.Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintif with regard to misappropriation of an amount of Rs.22,25,340 by forging the signatures of Managing Director of the plaintif company. Therefore, this issue is answered against the plaintif.

7.ISSUES NO. II & III:

II. Whether D5 is liable for the suit claim jointly and severally along with other defendants?

III. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit claim from the monies payable by the defendants 3 & 4 on account of the death of P. Suresh Babu?

8.ADDITIONAL ISSUES NO. II TO IV:

II. Whether by utilizing the misappropriated funds, Late P. Suresh Babu obtained insurance from defendant No. 4?

III. Whether Late P. Suresh Babu has utilized the misappropriated funds and purchased Hyundai Car bearing Registration No. AP 29 BF 8041?

IV. Whether Late P. Suresh Babu has utilized the misappropriated funds and purchased Hyundai Car bearing Registration No. AP 29 BF 8041?

9.To answer the above issues, in view of the discussions mentioned above, the plaintif company miserably failed to establish the misappropriation that was allegedly taken place by the deceased Suresh Babu and utilized the funds for the 26 OS 183 of 2011 purpose of purchasing car, house site and also obtained Life Insurance policy from ICICI and also obtained Bajaj Insurance on the said car bearing No. AP 29 BF 8041. Hence, these issues are also answered against the plaintif.

10.ISSUES NO. V & VI:

Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the estate of the deceased?

Whether the plaintif is entitled to suit claim?

11.ADDITIONAL ISSUE: V:

Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of Rs.22,25,340/- against the properties of defendant No. 1 to 5 and the amount due under policies of the life of the deceased late P. Suresh Babu by defendant Nos. 3 and 4?

The plaintif failed to establish the misappropriation of the amounts is not liable to recover any of the amounts from the legal heirs of the deceased nor from the estate of the deceased. This is not a pious debt to recover the amount. The plaintif must establish the misappropriation allegedly took place during life time of the deceased with oral and documentary evidence. As such he is not entitled to claim any of the amounts from D1 to D5. Therefore, these two issues answered accordingly.

12.ISSUE NO. IV:

Whether the plaintif is entitled for damages from defendants No. 1, 2 and 5? since there is no fduciary relationship between defendant No. 1, 2 and 5 the plaintif is not entitled to claim damages from them. Moreover, the misappropriation of alleged amounts of Rs.22,25,340/- from the company by forging the signatures of Managing Directors of the company.

13.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

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

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

X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

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

27 OS 183 of 2011

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW 1: V. Krishna Kumar - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex. A1 is attested copy of the certifcate of incorporation along with Memorandum of Articles of Association.

Ex. A2 is the certifed true copy of the Board resolution of the plaintif company

dated 4-5-2018.

Ex. A3 is the certifed copy of the Bank statement of the plaintif company for the year 2009-2010-2011.

Ex. A4 is the ofce copy of the letter of appointment letter dated 22-04-2008 of deceased P. Suresh babu.

Ex. A5 is the certifed copy of the Death certifcate dated 22-07-2010 of the deceased P. Suresh Babu.

Ex. A6 is the ofce copy of the complaint dated 21-09-2010 of the plaintif to SHO,

Vanashalipuram.

Ex. A7 is the letter dated 4-10-2010 of the plaintif to defendant No. 3.

Ex. A8 is the letter dated 4-10-2010 of the plaintif to defendant No. 3.

Ex. A9 is the letter dated 4-10-2010 of the plaintif to defendant No. 3.

Ex. A10 is the letter dated 4-10-2010 of the plaintif to defendant No. 4.

Ex. A11 is the certifed copy of the charge sheet of PS Vanasthalipuram.

Ex. A12 is the certifed copy of the report of A.P Forensic Science Laboratories,

Red Hills, Hyderabad.

FOR DEFENDANTS: - N I l -

X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

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

1 OS 1126 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

L.B. NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present: SMT. M. KANAKA DURGA

X Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), L.B. Nagar, R.R. District.

Dated this the 22nd Day of April, 2021.

O.S. No. 1126 of 2014

Between:-

1. Bachhraj Baid (HUF), being rep. By Mr. Bachhraj Baid as Kartha, S/o. Hansraj Baid, aged 64 yrs, Occ: Business, C/o. Birdhichand Pannalal, H.B. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati – 781 001, Assam.

2. Sunil Kumar Baid, S/o. Narendra Kumar Baid, Aged 34 yrs, Occ: Business, C/o. Birdhichand Pannalal, H.B. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati – 781 001, Assam.

...Plaintifs AND

1. Mahipal Chand Bhandari, S/o. Late Suparas Chand Bhandari, Aged about 59 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 263, Snehapuri Colony, S.R.K. Puram, Hyderabad.

2. Bainod Chand Bhandari, S/o. Late Suparas Chand Bhandari, Aged about 56 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. A.T. Road, Jorhat, Assam.

3. Puspa Devi Bhandari, W/o. Late Suparas Chand Bhandari, Aged about 73 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Plot No. 263, Snehpuri Colony, S.R.K. Puram, Hyderabad.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri. T. Natraj, Advocate for the plaintifs and of Sri.G.Saikanth Goud, the defendants 1 to 3 were set Ex-parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintifs fled the suit under Order VII Rules 1 and 2 for recovery of an amount of Rs.23,19,323.75 to direct the defendants jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.16,52,215/- to the frst plaintif and an amount of Rs.6,67,107/- to the second plaintif total amounting to Rs.23,19,322/- along with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of fling of the suit till the date of repayment and costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: The plaintifs are the partners of M/s. Manoj Marbles along with the defendants having entered into a 2 OS 1126 of 2014 partnership business through a partnership deed dated 03-07-2000. the said partnership frm was constituted at Hyderabad and the business was to be conducted at Plot No. 7, Sai Nagar Colony, Ring Road, Nagole, R.R. District. The plaintifs held 25% stake each in the said partnership frm. The plaintifs are residents of Guwahati, Assam. The plaintifs were introduced to the defendants through common friends and relatives who stay at Hyderabad and are in the similar line of business. Believing the promises and assurances given by the defendants, the plaintifs entered into the partnership and invested huge sums of money.

(ii) It is contended that after a while, the plaintifs realized that the defendants are not true to their promises and are conducting the business operations of their partnership frm contrary to the interests of the partners and contrary to the interests of the common good of the partners and partnership frm.

(iii) It is contended that after realizing that the defendants have resorted to illegal withdrawals in the form of cash and when they refused to share the details of the accounts with the plaintifs, the plaintifs realizing that they have believed the false promises of the defendants, decided to opt but of the partnership frm.

