Ms. M.Lavanya Rani

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE 1 st ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT MIRYALAGUDA

Dated, this the 11th day of May, 2026

Present: Smt. M. Lavanya Rani 1st Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalguda

O.S. No. 276 of 2022

B E T W E E N : Yaramada Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o: Late Y. Janakiram Reddy, Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired Teacher, R/o: H. No. 29-30, C/o: Mudireddy Sudhakar Reddy, Edulaguda, Miryalaguda Municipality and Town, Nalgonda District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1.Goli Dasratha Reddy, S/o: Chenna Reddy, Age: 82 years, Occ: Lecturer, C/o: D. Goutham Reddy, R/o: Mythri Classic, Fourth Floor, Chithra Layout, Beside Ranga Reddy Court, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Goli Pretham Reddy, S/o: Goli Dasratha Reddy, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Mythri Classic, First Floor, Chithra layout, Beside Ranga Reddy Court, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

.... Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri. G. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Defendants and after hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

2

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

1) This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from causing interference with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property i.e., All that Sy. No. 62/U/1 admeasuring Ac.

0.30gts situated at Chillapuram Revenue Village, Miryalaguda

Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District with boundaries:- East:

Canal and Babu Sahebpeta Road, West: Late Anumula Koti

Reddy House, North: Agriculture land of Goli Dasaratha Reddy (Defendant No.1), South: Babu Shebpeta Road, which is called as suit schedule property.

2) The brief facts of the plaint are that:

I. Originally Goli Tarakamma was the absolute owner and possessor to an extent of Ac.1.00gts in Sy. No. 62 situated at Chillapuram Village, while it is so, an extent of

Ac.0.10gts out Ac. 1.00 gts in Sy. No. 62/U situated at

Chillapuram Shivar Village, Miryalguda Revenue Mandal,

Nalgonda District belongs to one Smt.Anumula

Narayanamma, W/o: A. Venkat Reddy and the same was purchased under a registered Sale Deed bearing No. 2994

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

3 of 1995 dt: 04.10.1995 and Smt. Goli Tharakamma who is the mother of Smt. Anumula Narayanamma settled Sy.

No. 62/U admeasuring Ac.0.30gts situated at

Chillapuram Shivar Village, Miryalguda Revenue Mandal,

Nalgonda District in favour of Smt. Anumula

Narayanamma under a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing No.2993 of 1995 dt: 30.09.1995. Smt.Anumula

Narayanamma approached the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Miryalguda and her name was entered in the revenue records of Chillapuram Revenue Village and Pattedar

Pass Book and Title Deed were issued in her favour.

II. It is averred that Anumula Narayanamma settled the above agriculture property in favour of her daughter Smt.

Yaramada Rama Devi under a registered gift settlement deed bearing No.11172 of 2019 dt: 04.11.2019. Later her name was entered in the revenue records of Chillapuram

Revenue Village and the revenue authorities issued pattedar pass book and title deed in her favour.

III.It is further averred that the mother of Smt.

Yaramada Rama Devi i.e., Smt. Anumula Narayanamma

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

4 and his brother i.e. defendant No.1 got understanding regarding Ac.0.10 gts. in Sy. No.62/U of Chillapuram

Village, Miryalguda Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District.

Smt. Yaramada Rama Devi and the Defendant No.1 called the elders i.e. Sri. Kotla Srinivas Reddy and Sri.Burri

Sreenivas Reddy of Chillapuram Village, Sri.V.Goverdhan

Reddy, P.A to Sri. Gutha Sukhender Reddy, Chairman of the Telangana Legislative Council to settled the understanding dispute between defendant No.1 and

Smt.Anumala Narayanamma regarding Ac.0.10 Gts. land in Sy. No.62/U with Smt.Anumula Narayanamma, at that time the defendant No.1 obtained an Un-registered

Dhanapatram of Smt Narayanamma to protect her mother agreed to execute registered gift settlement deed but, the defendant No.1 requested to execute register sale deed in respect of Ac.0.10gts (understanding land). Smt.

Yaramada Rama Devi being the daughter of Anumula

Narayanamma, the defendant No.1 his will and wish obtained a registered sale deed bearing No.880 of 2021 dt.06.09.2021 in his favour, though no single pie was

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

5 received towards sale consideration shown in the said registered sale deed by Smt Y.Rama Devi. In fact, the said registerd sale deed was executed for the property covered by the said un-registered Dana Patram, which was fraudulently and forcefully obtained from Smt

Narayanamma, as she is illiterate. The defendant No.1 executed a memo of understanding dt.06.09.2021 in favour of Smt.Y.Rama Devi in the presence of Sri. Kotla Srinivas

Reddy and Sri. Burri Sreenivas Reddy.

