Smt M Kanaka Durga

1

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE SANGAREDDY.

Present: Smt.M.KanAka Durga, Secretary, Dist. Legal Services Authority, Medak at Sangareddy. FAC. Asst. Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

Friday the 28th day of April, 2017.

S.C. No. 293 of 2015

P.R.C. No.12/2015 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class Spl. Mobile Court,Sangareddy.

Committed by:: Sri D.Durga Prasad, Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Moible Court, Sangareddy.

Crime No. and P.S.: Crime No.238/2014 P.S. Sadashivpet.

1. Description of the accused. :1. V.Venkatesh Goud S/o. Vittal Goud, 32 yrs.

2. V.Padmavathi W/o. Vittal, 52 yrs.

3. V.Vittal Goud S/o. Laxma Goud, 59 yrs.

4. V.Vishwam S/o. Vittal Goud, 27 yrs.

5. Smt. Sarika D/o. Vittal Goud, 25 yrs. All R/o. Pothireddypally X roads, Sangareddy.

2. Charge.: U/Ss. 313, 323, 354(A)(2) 420, 498-A, 506 and 509 IPC. and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act

3. Plea of accused.: Not guilty.

4.Finding of the Judge.: Accused are found not guilty.

5. Sentence or order: A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences 313, 323, 354(A)(2) 420, 498-A, 506 and 509 IPC. and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act acquitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C.

6. Prosecution conducted by:: Sri J.Srinivas Reddy Addl. Public Prosecutor.

7. Accused defended by:: Sri M.Govedhan. Advocate.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

J.Srinivas Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri M.Goverdhan, Advocate

for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments

the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

1. The case of the prosecution, in brief is as follows;- 2

2.That on 12-5-2013 the complainant's marriage with A1 was performed as per Hindu Rites and Customs before the elders and well wishers of both of them. At the time of engagement, A1 is working as Engineer and demanded Rs.7,00,000/- cash and Adapaduchu katnam of Rs.40,000/- and twenty tolas of gold towards dowry and the father of the complainant with great difficulty collected the amount and paid an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- along with gold ornaments weighing about twenty tolas and Rs.40,000/- towards Adapaduchu katnam. Subsequently on 13-2-2013 engagement was done. The engagement expenses were bear by the father of the complainant. A1 husband of the complainant. A2 is the mother of A1, A3 is the father of A1, A4 is the brother of A1 and A5. A5 is the sister of A1. After the marriage, A1 and the complainant lead happy marital life for about two weeks only, thereafter A1 and her in-laws started harassing abusing the complainant in filthy language and openly stated that the complainant's face is ugly and she looks like old aged person and never good pair to her husband. Moreover, the accused A1 stated that he is having so many girl friends and compared the complainant with his friends and insuslted her.

Thereafter they started harassing for addl. dowry and demanded huge amount towards addl. Dowry. The complainant worked as a contract

Lecturer in GJC, Marpally and her salary was deposited in her account.

After the marriage, A1 took the ATM card of the complainant and sued her entire salary and misused the amounts for hisd lavish expenditure. When quentioned, A1 abused and threatened her that he never allowed her to do job. The complainant questioned about his job he gave evasive replies and used to come to the house in drunken state during late night and abused her in filthy language alleging that she is having illegal contacts with her lecturers. Further, he used to beat the complainant with iron rod. It is 3 contends that prior to the marriage A1 got injuries in an accident, due to which some siron rods are placed in her right leg and back. Before the marriage or after the marriage the accused persons never releaved the same. That after three months of their marriage she conceived and carrying two months pregnancy and the same was informed to A1, he suspecsted her pregnancy with another person and kicked on her stomach by the accused. Due to which, the complainant sufferred with high stomach pain and her in-laws never helped her and on serious condition after two hours of the incident, they shifted her to Jyothirmal Hospital where the doctor decided that it is entopic and got surgery at about 5-00 P.M. thereafter A1 tried to forget her and preparing for remarry. Further, A1 checked the complainant in vulgarly, it shows the sadist nature of A1.

