Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,RangaReddy Dist. at Kukatpally

Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court · Rangareddy · Telangana

Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan, Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,RangaReddy Dist. at Kukatpally, is posted at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 127 court orders on record since 2021. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, SC, EP cases.

127

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/830/2020

V.Annapurna, W/o. V.V.Satya Narayana Rao vs M.Chandrashekar, S/o. late M.Subramanyam

26 Jul 2022

1 of 7OS.No.830/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present : M. Radha Krishna Chahavan, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar

DATED THE 26th DAY OF JULY, 2022.

OS.No. 830 of 2020

Between:

V.Annapurna W/o. V.V.Satya Narayana Rao, aged 72 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.13-5-72, Bhavani Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

…Plaintiff. AND

1. M.Chandrashekar S/o. Late M.Subramanyam, aged 46 yeas, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.304, Keshasvini Plaza, Block-B, Vinayak Nagar, R.C.Puram, Hyderabad-500032.

2.K.Muralidhar Reddy S/o. K.Sudarshan Reddy, aged 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.18-A/7A, KGR Nagar Colony, Badangpet village, Balapur mandal, Ranga Reddy district-500058.

…Defendants.

This suit came before me for final hearing on 27.06.2022 in the presence of Sri T.Ashok Reddy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration till date, this Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration of plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen and agents claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

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

The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing

No.13-5-72 (Old No.5-72) constructed over Plot No.11 in Sy.No.17

I ASCJ

2 of 7OS.No.830/2020 admeasuring 200 sq.yards on ground and first floor with 651 sq.feet each floor situated at Bhavani Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, under Gaddiannaram village,

Ranga Reddy district (herein after referred to as suit schedule property).

3. The plaintiff further contended that originally one Sama Raji Reddy and others were the owners and possessors of the land in Sy.No.17 admeasuring Ac.3-11 gts. and they have divided the said land into house plots and sold to the prospective purchasers. The vendor of plaintiff i.e. P.

Prabhudas had purchased the suit schedule property from said Sama Raji

Reddy and others through registered sale deed doc.No.1149/1977, he obtained house construction permission from Grampanchayat on 02.06.1979 thereafter, sold to plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed bearing

No.P/1740/1979.

4. The plaintiff further averred that after purchasing the suit schedule property by the plaintiff, she constructed the ground floor and first floor after obtaining permission from Grampanchayat.

5. While the things stood thus, on 15.09.2020 the defendants came to suit schedule property and illegally tried to damage the compound wall and gate without having any right on which the plaintiff questioned for their acts, they stated that the vendor of the plaintiff i.e. Prabhudas had executed agreement of sale in the year 1992. On 18.09.2020 the plaintiff lodged report before police against defendants herein, but the same was rejected as it is civil in nature.

6. The plaintiff further averred that on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are trying to take advantage of the pending

I ASCJ

3 of 7OS.No.830/2020 doc.No.P/1740/1979, the defendants created and fabricated alleged agreement of sale in the year 1992. In fact that at the time registration of the suit schedule property, the registering authorities directed the plaintiff herein and her husband to produce the Urban Land Certificate for releasing the document i.e. P/1740/1979. Accordingly the pending registration number was given. But, the plaintiff could not submit the Urban Land

Certificate in time as such the defendants are taking advantage and fabricated and created the document. Hence the plaintiff requested to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor and to grant perpetual injunction.

7. On receipt of summons, none appeared for defendants hence they were set exparte.

8. During the trial, the plaintiff was examined herself as PW1 and another T.Muralidhar Rao was examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to

A95 documents.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

10. Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

11. POINT: The plaintiff filed this suit for declaration and grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiff should be clear about her case. It may be appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case, though defendants remained exparte. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the of the plot No.11, H.No.13-5-72 (old No.5-72) in Sy.No.17 admeasuring 200 sq.yards on ground and first floor with 651 sq.feet each

I ASCJ

4 of 7OS.No.830/2020 floor situated at Bhavani Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, under Gaddiannaram village,

Ranga Reddy district by virtue of registered sale deed doc.No.P/1740/1979 but the plaintiff did not submit the Urban Land Certificate before the registering authorities which is for releasing the document at the time registration however the defendants are taking advantage the same, created and fabricated document i.e. agreement of sale executed by

Prabhudas who is the vendor of the plaintiff to the defendants as such on 15.09.2020 the defendants came to the suit schedule property and threatened with the illegal acts and claiming themselves to be owners of land.

12. It is deemed fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 38 of

Specific Relief Act and section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under section 38 of Specific Relief Act, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in her favour, whether expressly or by implication. Under Sec. 102 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof in a suit proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. So, the initial burden of proving the same is on the plaintiff and later shifts on the defendants.

13. In order to substantiate her case, the plaintiff had placed reliance on her own oral testimony coupled with Exs. A1 to A95 documents. Ex.A3 is the original registered sale deed doc.No.P/1740/79 dated 18.09.1979 shows that G. Prabhu Das executed in favour of plaintiff. Exs.A2, A4 and A5 are the permission for construction of building and sanction plan over the suit schedule property. Exs.A6 to A19 are the property tax demand notices and receipts. Exs.A20 to A64 are the demand notices of the water bill. Exs.A65 to 90 are the electricity bills. There is no defendant on record as the defendants were set exparte in spite of receiving summons. The documents are in

I ASCJ

5 of 7OS.No.830/2020 favour of the plaintiff herein to show that the plaintiff is the owner of property and in possession of the said property and as possession by the plaintiff is undisputed by any of the defendants and the claim of possession is an equitable relief which is a claim against personam and not in rem, as such the plaintiff is entitled for said relief of injunction. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

14. In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, henchmen, legal representatives and anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. No order as to costs.

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

by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of July, 2022.