IV. It is further submitted that Smt. Yaramada Rama

Devi remaining land i.e. Sy.No.62/U1 admeasuring

Ac.0.30 gts situated at Chillapuram Shivar Village,

Miryalguda Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District was settled under a registered gift settlement deed bearing

No.436 of 2022 dt.17.03.2022 in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is the husband of Smt. Yaramada Rama Devi.

The plaintiff herein was issued e-pass book under the

Dharani Portal by the Tahsildar, Miryalguda Revenue

Mandal and the said land is herein after called suit

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

6 schedule land. The plaintiff is the owner and possesser of the suit schedule land.

V.It is further averred that the defendants herein are the near relatives and the defendant No.1 is having land in Sy.No.62/U admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts situated at

Chillapuram Shivar Village, Miryalguda Revenue Mandal,

Nalgonda District on the Northern side of the suit schedule land which is given by plaintiff wife at the instance of her mother Smt.Anumula Narayanamma and thus the defendants are adjacent cultivators on the

Northern side of the Suit Schedule Land of the plaintiff.

But the defendants herein are nothing to do with the suit schedule land and with the plaintiff herein. The defendants herein have no way concerned with suit schedule land. On 01.08.2022 they came to the suit schedule land and tried to disturb the boundary on the northern side of the suit schedule land by removing the fixed boundary stones and the plaintiff, his wife restrained the defendants from causing interference in the suit schedule land.

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

7

VI. It is further stated that the defendants herein having knowledge the suit schedule land belongs to the plaintiff, even though again on 05.08.2022 they came to the suit schedule and tried to remove the boundary stones on the

Northern side of the suit schedule land. The plaintiff, his wife and friends restrained the defendants from causing interference in the suit schedule land. The defendants herein left the suit Schedule Land, saying that they will come again and they will dispose the plaintiff from the

Suit Schedule Land. The plaintiff approached the Police

Station Rural to file a complaint and the police informed the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court.

VII.It is further submitted that except the defendants being an adjacent cultivators on the Northern side of the suit schedule land and the defendants to extract sum amount or land came to the suit schedule Land on 01.08.2022 and on 05.08.2022 with the unsocial elements and tried to cause interference into the suit schedule land and tried to remove the boundary stones on the Northern side of the suit schedule land.

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

8

3) Per contra, defendants filed written statement by denying the petitioner averments. Further stated that the wife of the plaintiff, Yaramada Ramadevi sold to an extent of Ac.0.10gts., in Sy. No.62/U to the defendant No.1 for a valuable consideration and executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.880/2021, dt. 04.09.2021 and delivered possession of the same to the defendant No.1. After the said purchase the defendant No.1 erected stone pillars on the

Southern side of Ac.0.10gts., land purchased by him. The land purchased by the defendant No.1 is to the Southern side of the

Ac.0.10gts., of land covered by the Unregistered Gift Deed

dated 29.11.2019 executed by the sister of the defendant no.1,

Anumula Narayanamma.

II) The Ac.0-10gts., of plot purchased by the defendant no.1 from the wife of the plaintiff and the Ac.0.10gts., of land covered by the Unregistered Gift Deed are not one and the same, though they are situated side by side. The defendant no.1 is thus in possession Ac.0.20gts., of land in Sy. No.62/U of

Chillapuram village and his possession is to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiff.

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

9

III. That the plaintiff and his wife having developed malafidies and to deprive the defendant No.1 of Ac.0.10gts., of land, have clandestinely brought into existence a registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.436/2022, dt.17.03.2022 in favour of the plaintiff by taking gift of land measuring

Ac.0.30gts., from his wife. The gift deed by the wife in favour of her husband is nothing but a sham and bogus document brought into existence to defeat the claim of the defendant no.1 in respect of Ac.0.10gts., of land covered by the above- mentioned un registered gift deed.

IV. That the plaintiff got damaged the stone pillars erected by the defendant no.1 on the Southern side of his Ac.0.20gts., of land and merged the Ac.0.10gts., of land by the defendant no.1 by disturbing the existing bund and he could do so after obtaining exparte order of injunction from the Hon'ble court.