Accordingly a deed of retirement of M/s Manoj Marbles were drafted by the defendants and the same was agreed upon and signed by the parties on 01-04- 2011. By virtue of the said deed of retirement, the plaintifs retired from the partnership frm with efect from 01-04-2011 and as per clause 4 of the said retirement deed, the plaintifs herein are entitled to certain amounts and that the same shall remain with the continuing partners as loan and that the same shall be repaid within a period of six months i.e. on or before 30-09-2011. Clause No. 4 of the retirement deed dated 01-04-2011 reads as under:

Clause No. 4: “That the amount payable to the retiring partner, the parties hereto of the fourth and ffth parts, as on the date of retirement shall remain as loan with the continuing parties hereto of the frst, second and third parts and shall be repaid within the period of six months i.e. on or before 30-09-2011”.

3 OS 1126 of 2014

(iv) The plaintifs contends that after the retirement deed was signed, the plaintifs have always honoured the terms and conditions of the retirement deed but the defendants are acting otherwise. It is contended that as on the date of the deed of retirement, the frst plaintif is entitled to an amount of

Rs.12,44,864.65 paise as on 01-04-2011 and the second plaintif is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,30,520.05 paise. On 09-06-2011 the defendants paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the frst plaintif and paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the second plaintif as repayment. The frst plaintif was paid Rs.30,000/- vide cheque

No. 559138. After the said repayment, the defendants inspite of repeated requests and demands by the plaintifs failed to pay up the balance amount in accordance with the understanding in the deed of retirement. The defendants however, deducted Tax at Source for the year ending 2012 on the amounts payable to the plaintifs. For the year ending 2012, the defendants deducted in their books of accounts an amount of Rs.14,938/- against the name of the frst plaintif and deducted an amount of Rs.6,366/- against the name of the second plaintif and remitted the same to the income tax authorities at tax deducted at source against the money payable to the plaintifs.

(v) It is contended that for the year ending 31-03-2013 also the defendants have deducted the tax at source against the money payable to the plaintifs. It is further contended that the plaintifs are entitled to the suit claim as the same is the settlement amount due and payable by the defendants to the plaintifs and the fact that the defendants have deducted tax at source and remitted the same to the income tax department is proof positive of the defendants liability.

(vi) It is contended that the defendants are called to place before this court all the original TDS certifcates and the payment details made to the Income Tax

Department. It is contended that the defendants are liable to pay Rs.12,14,864.65 to the frst plaintif and Rs.4,90,520.65 to the second plaintif as on 01-10-2011.

The plaintifs are not calculating interest from 01-04-2011 till the end of

September, 2011 as the defendants undertook to repay by the end of September, 4 OS 1126 of 2014 2011 and as they failed to repay, the plaintifs are calculating simple interest @ 12% p.a. from 01-10-2011 till 30-09-02014.

The following are the details of the plaintifs suit claim.

First plaintiffs claim:

Principal amount due as on 01-10-2011

Rs.12,14,864.65

Interest @ 12% p.e from 01-10-2011 to 31-09-2014 Rs. 4,37,351.25 i.e. 3 threes. ------------------------- TotalRs.16,52,215.90 ------------------------- Second plaintifsf claim:

Principal amount due as on 01-10-2011Rs.4,90,520.65

Interest @ 12% p.e. from 01-10-2011 to 31-09-2014 i.e. 3 years. Rs.1,76,587.20 ------------------------- TotalRs.6,67,107.85 ------------------------- First plaintif amount isRs.16,52,215.90

Second plaintif amount isRs. 6,67,107.85 ------------------------- TotalRs.23,19,323.75 -------------------------

(vii) It is contended that as per the deed of retirement, the plaintifs are entitled to the suit claim. The defendants have repaid Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively to the plaintifs and have also deducted tax at source for the year ending 31-03-2012 and 31-03-2013. The tax deducted at source very clearly establishes the amount payable to the plaintifs by the defendants. It is contended that the defendants are individually and jointly liable to repay the suit claim to the plaintifs. It is contended that it is a legal and enforceable debt which the plaintifs are entitled to recover and the defendants are liable to pay. As per clause No. 4, the entitlement of the plaintifs was retailed as loan with the continuing partners i.e. the defendants herein and hence they are liable to repay the same to the plaintifs.

(viii) It is contended that the plaintifs have requested the defendants umpteen number of times to pay the amounts that they are entitled to. The defendants promised to pay on several occasions but failed to do so. In the frst 5 OS 1126 of 2014 week of September, 2014 also the plaintifs had a meeting with the defendants which also included common friends and relatives wherein the defendants promised to repay the suit claim but yet failed to do so which displace their malafde intentions to enrich fraudulently at the costs of the plaintifs. Therefore, the plaintifs prays the court to pass a Decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintifs and against the defendants, to direct the defendants jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.16,52,215/- to the frst plaintif and an amount of

Rs.6,67,107/- to the second plaintif total amounting to Rs.23,19,322/- along with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of fling of the suit till the date of repayment and costs of the suit.

3.Written statement fled by the defendant No. 1 on behalf of defendant No. 2 and 3. The main averments of the written statement are that :

(i) The allegations made by the plaintifs in each and every para of the plaint are false and baseless.

(ii) The defendants contends that the facts of the case are that the plaintifs and defendants in the year 2000 entered in the partnership frm to operate business of marble under the name and style of M/s Manoj Marbles, situated at

Nagole, Hyderabad. The plaintifs and defendants till 1st April, 2011 operated the business as partnership frm without any issues, disputes and claims etc., The said business is used to operate by the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant used to render accounts before the partners on each and every ending of fnancial year. The partners of the frm including the plaintifs at any point of time from 03-07-2002 to 31-03-2011 did not dispute any fraud or wrong presentation of accounts. It is contended that the plaintifs and defendants were entered into Amendment to

Articles of Partnership made and executed on 21st day of July, 2000 by and between them Amendment Clause (6) shall be read as follows: “All the partners shall contribute the Capital as required for the business of the partnership frm from time to time and the interest on capital so contributed should not exceed the maximum rate allowable U/s 40(b) of the Income Tax Actf 1961. No interest shall 6 OS 1126 of 2014 be payable in the event of loss”. The plaintifs with an intention to retire from the partnership frm so as to enable them to look after their business at their own place in the state of Assam, the plaintifs placed their intention before the partners and on 31-03-2011 after completion and closing of entire accounts with proper settlement accounts the payment made to the partners and the loss which not yet supported and paid by the plaintifs to the defendants to their share, then and there they retired from the partner frm w.e.f, 01-04-2011. If there is any amount payable to the plaintifs is declared to be the loan amount to be payable by the defendants. Even in the deed of retirement executed on 01-04-2011 there is no recital regarding the due amount to the plaintif as stated in the plaint.

(iii) It is further contended that the plaint does not disclose any legal notice to the defendants in the event of avoiding payment of legally enforceable debt by the defendants. It is further contended that the plaintifs did not place any peace of document showing that the defendants are liable to pay the principle amounts as mentioned in the plaint and that the plaintifs did not disclose about the fact that how the said amount is found to be due by the defendants to the plaintifs.