It is further contends that the complaiant completed her B.Ed., at

Bangalore alokng with her younger sister and the A1 knowing the same and stated that “you stayed in Bangalore in months together and now he send you to Mumbai Red light area”. The other accused also abused her in filthy language. The brother of the accused and sister of the accused also harassed the complainant. The complainant's father sold away his agricultural lands that fact came to know by A1 and he started demanding to bring Rs.20,00,000/- for his business and also gold ornaments, one motorcycle and beat the complainant mercilessly and driven her out of the house on that the parents of the complainant agreed to give the same subsequently. The parents of the complaiant given an amount of Rs15,000/- for clothes. In such a way, A1 used to harass the complainant on so many reasons and also alleged contact with her brother-in-law and used to insult her in the society. As such, she is unable to bear the torture of A1, she gave complaint to the police. Basing on the complaint forwarded by the learned 4

Magistrate F.I.R. was registered for the offences 313, 323, 354(A)(2) 420,

498-A, 506 and 509 IPC. and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

3.The learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court

Sangareddy, took cognizance of the offences for the offences 313, 323, 354(A)(2) 420, 498-A, 506 and 509 IPC. and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. in

P.R.C.No.12/2015. As the case is exclusively triable by of the Court of

Session, committed the same to the Hon’ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

Medak Division at Sangareddy after following the procedure laid in Section 209 Cr.P.C. The case was registered in S.C.No. 293/2015 against the accused for the same offence and made it over to this court for disposal according to law.

4.On hearing the accused and after perusal of the record, charges for the offence U/Ss. 313, 323, 354(A)(2) 420, 498-A, 506 and 509 IPC. and

Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. have been framed against the accused, readover and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and reported closure of the prosecution evidence.

6.Since there is no incriminating material evidence found against the accused. Hence, the examination of the accused U/S.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

7.Heard on both side.

8.The point stood for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable for the above said offences

beyond reasonable doubts?

5

POINT:-

9.PW1 in her chief-examination admitted that whatever mentioned in the complaint and her statement before the learned Magistrate is true and correct, But, on the intervention of the elders they entered into compromise.

As such she wanted to withdraw the case that he in-laws returned the dowry amount and also future maintainance. As such, she wanted to withdraw the case against all the accused. So, the offences could be compounded. She denied the contents of Ex.P2. Similarly, the father of the complainant and mother of the complainant examined, they also deposed in a similar way that all the accused returned Rs.7,00,000/- and twenty tolas of gold and other articles apart from Rs.40,000/-;. As such they wanted to withdraw the case against all the accused.

10.On perusal of the evidence on record and Exs.P1 to P3, the prosecution failed to establilsh the guilt of the accused as they are not supported the case on account of the compromise that was took place between accused and the defacto-complainant. Thus the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

11.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Ss. 313, 323, 354(A)(2) 420, 498-A, 506 and 509 IPC. and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. and they are acquitted U/S.232 Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

SD/-

Asst. Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1 Ch.Apana.Nil.

PW2 Ch.Narsimhlu Goud.

PW3 Ch.Prameela

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1 Complaint.Nil.

Exs.P2 to P4 are 161 Cr.P. Statement of Pws.1 to 3 respectively.

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Nil.

SD/-

Asst. Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: ZAHEERABAD.

PRESENT: SMT. M. KANAKA DURGA, Secretary, Dkistrict Legal Services Authority, Sangareddy, FAC Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad

SATURDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017

O.S. 11 OF 2016

Between:

Goundla Lakshminarayana goud S/o Narayana goud, Aged: 40 years, Occ; Business, R/o H.No.2-3-150/3, Hanuman colony, Narayankhed village and mandal, Medak District.

….Plaintiff. A N D

1. Telangana State Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (Regd.), Hyderabad, represented by the Principal, T.S.S.W. Residential School/Jr. College (B), Narayankhed.