V. The plaintiff by filing the above suit is harassing the defendant no.1 to go round the court in his old age and is bent upon to grab his Ac.0-10gts., of land under the garb of injunction. The plaintiff without taking into consideration, the help extended by the defendant no.1 to the family of his

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

10 mother-in-law and by forgetting the services and expenditure in bringing up his wife Y. Ramadevi and performing her marriage with him, filed the above suit with all false recitals and he could do so only with a view to knock away Ac.0-10gts., of land of the defendant no.1 out of the suit schedule property.

Hence, requested to dismiss the suit.

3) To substantiate the suit claim, plaintiff examined himself as

PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A7. On the other hand none were examined and no documents were marked for defendants.

4) Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

5) Now the points for consideration is:

(a) Whether the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants using sham and false documents?

(b) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit?

(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be granted with perpetual injunction by restraining defendants, their agents, servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property?

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

11

(d) If so, to what extent?

6) Point Nos 1 to 3 : This suit is filed by plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants in relation to suit schedule property. PW1 i.e., plaintiff No.1 examined himself as a witness and adduced documentary evidence. As per

PW1’s evidence, Ex.A1: Original new pattadar pass book vide katha No. 60270 vide book No. T28170030796. Ex.A2 is the original gift deed vide document No. 436/2022 dt: 17.03.2022,

SRO, Miryalaguda. Ex.A3 is the original registered gift deed vide document No. 11172/2019, dt: 04.11.2019, SRO,

Miryalaguda. Ex.A4 is the original gift settlement deed vide document No. 2993/1995, dt: 30.09.1995, SRO, Miryalaguda.

Ex.A5 is the original old title book vide patta No. 445, book

No. 307424. Ex.A6 is the original old pattadar pass book katha vide patta No. 445, book No. 307424. Ex.A7 is the original registered sale deed vide document No. 2994 of 1995

dt: 04.10.1995 of SRO, Miryalaguda, which shows that the

plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property.

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

12

7) On the other hand, the counsel for the defendant submitted that cross examination of PW1 is “NILL”, hence cross examination of PW1 was closed and nothing was proved against the plaintiff as contended by the defendants. Further, the defendants did not choose to produce the evidence on their behalf even by oral or documentary to prove their case in absence of which nothing was proved as contended by the defendants on their behalf and in such circumstances a settled principle is “when a party to the suit does not come into the witness box and depose evidence or give opportunity to cross examine him by opposite party then the contentions raised by him in pleading by way of written statement should be treated as false”. Therefore, the oral evidence under PW1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 placed

before this court on behalf of plaintiff is clinchingly

established the case of plaintiff.

8) At this juncture, this Court relied on the decisions reported in 1999 (2) ALD (S.C. SN) 19, “Wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that "Indian Evidence Act - Section 114(g) -

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

13

Defendant failing to appear as a witness to substantiate his defence. It can be presumed that his pleas in the written statement are not established. Suit can be decreed on the basis of evidence adduced by the plaintiff" and further reported in AIR 1999 S.C. 1441 * Vidhyadar Vs Mankik Rao and another, it was held by the

Honorable Supreme Court 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“.

Perused the unchallenged evidence of PW1 and also the documents referred to above, from which this court is satisfied that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The evidence of PW1 also reveals that the interference caused by the defendants. The plaintiff is apprehending imminent danger of his dispossession from the suit property in the hands of the defendants. Originally Goli

Tarakkamma was the owner of the suit schedule property, thereafter it was transferred to her daughter by name

Anumula Narayanamma through Ex.A4 and Ex.A7, thereafter it was transferred to Yaramada Rama Devi who is the daughter of Anumula Narayanamma and wife of plaintiff

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

14 through Ex.A3 and from there it was transferred to plaintiff through Ex.A2 and from then the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The oral evidence is coupled with documentary evidence. The plaintiff established his title and possession over the plaint schedule property by adducing both oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property is to be protected by way of permanent injunction. Hence, issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff.

9) Point No.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff granting Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, henchmen, followers etc., from interfering of the suit schedule property i.e., Sy. No.

62/U/1 admeasuring Ac. 0.30gts situated at Chillapuram

Revenue Village, Miryalaguda Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda

District with boundaries:- East: Canal and Babu Sahebpeta

Road, West: Late Anumula Koti Reddy House, North:

Agriculture land of Goli Dasaratha Reddy (Defendant No.1),

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

15

South: Babu Shebpeta Road. Pending I.As or restored IAs if any shall stand disposed.

(Typed by Stenographer Gr-III on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of

May, 2026)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Miryalaguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff :

PW-1: Yaramada Chandra Sekhar Reddy

For Defendants: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Original new pattadar pass book vide katha No. 60270 vide book No. T28170030796.