The claim of the plaintifs is only by way of their self serving statement but not without any statement of account maintained by them. Since the plaintifs did not fle any document to show that the defendants are due to them only basing on the unknown entries to be maintained by the Tax Consultants has no force to prove that the plaintifs are entitled the suit claim. The suit is fled only basing on the deductions of TDS of plaintifs. It is a fact that the entire accounts of the partnership frm was completed as on 31-03-2011 and that the partners therein after they being satisfed with the accounts and after receiving the amounts they signed on the statement of account showing proft and loss, and that the plaintifs from the partnership frm after receiving entire amounts from the partnership frm. If at all any amount is due by the defendants to the plaintifs naturally the plaintifs would have obtain any document from the defendants in proof of debt either by way of a pro note, cheque etc., In the absence of any above documents the claim of the plaintifs only on the basis of the tax deductions in the name of 7 OS 1126 of 2014 plaintifs is not maintainable, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, he prays the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the above averments, the following issues have been framed for trial:

I. Whether the plaintifs are entitled for recovery of Rs.23,19,323.75 p.s along with future interest @ 12% per annum?

II. Whether the defendants are liable to pay as per the deed of retirement of

M/s Manoj marbles?

III. Whether the defendants have repaid an amount of Rs.40,000/- and

Rs.30,000/- respectively to the plaintifs as part payment?

IV. Whether the defendants have deducted the tax at source for the year ending 31-03-2012 and 31-03-2013?

V. To what relief?

5.In order to substantiate the plea taken by the plaintif he himself examined as PW 1 and on his behalf Ex. A1 Tax Deduction of Sources for the period 31-3- 2012 to 31-03-2013 marked.

Ex. A1 is original tax deduction at Source Certifcate for the year 2012-2013.

6.The cause of action arose on 31-03-2010 and 31-03-2013 when deed of retirement date was mentioned on 01-04-2011. The plaintifs have to fle the suit on or before 31-03-2014. Since the limitation for recovery of amount is three years only. Whereas this suit fled on 22-11-2014 after completion of the years.

Therefore, it is barred by limitation for recovery of amounts.

7. Whether there is any legally enforceable debt existing in plaintif and defendant?

8.The plaintif not fled any documents showing that the defendants are due to the plaintifs who were retired on 01-04-2011 or even any legal notice issued for recovery of the same before fling this suit i.e. on or before 01-04-2011 except 8 OS 1126 of 2014

Ex. A1 & A2 no other documents fled to show that the defendants are due as alleged by the plaintif.

9.The burden is on the plaintif to establish that the defendants are allegedly due to retiring partners an amount of Rs.23,19,323.75 for which he has to establish by way of oral and documentary evidence. First of all it is admitted by the plaintif that it is an unregistered partnership frm. Admitted facts need not be proved. The suit fled for recovery of amount due by the defendants on the date of retiring the partners in the plaintifs 1 & 2.

10.ISSUE NO. I

Whether the plaintifs are entitled for recovery of Rs.23,19,323.75 p.s along with future interest @ 12% per annum?

The plaintifs are not fled any of the documents except TDS submitted by himself to the Income Tax Department by showing the accounts and mentioned therein that the defendants are liable to pay the amounts of Rs.23,19,323.75/- which is self explanatory to the I.T Department.

Suit fled basing on deed of retirement of partnership deed. Registered partnership Deed is not marked since it is unregistered one. The burden is on the plaintifs to establish that the defendants are partners in the company i.e., M/s

Manoj Marbles. The plaintifs failed to establish that the defendants are the partners of the frm and they are liable to pay the amount since the plaintif without fling the accounts statement of the Partnership Firm Accounts and without marking Partnership Deed. This court cannot come to conclusion that the defendants are partners in the M/s. Manoj Marbles.

The burden lies on the plaintif to establish that the defendants are liable to pay the amount as per the deed of retirement. The said deed of retirement dated 01-04-2011 is not marked. As per the contention of the plaintif, the defendant have to pay an amount of Rs.26,09,189/-. Originally the plaintifs and defendants did the business as partners of M/s Manoj Marbles having entered into partnership business through the partnership deed dated 03-07-2000 but the said partnership 9 OS 1126 of 2014 deed was not marked since it is a unregistered partnership frm but the plaintif fled the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.26,09,189/- which were due by the defendants to the plaintifs. The plaintif is specifcally stated about the payment of the defendants to be paid by them to a tune of Rs.12,14,864.65 to the frst plaintif and Rs.4,90,520.65 p.s to PW 1 as on 01-10-2010 and they did not claim any interest from 01-04-2011 to till the end of September 2011 i.e. fling of this suit. As the defendants under took to pay the amount by the end of September, 2011 and they failed to repay the same. Hence they calculated simple interest @ 12% p.a from 01-02-2011 to till 30-09-2014 which comes to a tune of

Rs.26,09,189. The plaintif neither fled any documents nor examined anybody on his behalf to prove that the defendants are liable to pay the said amount as per the deed of retirement of M/s Manoj Marbles. During the cross examination done by defendant to PW 1 he simply denied the each and every paragraph of chief affidavit. He categorically denied that he did not fle any supporting documents to prove the amount to be paid by the defendant. Except Ex. A1 i.e. Tax Deductions and Sources of Certifcate for the year 2012-2013. Except that none of the documents fled to show that the defendants are liable to pay the amount. The plaintif failed to prove that how he arrived the amounts and business accounts and records from which date to which date fled to see about the accounts liable to be paid by the defendants from alleged date of deed of retirement. The said deed of retirement is not marked. Hence, without documentary proof, the court cannot come to conclusion that the defendants are liable to pay the amount alleged by the plaintif. As per the averments in the chief affidavit the deed of retirement dated 01-04-2011 the counsel for defendant argued that the date of retirement deed was 01-04-2011 under the said deed the defendants are liable to pay amounts as mentioned as well as in the chief affidavit. Then they ought to have fle the case for recovery of amounts on or before 31-03-2014 but they fled this suit on 22-09-2014 after completion of three years period. Moreover, the alleged amount was not refected in the documents fled by PW 1 i.e. Ex. A1. It is an unregistered partnership frm as such the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, 10 OS 1126 of 2014 the plaintif fled the suit for recovery of amount. He has to fle within the period of limitation but the suit was fled after completion of three years period as mentioned above. The suit for recovery of amount. It is the duty of the plaintif to establish that the debt must be legally enforceable debt and they must be promise to repay the same in case of failure. In such case the plaintif has to issue legal notices demanding the amounts for repayment but in the instant case there are no such instances except Ex. A1 document. Ex. A1 document is self explanatory document to the Income Tax Department. As such it is not maintainable to prove that the defendants are liable to pay the amount alleged by the plaintif. The plaintif No. 1 did not enter into witness box and plaintif No. 2 examined as PW 1. The counsel for defendant specifcally mentioned about para