2. Joint Collector/Chairman, Dist. Purchase Committee, Medak District at Sangareddy.

3. District Collector , Medak at Sangareddy.

4. Chief Secretgary, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

...Defendants

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

Ashok Patil, Sri P. Mahadev, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendants having been set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,05,424/- being the amount of principal due and interest @ 18 per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization from the defendants jointly and severally.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief , is as follows:-

(a) The plaintiff was the contractor approved by District purchase

Committee for catering at Boys hostel, Narayankhed for the year 2013-2014 and 2014-15throughtheProceedingsbearing 2 RC.No.PRL.Con/MDK/Provisions/02/2013-2014, dt: 5.8.2013 and the

Proceedings No. Prl/Con/MDK/Provisions/02/2014, dt: 25.7.2014.

Under the Proceedings No. PRO. RC.No.Pr/Con/MDK/Provisions/02/2013- 2014 dt: 5.8.2013 plaintiff was appointed for one year commencing from 1.6.2013 and under the Proceedings No.Rc.No.Prl.Con/MDK/Provisions/02/2014, dt:

25.7.2014 from 12.6.2014. As per the proceedings for the year 2013-2014 catering charges for the students is Rs.4/- if cooked with L.P.G and if cooked with fire wood Rs. 3.50 per head and for the year 2014-15 Rs. 4/- per head with LPG

Gas and Rs.1.90 per head towards catering charges. Through the circular dated 6.9.2014 No.Rc.No.G2/+319/2014 rate was enhanced for catering per head as

Rs.5/- with LPG Rs.4/- with fire wood and Rs.2/- per head as Rs.5/- with LPG

Rs.4/- with fire wood and Rs.2/- per head as labour component. As per the said

Proceedings, agreements were executed by and between the defendant No.1 and plaintiff on 26.8.2013 for the year 2013-114 and on 1.8.2014 for the year 2014-15 in respect of the said catering contract.

(b) The plaintiff further submitted that after the plaintiff took charge of catering till the end of December, 2013, catering charges were prayed as agreed. Thereafter rates were not paid as agreed though plaintiff cooked and food with L.P.G. The strength of the hostel on the day when the plaintiff took up catering during the year 2013-14 was 512. During the year 2014-15 strength was 512 from June, 2014 to July, 2014. From August, 2014 to October, 2014 strength was 530. From thereon the strength was 520 students. The principal i.e., defendant No.1 without following the circulars issued by the Government and without proper verification made the payments of the catering charges and he made less payment of Rs. 5,05,423/- to the plaintiff from January, 2014 to April, 2015. It is submitted that from June, 2013 to December, 2013 the payments was made at the agreed rate of Rs.4/- per head for cooking with LPG Gas to the plaintiff and no amount was deducted for absentee students. But from January, 3 2014 payment was made by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.

3.50 Ps. Per head (which is the rate for cooking with fire wood) instead of Rs.4/- per head though the plaintiff cooked the food with LPG and amount was also deducted for absentees students, which is against the circular

Rc.No.G2/9300/2000 dated 22.12.2000. Further, from September, 2014, the rate was enhanced from Rs.4/- to Rs.5/- per head plus labour charges of Rs.1.90 Ps .

per head which comes to Rs. 6.90 ps. Per head. But payment was made to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.4/- per head only and amount was also deducted for absentee students. Thus a sum of Rs. 5,05,424/- is still balance payable to the plaintiff by the defendant No.1 towards the catering charges for which the plaitniff is entitled.

( c) It is respectfully submitted that the plaintiff gave representation

dt: 28.2.2015 before the Secretary, Telangana State Social Welfare Residential

Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad and also gave representation to the

District collector, Medak at Sangareddy on 7.3.2015 informing them about the irregularities in the payment made by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff towards the catering charges and requested them to settle the matter. But, there was no response from the said authorities. As such, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice

dt: 3.8.2015 to the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy ( defendant No.2) in this

regard by Registered post Acknowledgement due, requesting him to order for payment of the balance sum of Rs. 5,05,424/- to the plaintiff. The said notice was received by the defendant No.2 but no action was taken by the defendant NO.2 in this regard nor they have replied the said notice.