Ex.A2 is the original gift deed vide document No. 436/2022 dt: 17.03.2022, SRO, Miryalaguda. Ex.A3 is the original registered gift deed vide document No. 11172/2019, dt: 04.11.2019, SRO, Miryalaguda. Ex.A4 is the original gift settlement deed vide document No. 2993/1995, dt: 30.09.1995, SRO, Miryalaguda. Ex.A5 is the original old title book vide patta No. 445, book No. 307424. Ex.A6 is the original old pattadar pass book katha vide patta No. 445, book No. 307424 Ex.A7 is the original registered sale deed vide document No. 2994 of 1995 dt: 04.10.1995 of SRO, Miryalaguda.

O.S. 276/2022

Dt: 11.05.2026

16

For Defendants:

-NIL-

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Miryalaguda

CC 717 of 2022

Dt: 04.05.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT MIRYALAGUDA

Present :- Smt. M. Lavanya Rani I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Miryalaguda (Dated this the 04th day of May, 2026)

CC No. 717 of 202 2

B E T W E E N:- The State of Telangana through S.H.O. P.S. Adavidevulapally. …Complainant

AND

1. Pathulothu Srinu, S/o: Deepla, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Veerlapalem Village of Damarcherla Mandal.

2. Pathulothu Bodya, S/o: Deepla, Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Veerlapalem Village of Damarcherla Mandal.

3. Pathulothu Balu, S/o: Deepla, Age: 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Veerlapalem Village of Damarcherla Mandal.

4. Pathulothu Saida, S/o: Deepla, Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Veerlapalem Village of Damarcherla Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of APP for State and of Sri. S. Srinivas, Counsel for the Accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

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

1) Accused are indicted for the offence punishable under Secs. 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC on police filing the charge sheet with following accusations.

CC 717 of 2022

Dt: 04.05.2026

2 2)Brief facts in charge sheet is as follows :

That on 13.09.2021 at 14.00 hours, complainant namely Pathulothu

Lakma came to the police station and lodged a written petition stating that there are land disputes regarding boundaries of agricultural land in Sy. No. 145 situated at the outskirts of

Ulsaipalem Village in between the complainant and his neighborhood farmers. On 12.09.2021 at about 14.00 hours, while the complainant along with his family members were planting paddy herb in their fields, in the meantime, their neighborhood farmers A1 to A4 were picked up a quarrel with the complainant and his sons by name Pathulothu Balu/LW2 and Pathulothu

Krishna/LW3 by keeping the boundary dispute in their mind and beat them, in this quarrel, A1 beat LW3 with a stone on his nose, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.

Basing on the report, LW9/ N. Narsi Reddy, HC of

Adavidevulapally Police Station, registered a case in Crime

No.134/2021 for the offence under Secs. 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW9 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and LW2 at police station, proceeded to Sri Balaji ENT hospital, Miryalaguda, examined and recorded the statement of injured/LW3. On the next

CC 717 of 2022

Dt: 04.05.2026

3 day, LW9 visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of LW6/

Nanneboina Nagaiah and LW7/ Ramavath Pakira under a cover of panchanama, recorded the statements of LW4/ Pathulothu Hanma and LW5/ Gumma Ravi. Subsequently, LW10/ K. Veerashekar,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Adavidevulapally PS took up further investigation of this and verified the investigation done by LW9 is on proper lines. On 16.09.2021, LW10 served notice under Sec.

41(a)(1) of Cr.P.C. to accused persons. Collected wound certificate of

LW3 from LW8/ Dr. G. Srinivasa Samaradh who treated the injured/LW3. After completion of investigation, LW10 filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4 for the offence under Secs. 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

3) This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under

Sections 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC, against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the charge sheet and the documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4) The accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., charge framed under Sections 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC, against the accused,

CC 717 of 2022

Dt: 04.05.2026

4 read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) During the course of trial, prosecution had examined PW1 to

PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.

6) After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., with incriminating evidence brought against them, for which they denied the truthfulness of it, yet submitted no defence evidence on their behalf.

7) Heard the arguments of both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Secs. 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC. , beyond all reasonable doubts?

9) Point :- In nutshell, it is the case of prosecution that accused A1 to A4 quarreled with LW1 to LW3 and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to LW3 by keeping the land disputes regarding boundaries of agriculture land in between them.