Sd/-

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1- V.Annapurna.- NIL- PW2- T.Muralidhar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original registered sale deed doc.No.1149/1977 dated 25.04.1977. Ex.A2: Original construction permission for the ground floor dt.02.06.1979. Ex.A3: Original registered sale deed doc.No.P/1740/79 dated 18.09.1979. Ex.A4: Original construction permission for first floor dated 25.01.1992. Ex.A5: Original sanction plan for first floor dated 25.01.1992. Ex.A6: Property tax demand notice for the year 1984-85. Ex.A7: Property tax demand notice dated 16.04.1993. Ex.A8: Property tax demand notice dated 28.06.1997. Ex.A9: Property tax demand notice dated 19.12.1984. Ex.A10: Property tax demand notice dated 01.05.1993.

I ASCJ

6 of 7OS.No.830/2020

Ex.A11: Property tax demand notice dated 10.04.2003. Ex.A12: Property tax demand notice dated 05.10.2006. Ex.A13: Property tax demand notice dated 25.07.2007. Ex.A14: Property tax demand notice dated 04.09.2008. Ex.A15: Property tax demand notice dated 22.06.2009. Ex.A16: Property tax demand notice dated 31.07.2010. Ex.A17: Property tax demand notice dated 13.05.2011. Ex.A18: Property tax demand notice dated 29.06.2013. Ex.A19: Property tax receipt dated 15.12.1992. Ex.A20: Water bill demand notice dated 05.10.1990. Ex.A21: Water bill demand notice dated 19.11.1991. Ex.A22: Water bill demand notice dated 18.08.1992. Ex.A23: Water bill demand notice dated 21.03.1993. Ex.A24: Water bill demand notice dated 05.03.1994. Ex.A25: Water bill demand notice dated 18.03.1995. Ex.A26: Water bill demand notice dated 20.12.1995. Ex.A27: Water bill demand notice dated 13.07.1996. Ex.A28: Water bill demand notice dated 25.11.1996. Ex.A29: Water bill demand notice dated 22.09.1997. Ex.A30: Water bill demand notice dated 10.04.1997. Ex.A31: Water bill demand notice dated 10.05.1998. Ex.A32: Water bill demand notice dated 01.12.1998. Ex.A33: Water bill demand notice dated 23.12.2000. Ex.A34: Water bill demand notice dated 06.07.2001. Ex.A35: Water bill demand notice dated 20.05.2003. Ex.A36: Water bill demand notice dated 23.09.2003. Ex.A37: Water bill demand notice dated 23.04.2004. Ex.A38: Water bill demand notice dated 29.06.2004. Ex.A39: Water bill demand notice dated 08.05.2005. Ex.A40: Water bill demand notice dated 05.09.2005. Ex.A41: Water bill demand notice dated 06.03.2006. Ex.A42: Water bill demand notice dated 06.08.2006. Ex.A43: Water bill demand notice dated 17.04.2007. Ex.A44: Water bill demand notice dated 08.07.2007. Ex.A45: Water bill demand notice dated 11.03.2008. Ex.A46: Water bill demand notice dated 12.09.2008. Ex.A47: Water bill demand notice dated 07.03.2009. Ex.A48: Water bill demand notice dated 05.11.2009. Ex.A49: Water bill demand notice dated 05.10.2010. Ex.A50: Water bill demand notice dated 07.04.2011. Ex.A51: Water bill demand notice dated 08.08.2011. Ex.A52: Water bill demand notice dated 12.03.2012. Ex.A53: Water bill demand notice dated 15.10.2012. Ex.A54: Water bill demand notice dated 18.03.2013. Ex.A55: Water bill demand notice dated 21.06.2014. Ex.A56: Water bill demand notice dated 17.10.2015. Ex.A57: Water bill demand notice dated 24.09.2016. Ex.A58: Water bill demand notice dated 13.03.2016.

I ASCJ

7 of 7OS.No.830/2020

Ex.A59: Water bill demand notice dated 05.03.2017. Ex.A60: Water bill demand notice dated 08.11.2017. Ex.A61: Water bill demand notice dated 06.06.2019. Ex.A62: Water bill demand notice dated 02.11.2019. Ex.A63: Water bill demand notice dated 08.03.2020. Ex.A64: Water bill demand notice dated 05.09.2020. Ex.A65: Electricity bill dated 14.09.1991. Ex.A66: Electricity bill dated 11.03.1992. Ex.A67: Electricity bill dated 03.11.1993. Ex.A68: Electricity bill dated 03.05.1994. Ex.A69: Electricity bill dated 03.01.1995. Ex.A70: Electricity bill dated 03.07.1996. Ex.A71: Electricity bill dated 03.01.1997. Ex.A72: Electricity bill dated 01.01.1998. Ex.A73: Electricity bill dated 01.01.1999. Ex.A74: Electricity bill dated 17.06.2001. Ex.A75: Electricity bill dated 08.01.2003. Ex.A76: Electricity bill dated 12.06.2005. Ex.A77: Electricity bill dated 09.07.2006. Ex.A78: Electricity bill dated 08.06.2007. Ex.A79: Electricity bill dated 10.11.2008. Ex.A80: Electricity bill dated 05.12.2009. Ex.A81: Electricity bill dated 05.01.2011. Ex.A82: Electricity bill dated 06.12.2011. Ex.A83: Electricity bill dated 09.07.2012. Ex.A84: Electricity bill dated 08.07.2013. Ex.A85: Electricity bill dated 07.04.2014. Ex.A86: Electricity bill dated 08.09.2016. Ex.A87: Electricity bill dated 08.01.2017. Ex.A88: Electricity bill dated 22.02.2018. Ex.A89: Electricity bill dated 07.02.2019. Ex.A90: Electricity bill dated 06.07.2020. Ex.A91: CC of registered sale deed doc.No.5821/2018 dated 27.10.2018. Ex.A92: CC of registered sale deed doc.No.964/2004 dated 21.02.2004. Ex.A93: CC of registered sale deed doc.No.1150/1977. Ex.A94: Encumbrance certificate. Ex.A95: Valuation certificate.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

-NIL-

Sd/-

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

I ASCJ

OS/297/2018

Lingamgunta Srinivas Rao, S/o.Late Ramulu, vs Chavula Hari Shankar S/o.Ch.Anjaiah,

26 Jul 2022

1 of 6OS.No.297/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present : M. Radha Krishna Chahavan I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

DATED THE 26th DAY OF JULY, 2022.

