Sri M.Radha Krishna Chahavan

1 of 11 A.S. No. 2 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: AT HUZURNAGAR

PRESENT: Dr. M. Radha Krishna Chahavan, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet. FAC: II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar.

DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

A.S. No. 2 of 2023

Between: Karuturi Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao, present age 50 years, Occ: Agriculture and Temporary employee in Suvarna Cement Factory, R/o. Huzurnagar village and mandal, Suryapet District.

--Appellant/plaintiff

A N D

1)Karumuri Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Age: 51 years, Occ: Employee in B.S.N.L., R/o.H.No.18-319/16/1, NGO’s colony, Huzurnagar village and mandal, Suryapet District.

2)Karumuri Anji Reddy, S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Present age 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bakkamanthulagudem village, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District.

3)Karumuri Annapurnamma, W/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Age: 75 years, Occ:House hold, R/o. House no. 28-130, Huzurnagar village and mandal, Suryapet District. --Respondents/Defendants

ON APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE

LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR, DATED 28.12.2017.

In

OS.NO.213 OF 2014

Between: Karuturi Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao, present age 50 years, Occ: Agriculture and Temporary employee in Suvarna Cement Factory, R/o. Huzurnagar village and mandal, Suryapet District.

--PLAINTIFF

A N D

Karumuri Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Age: 51 years, 1) Occ: Employee in B.S.N.L. R/o. H. No.18-319/16/1, NGO’s colony, Huzurnagar village and mandal, Suryapet District.

IIADJ 2 of 11 A.S. No. 2 of 2023

Karumuri Anji Reddy, S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Present age 51 years, 2) Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bakkamanthulagudem village, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District. Karumuri Annapurnamma, W/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Age: 75 years, 3) Occ: House hold, R/o. House no. 28-130, Huzurnagar village and mandal, Suryapet District.

--DEFENDANTS

This appeal suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. Gouru Venkateshwarlu, Counsel for the Appellant/plaintiff and Sri. G. Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents/defendants and no representation for other respondents, and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth pronounce the following:-

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

1. This appeal is filed under Order XLI, Rule 1 r/w Section 96 CPC by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 28.12.2017 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar in OS. No. 213/2014 (old

OS No. 200 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Miryalaguda) in decreeing the suit with costs, praying to set aside the judg- ment and decree.

2.The parties are referred as they are arrayed before trial court for the sake of convenience.

3.The suit was filed by the plaintiff for (i) recovery of possession of suit house site, (ii) declaration of gift settlement deed document no.466 of 2009 as null and void, (iii) for mandatory injunction for removing the hut and fencing laid around the suit schedule property and (iv) for perpetual injunc- tion against the defendants.

IIADJ 3 of 11 A.S. No. 2 of 2023

4.The facts of the case as per the plaintiff are that the plaintiff had pur- chased to an extent of Ac.0-53 ½ gts., of agricultural land in Sy. No. 197 though a registered sale deed document no.703 of 1990 dated 19.06.1990 by paying valid sale consideration. Thereafter, the plaintiff had converted the said land into house plots and sold out the said plots to various persons.

264 sq. yards was left for street between the house plots. After selling all the said plots and leaving street, the plaintiff was left with 446 sq. yards.

The plaintiff was visiting the suit schedule property regularly and he has started working in Suvarna Cement factory, which is little far, thereby the frequency of visiting the suit schedule plot got decreased. Taking advan- tage of the plaintiff’s absence, the defendants laid a hut by managing the gram panchayath officers and members. They also obtained a door number for the said hut as 18-323. The said door number was given to hut in the land to a tune of 66 sq. yards in the year 2009, but the defendants laid fencing with loose stones on all the sides of suit schedule property. There- after, the defendants no.1 and 2 have also executed a gift settlement deed vide document no.466 of 2009 dt. 18.02.2009 in favour of their mother, who is defendant no.3 herein. As the defendants have got no right or title over the suit schedule property have executed the gift settlement deed and also laid fencing all around the suit schedule property, the plaintiff had filed the suit in OS No. 200 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Miryalaguda with the above mentioned reliefs. Thereafter, the case

IIADJ 4 of 11 A.S. No. 2 of 2023 was transferred to the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar and renumbered as OS No. 213 of 2014.