10)To prove prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7. The PW1 in his chief examination evidence testified that he has compromised

CC 717 of 2022

Dt: 04.05.2026

5 with the accused and he has no knowledge about the facts of the case. Except identifying his signature on report under Ex.P1. The learned APP declare him as hostile. PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses to the incident, they also turned hostile.In their chief examination they all testified to the extent that, they do not know about the case facts and police never examined them and never recorded their statements and turned hostile. During the cross examination by Lr. APP also, PW2 and PW3 have given complete go-by to their earlier statements under Ex.P 4 and P5 respectively.

PW4 is the injured person, he also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

11)PW5 and PW6 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence and seizure panchanama and they testified that police never conducted any panchanama and drawn rough sketch and nothing was seized in their presence. Except identifying their signatures under Ex.P6 and P7. Therefore, nothing could elicited by learned

APP even during the cross examination.

12)PW7 the Investigating Officer testified on the similar lines as he did averred in the charge sheet I find not required to be extracted at the cost of repetition.

CC 717 of 2022

Dt: 04.05.2026

6

13)Thus from the prosecution version coupled with evidence adduced, to the question of fact whether accused had committed the alleged offence. PW1 to PW6 turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution.

14)As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW6, it is seen that, there is no direct evidence to connect the accused to the alleged offence. Except the evidence of investigating officer/PW7, there is no other evidence corroborated with the evidence of PW7. Thus, in the absence of independent evidence, it is not safe to rely on the sole testimony of the investigating officer.

15)Thus, upon considering of the entire evidence on record, it is to be held that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused to the alleged offence. In the circumstances, for want of evidence, it is to be held that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which he is charged and as such, they are entitled for acquittal of the said offences.

16)In view of the above all discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to made out its case against the accused for

CC 717 of 2022

Dt: 04.05.2026

7 the offence under Sections 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC and the point is answered accordingly against the prosecution.

17)Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the accused persons in this case and it is well settled principle that penal statues should be strictly construed when prosecution proves the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case on hand. As the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused, they are liable to be acquitted.

18)In the result, Accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs. 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. Further the unmarked case property seized in this case is to be destroyed/disposed off after appeal period is over.

(Typed by Stenographer Gr-III on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04th day of May,

2026)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Miryalaguda

CC 717 of 2022

Dt: 04.05.2026

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Defence PW1: Pathulothu Lakma None PW2: Pathulothu Balu PW3: Pathulothu Hanma PW4: Pathulothu Krishna PW5: Nanneboina Nagaiah PW6: Ramavath Pakira PW7: K. Veerashekar

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1: Contents of complaint Ex.P2: Signature of PW1 on complaint Ex.P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P4: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P5: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P6: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P6: Signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama (due to oversight Ex.P6 was marked twice) Ex.P7: Signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P8: First Information Report Ex.P9: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10: Rough sketch Ex.P11: Wound certificate of LW3

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Miryalaguda

O.S.No. 159/2025

Dt: 11.05.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

AT MIRYALAGUDA

(Dated, this the 11th day of May, 2026) Present: Smt.M. Lavanya Rani , I Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class Miryalguda

O.S. No. 159 of 2025

E B T W E E N :

M/s Shriram Finance Ltd., Miryalaguda Branch. (Formerly known as “Shriram City Union Finance Ltd) Rep. by its Power of Attorney holder and Authorized Signatory, Mr. Tandu Rama Krishna.

...Plaintiff

AND

(1)Palvai Chinna Venkanna, S/o: Yallaiah, Age: 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H. No. 3-87, Venkanna Centring Works, Chervupalli Village of Madgulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District. (2)Palvai Mariyamma, W/o: Chinna Venkanna, Age: 50 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: H. No. 3-87, Chervupalli Village of Madgulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District. (3)Palvai Lachaiah, S/o: Venkulu, Age: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H. No. 3-97, Chervupalli Village of Madgulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District. …Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V. Pavan Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendants remained Exparte, after hearing and on perusing the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1) This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,93,800/- (Rupees Three lakhs Ninety Three thousand Eight hundred only) against Defendants with a prayer to award pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 36% P.A and in default of the payment of the said amount, the plaintiff shall be entitled to

O.S.No. 159/2025

Dt: 11.05.2026

2 apply for final decree, for sale of mortgaged property and also costs.

2) The brief facts of the plaint are that:

(I) The Plaintiff i.e., M/s Shriram Finance Ltd., Miryalaguda Branch.