( d) He further submit that finally the plaintiff got issued a notice

Under Section 80 of C.P. C. to the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 dt: 22.9.2015 requesting them to make the payment of balance sum of Rs. 5,05,424/- to the plaintiff. The above notice was received by the defendant but the payment was not made to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is legally entitled to recover the above said 4 balance amount of Rs. 5,05,424/- from the defendants together with future interest and costs. Hence, the present suit.

3.The defendants did not choose to appear before this Court after receipt of summons and having knowledge about the filing of the suit against them. As such, they are set exparte.

4.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as

P.W.1 and got documents Ex.A.1 to A.13 marked on his behalf.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

7.POINT:

As already mentioned above, the defendants did not choose to appear before this Court to contest the matter for denying the allegations made in the plaint by the defendants. Thus, there are no contra pleadings made by the defendants. Further, the pleadings and evidence which are not denied by the defendants are presumed to be admitted. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged. Further, the documents Ex.A.1 to A.13 clearly go to show the liability of defendants for the payment of future liability of the first defendant, which is claimed in this suit with interest. Thus, I do not find any impediment in accepting the contention of the plaintiff and granting a decree accordingly.

Accordingly, this point is held in favour of the plaintiff.

5

8.In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of

Rs.5,05,424/- with future interest @ 9% Per Annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and in the circumstances, without costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of April, 2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Zaheerabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For plaintiff For defendants

P.W.1 G. Laxminarayana goudNil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Ex.P.1 is the Order dt: 5.8.2013 vide Proc. R.C.No.PRL.Con./MDK/Provisions/02/2013-14 issued by the J oint Collector, Chairman, District Purchase Committee, Medak Dist.

Ex.P.2 is the Agreement dt: 26.8.2013 executed by and between defendant No.1 and plaintiffs.

Ex.P.3 is the order dt: 25.7.2014 vide Proc. RC.No.PRL.Con.,/MEDK/Provisions/02/2014 issued by the Joint Collector./Chairman, District Purchase Committee, Medak Dist.

Ex.,P.4 is the agreement dt: 1.8.2014 executed by and between the defendant No.1 and plaintiff.

Ex.P.5 is the Circular bearing RC.No.G2/T/319/2014 dt: 6.9.2014 issued by the Secretary, T.S.W.R.E.I Society, Hyderabad.

Ex.P.6 is the Circular bearing RC.No.G2/9300/2000, dt: 22.12.2000 issued by the Secretary, T.S.W.R.E.I Society, Hyderabad.

Ex.P.7 is the office copy of Representation dt: 28.2.2015 submitted by the plaintiff

before the Secretary, T.S.W.R.E.I. Society, Hyderabad.

Ex.P.8 is the office copy of the representation dt: 7.3.2015 submitted by the plaintiff

before the Dist. Collector, Medak at Sangareddy.

Ex.P.9 is the office copy of legal notice dt: 3.8.2015 issued by the plaintiff.

6 Ex.P.10 is the postal acknowledgement card.

Ex.P.11 is the office copy of the notice under section 80 of C.P.C issued by plaintiff to the defendants.

Ex.P.12 is the postal receipt dt: 22.9.2015 ( 2 Nos.)

Ex.P.13 is the postal acknowledgement card.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

Nil

Senior Civil Judge,

Zaheerabad

THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ZAHEERABAD

Present:Smt. M. Kanakadurga, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Sangareddy, FAC Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad.

SATURDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017

O.S.No.10 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

Patlolla Narasimhareddy S/o Venkatreddy, Aged: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Pastapur village and Zaheerabad mandal, Medak District. …Plaintiff

A N D

1. Patlolla Venkatreddy S/o Bhojreddy, Aged: 67 years,

2. Patlolla Ramesh Reddy S/o Venkatreddy, Aged: 35 years,

3. Patlolla Anasuja W/o Venkatreddy, Aged: 62 years, Occ: House wife, All are R/o Agriculturists, R/o Pastapur village, Zaheerabad mandal, Medak District. …Defendants

This suit is coming on before me in the presence of Sri R. Manik

Reddy, Sri Ashok Patil, Counsel for plaintiffs and the defendants having been remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, the Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the reliefs as under:

1. Preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties.

2. To appoint Advocate Commissioner and divide the suit schedule property into three shares and allot (1) such share to the plaintiff and remaining two shares to the defendants 1 and 2 by passing final decree.

3. To award costs of the suit.

2

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiff submitted that suit schedule lands i.e., Sy.No.112 part admeasuring Ac.3-00, Sy.No.34 part admeasuring Ac.0-05guntas and Sy.No.35 admeasuring Ac.1-06guntas and Sy.No.45 admeasuring

Ac.1-04guntas all lands are situated at Pastapur village, Zaheerabad mandal, Medak District ( hereinafter called as suit schedule properties) are joint family properties enjoying by the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff further submitted that the item No.3 was purchased by the defendant No.1 with th joint family funds in the name of defendant No.3 as benami for the benefit of the joint family members. The suit schedule properties mutated in the name of the joint family members for the purpose of availing Government benefits under small scale farmers. The plaintiff and defendants are enjoying the suit schedule properties jointly irrespective of revenue entires in the name of the joint family members by raising dry and wet crops in the said lands. The item No.1, 2 and 4 are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and item No.3 was purchased in the name of defendant No.3 with the joint family funds.

( b) The plaintiff further submitted that as usually he discussed with the defendants with regard to raising of sugar cane crop by obtaining the loan from the bank on 5.1.2016. The defendants have not come forward and not co-operated for the development of agriculture. The plaintiff has been working day and night looking after the agricultural affairs.

Suspecting the attitude of defendants, the plaintiff approached the

Tahsildar office, Zaheerabad and obtained pahani patrikas. Surprisingly 3 he came to know that the defendants in collusion with each other got their names in the revenue records without his consent and acknowledgement though the suit item No.3 joint family property and other are ancestral properties. The revenue authorities without giving notice to him behind back of the plaintiff mutated the names of the defendants in respect of suit schedule properties.

( c) The plaintiff further submitted that the defendants by taking advantage of illegal entries in the revenue records are trying to alienate the suit schedule properties in favour of third parties and the plaintiff is personally cultivating the suit schedule properties with his experience apart from hard work and with the hard earnings of agriculture schedule item No.3 was purchased. His father is suffering with old age ailments and since long time he is unable to do agriculture and the sole plaintiff is looking after the agricultural affairs. On 5.2.2016, the plaintiff demanded the defendants to effect partition with metes and bounds, but they jointly refused to effect partition and denied the partition. Hence, the present suit is made to be filed.

3. Summons on this suit have been ordered to be served on the defendants. As they did not turn up after receipt of summons and submit their respective submissions before this Court, they are set exparte.

4.To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff is examined as

PW1 and he got documents Exs.A-1 to A-7 marked on his behalf.

5.The points for determination are:

4

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the pleadings and the evidence of PW1 and also the documents that are filed by P.W.1 marked as Ex.A-1 to A-7.

7.As stated above in the pleadings and also the affidavit of

P.W.1, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

8. POINT NO.1:

In order to rebut the evidence of P.W.1, the defendants called absent and set exparte and there are no pleadings and evidence on behalf of the defendants. As already mentioned above, the defendants did not choose to appear and contest the matter inspite of the summons received by them. Thus, the pleadings and the evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Further, there are no contra pleadings and evidence placed by any of the defendants. The pleadings and the evidence of the plaintiff which are not denied by the defendants are deemed to have been accepted. It is under those circumstances, there cannot be any impediment in accepting the contention of the plaintiff.