No. 4 of chief affidavit which reads as follows:

“After realizing that the defendants have resorted to illegal withdrawals in the form of cash and when they refused to share the details of the accounts with them, they realizing that they have believed the false promises of the defendants, decided to opt out of the partnership frm. Accordingly, a deed of retirement of M/ s Manoj Marbles were drafted by the defendants and the same was agreed upon and signed by the parties on 01-04-2011. By virtue of the said deed of retirement, the plaintifs retired from the partnership frm with efect from 01-04-2011 and as per clause 4 of the said retirement deed, the plaintifs herein are entitled to certain amounts and that the same shall remain with the continuing partners as loan and that the same shall be repaid within a period of six months i.e. on or

before 30-09-2011. Clause No. 4 of the retirement deed dated 01-04-2011 reads

as under:

Clause No. 4: “That the amount payable to the retiring partner, the parties hereto of the fourth and ffth parts, as on the date of retirement shall remain as loan with the continuing parties hereto of the frst, second and third parts and shall be repaid within the period of six months i.e. on or before 30-09-2011”.

But the plaintif/PW 1 when cross examined about the part, even after an opportunity given in open court to read the contents of para 4 of chief affidavit, 11 OS 1126 of 2014 he simply denied and not specifcally stated that he failed to fle supporting documents to prove contents of para No. 4. When the plaintif alleges that the defendants without resorted to illegal withdrawals in the form of cash and they refused to share the details of accounts in such case the plaintifs have to take necessary action against the defendants for illegal withdrawal by way of giving complaint, police and also when they withdrawing amounts illegally without prior permission of the plaintif. In the present case the plaintif did not fle any documentary proof. He has not taken any action against the defendants under laws. But there were no such circumstance in this case Therefore, this issue was also settled against the plaintifs. So far as issue No. 1 is concerned, the plaintif miserably failed to establish that the defendants are liable to pay an amount of

Rs.23,09,323.75 p.s along with future interest @ 12% per annum.

11. ISSUE NO. IV:

Whether the defendants have deducted the tax at source for the year ending 31-03-2012 and 31-03-2013?

So far as issue No. IV is concerned it is self explanatory statement given by the plaintifs to the income tax department without any documentary proof. This court cannot come to conclusion that the defendants have liable to pay the amounts. The documents fled by them with regard to the ledger accounts fled by the plaintif company are not marked which are xerox copies. Hence, they cannot taken into consideration and cannot be relied.

12. The cause of action arose on 31-03-2010 and 31-03-2013 when deed of retirement date was mentioned on 01-04-2011. The plaintif have to fle the suit on or before 31-03-2014. Since the limitation for recovery of amount is three years only. Whereas this suit fled on 22-11-2014 after completion of the years.

Therefore, it is barred by limitation for recovery of amounts.

Whether there is any legally enforceable debt existing in plaintif and defendant?

12 OS 1126 of 2014

The plaintif not fled any documents showing that the defendants are due to the plaintifs, who were retired on 01-04-2011 or even any legal notice for recovery of the same before fling this suit i.e. on or before 01-04-2011 except Ex.

A1 & A2 no other documents fled to show that the defendants are due as alleged by the plaintif.

13.ISSUES NO. I

The burden is on the plaintif to establish that the defendants are allegedly due to retiring partners an amount of Rs.23,19,323.75 for which he has to establish by way of oral and documentary evidence. First of all it is admitted by the plaintif that it is an unregistered partnership frm. Admitted facts need not be proved. The suit fled for recovery of amount due by the defendants on the date of retiring the partners i.e. the plaintifs 1 and 2.

In order to substantiate the plea taken by the plaintif he himself examined as PW 1 and on his behalf Ex. A1 Tax Deduction of Sources for the period 31-3- 2012 to 31-03-2013 marked.

The plaintifs are not fled any of the documents except TDS submitted by himself to the Income Tax Department by showing the accounts and mentioned therein that the defendants are liable to pay the amounts of Rs.23,19,323.75/- which is self explanatory to the I.T department.

Suit fled basing on deed of retirement of partnership deed. Registered partnership Deed is not marked since it is unregistered one. The burden is on the plaintif to establish that the defendants are partners in the M/s Manoj Marbles

The plaintif failed to establish that the defendants are the partners of the frm and they are liable to pay the amount since the plaintif without fling the accounts statement of the Partnership Firm Accounts and without marking the partnership deed they cannot come to conclusion that the defendants are partners in the M/s Manoj Marbles.

The burden lies on the plaintif to establish that the defendants are liable to pay the amount as per the deed of retirement. The said deed of retirement dated 13 OS 1126 of 2014 01-04-2011 is not marked. As per the contention of the plaintif, the defendant have to pay an amount of Rs.26,09,189/-. Originally the plaintifs and defendants did the business as partners of M/s Manoj Marbles having entered into partnership business through the partnership deed dated 03-07-2000 but the said partnership deed was not marked since it is a unregistered partnership frm but the plaintif fled the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.26,09, 189/- which were due by the defendants to the plaintifs. The plaintif is specifcally stated about the payment of the defendants to be paid by them to a tune of Rs.12,14,864.65 to the frst plaintif and Rs.4,90,520.65 p.s to PW 1 as on 01-10-2010 and they did not claim any interest from 01-04-2011 to till the end of September 2011 i.e. fling of this suit. As the defendants under took to pay the amount by the end of September, 2011 and they failed to repay the same. Hence they calculated simple interest @ 12% p.a from 01-20-2011 to till 30-09-2014 which comes to a tune of

Rs.26,09,189. The plaintif neither fled any documents nor examined anybody on his behalf to prove that the defendants are liable to pay the said amount as per the deed of retirement of M/s Manoj Marbles. During the cross examination done by defendant to PW 1 he simply denied the each and every paragraph of chief affidavit. He categorically denied that he did not fle any supporting documents to prove the amount to be paid by the defendant. Except Ex. A1 i.e. Tax

Deductions and Sources of Certifcate for the year 2012-2013. Except that none of the documents fled to show that the defendants are liable to pay the amount.