(Formerly known as “Shriram City Union Finance Ltd) Rep. by its

Power of Attorney holder and Authorized Signatory filed present suit against the defendants stating that the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff company and requested for the sanction of Enterprises

Finance Loan on 30.03.2022 of Rs.3,00,000/-. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are the guarantors to the defendants No.1 in the event of his default.

The defendant No.2 is the wife of the defendant No.1.

(II)The plaintiff company sanctioned Rs.3,00,000/- as loan to defendant No.1. The defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff company on 30.03.2022 by agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest in 60 installments @ Rs.9,236/- per month as per terms and conditions and defendant No.1 had issued post dated cheques in favour of plaintiff company.

(III) The defendants executed loan agreement and defendant No.1 also executed mortgage deed by way of deposit of registered title deed with respect to Suit schedule property (House) i.e. H.No: 3-87 (Assessment

No. 320810700536) Admeasuring 173 Sq. Yards or Equivalent 144.62

Sq. Mts, with 209 Sq. Fts., ACC Roofing situated at Block No. 03,

Cheruvupalli Grampanchayat and Village, Madugulapalli Revenue

Mandal, Nalgonda District with boundaries: North- Chekupalli Somulu

O.S.No. 159/2025

Dt: 11.05.2026

3

House, South: Road (Veddi Road), East: Palvai Chinna Ramulu House,

West: Palvai Yallaiah House, as security.

(IV) After availing the said loan, the defendant No.1 paid only an amount of Rs.2,00,398/- and failed to repay the remaining loan amount, inspite of several requests made by the plaintiff company. The defendant is due an amount of Rs.3,93,800/-. Hence, the suit.

3) On 17.07.2025, the defendants No.1 to 3 were set exparte as they failed to appear before this court.

4)To substantiate the suit claim, Plaintiff Company examined its Business

Manager as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11.

5) Heard the learned counsel for Plaintiff Company. Perused the material on record.

6)Now the points for consideration is:

1. Whether the Plaintiff Company is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for?

2. If so to what relief?

7) Points 1 and 2 : On perusal of the whole record, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 is establishing the fact that the defendant No.1 availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.03.2022 from Plaintiff, where in D2 and D3 stood as guarantor and that the defendants committed default of payment of

Rs.3,93,800/-. Further Ex.A7 & A8 shows that Defendant No.1 mortgaged suit schedule property by depositing the title deed in favour of plaintiff

O.S.No. 159/2025

Dt: 11.05.2026

4 company towards collateral security The above evidence of PW.1 and Ex A.1 to A.11 remain unchallenged as defendants were set ex-parte. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above this court holds that the defendants are liable to pay loan amount and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the same from defendants. Hence, Points are answered accordingly.

8) In the result, the suit is partly and preliminarily decreed with costs directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.3,93,800/- (Rupees Three lakhs Ninety Three thousand Eight hundred only) with an interest of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. Time for redemption is six months.

ii.The defendants are given time of six months from today to redeem the mortgage and if the defendants failed to redeem the mortgage within time given by the court; the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for final decree for sale of suit schedule property. If the above sale proceeds are not sufficient to discharge the loan amount, the defendants are personally liable for balance amount. The balance sale proceeds, after full satisfaction of the loan amount, shall be paid to the defendants. Pending IAs’ if any shall stand closed.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of May, 2026)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Miryalaguda

O.S.No. 159/2025

Dt: 11.05.2026

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

PW-1: Thandu Ramakrishna -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Original Loan application Ex.A2: Original loan agreement along with schedules No. 1 to 4 Ex.A3: Original sanction advise Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dt: 27.07.2024 Ex.A5: Postal receipts (3 nos) Ex.A6: Online copy of track consignment Ex.A7: CC of memorandum evidencing the deposit of title deeds vide No. 2476/2022, dt: 30.03.2022 Ex.A8: CC of registered gift settlement deed vide doc. No.1762/2022,

dt: 05.03.2022 on the file of SRO, Miryalaguda

Ex.A9: CC of certificate of incorporation dt: 30.11.2022 Ex.A10: CC of power of attorney Dt: 27.05.2024 Ex.A11: Statement of account copy of Palvai Chinna Venkanna (defendant No.1) For Defendants -NIL-

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Miryalaguda

O.S.No. 262/2025

Dt: 11.05.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

AT MIRYALAGUDA

(Dated, this the 11th day of May, 2026) Present: Smt.M. Lavanya Rani , I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class Miryalguda

O.S. No. 262 of 2025

E B T W E E N :

M/s Shriram Finance Ltd., Miryalaguda Branch. (Formerly known as “Shriram City Union Finance Ltd) Rep. by its GPA holder & Authorized Signatory Rama Krishna Thandu.