OS.No. 297 of 2018

Between:

1.Lingamgunta Srinivas Rao S/o. Late L.Ramulu, aged 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11-13-154/2N, Road No.3, Near Sai Baba Temple, Alkapuri Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy district.

2.Lingamgunta Nagalakshmi w/o. L. Srinivas Rao, aged 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.11-13-154/2N, Road No.3, Near Sai Baba Temple, Alkapuri Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy district.

3.Muthineni Sadana D/o. Chinna Subba Rao, aged 31 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.4-1, Marlapadu village, Tangutur mandal, Prakasam, Andhra Pradesh. …Plaintiffs. AND

Chevula Hari Shankar S/o. Ch.Anjaiah, aged 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-59, Pasumamula village, Abdullapurmet mandal, Ranga Reddy district. …Defendant.

This suit came before me for final hearing on 27.06.2022 in the presence of Sri K.Srinivas Reddy, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant remained exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration till date, this Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his agents claiming through him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

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

It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of house plots bearing No.39 admeasuring 300 sq.yards, Plot No.40 admeasuring 300 sq.yards, Plot No.46 admeasuring 300

I ASCJ

2 of 6OS.No.297/2018 sq.yards and Plot No.47 admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy.No.421 situated at

Pasumamla village, Hayathnagar mandal, Ranga Reddy district (herein after referred to as suit A schedule property) acquired from Devireddy Ramanujulu by virtue of registered sale deed doc.No.3164/2013 dated 30.04.2013.

3. The plaintiffs further contended that the plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of house plot bearing No.54 admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy.No.421 situated at Pasumamla village, hayathnagar mandal,

Ranga Reddy district (herein after referred to as suit B schedule property) acquired from Bangaru Bhanu Prakash by virtue of registered sale deed doc.No.1055/2017 dated 21.04.2017.

4. The plaintiffs further averred that the plaintiff No.3 is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of house plot bearing No.53 admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy.No.421 situated at Pasumamla village, hayathnagar mandal,

Ranga Reddy district (herein after referred to as suit C schedule property) acquired from Bangaru Bhanu Prakash by virtue of registered sale deed doc.No.1056/2017 dated 21.04.2017.

5. The plaintiffs further averred that originally Choula Gandaiah,

Choula Laxmaiah, Choula Narsimha and Choula Anjaiah were the owners of land in Sy.No.421 admeasuring Ac.6-00 gts. In the year 1984 they executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Devadas Kanakala vide doc.No.37/IV/1984 dated 08.02.1984. The said Devadas kanakala obtained layout from Pasumamula Grampanchayat and plotted the land in Sy.No.421 and sold the plots in favour of prospective purchasers. In which the suit A schedule property acquired by Nallamelli Dhanalakshmi subsequently she executed an agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney in favour of

I ASCJ

3 of 6OS.No.297/2018

Devireddy Ramanujulu who inturn sold to plaintiff No.1 in the year 2013, since then he is in possession.

6. The plaintiffs further submits that the said Devadas Kanakala sold the suit B and C properties to Ethel Solomon Jayanth subsequently he sold the properties to Bangaru Bhanu Prakash who in turn alienated the suit B schedule property to plaintiff No.2 and alienated the suit C schedule property to plaintiff No.3 in the year 2017 and since then, they are in peaceful possession.

7. The plaintiffs further submitted that after purchasing the schedule A to C properties by the plaintiffs, they filed an application for regularization of their plots before Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority. On 28.01.2018 the defendant came to the suit schedule properties along with their henchmen and tried to interfere without having any right over the suit

A to C schedule properties, for which the plaintiffs’ watchman and with the help of neighbours resisted the illegal acts of defendant. Thereafter the plaintiffs lodged report before Hayathnagar police against defendant but the same was rejected as it is civil in nature. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit.

8. On receipt of summons, none appeared for defendant, hence he was set exparte.

9. During the trial, the plaintiff No.1 was examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A12 documents.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

I ASCJ

4 of 6OS.No.297/2018

11. Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

12. POINT: The plaintiffs filed this suit for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit A to C schedule properties. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiffs should be clear about their case. It may be appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case, though defendant remained exparte.

13. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the plots bearing No.39 admeasuring 300 sq.yards, Plot No.40 admeasuring 300 sq.yards, Plot No.46 admeasuring 300 sq.yards and Plot No.47 admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy.No.421, plaintiff

No.2 is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the plot bearing

No.54 admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy.No.421 and plaintiff No.3 is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the plot bearing No.53 admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy.No.421 situated at Pasumamla village,

Hayathnagar mandal, Ranga Reddy district. On 01.02.2018 the defendant came to suit A to C schedule properties claiming himself to be owner of plots and tried to forcibly and illegally dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit A to C schedule properties.

14. It is deemed fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 38 of

Specific Relief Act and section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under section 38 of Specific Relief Act, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiffs to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in their favour, whether expressly or by implication. Under Sec. 102 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof in a suit proceedings lies on that person who would fail if

I ASCJ

5 of 6OS.No.297/2018 no evidence at all were given on either side. So, the initial burden of proving the same is on the plaintiffs and later shifts on the defendant.

15. In order to substantiate their case, the plaintiffs had placed reliance on their own oral testimony coupled with Exs. A1 to A12 documents.

Exs.A1, A4 and A5 are the registered sale deeds of the plaintiffs showing that the suit A to C schedule properties are in the name of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 respectively herein whereas the Ex.A2, A3, A6, A7 and A9 are the link documents to the suit A to C schedule properties. Ex.A8, A11 and A12 are the encumbrance certificates of the suit A to C schedule properties. There is no defendant on record as the defendant was set exparte in spite of receiving summons. The documents are in favour of the plaintiffs herein to show that the plaintiffs are in possession of said properties and as possession by the plaintiffs is undisputed by any of the defendant and the claim of possession is an equitable relief which is a claim against personam and not in rem, as such the plaintiffs are entitled for said relief of injunction.

Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

16. In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his henchmen and anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit A to C schedule properties. No order as to costs.