The plaintif failed to prove that how he arrived the amounts and business accounts and records from which date to which date fled to see about the accounts liable to be paid by the defendants from alleged date of deed of retirement. The said deed of retirement is not marked. Hence, without documentary proof, the court cannot come to conclusion that the defendants are liable to the amount alleged by the plaintif. As per the averments in the chief affidavit the deed of retirement dated 01-04-2011 the counsel for defendant argued that the date of retirement deed was 01-04-2011 under the said deed the defendants are liable to pay amounts as mentioned as well as in the chief 14 OS 1126 of 2014 affidavit. Then they ought to have fle the case for recovery of amounts on or

before 31-03-2014 but they fled this suit on 22-09-2014 after completion of three

years period. Moreover, the alleged amount was not refected in the documents fled by PW 1 i.e. Ex. A1. It is an unregistered partnership frm as such the suit is not maintainable as such the plaintif fled the suit for recovery of amount. He has to fle within the period of limitation but the suit was fled after completion of three years period as mentioned above. The suit for recovery of amount. It is the duty of the plaintif to establish that the debt must be legally enforceable debt and they must be promise to repay the same in case of failure. The plaintif has to issue legal notices demanding the amounts for repayment but in the instance case there are no such instances except Ex. A1 document. Ex. A1 document is self explanatory document to the Income Tax Department as such it is not maintainable to prove that the defendants are liable to pay the amount alleged by the plaintif. The plaintif No. 1 did not enter into witness box and plaintif No. 2 examined as PW 1. The counsel for defendant specifcally mentioned about para

No. 4 of chief affidavit which reads as follows:

“After realizing that the defendants have resorted to illegal withdrawals in the form of cash and when they refused to share the details of the accounts with them, they realizing that they have believed the false promises of the defendants, decided to opt out of the partnership frm. Accordingly, a deed of retirement of

M/s Manoj Marbles were drafted by the defendants and the same was agreed upon and signed by the parties on 01-04-2011. By virtue of the said deed of retirement, the plaintifs retired from the partnership frm with efect from 01-04- 2011 and as per clause 4 of the said retirement deed, the plaintifs herein are entitled to certain amounts and that the same shall remain with the continuing partners as loan and that the same shall be repaid within a period of six months i.e. on or before 30-09-2011. Clause No. 4 of the retirement deed dated 01-04- 2011 reads as under:

Clause No. 4: “That the amount payable to the retiring partner, the parties hereto of the fourth and ffth parts, as on the date of retirement shall remain as 15 OS 1126 of 2014 loan with the continuing parties hereto of the frst, second and third parts and shall be repaid within the period of six months i.e. on or before 30-09-2011”.

The burden is on the plaintif to establish that the defendants are allegedly due to retiring partners an amount of Rs.23,19,323.75 for which he has to establish by way of oral and documentary evidence. First of all it is admitted by the plaintif that it is an unregistered partnership frm. Admitted facts need not be proved.

The suit fled for recovery of amount due by the defendants on the date of retiring the partners i.e. the plaintifs 1 and 2.

In order to substantiate the plea taken by the plaintif he himself examined as PW 1 and on his behalf Ex. A1 Tax Deduction of Sources for the period 31-3- 2012 to 31-03-2013 marked.

The plaintifs are not fled any of the documents except TDS submitted by himself to the Income Tax Department by showing the accounts and mentioned therein that the defendants are liable to pay the amounts of Rs.23,19,323.75/- which is self explanatory to the I.T department.

Suit fled basing on deed of retirement of partnership deed. Registered partnership Deed is not marked since it is unregistered one. The burden is on the plaintif to establish that the defendants are partners in the M/s Manoj Marbles

The plaintif failed to establish that the defendants are the partners of the frm and they are liable to pay the amount since the plaintif without fling the accounts statement of the Partnership Firm Accounts and without marking the partnership deed they cannot come to conclusion that the defendants are partners in the M/s Manoj Marbles.

15. l fnd this court feels that it is necessary to frame the issue with regard to the limitation of the suit for recovery of amounts only three years. Even assuming that the date of retirement was 01-04-2011, the suit fled by the plaintifs on 22-09-2014 even the plaintif really basing on the deed of retirement he ought to have fle the suit on or before 31-03-2014 whereas the suit fled on 22-09-2014. Therefore, it is barred by limitation. The alleged cause of action is 16 OS 1126 of 2014 not correct. The plaintif miserably failed to establish that the defendants are liable to pay the amounts due to them as alleged by him. Therefore, this issues are settled in favour of defendants as against the plaintif.

16. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the

22nd day of April, 2021.

X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW 1: Sunil Kumar Baid. - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex. A1 is original tax deduction at Source Certifcate for the year 2012-2013.

FOR DEFENDANTS: - Nil -

X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

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

1 OS 355 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

L.B. NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present: SMT. M.KANAKA DURGA

X Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), L.B. Nagar, R.R. District.

Dated this the 19 th day of April, 2021.

O.S. No. 355 of 2014

Between:-

M/s. IMP. Ex Alloy & Steel Co, D. No.10-11-50, Fathenagar, Kukatpally Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District – 500 018, represented by its Manager, Sri. P.V. Shetty, S/o. Late Sri. P. Bandappa, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Hyderabad. ...Plaintif AND

M/s. Tool Mak, Unit No. 19, TIE, Balanagar, Hyderabad-500 037, represented by its Proprietor, Sri. N. Ramachandran.

...Defendant

This suit is coming before be for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Krishna Arjun, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.A.V.Krishna Rao, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit filed under Order VII, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintif to recover an amount of Rs.13,82,457/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs eighty two thousand four hundred and fifty seven only) together with further interest thereon at the rate of interest of 24% p.m from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization and costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that: The plaintif is M/s IMP. Ex. Alloy & Steel Co., is the Company having office at 10-11-50, Fathenagar, Hyderabad- 500 018, more detailed in the cause title above and is carrying on business in trading of M.S Plates & Profile Cutting etc.

(ii) The plaintif contends that the defendant herein, being aware of the nature of business of the plaintif company, placed purchase order:

1. Invoice No. 1635 dated 29-12-2007 for Rs.2,33,168/-.

2 OS 355 of 2014

2.Invoice No. 1645 dated 01-01-2008 for Rs.17,453/-.

3.Invoice No. 1679 dated 05-01-2008 for Rs.83,866/-.

4.Invoice No. 1757 dated 19-01-2008 for Rs.3,00,581/-.

5.Invoice No. 1771 dated 21-01-2008 for Rs.9,249/-/

6.Invoice No. 1819 dated 30-01-2008 for Rs.24,563/-.

Thereby requesting the plaintif to supply the material on credit basis which carries an interest at the rate of 24% per annum and accordingly, this plaintif supplied the material on 29-12-2007, 01-01-2008, 05-01-2008, 19-01-2008, 21- 01-2008, 30-01-2008, vide its

1. Delivery Challan bearing No. 1635 dated 29-12-2007.

2. Delivery Challan bearing No. 1645 dated 01-01-2008.

3. Delivery Challan bearing No. 1679 dated 05-01-2008.

4. Delivery Challan bearing No. 1757 dated 19-01-2008.

5. Delivery Challan bearing No. 1771 dated 21-01-2008.

6. Delivery Challan bearing No. 1819 dated 30-01-2008.

coupled with tax invoice. And in connection thereof this plaintif has been maintaining open and current account in respect of the transactions had with the defendant.