5.The defendant no.1 to 3 made appearance and filed their written statement and contested the suit. As per the defendants facts are as fol- lows;

They denied the facts pleaded by the plaintiff and categorically men- tioned that the plaintiff had sold out the land to an extent of 445.97 sq.

yards to the defendant no.1 and 2 through an agreement of sale deed dt.

09.08.1990 for a valid sale consideration. The plaintiff has also handed over the actual possession of house plot to the defendant no.1 and 2 on the same day. The defendant no.1 and 2 have been in actual possession of said house plot since their purchase, which is within the knowledge of plaintiff.

The defendant no.1 and 2 have become the absolute owners of said plot by way of adverse possession also. After purchase of land, the defendants have constructed a residential house with mud walls and Jammu roof in a portion of the house plot within one year of their purchase and the said house is in existence, for which they also obtained house number as 18-323 and they are paying the tax to the grampanchayat regularly as plot was already sold out by the plaintiff. The defendants have requested to dismiss the suit as the plaintiff has filed suit with ulterior motes.

6. The following issues were framed by the trial court for disposal;

1. Whether the defendant no.1 and 2 perfected their title to the schedule property by adverse possession?

2. Whether the plaint schedule site does not belong to the plaintiff?

IIADJ 5 of 11 A.S. No. 2 of 2023

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of suit land by evicting the defendants?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cancel the registered gift deed document no.466 of 2009?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the hut and fencing in and around the suit schedule land?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restrain- ing the defendants from interfering with the schedule property?

7. To what relief?

Along with the above issues, the trial court also framed additional is- sue as below.

Additional issue:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief to an extent of declara- tion to declare the entries in Grampanchayat records as null and void?

7. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had examined

PW1 to PW3 in total and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. The defendants have ex- amined DW1 to DW6 in total and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B37 and Ex.X1 to

Ex.X5.

8.The learned trial court after considering the evidence of all the wit- nesses of both parties and the documents of both sides, had dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff with a plea to set aside the judgment & decree and to de- cree the suit by delivering the possession of suit schedule property, declar- ing the gift settlement deed as null & void and further to grant mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction in his favor.

9. Heard arguments of both sides. Written arguments filed by both parties are perused.

IIADJ 6 of 11 A.S. No. 2 of 2023

10. After considering the appeal agrounds, the following points for determination are arrived for disposal of appeal.

1. Whether the plaintiff has proved that he had been left out with the property covered under suit schedule property?

2. Whether, the defendants have got any right over the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the trial Court's judgment is liable to be set aside?

4. To what relief?

Points No.1 to 3:

11. The plaintiff has pleaded that he was the owner of the entire land of

Ac.0-53 ½ gts., in sy. no.197 of Huzurnagar village, which he said to have purchased through registered sale deed document no. 703 of 1990 dt.

19.6.1990. The said fact was never disputed by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that he had divided the said land into various plots and sold out to various persons and thereby he was left with 446 sq. yards. The plaintiff says that the layout land is the suit schedule property and the defendants had encroached into the said land in his absence and thereby constructed the house and also raised fencing all over the suit schedule property.

12. PW1 to PW3 were examined by the plaintiff, who never spoke about the agreement of sale executed by Pw1 in favour of defendant No.1 and 2.