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

by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of July, 2022.

Sd/-

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

I ASCJ

6 of 6OS.No.297/2018

FOR PLAINTIFFS:FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1- L.Srinivasa Rao.- NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: CC of registered sale deed doc.No.3164/2013 dated 30.04.2013.

Ex.A2: CC of registered agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney doc.No.12312/2005 dated 27.12.2005.

Ex.A3: CC of registered sale deed doc.No.9221/1986 dated 24.07.1986.

Ex.A4: CC of registered sale deed doc.No.1055/2017 dated 21.04.2017.

Ex.A5: CC of registered sale deed doc.No.1056/2017 dated 21.04.2017.

Ex.A6: CC of registered sale deed doc.No.828/2017 dated 25.02.2017.

Ex.A7: CC of registered sale deed doc.No.13175/1986 dated 03.11.1986.

Ex.A8: Encumbrance certificate dated 28.12.2015.

Ex.A9: CC of registered General Power of Attorney doc.No.3795/1984 dated 08.02.1982.

Ex.A10: Encumbrance certificate 14.06.2022.

Ex.A11: Encumbrance certificate 14.06.2022.

Ex.A12: Encumbrance certificate 14.06.2022.

FOR DEFENDANT:

-NIL-

Sd/-

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

I ASCJ

OS/3115/2019

Vanam. Yadagiri, S/o. late Ramanarsaiah vs M. Srinivas Rao, S/o. Guruvaiah

28 Jul 2022

1 of 6OS.No.3115/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present : M. Radha Krishna Chahavan, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar

DATED THE 28th DAY OF JULY, 2022.

OS.No. 3115 of 2019

Between:

Vanam Yadagiri S/o. Late Ramanarsaiah, aged 50 years, Occ: Weaver, R/o. Santhosh Nagar, Chityala village and mandal, Nalgonda district, Temporarily come down to Hyderabad, Residing at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy district.

…Plaintiff. AND

1. M.Srinivas Rao S/o. Guruvaiah, aged 53 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.11-14-14/1, Road No.1, Haripuri Colony, Hyderabad-35.

2.S.Srisailam Reddy, aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.16-11, Bagh Hayath Nagar village, Hayathnagar mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

3.U.Sattamma W/o. Bal Chetti, aged 85 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. 6-30, Hayath Nagar village and mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

4.U.Bikshapathi S/o. Bal Chetti, aged 75 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. 6-30, Hayath Nagar village and mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

5.U.Krishna S/o. Bikshapathi, aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. 6-30, Hayath Nagar village and mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

6.Padi Babaiah S/o. P.Veeraiah, aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. 16-11, Hayath Nagar village and mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

…Defendants. This suit came before me for final hearing on 30.06.2022 in the presence of Sri E.Narsimha Swamy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration till date, this Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare the document i.e.

registered sale deed bearing No.18209/2006 dated 28.09.2006 to be null

I ASCJ

2 of 6OS.No.3115/2019 and void along with perpetual injunction restraining defendants over the suit schedule property.

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

It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing No.33 admeasuring 200 sq.yards in Sy.No.308 situated at Bagh Hayathnagar village and mandal, Ranga Reddy district having purchased the same by his father vide registered sale deed doc.No.5296/1999 dated 26.07.1999which is the suit schedule property.

On 22.02.2005 the plaintiff’s father died leaving behind the plaintiff and his successors.

3. The plaintiff further contended that after the death of father of plaintiff, the plaintiff verified the encumbrance certificate, he came to know that defendant Nos.3 to 6 got executed registered sale deed vide doc.No.18209/2006 dated 28.09.2006 in favour of defendant No.1 through

General Power of Attorney i.e. defendant No.2. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendants for cancellation of alleged sale deed dated 28.09.2006 but the defendants refused for cancellation of sale deed.

Therefore the plaintiff lodged report against defendants with the police station.

4. The plaintiff averred that the plaintiff issued notice to Registration

Authority seeking for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.09.2006 in which they stated that the registration of any property cannot be stopped unless orders from Competent Court are received and served.

5. The plaintiff further averred that on 23.12.2019 defendant No.1 along with third parties came to the suit schedule property and threatened

I ASCJ

3 of 6OS.No.3115/2019 them. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued legal notice to defendants for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.09.2006. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

6. On receipt of summons, none appeared for defendant Nos.1 to 6, hence they were set exparte.

7. During the trial, the plaintiff was examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A12 documents.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

10. POINT: The plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of doc.No.18209/2006 dated 28.09.2006 as null and void and grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiff should be clear about his case. It may be appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case, though defendants remained exparte. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing No.33 admeasuring 200 sq.yards in Sy.No.308 situated at Bagh Hayathnagar village and mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

The plaintiff came to know the fabricated document through encumbrance certificate that the defendant Nos.3 to 6 are executed registered sale deed vide doc.No.18209/2006 dated 28.09.2006 in favour of defendant No.1 through General Power of Attorney i.e. defendant No.2 which is created and fabricated document as null and void. Thereafter the plaintiff approached the registering authorities and also lodged report with the police. On 23.12.2019 the defendants came to the suit schedule property claiming

I ASCJ

4 of 6OS.No.3115/2019 themselves to be owners of plot and tried to forcibly and illegally dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

11. It is deemed fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 38 of

Specific Relief Act and section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under section 38 of Specific Relief Act, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in their favour, whether expressly or by implication. Under Sec. 102 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof in a suit proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. So, the initial burden of proving the same is on the plaintiff and later shifts on the defendants.

12. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff had placed reliance on his own oral testimony coupled with Exs. A1 to A12 documents. Ex.A1 is the CC of registered sale deed doc.No.18209/2006 dated 28.09.2006 showing that defendant No.2 executed in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.A2 is the CC of registered sale deed vide doc.No.5296/1999 showing that the suit schedule property is in the name of father of plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the original death certificate of father of plaintiff V.Ramachandraiah died on 22.05.2005. Ex.A4, A5 and A12 are the encumbrance certificate and market value certificate. Ex.A6 is the original Aadhar card of plaintiff. Ex.A7 is the representation to The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District and Sub-

Registrar, Hayathnagar and Hayath Nagar Police Station by the plaintiff that the alleged sale deed dated 28.09.2006 is fabricated and forged as null and void and also requested to cancel sale deed 28.09.2006. Ex.A8 and

A10 are the postal receipts. Ex.A9 is the office copy of legal notice dated 28.05.2019. Ex.A11 is the letter from District Registrar, Ranga Reddy district to the plaintiff that the alleged sale deed dated 28.09.2006 for cancellation unless orders from competent court only. There is no

I ASCJ

5 of 6OS.No.3115/2019 defendant on record as the defendants were set exparte in spite of receiving summons. The documents are in favour of the plaintiff herein to show that the father of the plaintiff was the owner of suit schedule property and is undisputed by any of the defendants and the claim of possession is an equitable relief which is a claim against personam and not in rem, as such the plaintiff is entitled for said relief of injunction. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

13. In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed declaring the document bearing No.18209/2006 dated 28.09.2006 to be null and void and granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants and their henchmen and anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. No order as to costs.

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

by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of July, 2022.

Sd/-

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1- V.Yadagiri.- NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: CC of registered sale deed doc.No.18209/2006 dated 28.09.2006.

Ex.A2: CC of registered sale deed doc.No.5296/1999 dated 26.07.1999.

Ex.A3: Original death certificate dated 16.03.2005.

Ex.A4: CC of encumbrance certificate.

Ex.A5: CC of market value certificate.

Ex.A6: Original Aadhar card.

Ex.A7: Office copy of representation dated 28.05.2019.

I ASCJ

6 of 6OS.No.3115/2019

Ex.A8: Postal receipts (3).

Ex.A9: Office copy of legal notice dated 28.05.2019.

Ex.A10: Postal receipts (3).

Ex.A11: Original letter issued by District, Registrar dated 02.07.2019.

Ex.A12: CC of encumbrance certificate dated 21.02.2022.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

-NIL-

Sd/-

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

I ASCJ

SC/340/2020 Acquitted

PS Saroornagar vs Gundu Gopal, S/o.Pandari

26 Jul 2022

1 of 5 SC.No.340/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : Sri. M. Radha Krishna Chahavan I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge , Ranga Reddy District

Dated this, the 26th day of July, 2022.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 340 of 2020.

(PRC No. 156/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR)

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through complainant SHO P.S. Saroornagar. 2Name and description of the Gundu Gopal S/o. Pandari, aged 28 accusedyears, Occ: Decoration work, R/o.H.No.10-3-35/1, Kameshwar Rao Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy district. N/o. Kamtana village, Bidar mandal and district, Karnataka. 3Offence with which charged: U/sec. 307 of IPC.

4Plea of the accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Not guilty 6Sentence or order:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. 7Prosecution conducted by :Sri. G.V.Rama Krishna.

8Accused defended by:Sri M.Jeevan Rao.

This case came before me on 22.06.2022 for final hearing for disposal in the presence of Sri. G.V. Rama Krishna Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri M.Jeevan Rao, learned counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of attempt to murder wherein the facts of the case as narrated in the charge sheet by the SHO (PW4) PS Saroornagar are that on

I AASJ

2 of 5 SC.No.340/2020 11.08.2019 at 08:00 AM, LW10/Sub-Inspector of Police had received a report from Pw1 stating that the accused stabbed on left ear and below left chest of PW1/Mohd. Khadeer and also stabbed on left cheek of PW2/Irfan Khan with a blade on 10.08.2019 at 11:30 PM thereby they sustained injuries.

2. Basing on the said report of PW1, LW10 registered a case in Crime

No.543/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal

Code by issuing First Information Report (Ex.P6) and the investigation was entrusted to PW4 for further investigation. During the course of investigation, Pw4 examined all the witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama, confession cum recovery panchanama of accused and also drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. He arrested the accused and effected the arrest by sending him for judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused holding him to be responsible for the said act.

3. The learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar took cognizance of the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against the accused vide PRC No.156/2019, and after compliance of Sec. 209 (a)

Cr.P.C., as the offence is exclusively triable by court of sessions, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District. This case was made over to this court by Hon’ble Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

4. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the Accused charge was framed under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, read over and explained to accused in vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

I AASJ

3 of 5 SC.No.340/2020

5. Then, the schedule for commencement of trial has been issued, witnesses PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs P1 to P10 along with MOs 1 and 2 were marked as indicated in the appendix of evidence. The evidence of LW4 to LW6 were given up by prosecution. The evidence of LW7 to LW10 was closed.

6. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused for the offence under Section 307 of Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point: The case of the prosecution is that the accused stabbed PW1 on left cheek, ear and chest and also stabbed PW2 on cheek and side neck.

The version of the prosecution is that the accused wontedly picked up quarrel with PW1 to PW3 on which accused stabbed PW1 and PW2.

10. To prove the said case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of

PWs 1 to 4 in which PW1 and PW2 are the injured persons whereas Pw3 is the witness to the incident. All PWs 1 to 3 have resiled from the version of prosecution and did not speak anything as against the accused; specially stated by the PW1 that there were petty disputes between accused and Pw1 as such he lodged report, except this and declaring all these three witnesses as hostile and marking their statements, no specific rebuttal evidence was adduced by prosecution through these witnesses.

I AASJ

4 of 5 SC.No.340/2020

11. Leaving these witnesses apart, there remains the evidence of PW4 who nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during the course of investigation. His evidence is procedural and being the official police witness, his evidence cannot be independently believed when there is no corroborative evidence. The entire evidence of this witness is procedural in nature and however the evidence of Pw4 speaks that the accused had confessed his guilt in his presence. Except this particular incriminating statement against accused, there is absolutely no other evidence as against the accused to get him to the home of guilt of offence under Section 307

IPC. Even the said portion of confession is not admissible as given under

Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. There is absolutely no evidence on record raising towards guilt of the accused as such the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

12. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

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

by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of July, 2022.