(iii) The plaintif contends that the defendant received the material from the plaintif and used it for his business purpose but failed to pay the outstanding due amount for the sum of Rs.13,82,457/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs eighty two thousand four hundred and fifty seven only) within stipulated time to the plaintif.

(iv) The plaintif further contends that he made several reminders to the defendant through telephone and also personally to settle the outstanding due amount to this plaintif. The defendant has to pay Rs.13,82,457/- towards outstanding amount. Further the plaintif contends that this plaintif has made several requests to the defendant to pay the balance outstanding amount and the 3 OS 355 of 2014 defendant gave only false assurances of setting the outstanding amount but never paid the outstanding amount to this plaintif.

(v) The plaintif further contends that the defendant has deployed the evasive tactics in payment of the outstanding amount and that inspite of the persuasions from the plaintif the payment has not been forthcoming resulting in the plaintif getting issued a legal notice dated 02-12-2013 on the defendant through its counsel calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding amount of

Rs.13,82,457/- amended as per I.A No. 1169 of 2015 dated 05-08-2018 along with interest, from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which legal action for recovery of money due would be initiated against the defendant.

(vi) The plaintif contends that this plaintif has sent several reminders to the defendant and made several requests telephonically and also personally calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding dues to this plaintif, but the defendant never choose to pay the outstanding amount to this plaintif and was continuously delaying the payment on one pretext or the other. Hence, he prays the court to (a) to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant directing to pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.13,82,457/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs eighty two thousand four hundred and fifty seven only) together with further interest thereon at the rate of interest of 24% p.m from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization and costs of the suit.

3.Written statement filed by defendant. He contended that the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limini as the defendant is not liable to pay the alleged suit amount or the plaintif is not entitled for the same. The defendant neither placed the purchase order nor the plaintif supplied material that to on credit basis. The plaintif is put to strict proof regarding purchase order and supply. The suit claim is only imaginary figure. This court is not having jurisdiction without admitting that this defendant is liable to pay the alleged suit amount even according to the plaint the last transaction is 30-01-2008. Thereafter there is no correspondence or acknowledgment from the defendant. Further as 4 OS 355 of 2014 there is no transaction the defendant also denies the alleged payments muchless

dt. 07-01-2011 & 13-11-2013. Thus, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and

the cause of action as if last payment is dt. 07-01-2011 and 13-11-2013 is created for the purpose of the suit. Therefore, the preliminary issue has to be framed where the suit is within limitation or not?

(ii) The averments made in para No. 1, the plaintif is put to strict proof regarding its business. Further this defendant contends that the person who verified the plaint is also not entitled either to file or verify. Therefore, on his ground also the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(iii) The averments made in para No. 2, it is denied that the defendant herein being aware of the nature of the business placed the alleged purchase orders.

1. Invoice No. 1635 dated 29.12.2007 for Rs.2,33,168/-.

2.Invoice No. 1645 dated 01-01-2008 for Rs.17,453/-.

3.Invoice No. 1679 dated 05-01-2008 for Rs.83,866/-.

4.Invoice No. 1757 dated 19-01-2008 for Rs.3,00,581/-.

5.Invoice No. 1771 dated 21-01-2008 for Rs.9,249/-/

6.Invoice No. 1819 dated 30-01-2008 for Rs.24,563/-.

And that plaintif supplied the material on the alleged dates and further the plaintif is put to strict proof regarding maintaining and opening of current account in respect of the alleged transactions. The alleged invoices are delivery challans might have created in collusion and the alleged invoices does not bear the signature of authorized person of defendant company.

(iv) The averments made in para No. 3, the defendant denies that the defendant received the material from the plaintif and used it for his business purpose. Therefore, failed to pay the outstanding due amount for the sum of

Rs.13,82,457/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs eighty two thousand four hundred and fifty seven only) within stipulated time to the plaintif does not arise at all.

(v) The averments made in para No. 4, the defendant states that as there is no supply took place or transaction taken place between the plaintif and defendant the statement that the plaintif made several reminders to the 5 OS 355 of 2014 defendant through telephone and also personally to settle the outstanding due amount to this plaintif does not arise. The defendant has paid Rs. 13,82,457/- towards the part payment of outstanding amount and the defendant gave only false assurances of settling the outstanding amount but never paid the outstanding amounts to the plaintif as no supply is taken place.

(vi) The averments made in para No. 5, as stated above as there is no transaction taken place the statement that the defendant has deployed the evasive tactics in alleged payment and that the plaintif got issued legal notice is all incorrect and the plaintif is put to strict proof of the same.

(vii) The averments made in para No. 6 & 7, the plaintif is put to strict proof that the plaintif has sent several reminders to the defendant and made several requests telephonically and also personally calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding dues to this plaintif but the defendant never choose to pay the outstanding amount to this plaintif and was continuously delaying the payment on one pretext or the other. The alleged statement of account maintained by the plaintif is not reflecting true transactions and created for the purpose of the suit.

(viii) The averments made in para Nos. IV to VIII, the alleged particulars of the suit is not correct the court fee paid is imaginary this court has to jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the alleged suit claim is only imaginary amount there is no cause of action to file the suit and the defendant has not paid the alleged amounts on 7-1-2011 and 13-11-2013 nor acknowledged any debt. Further the alleged last date of payment dt. 7-11-2011 & 11-11-2013 are only created, fabricated for the purpose of to save limitation aspect. Therefore the suit is also liable to be dismissed on this ground. Further without admitting the liability this defendant contends that the alleged last payment are created for the purpose of the suit. Therefore, he contended that there are no merits in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed either on facts or under law. It is therefore, prayed that this court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.

6 OS 355 of 2014

4.The plea taken by the plaintif he himself examined as PW 1 by way of filing chief affidavit in lieu of his evidence and marked Ex. A1 to A19.

Ex. A1 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1635 for Rs.2,33,168/- dated 29-12- 2007, Ex. A2 is carbon copy of delivery challan No. 1635 dated 29-12-2007, Ex.

A3 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1645 for Rs.17,453/- dated 01-01-2018, Ex. A4 is carbon copy of delivery challan No. 1645 dated 01-01-2008, Ex. A5 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1679 dated 05-01-2008, Ex. A6 is carbon copy of delivery challan

No. 1679 dated 05-01-2008, Ex. A7 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1757 dated 19-01-2008, Ex. A8 is carbon copy of delivery challan No. 1757 dated 19-01-2008,

Ex. A9 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1771 dated 21-01-2008, Ex. A10 is carbon copy of delivery challan No. 1771 dated 21-01-2008, Ex. A11 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1819 dated 21-01-2008, Ex. A12 is carbon copy of delivery challan No.