Accordingly, this point is held in favour of the plaintiff.

5

11.POINT NO.2: To what relief?

In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff is preliminarily decreed whereunder, the plaintiff is declared entitled to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and in the circumstances, there be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of April, 2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Zaheerabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For plaintiffs For defendants

P.W.1: P. Narsumha reddyNil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Ex.A.1: C.C of hasra pahani of Sy.No.112 for the year 1954-55. Ex.A.2: C.C. Of R.O.R for the year 1979-80. Ex.A.3: C.C. Of R.O.R for the year 1989-90. Ex.A.4: C.C. Of pahani patrika for the year 2000-01. Ex.A.5: C.C. Of pahani patrika for the year 2008-09. Ex.A.6: C.C. Of pahani patrika for the year 2009-10. Ex.A.7:House ownership certificate issued by the panchayat Secretary.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

Nil

Senior Civil Judge,

Zaheerabad 6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SANGAREDDY.

Present: Smt. M.Kanka Durga, Secretary District Legal Services Authority, Medak at Sangareddy. FAC Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

Monday the 2nd day of November, 2015.

O.S.No. 333 of 2013.

Between:-

1. Kavali Chendrakala @ Padma D/o. K.Chennaiah, 22 yrs, R/o. Munthangi(v),.

2. Kavali Mahes S/o. Chennaiah, 20 yrs, R/o. Kollur(v),.

Plaintiffs. And.

1. Kavali Chennaiah S/o. Late Ramaiah, 51 yrs,

2. Gurujala Susheelamma W/o. Late Mallaiah Goud, 59 yrs.

3. V.L.S.Prasad S/o. Pichaiah, Major,.

4. Shamsundar Sharma S/o. Surajmadhava Sharma, Major, Both R/o. Land Mark Aparts Block No.604, Madinagude, Near Miyanpur, Hyderabad.

Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for hearing in the presence of

Sri Middhinit Srinivas, Advocate for the Plaintiff, defendants set-exparte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T:

1.The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule land situated at

Kollur(v), Ramchandrapuram Mandal.

2. The averments in the plaint in brief are as follows;-

It is averred that the defendant No.1 is the father of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4 are the third parties of the plaintiffs family. That one Kavali Shivaiah was the original owner and common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1's family that Shvaiah died long back leaving behind the grand father and his brothers. The grand 2 father of the plaintiffs had divided their share as each Ac.0-20 guntas and the plaintiffs grand father had succeeded the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.165/A admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas out of Ac.2-02 guntas, but due to the death of late Ramaiah his name was not entered in the revenue record i.e. plaintiffs grand father. The plaintiffs father who was elder son his name was entered in the revenue records. It is further stated that late Kavali Ramaiah died long back leaving behind four sons namely: Kavali Chenaiah, Kavali Shivaiah,

Kavali Mallesham and Kavali Shankaraiah had succeeded the agricultural land i Sy.No.165/A2 by dividing in three equal shares i.e.

Ac.0-07 guntas. Kavali Shankaraiah was taken illitum son-in-law to the family of Satyamma therefore he did not take any share form the date of partition, the plaintiffs father is in possession and enjoyment over the suit property. The suit property is ancestral property and plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property till today. The father of the plaintiffs was looking same being elder and Kartha of the joint family and regularly used the agricultural produce and profits and their father sold out agricultural land in Sy.No.44/E and 157 to some third parties long back. There is no partition of suit schedule property between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1.

3.It is further averred that the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant No.1 is mis-managing and trying to sell the Hindu un- divided joint family property on that the plaintiffs demanded the defendant No.1 for partition of the suit property on 2-9-2013 for that defendant No.1 assured the plaintiffs that he would make partition at 3 an appropriate time. That the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 is entitled for 2/3rd share each in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff again on 22-11-2013 demanded the defendant No.1 for partition, but the defendant No.1 postponed the same and tried to alienate the suit property to defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiffs have obtained certified copies of pahanies from the M.R.O. and they came to know that recently the names of the defendants 3 & 4 was entered in the pahanies for the year, 2008-09 and 2010-2011 with collusion of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 is not having any right to sell the ancestral property and the said entries in the revenue records is invalid in the eye of law. The plaintiffs further came to know that the defendants 3 and 4 are also trying to sell the suit property to some third parties in collusion with defendant No.1. Thereafter the plaintiffs made application before the Tahsildar for correction of wrong entries, as such the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are in joint possession in the suit property.