Sd/-

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR DEFENCE: FOR PROSECUTION : Pw 1 :Mohd.Khadeer.

Pw 2 :Irfan Khan. Nil

Pw 3 :Shiva Krishna.

Pw 4 :L.Ravi Kumar.

I AASJ

5 of 5 SC.No.340/2020

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE Ex P 1: Signature of PW1 on report. Ex P 2: Report.Nil Ex.P 3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P 4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P 5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P 6: First Information Report. Ex.P 7: Memo of section alteration. Ex.P 8: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P 9: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P 10 : Confession cum recovery panchanama.

Material objects marked:

MO1 : Knife. MO2 : Blade.

Sd/-

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

I AASJ

SC/446/2018 Acquitted

PS Rajendranagar vs Vs

21 Jul 2022

1 of 5 SC.No. 446/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : Sri. M. Radha Krishna Chahavan I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge , Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this, the 21st day of July, 2022.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 446 of 2018.

(PRC No. 48/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT RAJENDRANAGAR)

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through complainant SHO P.S. Rajendranagar. 2Name and description of the Avula Chandraiah S/o. Narayana, accusedaged 43 years, Occ: Labour, R/o.H.No.4-7-155/B/C, Panduranga Nagar, Attapur, Rajendranagar.

3Offence with which charged: U/sec. 498-A and 306 of IPC.

4Plea of the accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Not guilty 6Sentence or order:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months. No property. 7Prosecution conducted by :Sri. G.V.Rama Krishna.

8Accused defended by:Sri S.Venkat Reddy.

This case came before me on 29.06.2022 for final hearing for disposal in the presence of Sri. G.V. Rama Krishna Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri S.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of dowry harassment and also provoking the lady to commit suicide by the husband wherein the facts of the case as narrated in the charge sheet by the SHO (PW5) PS Rajendranagar are that the complainant/PW1 is the brother of the deceased who filed a complaint

I AASJ

2 of 5 SC.No. 446/2018

before the Rajendranagar Police Station stating that the accused herein who

is his brother in law used to harass his sister for various reasons and thereby the deceased committed suicide.

2. Basing on the said report of PW1, Pw4 registered a case in Crime

No.502/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of

Indian Penal Code by issuing First Information Report (Ex.P6). During the course of investigation, Pw4 examined all the witnesses and conducted scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and inquest panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of scene of offence panchanama. Thereafter, PW4 entrusted the CD file to PW5 for further investigation. PW5 was arrested the accused and effected the arrest by sending him for judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused holding him to be responsible for the said act.

3. The learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, R.R.District at

Rajendranagar took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code against the accused vide PRC No.48/2018, and after compliance of Sec. 209 (a) Cr.P.C., as the offence is exclusively triable by court of sessions, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. This case was made over to this court

by Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

4. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the Accused charge was framed under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code, read over and explained to accused in vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

I AASJ

3 of 5 SC.No. 446/2018

5. Then, the schedule for commencement of trial has been issued, witnesses PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs P1 to P11 were marked as indicated in the appendix of evidence. The evidence of LW3 was given up by the prosecution by way of filing of report stating that she is unable to move at all due to her health issues. The evidence of LW5 to LW10 was closed as the prosecution did not lead their evidence though ample opportunity was given.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point: The case of the prosecution is that the accused harassed deceased thereby the deceased committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with the help of saree.

10. To prove the said case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of

PWs 1 to 5 in which PW1 is the brother of deceased, PW2 is the father of the deceased and PW3 is the younger brother of the deceased. All PWs 1 to 3 have resiled from the version of prosecution and did not speak anything as against the accused except declaring all these three witnesses as hostile and marking their statements, no specific rebuttal evidence was adduced by prosecution through these witnesses.

I AASJ

4 of 5 SC.No. 446/2018

11. Leaving those witnesses apart, there remains the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 who nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during the course of investigation. Their evidence is procedural and being the official police witnesses, their evidence cannot be independently believed when there is no corroborative evidence. The entire evidence of these witnesses is procedural in nature and however the evidence of Pw4 speaks that the accused had confessed his guilt in his presence. Except this particular incriminating statement against accused, there is absolutely no other evidence as against the accused to get him to the home of guilt of offences of 498-A and 306 of IPC. Even the said portion of confession is not admissible as given under Sections 25 and 26 of Indian

Evidence Act. There is absolutely no evidence on record raising towards guilt of the accused as such the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

12. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months. No property.

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

by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of July, 2022.

Sd/-

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR DEFENCE: FOR PROSECUTION : Pw 1 :Nagaraju.

Pw 2 :Mallaiah. Nil

I AASJ

5 of 5 SC.No. 446/2018

Pw 3 :Ch.Srisailam.

Pw 4 :G.Shekar Reddy.

Pw 5 :M.Mallikarjuna.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE Ex P 1: Signature of PW1 on report. Ex P 2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.Nil Ex.P 3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P 4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P 5: Report Ex.P 6: First Information Report. Ex.P 7: Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama Ex.P 8: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P 9: Inquest panchanama. Ex.P 10 : Postmortem examination report. Ex.P 11 : Memo of section alteration.

Material objects marked:

-Nil.