There is no whisper in the entire pleadings of plaintiff and even the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is silent on the said fact. The evidence of PW1 is showing that he came to know about the agreement of sale only through

IIADJ 7 of 11 A.S. No. 2 of 2023 the written statement. PW1 has admitted in his evidence that he gifted an extent of 150 square yards out of 53 ½ gts., to his mother under registered gift deed. He further admitted that he shown the southern boundary of said 150 sq. yards as the house and land of Satyanarayana

Reddy, who is none other than the father of defendant no.1 and 2. The plaintiff has volunteered that he executed a rectification deed vide Ex.A9 on 20.12.2003 changing the said boundary. He also admitted that he sold- out 205 sq. yards out of 53 ½ gts., to one Danda Laxma Reddy under registered sale deed document no.637 of 1996/Ex.B33 and he further admitted that the said document also shown the southern boundary to the said plot as the house and land of Sathyanarayana Reddy. PW1 again added that he executed rectification deed. There is absolutely no reason brought by PW1 on record as to how the said boundaries to both the plots have been shown with the house and plot of Satyanarayana Reddy, who is none other than the father of the defendant no.1 and 2. None of the witnesses have deposed about the said fact anywhere in their evidence and only elicited during the cross examination. Except for bare denial of agreement of sale with possession, the plaintiff has not brought any cogent evidence of either oral or documentary on to the record to disbelieve the said transaction. The plaintiff has simply denied Ex.B10, but never denied his signature or execution.

13. On the other hand, he himself admitted that he has shown boundaries of the said plot in other documents, wherein father’s name of

IIADJ 8 of 11 A.S. No. 2 of 2023 defendants is reflected. The said documents were executed way back in 1996. The agreement of sale was of 1990 and there is no contrary evidence from any corner from the plaintiff to show that he has got no knowledge about the execution of said documents. As per the said document/Ex.B10, the suit schedule property to an extent of 447.97 sq.

yards in sy. no. 197 was handed over and even possession was given to defendants by the plaintiff himself. Admittedly there is a hut and fencing all over the suit schedule property since long time and except for denying the title and possession of the defendants, there is no cogent reason brought on record by the plaintiff as to how the said hut was in existence since long time.

14. The plaintiff has filed the suit and issues were framed, wherein the onus was on the plaintiff to prove that he was holding the said land, even after making plots and leaving the land for roads. Initially, the onus was on the plaintiff which he could not prove and on the other hand, the defendants could establish that they are in possession of land since very long time. The plaintiff has to initially prove his case, then the onus shifts on to the defendants. But in the present case, the plaintiff has failed to establish his case. He also wanted to depend on weakness of the defendants, which cannot be permitted.

15. The evidence of defendants is concrete in this regard, wherein the documents are showing that the defendant no.1 and 2 are in possession over the suit schedule property, which is also in the knowledge of

IIADJ 9 of 11 A.S. No. 2 of 2023 plaintiff. Except denying the possession, the plaintiff could not putforth any evidence in this regard. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 could substantiate that they have been in possession over the suit schedule property for more than 18 years. The trial court has rightly come to conclusion that the defendants have got title over the said land by adverse possession. The trial court has elaborately discussed the issues individually, wherein it was rightly held by it that the plaintiff has got no authority or title over the suit schedule property for granting any of the reliefs claimed by him.

There is absolutely no reason brought on record by the plaintiff, even in the appeal as to why the judgment of trial court should be set aside, except for the pleadings pleaded by him, which have been already dealt by trial court during the judgment.

16. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendants have failed to prove the sale set up by them, as such the adverse possession cannot be taken in to consideration. It is to be noted that the plaintiff himself admitted that he had knowledge about the transaction and even he himself mentioned the land of the defendants as one of the boundaries in the documents executed by him, as such the said version of plaintiff cannot be considered.

17. The learned counsel for the plaintiff had also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of H. Lakshmaiah Reddy Vs. L.

Venkatesh Reddy1 and Padyala Ranga Rao and other Vs. Gundabathuni 1 AIR 2015 (SC) 2499

IIADJ 10 of 11 A.S. No. 2 of 2023

Venkateshara Rao and others2, wherein he submitted that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that the title cannot be declared through the mutation proceedings of the Grampanchayat. Here in this case, the trial court has not specifically relied on the mutation proceedings, but the trial court has discussed the adverse possession and hence, the said judgments are not applicable to the present case in hand.