1819 dated 30-01-2008, Ex. A13 is original statement of account for the period from 01-04-2010 to 27-02-2014, Ex. A14 is office copy of legal notice dated 02-12- 2013, Ex. A15 is postal receipts (2 numbers) dated 03-12-2013, Ex. A16 is acknowledgment cards (2 numbers) dated 05-12-2013, Ex. A17 is authorization letter dated 05-04-2013, Ex. A18 is the value Added Tax registration certificate dt.

02-06-2008, Ex. A19 is the receipts which were issued by the Impex Alloy and

Steels Company 07-01-2011 and 13-11-2013.

5.Basing on the above averments, the following issues have been framed.

ISSUES:

I. Whether the defendant placed purchase order and the plaintiff supplied

Imp. Ex. Alloy & Steel Co., as pleaded in para 2 of the plaint?

II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery the suit amount against the defendant?

III. To what relief?

ISSUES NO. I & II:

6.To answer the issues No. I and II, on the day when it was posted for cross examination of PW 1 either the plaintif nor defendant attended the court and 7 OS 355 of 2014 represented the matter on 13-02-2020 hence the court forfeited the right of cross examination of the defendant and reported no further evidence. Hence, plaintif evidence closed. Posted for defendant evidence. Since then it has been adjourning the matter from time to time till 2-3-2021 either the plaintif nor defendant present before the court and represented the matter inspite of opportunities given to him hence his evidence is closed.

7.Heard arguments.

8.Perused the petition, affidavit along with other documents filed by PW 1.

The defendant failed to prove his contention that was taken by him in written statement either examine himself nor marked any document in support of his contention. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant.

9.In view of the evidence on record and on perusal of pleadings of both parties the defendant miserably failed to establish his case that he was not due as alleged by the plaintif either by oral or documentary evidence. The plaintif to prove his case by way of filing the document which establishes that the defendant is due to the plaintif company to a tune of Rs.13,82,457/-. Therefore, he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.13,82,457/-. The suit is within limitation and it is not barred by limitation.

10.On 07-01-2011 an amount of Rs.7,000/- and on 13-11-2013 Rs.5,000/- paid by the defendant company to the plaintif company towards part payment that establishes that the defendant is due to the plaintif company and the goods supplied by the plaintif company to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant has to establish that those goods were not received by them and there is no monetary transaction or supply of goods by the plaintif company to the defendant company as such they need not pay any amount to the plaintif company. Further, the defendant in his written statement categorically stated that the defendant has 8 OS 355 of 2014 paid Rs.13,82,457/- towards part payment of outstanding amount that itself shows that the plaintif and defendant had fictitious relationship between them by way of supply of material and receipt of the material by the defendant company. When the defendant paid the amount he has to file the documentary evidence to show the same but he neither examined himself nor filed any document to prove his contention. Therefore, these two issues are answered in favour of the plaintif.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.13,82,457/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs eighty two thousand four hundred and fifty seven only) with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of filing of the suit and 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the 19th day of April, 2021.

X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW 1: P.V. Shetty. - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex. A1 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1635 for Rs.2,33,168/- dated 29-12-2007.

Ex. A2 is carbon copy of delivery challan No. 1635 dated 29-12-2007.

Ex. A3 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1645 for Rs.17,453/- dated 01-01-2018.

Ex. A4 is carbon copy of delivery challan No. 1645 dated 01-01-2008.

Ex. A5 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1679 dated 05-01-2008.

Ex. A6 is carbon copy of delivery challan No. 1679 dated 05-01-2008.

Ex. A7 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1757 dated 19-01-2008.

Ex. A8 is carbon copy of delivery challan No. 1757 dated 19-01-2008.

Ex. A9 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1771 dated 21-01-2008.

Ex. A10 is carbon copy of delivery challan No. 1771 dated 21-01-2008.

Ex. A11 is carbon copy of invoice No. 1819 dated 21-01-2008.

Ex. A12 is carbon copy of delivery challan No. 1819 dated 30-01-2008.

9 OS 355 of 2014

Ex. A13 is original statement of account for the period from 01-04-2010 to 27-02-2014.

Ex. A14 is office copy of legal notice dated 02-12-2013.

Ex. A15 is postal receipts (2 numbers) dated 03-12-2013.

Ex. A16 is acknowledgment cards (2 numbers) dated 05-12-2013.

Ex. A17 is authorization letter dated 05-04-2013.

Ex. A18 is the value Added Tax registration certificate dt. 02-06-2008.

Ex. A19 is the receipts which were issued by the Impex Alloy and and Steels

Company 07-01-2011 and 13-11-2013.

FOR DEFENDANT: - N I l -

X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

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

1

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, L.B NAGAR

Present : Smt. M. Kanaka Durga, X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District.

Dated on this the 9th day of April, 2021 u

O.S NO. 657/2011

BETWEEN:

1.Smt. Yelamanchili Sita Ratnamani, W/o. Late Y. Mallikarjuna Prasad, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Household.

2. Ms. Yelamanchili Satya Sri, D/o.Late Y. Mallikarjuna Prasad, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Student.

3. Ms. Yelamanchili Ramya Sri, D/o. Late Y. Mallikarjuna Prasad, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Student, All are R/o.H.No.3-6-288/2, CDR Hospital Lane, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. …… Plaintiffs

The Parties. No.2 and 3 are being represented by their Regd. GPA Holder i.e., Smt. Yelamanchili Sita Ratnamani, W/o. Late Y. Mallikarjuna Prasad, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.3-6-288/2, CDR Hospital Lane, Hyderguda, Hyderabad, by virtue of a Doc. No.332/2011, dated 18-08-2011.

AND

1. Sri Yelamanchili Gopala Krishna, S/o. Late Y. Padmanabham, Aged about 69 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kurmaddla Village, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh

2. Smt. Sureddy Uma Devi, W/o.Late S.V.S.K.Gangadhar Rao, Aged about 66 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Flat No. E1 & E2, YSR Enclave, Panchavati Colony, near Studio N Manikonda, Hyderabad.

3. T. Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. T. Surya Prakasha Rao, aged about 47 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No. D-217/A, First Floor, Kalyan Nagar, Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

4. The Sub-Registrar Office, Pedda Amberpet, Office at Pedda Amberpet, R.R. District.

5. Sri. Velamakanni Raja Satyanarayana, S/o. Seetharama Sastry, aged about 40 yrs, Occ: Private Employee.

6. Smt. Velamakanni Suvarchala, W/o. Seetharama Sastry, aged about 65 yrs, Occ: Housewife.

The defendant No. 5 and 6 are R/o. H.No.20-41/1, 1st Floor, Flat No. 1, Jaya Nilayam Apartment, Sri Kodanda Ram Nagar Colony, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad.

2

7. Sri. Singari Ram Murthy, S/o. Shambulingam, aged about 50 yrs, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. H.No.6-167/25, Plot No. 115, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayathnagar, R.R. District. (The defendant No. 7s is impleaded in this suit, as per the orders in I.A No. 142/2016 dated 28-06-2018).