Sd/-

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

I AASJ

Order Record 119 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/3115/2019	Vanam. Yadagiri, S/o. late Ramanarsaiah vs M. Srinivas Rao, S/o. Guruvaiah	28 Jul 2022	Decree	—
OS/297/2018	Lingamgunta Srinivas Rao, S/o.Late Ramulu, vs Chavula Hari Shankar S/o.Ch.Anjaiah,	26 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/830/2020	V.Annapurna, W/o. V.V.Satya Narayana Rao vs M.Chandrashekar, S/o. late M.Subramanyam	26 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC/340/2020	PS Saroornagar vs Gundu Gopal, S/o.Pandari	26 Jul 2022	Judgement	Acquitted
SC/446/2018	PS Rajendranagar vs Vs	21 Jul 2022	Judgement	Acquitted
SC/65/2017	PS Shamshabad vs Koshika Naresh	20 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/123/2022	T.MALLESH S/O LATE T.JANGAIAH vs BELLY ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE BELLY ANJAIAH	19 Jul 2022	Decree	—
OS/993/2021	Govind Industries Rep by its Proprietor Mr.NaveenKumar Kedia S/o Sri Kailashchand Kedia. vs M/S.Patra Enterprises,Rep by Mr.Palas Patra.	13 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1282/2017	Andhra Bank vs M/s.Vinuthana Celluloid	13 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC/770/2018	The State of Telangana, Rep by SHO P.S. Mailardevpally vs Mohd Izhar Khan	13 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/768/2021	KODIREKKA KRANTHI KIRAN S/O LATE K.GURUVAIAH vs KODIREKKA BHAGYA LAKSHMI W/O LATE G.GURUVAIAH	12 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC/145/2020	PS R.G.I AIRPORT vs A1.S.TIE RAKESH S/O LATE S.TIE CHANDER	12 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1077/2021	MEKALA JANGA REDDY S/O LATE M.MANIK REDDY vs MRR WINES/BAR REP BY MANAGING PARTNER MEKALA RAM REDDY	06 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC/308/2019	PS Saroornagar vs Gosu Nagulu @ Nazeer , S/o. late G Chandraiah	06 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/5/2012	P.Krishna Goud vs D.Bhoomaiah	05 Jul 2022	Decree	—
OS/1967/2014	Parandha Narsing Rao vs K. Vidya Sagar and another	05 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/139/2008	Gilla Shankeraiah vs Gilla Balaiah	04 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC/1123/2019	P.S.Saroornagar vs Chandala Rani W/O Late Govind	21 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
SC/531/2017	PS Rajendranagar vs Mohammed Raheemuddin alias Raheem	20 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
SC/1156/2018	PS Rajendranagar vs A1 Puli Srikanth, S/o. Janardhan	20 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
EP/200134/2015	Fakruddin Ali vs The RDO and another	15 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1111/2008	Goshika Laxmaiah vs Goshika Nagabushanam	15 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1261/2013	A.Srinivas Reddy vs A.Laxmi	15 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/2187/2013	Madhula Srilatha vs A.Yadagiri Reddy	15 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1405/2008	Mekala Srinivasa Reddy vs P.Shankaraiah	14 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1626/2011	Nikhatara vs Hafez Mohammed Abdullah	13 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
EP/200032/2018	M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., vs Ms K.Laxmi	09 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/942/2021	MEKALA PRAMEELA W/O LATE MEKLA VENKAIAH vs THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER,SAROOR NAGAR MANDAL	06 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1030/2017	Emani Venkat Phanindra Satya Krishna vs Puli Nagesh,	06 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1305/2015	G.Srinivasulu vs M.Ravi Kumar	06 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/2446/2019	N Purna Chander Rao vs G Kondaiah and another	06 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
SC/1232/2021	THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PS MAILARDEVPALLY vs MOHAMMED MOIN S/O MD.IBRAHIM	03 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
SC/1110/2020	PS Narsingi vs Kote Jangaiah, S/o. Yadaiah	30 May 2022	Judgement	—
SC/612/2017	PS Meerpet vs Ponnala Ajay and 4 others	23 May 2022	Judgement	—
SC/395/2016	PS Uppal vs Vallepu Sujatha and another	29 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
SC/1044/2020	PS Medipally vs A-1 Allepu Naresh, S/o. Erranna	29 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
SC/657/2017	staste police Uppal vs M Hari and another	28 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
SC/517/2018	WPS Saroornagar vs Md. Firdos and 3 others	26 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
EP/37/2020	M/s. Margadarsi Chitfund Pvt. Ltd., Repby J Srinivas, S/o. J Viswanatham vs T. Subhash Goud, S/o. T. Manohar Goud	25 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
EP/274/2019	M/s. Margadharshi Chit Fund Private Limited, Rep by Chava Keshava Rao, S/o. Ch Bhaskar Rao vs M/s. Premier Poultry Products Ltd, Repby its MD, Mohd Amin Khakhu, S/o. Mohd Ayub Abdul Latif	25 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
SC/493/2019	PS Saroornagar vs Annepaka Praveen, S/o. late Ramulu	25 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1683/2013	K.Aruna vs P.C.Vijaya Kishore	22 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/710/2017	Smt N.Indira vs Sri Gundla Pachaiah	21 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1621/2019	IDBI Bank Ltd, Vanastalipuram Branch, Repbyits AGM and Branch Head, K Raghu,S/o. late K Bhaskar Rao vs M/s. A V Polymers, Repby its Proprietor, Nuvvula Kiran, S/o. Asheervadam	21 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
SC/213/2019	PS Mailardevpally vs Nadikuda Raju , S/o. Nadikuda Krishna	20 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/105/2022	ICHAPURAPU DEEPTHI W/O LATE I.SURYAPRAKASH vs THE TAHSILDHAR,UPPAL MANDAL	18 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1637/2018	Smt.V.Nagalaxmi vs Vishwanathula Hanumatha Rao	13 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
SC/768/2015	PS Hayathnagar vs Chukkala Samba Shiva Naidu and another	12 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/414/2014	p.Sanyasi Rao vs P.V.S.N.Kumar	31 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
OS/634/2021	PITTALA UMA RANI W/O LATE PITTALA LAXMAN vs KOTHI RAJU GOUD S/O KOTHI LAXMAIAH	31 Mar 2022	Decree	—
OS/634/2021	PITTALA UMA RANI W/O LATE PITTALA LAXMAN vs KOTHI RAJU GOUD S/O KOTHI LAXMAIAH	31 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1012/2021	Smt.M.Divya @ P.Divya vs Sri.P.Veera Chary S/o Late P.Brahmmaiah	31 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
SC/336/2016	Medipally police vs Gaddameedi Kalamma and others	31 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
SC/46/2020	PS Mailardevpally vs Chakali Pavan, S/o. Srinivas	29 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
OS/207/2016	Ushakiraon Movies ltd vs Sri Shanku CHakra Films	28 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
OS/2008/2012	Ambica Industries vs Mayuka habs pvt ltd	28 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