18. He also submitted a judgment of the Hon’ble High court in the case of Bheemavarapu Laxma Reddy Vs. Pallotu Aswini Kumar3, wherein it was held that adverse possession plea and proof must be concrete and the origin of possession under a possessory agreement of sale must be proved from the date of the said transaction and the agreement holder cannot be said to have been in adverse possession, unless the proper evidence is brought on record. The evidence on record clearly shows that the defendants are not possessors of the suit schedule property since very long time and admittedly the plaintiff has knowledge of it. Thereby, the said judgment is in-fact in favour of the defendants herein and not the plaintiff. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that permissive possession can not grant any right to the party under adverse possession, but whereas the plaintiff neither pleaded permissive possession nor brought any evidence in this aspect to prove the said version. The plaintiff never pleaded about the execution of agreement of sale or permissive 2 2016(5) ALD 453 3 2015(5) ALD 500

IIADJ 11 of 11 A.S. No. 2 of 2023 possession, as such the said plea cannot be taken at belated stage by the plaintiff.

By considering the entire discussion made supra, there is no necessity to interfere in the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The points are answered accordingly.

19. Point NO.4:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

( Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 19 th day of December, 2025.)

Sd/-

I ADDL.DISTRICTJUDGE, SURYAPET

FAC: II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Sd/-

I ADDL.DISTRICTJUDGE, SURYAPET

FAC: II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

IIADJ

1 of 8 HMOP No. 0 6 of 2025

TSSR030003162025

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT HUZURNAGAR

Present: Dr. M. Radha Krishna Chahavan,

Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar.

H.M.O.P.No. 06 of 2025

(Dated This, Friday 07th Day Of November, 2025)

Between:

Gugula Rani @ Amararapu Rani, W/o. Krishnaiah @ Krishna, D/o. Bixam, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Nereducherla Town and Mandal, Suryapet District.

...PETITIONER

AND

Gogula Krishnaiah @ Krishna, S/o. Somulu, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. Kothapahad Village, Chivemla Mandal, Suryapet District.

...RESPONDENT

This petition came for hearing before me on 17-10-2025 in the presence of Sri. R.V. Ramana Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioner, while the Respondent is set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

1.This petition is filed, by the petitioner Under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage.

SCJ 2 of 8 HMOP No. 0 6 of 2025

2.The brief averments of the petition, are that:

(a) The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed on 14-10-2009 at Respondent house situated at

Khammampahad Village, Chivemla Mandal, Suryapet

District, as per Hindu rites and customs. Due to the bad financial position of the parties, no photos on either side were arranged. At the time of marriage, the petitioner’s parents gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000,/- cash, 10 tulas of gold ornaments, 20 tulas of silver ornaments andhousehold articles worth of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent. After the marriage, the petitioner joined the conjugal society of respondent at his residence Khammampahad Village,

Chivemla Mandal and they lead happy marital life for a period of five (5) years. During their wedlock they blessed with two female children by name Gogula Aaradhya and

Gogula Nainika.

(b) It is stated that the respondent addicted to bad vices like betting games, drinking alcohol, illegal contacts with other ladies and used to come to the house at night hrs., and sometimes he did not even come to house and enjoyed his concubine namely Jyothi and with his friends. Whenever the petitioner asked the respondent about the late nights

SCJ 3 of 8 HMOP No. 0 6 of 2025 and illegal acts, the respondent quarreled with petitioner and demanding additional dowry and beat the petitioner.

(c) Petitioner informed the same to respondent’s family but they supported the respondent and also harassed the petitioner both physically and mentally for additional dowry. The respondent stated to petitioner, that she begot two female children, if she failed to bring additional dowry, he will marry another lady for additional dowry and the respondent family members also supported him and harassed the petitioner physically and mentally.