3.The defendants called absent and set-exparte.

4.On behalf of plaintiffs, the second plaintiff himself examined as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of defendants no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of defendants. Ex.A1

R.O.R. pahani for the year, 1979-1980. Exs.A2 Certified copy of pahani for the year, 1989-1990. Ex.A3 Certified copy of pahani for the year, 1995-1996. Ex.A4 Certified copy of pahani for the year, 1996- 1997, Ex.A5 Certified copy of pahani for the year,2000-01, Ex.A6

Certified copy of pahani for the year,2005-06. Ex.A7 Certified copy of pahani for the year,2008-09. Ex.A8 Certified copy of pahani for the 4 year, 2010-2011. Ex.A9 Market value certificate. The defendants called absent and set-exparte, as such PW1 filed her chief-affidavit stating that the facts which are mentioned in the plaint in support of her claim is one and the same.

5.I perused the plaint, documents which are filed on behalf of plaintiffs is established since the defendants are not contesting the suit. Hence, the suit is decreed and a preliminary decree is passed declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled their 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property and the defendant No.1 also entitled their share 1/3rd with metes and bounds in respect of the suit schedule property.

5.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and a preliminary decree is passed declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled their 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property and the defendant No.1 also entitled their share 1/3rd with metes and bounds in respect of the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of November, 2015.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS.

PW1 Kavali Mahesh.Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF.

Ex.A1 R.O.R. pahani for the year, 1979-1980.

Exs.A2 Certified copy of pahani for the year, 1989-1990.

Ex.A3 Certified copy of pahani for the year, 1995-1996.

Ex.A4 Certified copy of pahani for the year, 1996-1997.

Ex.A5 Certified copy of pahani for the year,2000-01.

Ex.A6 Certified copy of pahani for the year,2005-06.

Ex.A7 Certified copy of pahani for the year,2008-09.

5

Ex.A8 Certified copy of pahani for the year, 2010-2011.

Ex.A9 Market value certificate.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS.

Nil.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

6

1

O.S.NO.145 OF 2016.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SANGAREDDY.

Present: Smt. M.Kanaka Durga, Secretary Dist. Legal Services Authority, Medak at Sangareddy. FAC. Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

Saturday 29th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No. 145 of 2016.

Between:-

M.N.Sumethra Devi W/o. Late Ashiah, 78 yrs. R/o. H.No.5-4-780/16/A Bhagwandas Bada Street No.1 Abids, Hyderabad. Plaintiff. And.

1.M.N.Sumethra Devi W/o.late Ashaiah, 78 yrs. H.No.5-4-780/11, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad.

2. U.V.V. Prasad S/o.Narendra Rao, 40 yrs, R/o.Flat No.404 H.No.3-3-31/LS/404, Sri Lakshmisai Towers, Bagh Ameeri Near Ramalyam, Kuktapally, Hyderabad.

3. K.Shivvaiah S/o. K.Laxminarayana, 45 yrs, R/o.H.No.15-21,150/106/20-B, Dhana Laxmi Nilayam, Balajinagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri N.Madhu, Advocate for the Plaintiff, defendants having been set-exparte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T:

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for cancellation of

A.G.P.-Cum-General Power of Attorney vide document No.1596/2015 and for injunction.