SC/413/2018	PS Uppal vs Reddy Naresh @ Reddy Mahesh @ Palli Mahesh	25 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1460/2019	Mohammed Shadab Hussain, S/o. Mohd Iqbal Hussain,Repby his GPA, Iqbal Hussain, S/o. late Mohd Moosa vs Salam Bin Sayeed, S/o. Sayeed Bin Hamdam	14 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1560/2019	Gopaluni Aruna Kumari, W/o. G Patanjali Rao vs Vsthe Tahasildar Officer, Balapur Mandal, RR District, Telangana State.	14 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1531/2015	Sujit Rathode vs AKarapu Murai Krishna	10 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
OS/833/2012	Mohd Abdul Suboor vs K.Sudhakar Reddy	28 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1216/2019	Ch Raju vs D Suryanarayana Murthy	25 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1383/2016	M.Vijayender Reddy vs Divija Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,	25 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/2162/2012	Prashanth Agarwal vs Mahesh Darak	25 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/2163/2012	Prashanth Agarwal vs Shravan Darak	25 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/2077/2017	R.Nagaraju vs Dosala Hemalatha	24 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/974/2015	D. Shok Reddy vs K. Ramalinga Raju	18 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/599/2014	M.Thonmel Reddy vs Shree Hrishikesha Hospital	16 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/694/2014	A. Venugopal vs SHK hospitals	16 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1644/2019	Perala Rani, W/o. Satyanarayana vs P Radha, W/o. P Srihari	16 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/676/2014	Edulla kavali balaiah vs Eddula. KavaliChinna jangaiah	15 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/814/2013	Ms Shrinath Roto Pack P Ltd vs Kiwi Biogu Seeds p ltd	15 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1990/2017	M.Satyanarayana vs M.Prasad	15 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/348/2021	S.Vijayalakshmi vs G.H.M.C, Deputy Commissioner LB Nagar, Circle-4.	08 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
OS/348/2021	S.Vijayalakshmi vs G.H.M.C, Deputy Commissioner LB Nagar, Circle-4.	08 Feb 2022	Decree	—
OS/758/2016	G Ranga Reddy vs Sanjeeva Reddy and anr	31 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
SC/53/2017	PS Vanasthalipuram vs Thurpati Usha and 2 others	28 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
OS/274/2017	M/s Trendyworks Technologies Pvt.Ltd., vs Shri Sooram Ravinder	27 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1868/2014	D. Chandrudu vs D. Srinivas and another	27 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1462/2019	Penjarla Ashok Kumar Pushpa Latha, W/o. P N Ashok Kumar vs R Srinivasa Raju, S/o. R Sundera Rama Raju	17 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
OS/2562/2019	K Venkata Ramana Rao vs B Sai Ramulu	04 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
SC/647/2018	The State through L.B.Nagar Police Station vs A1.Palasa Ramesh	30 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
SC/677/2018	The State of Telegana through PS Hayathnagar. vs A1.Chinthakayala Sridhar	30 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/1072/2014	State Bank of India,ECIL Campus Br. R.R. Dist., vs Venkateshwar Sanitary	28 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
SC/398/2018	PS Saroornagar vs Gade Laxmi and another	28 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/63/2017	Sri C.Jyothish Reddy vs Vssri L.Suryachander Reddy	22 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/965/2008	B.Mallesh vs M.Narayan goud	22 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/2431/2019	K Shalini vs K Nirmala	22 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
SC/75/2020	PS Vanastalipuram vs A-1 Kolan Umadevi, W/o. Venkat Reddy	21 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
SC/233/2017	P Krishna vs A Pavan Kumar and othes	21 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/926/2019	M/s. IDBI Bank Limited, LB Nagar Branch, Hyderabad. vs Akula Raju, S/o. Akula Krishna Murthy	17 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/1218/2019	K Chandrakala vs P Sailamma and others	13 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/1796/2015	Sri Paturi Ramakrishna vs Ms S.R.B.Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd,	13 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/179/2016	Gudupalli Sathyanarayana vs Gudupalli Lakshmamma and another	10 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/249/2005	G.Sathi Reddy vs Bobbali Narasimha Reddy	10 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/756/2018	J.Venugopal Rao, Rep by his GPA Holder J.Sai Kiran vs A.Sudha Rani	10 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/2001/2017	B.Sarada vs K.b.Chandana	03 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
OS/822/2018	Sunil Kumar.S vs A.Madhusudhan Reddy	30 Nov 2021	Judgement	—
SC/636/2018	State through Police, PS.Medipally vs A1.Pasula Sailu	30 Nov 2021	Judgement	—
OS/1619/2019	IDBI Bank Ltd, Vanastalipuram Branch, Repbyits AGM and Branch Head, K Raghu,S/o. late K Bhaskar Rao vs Pochampally Swathi, W/o. P Janardhan Rao	29 Nov 2021	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 119 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jul 2022		17
Jun 2022		15
May 2022		2
Apr 2022		14
Mar 2022		13
Feb 2022		15
Jan 2022		13
Dec 2021		16
Nov 2021		16
Oct 2021		6

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan handled?

Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan has handled 127 court orders since 2021 at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court. The average disposal rate is 13 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan hear?

Based on available records, Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court.

Where is Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan currently posted?

Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan is posted as Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,RangaReddy Dist. at Kukatpally at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court, Rangareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan dispose cases?

Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan disposes approximately 13 cases per month, based on 127 orders handled over their tenure at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court.

Since when is Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan serving?

Sri.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan has been serving at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court since 2021.

Case Types

OS 69%

SC 28%

EP 3%

Posting History

Jun 2022 — Aug 2022

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,RangaReddy Dist. at Kukatpally
Oct 2021 — Aug 2022

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-I Addl.Sessions Judge · 127 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 2

Other Judges at this Court

Sri D. Ram Prasada Rao

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRe...

1 orders

J Syam Kumar

Senior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Chief Judicial...

36 orders

Mr. Shridhar Mandhani

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl. Judic...

0 orders

Ms. Kavya Jada

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Judic...

0 orders

← View all judges at Kukatpally, ADJ-cum-Family Court