(The suit against the defendants No. 4 to 7 is not pressed by plaintiffs) …. Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.L.B. Kumar, Counsel for Plaintiffs and of Sri. Rajashekar, Counsel for Defendants 1 to 3 and of Sri. I. Sridhar, Counsel for defendants 5 to 7and upon perusal of material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following.

J U D G M E N T

In view of the orders in I.A No. 213/2021 the suit is decreed as per the terms and conditions of tripartite Memorandum Of Understanding entered by both parties. Hence, the suit is decreed. No costs.

THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF TRIPARTITE MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1.In pursuance of this Tripartite MOU, the SECOND PARTY agreed to cooperate for passing a Judgment and Decree in favor of FIRST PARTY in the above said civil suits vide O.S.No.657 of 2011, O.S.No.896/14, 1451/2014, 1452/2014, 415 to 429/2017, 252 to 266, 269/2018 (batch cases) pending before the Hon’ble XI Additional District Judge-FTC,

L.B.Nagar, R.R. District and the FIRST PARTY agreed to withdraw other criminal cases vide CC. Nos.1340 of 2015 and 1397 of 2015, pending before

JCJ-Cum-XXIV Addl. MM Court, Hayathnagar, R.R. District & any other cases against the SECOND PARTY and others by way of filing necessary

Compromise Petitions/Joint Memo before the concerned courts. Further the

FIRST PARTY & SECOND PARTY shall co-operate with the THIRD PARTY for passing the Decree in civil cases and also for withdrawing the above said criminal cases pending before above courts. Similarly the FIRST PARTY &

SECOND PARTY shall co-operate with the THIRD PARTY for the purpose of executing registered deeds/ratification/sale deeds etc., for perfecting the title of the plot owners of schedule properties A & B after passing of Decree in favor of FIRST PARTY.

2.In pursuance of this Tripartite MOU, the SECOND PARTY agreed to withdraw the Crime. No.421 of 2013 U/S 420, 406, 468, 471, 34 and 120(B) 3

IPC of P.S.Narayanaguda, Hyderabad and any others pending against the

FIRST PARTY without fail.

3.In pursuance of this Tripartite MOU, the FIRST PARTY shall handover the original Title Deeds or other documents related to the Scheduled

Property to the THIRD PARTY without fail and without raising any objections/claims. Further the FIRST PARTY agreed to execute a Regd.

Document relating to Scheduled Properties A & B as necessitated by the

THIRD PARTY after passing of the Judgment and Decree in the above said civil cases without any delay.

4.In the pursuance of this Tripartite MOU, the FIRST PARTY and

SECOND PARTY shall Relinquish their rights in respect of the Schedule properties A & B in favor of the THIRD PARTY, and the THIRD PARTY shall not have any burden/liability to clear any disputes/loans/agreements made in respect of the Schedule properties A & B by the FIRST PARTY & SECOND

PARTY or any third parties. If the custody of any such original documents related to the Schedule Property are not handed over to the THIRD PARTY, due to any reasons, then the said parties shall execute separate documents in favor of THIRD PARTY stating the same that they do not possess any original documents related to the Scheduled Property and they shall not claim, raise litigation or misuse the documents in future against the schedule property or against the THIRD PARTY.

5.In pursuance of this Tripartite MOU, the FIRST PARTY & SECOND

PARTY herein agreed to file joint memo, necessary documents, affidavits, applications, petitions and any other documents required to be filed before the court of law and also shall cooperate with the THIRD PARTY to record the compromise and to obtain the decree and also to take back the original documents if any filed in the said cases. The SECOND PARTY herein agreed not to claim any amounts from FIRST PARTY against this settlement and for relinquishing their rights against the Scheduled Properties A & B herein.

6.In pursuance of this Tripartite MOU, the THIRD PARTY by virtue of the Regd. GPA is at liberty to deal or enter into any agreements and sale deeds receive any amounts in respect of the Schedule Properties A & B on his own capacity and if any prior agreements executed prior to this MOU by the FIRST PARTY & SECOND PARTY, then such agreements or actions are illegal and void, which are not binding on the THIRD PARTY.

7.That, both parties forthwith agree that either of them in person nor 4 their nominees, agents or heirs, shall not file any further claims/complaints or cases against each other in future, while respecting each other’s integrity and space and such claims have no bearing on the THIRD PARTY and he is noway responsible.

8.In pursuance of this Tripartite MOU, in the even the FIRST PARTY &

SECOND PARTY fail to fulfill or breach any of the above said conditions as agreed, then the THIRD PARTY is at liberty to take necessary legal steps against the FIRST PARTY & SECOND PARTY, for which the saidparties agreed to face the consequences. FIRST PARTYshall not get rights over the schedule properties A & B. The jurisdiction for such legal resources/actions/disputes shall fall exclusively at Hyderabad and R.R.

District Courts only.

9.That, the parties herein are entering this Tripartite MOU in strict confidence and trust upon each other and hereby agreed to uphold the essence of this document as an entity.

10.That the Parties agreed to fulfill their responsibilities, obligations according to those specified in this MOU. And the parties shall bind over to the terms and conditions and if any party violates the same the aggrieved party shall be at liberty to take necessary legal actions against the other party.

11.In pursuance of this Tripartite MOU, the FIRST party & second party herein shall appoint the third party AS THEIR Regd. GPA Holder for doing the above said acts and deeds in closing the civil cases and criminal cases.

12.In pursuance of this Tripartite MOU, the SECOND PARTY shall execute the required regd. Relinquish/release deeds in respect of the House No. 3-6- 288/2, admeasuring 585.27 sq. yards, situated at Old C.D.R Hospital Lane,

Opp: to Corporation Bank (presently Union Bank) Hyderguda, Hyderabad in favour of the FIRST PARTY after filing of compromise petition, joint memo in

O.S No. 657/2011 pending before this court and prior to passing the compro-

mise decree in the said suit. Similarly the FIRST PARTY shall co-operate with the SECOND party to compromise the said suit and later execute the regis- tered GPA in favour of THIRD party as per the terms of this MOU, failing which the second party shall be liberty to cancel the registered documents executed by them in favour of FIRST PARTY in respect of the above said house property at Hyderguda, Hyderabad.

13.In pursuance of this Tripartite MOU, after execution of necessary docu- 5 ments in respect of suit schedule property A & B in favour of THIRD PARTY and his nominees and after passing the compromise decree/Award by the

Hon’ble court or the Lok Adalat in O.S No. 657 of 2011 and its connected

suits, the FIRST PARTY shall be no way concerned and connected to the present litigations pending in respect of schedule properties A & B and the

THIRD PARTY shall be solely responsible for all the pending litigations and clearing the same in future.

In view of the above terms of compromise, the suit is decreed. No costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 9 th day of April, 2021.

X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.