2

O.S.NO.145 OF 2016.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:-

The plaintiff purchawsed a plot in Sy.No.331 situated at Ameenpur(v), from the original owners namely: Ch.Gopamma and Suguna represented by their registered GPA holder M.Narayan Reddy. The said Narayan Reddy made entireland into house plots. The plaintiff purchaseda plot No.71 in

Sy.No.331 through a registered document No.6749/1987 on 17-8-1987. That the plot No.71 admeasuring 200 sq. Yards in Sy.no.331 situated at

Ameenpur(v), which is more f ully described in the schedule as suit schedule property and the same was purchsed by the plaintiff form the original owners under a registered sale deed. On the date of execution of sale deed the vendors delivered physical possession of the suit schedule property without any iterruption from any one. Since the date of purchase the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

She further contends that due to his employment she could not construct a house over the suit schedule property. In the month of November, 2015 she approached S.R.O. Sangareddy for obtaining encumbrance certificate where she came to know that the suit property transferred in favour of second defendant under a document No.15962/2015 dated: 7-9- 2015 i.e. agreement of sale-Cum-General Power of Attorney executed by the first defendant impersonating the plaintiff. On enquiry she came to know that the second defendant alleged to have been created fake and forged 3

O.S.NO.145 OF 2016.

documents which required for registration.

The plaintiff further contends that she never executed any sale deed in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. She further came to know that the second defendant in turn executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 document No.7760/2016 dated: 11-4-2016.

Actually, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and she never sold the same. The defendants 2 and 3 are not right and title to transfer the suit property. The second defendant impersonating taken the signature of the plaintiff got created invalid Aadhar card and got an unknown person showing as Sumethra Devi. It is clearly shown that the second defendant got created the fake Aadhar card to execute the fake document by impersonating the plailntiff.

In the month of June, 2016 the plaintiff and her family members approached the defendants 2 and 3 requestinghim to get the power of attorney and sale deed cancelled, but the defendants 2 and 3 refused to do so. Taking advantage of the above said sale deed, there is every likelihood that the defendant No.3 with a malafide intention in order to defraud the plaintiff alienate the suit schedule property to any third parties and interfer into the suit property and if this is done so, it would lead to multiplicity of the prceedings and the purpose of filing the present itself would be frustrated.

Hence, prays the court to decree the suit with costs.

4

O.S.NO.145 OF 2016.

3.Notices served to the defendants, but they did not appear before the court and not file written statement. Hence, they are set-exparte.

4.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself is examined as PW2 and got documents Exs.A1 to A4 marked on his behalf.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Point for determination is:-

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for cancellation of GPA-Cum-

General Power of Attorney vide documentNo.15962/2015 and for

injunction as prayed for?

POINT:-

7.As already mentioned above, all the defendants did not choose to contest the matter by denying the pleadings of the plaintiff. Thus, there is no contra pleadings nor evidence placed by the defendants. As such, a presumption can be drawn to the effect that the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff which are not denied by the defendants, are deemed to have been admitted.

8.Thus, on careful perusal and examination of the material available on record, this court does not find any impediment in accepting the case of the plaintiff and to grant a decree in her favour as prayed for.

Accordingly, this point is held in favour of the plaintiff.

9.In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with costs and 5

O.S.NO.145 OF 2016.

cancelled the A.G.P.A-Cum-General Power of Attorney vide document

No.15962/2015 dated; 7-9-2015.

1. The suit is decreed and the sale deed vide document No.7760/2016

dated: 11-4-2016 is also cancelled.

2.The suit is decreed granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.3 from alienating the suit schedule property in any manner

In the circumstances, the suit is decreed with costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of April, 2017.

SD/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS.

PW1M.N.Sumethra Devi.Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF.

Ex.A1 Certified copy of original document No.6749/1987 dated: 17-8-1987.

Ex.A2 Certified copy of alleged forged title deed document No.17-8-1987.

Ex.A3 Certified copy ofalleged AGPA doc.No.15962/2015 dt. 7-9-2015.

Ex.A4 Certified copy of alleged sale deed doc.No.7760/2016 dt. 11-4-2016.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS.

Nil.

SD/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

6

O.S.NO.145 OF 2016.