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Ramavath Matraiah, S/o: Hari, Age: 26 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H. No. 4-59, Nanya Thanda, Zapthiveerappagudem Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. Ramavath Shailaja, W/o: Matraiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: H. No. 4-59, Nanya Thanda, Zapthiveerappagudem Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3. Potla Srinivasa Rao, S/o: Ramachandraiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H. No. 35-552/1, Opp: FCI Prakash nagar, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. …Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendants remained Exparte, after hearing and on perusing the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1) This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,28,917/- (Rupees Four lakhs Twenty Eight thousand Nine hundred and Seventeen only) against

Defendants with a prayer to award pendentelite and future interest at the rate

O.S.No. 262/2025

Dt: 11.05.2026

2 of 36% P.A and in default of the payment of the said amount, the plaintiff shall be entitled to apply for final decree, for sale of mortgaged property and also costs.

2) The brief facts of the plaint are that:

(I) The Plaintiff i.e., M/s Shriram Finance Ltd., Miryalaguda Branch.

(Formerly known as “Shriram City Union Finance Ltd) Rep. by its GPA holder and Authorized Signatory filed present suit against the defendants stating that the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff company and requested for the sanction of Enterprises Finance Loan on 30.09.2021 of Rs.3,00,000/-. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are the guarantors to the defendants No.1 in the event of his default.

(II)The plaintiff company sanctioned Rs.3,00,000/- as loan to defendant

No.1. The defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff company on 30.09.2021 by agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest in 60 installments @ Rs.9,232/- per month as per terms and conditions and defendant No.1 had issued post dated cheques in favour of plaintiff company.

(III) The defendants executed loan agreement and defendant No.1 also executed mortgage deed by way of deposit of registered title deed with respect to Suit schedule property (House) i.e. H.No: 4-59, Admeasuring 284 Sq. Yards or Equivalent 237.42 Sq. Mts, with 420 Sq. Feet RCC

Roofing with all amenities aged 15 years, situated at Block No. 4,

Japthiveerappagudem Shivar, Seetya Thanda Grampanchayath Nanya

O.S.No. 262/2025

Dt: 11.05.2026

3

Thanda Village, Miryalaguda Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District with boundaries: North: Grampanchayath road, South: D. Thara Singh

Residential House, East: Grampanchayath road, West: D. Thara Singh

Residential House.

(IV) After availing the said loan, the defendant No.1 paid only an amount of Rs.1,99,334/- and failed to repay the remaining loan amount, inspite of several requests made by the plaintiff company. The defendant is due an amount of Rs.4,28,917/-. Hence, the suit.

3) On 15.09.2025, the defendants No.1 to 3 were set exparte as they failed to appear before this court despite of receipt of Court summons.

4) To substantiate the suit claim, Plaintiff Company examined its Business

Manager as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10.

5) Heard the learned counsel for Plaintiff Company. Perused the material on record.

6) Now the points for consideration is:

1. “Whether the Plaintiff Company is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for?

2. If so to what relief?

7) Points 1 and 2 : On perusal of the whole record, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 is establishing the fact that the defendant No.1 availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.09.2021 from Plaintiff, where in D2 and D3 stood as guarantor and that the defendants committed default of payment of

Rs.4,28,917 /-. Further Ex.A6 shows that Defendant No.1 mortgaged suit

O.S.No. 262/2025

Dt: 11.05.2026

4 schedule property by depositing the title deed in favour of plaintiff company towards collateral security The above evidence of PW1 and Ex A.1 to A.10 remain unchallenged as defendants were set ex-parte. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above this court holds that the defendants are liable to pay loan amount and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the same from defendants. Hence, Points are answered accordingly.

8) In the result, the suit is partly and preliminarily decreed with costs directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.4,28,917/- (Rupees Four lakhs

Twenty Eight thousand Nine hundred and Seventeen only) with an interest of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. Time for redemption is six months.

ii.The defendants are given time of six months from today to redeem the mortgage and if the defendants failed to redeem the mortgage within time given by the court; the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for final decree for sale of suit schedule property. If the above sale proceeds are not sufficient to discharge the loan amount, the defendants are personally liable for balance amount. The balance sale proceeds, after full satisfaction of the loan amount, shall be paid to the defendants. Pending IAs’ if any shall stand closed.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, correct ed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of May, 2026)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Miryalaguda

O.S.No. 262/2025

Dt: 11.05.2026

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES

For Plaintiff : For Defendant : PW-1: Ramakrishna Thandu -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1: CC of certificate of incorporation dt: 30.11.2022 Ex.A2: CC of letter of authorization dt: 27.05.2024 Ex.A3: Original Loan application d: 30.09.2021 Ex.A4: Original loan agreement along with schedule dt: 30.09.2021 Ex.A5: Original sanction advise, dt: 30.09.2021 Ex.A6: Meeseva copy of memorandum of title deed bearing No. 8053 of 2021,

dt: 01.10.2021 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Miryalaguda

Ex.A7: Office copy of legal notice dt: 27.07.2024 Ex.A8: Postal receipts (3 nos) dt: 30.07.2024 Ex.A9: Online track consignment, dt: 31.07.2024 Ex.A10: Statement of account copy of Ramavath Matraiah (defendant No.1) For Defendants -NIL-

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Miryalaguda

O.S.No. 38/2026

Dt:29.04.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE 1 st ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT MIRYALAGUDA

Dated, this the 29th day of April, 2026

Present: Smt. M. Lavanya Rani 1st Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalguda

O.S. No. 38 of 202 6

B E T W E E N:

Tattikonda Padma, D/o: Ramulu, Age: 38 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: Pakash Nagar locality of Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Plaintiff

AND

Kondapalli Prasanth, S/o: Kotaiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Venkatadripalem Village of Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

…Defendant

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch. V.D. Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendant remained Exparte, after hearing and on perusing the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1) This suit is filed seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.2,98,933/- against the defendant with a prayer to award decree and also costs.

2) The brief facts of the plaint are that:

I. The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of said acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested for financial accommodation of Rs.2,00,000/- for his family necessities. In pursuance of the said approach, the plaitniff lent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant for his business necessities at

O.S.No. 38/2026

Dt:29.04.2026

2

Miryalaguda on 19.01.2024 and after receiving the said amount, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same wih an interest @Rs.2/- per one hundred rupees per month

II. The said transaction took place in the presence of attesters by name

K. Jonhson and V. Vijay and scribe by name K. Bixapathi.

III. The plaintiff demanded the defendant many times for the repayment of the said loan amount, but the defendant dodged the matter on one pretext or the other and avoided the repayment of the loan amount. At last on 27.01.2026, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his counsel demanding the defendant to pay the said loan amount and after receipt of the said legal notice, the defendant kept quite. Hence, the suit.

3) After receiving summons, the defendant did not appear before the court and there is no representation on his behalf, hence he was set-exparte on 18.03.2026.

To substantiate the suit claim, Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and 4) marked Ex.A1 to A4.

Heard the learned counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the material on record. 5)

6)Now the points for consideration is:

O.S.No. 38/2026

Dt:29.04.2026

3

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 19.01.2024 is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for?

3. If so , to what relief?

7) Point No.1, 2 :In support of the suit claim, PW1 came into witness box and reiterated entire contents of the plaint and relied upon Exs.A1 to A4. As per PW1’s evidence, Ex.A1 is original promissory note, dt. 19.01.2024 and on perusal of the same, it is evident that one Kondapalli Prasanth owe

Rs.2,98,933/- (who happens to be Defendant) to Tattikonda Padma (who happens to be the Plaintiff). Ex.A2 show PW1’s attempt to recover Ex.A1 amount. Further from Ex.A3 and A4, it can be seen that postal receipt and online track consignment relate to Ex.A2. Therefore, undoubtedly, an adverse inference would be drawn against the Defendant by virtue of oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff, that there was a default in repayment of the loan amount to the Plaintiff. Hence, the points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

8) Point No.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintifffora sumof Rs.2,98,933/- (Rupees Two lakhs Ninety Eight thousand Nine hundred and Thirty Three only) against the defendant. Hence defendant is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,98,933/-to plaintiff and with an interest of 12% per annum on principalamountofRs.2,00,000/-fromthedateof institution of the

O.S.No. 38/2026

Dt:29.04.2026

4 suit till the date of decree and thereafter further interest @ 6 % per annum from date of decree till realization. Pending IAs if any shall stand disposed accordingly.

(Typed by Stenographer Gr-III on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Miryalaguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES

For Plaintiff: PW-1: Tattikonda Padma

For Defendant: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Original promissory note, dt: 19.01.2024 Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt: 27.01.2026 Ex.A3: Postal receipt dt: 27.01.2026 Ex.A4: Online track consignment

For Defendant:

-NIL-

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Miryalaguda