(d) One day, the respondent came to house in drunken condition abused her in filthy language, beat her and forcefully taken the gold ornaments of her body and necked out from his house. At that time the petitioner lost her pregnancy and came to her parents house at Nereducherla village.

(e) Thereafter, the petitioner’s parents conducted so many panchayats and advised the respondent and his parents to live together for happy marital life with their children with love and affection and not to harass for additional dowry and in that panchayat respondent and his family members assured that they will not harass the petitioner for

SCJ 4 of 8 HMOP No. 0 6 of 2025

additional dowry and change his behavior. The petitioner

went back to marital house and lead marital life for a period of one month only, later the respondent and his family members again started their demand for additional dowry and harassed the petitioner.

(f) The respondent day by day developed illegal intimacy with one Jyothi and raised quarrels with petitioner and suspected her character and with the support of his concubine Jyothi and his family members beat the petitioner indiscriminately and forcefully obtained her gold ornaments from her neck and necked out her along with her children from his house in the year 2014. Later, the petitioner came to know that the respondent had married his concubine Jyothi as second wife in the year 2014.

(g) Thereafter, the petitioner’s parents held panchayat about the respondent’s second wife but they did not attend the panchayat, later she lodged a complaint against the respondent, his second wife Gogula Jyothi and his family members and also filed MC & DVC cases against the respondent and his family members and same are pending

before the court. The respondent after receiving the court

notices held a panchayat and assured that he will look

SCJ 5 of 8 HMOP No. 0 6 of 2025 petitioner and her daughter with love and affection and his second wife, the petitioner believed the words of respondent and compromised all cases before the Lok-

Adalath in the year 2018. Thereafter, they lead happy marital life for a period of four years and blessed with one female child namely Gogula Nainika.

(h) After birth of second child, the respondent suspected the character of petitioner and took quarrels and harassed her physically, mentally and beat her indiscriminately, lastly in the 2022 necked out the petitioner from his house, since then the petitioner residing at her parents house at

Nereducherla Village.

(i)It is further averred that the respondent and his parents have tortured the petitioner both physically and mentally.

The respondent also deserted the petitioner from June, 2022 which is nothing but cruelty and there is no hope of change in the mindset of the respondent. The present petition is filed with a plea to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage dated 14-10-2009.

3.Notice was served to respondent, respondent called absent. None appeared, hence respondent was set exparte.

SCJ 6 of 8 HMOP No. 0 6 of 2025

4.In order to prove the petition averments, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 documents. The petitioner also examined her father

Sri.Amararapu Bixam as PW-2.

Ex.P1 is the original wedding card. Ex.P2 is the Copy of attested Aadhar card of petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage, as prayed for ?”

7. POINT:- This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking decree of divorce U/S.13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955. The burden is on the petitioner to establish that she is entitled for seeking decree of divorce, on the ground that respondent harassed the petitioner mentally and physically, despite her best efforts to keep their matrimonial relationship in tact and such conduct of the respondent caused mental pain and suffering to the petitioner.

8. In the instant case, respondent did not choose to contest the case in order to rebut the alleged allegations made against him, therefore, a presumption arises to believe the version of the petitioner.

SCJ 7 of 8 HMOP No. 0 6 of 2025

9. In order to prove the case, the petitioner got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The evidence of PW- 1 and PW-2 remained un-rebutted, unquestioned and proved the case of the petitioner.

10.The documents marked are proving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent. The unchallenged version of petitioner about mental sufferance is in favour of petitioner. There cannot be any specific direct witness to the said acts of harassment as they generally happen within four corners of walls. Hence, the entire version of petitioner is believed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 14-10-2009, is hereby dissolved and decree of divorce is passed.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 07 th day of November, 2025)

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURNAGAR.

SCJ 8 of 8 HMOP No. 0 6 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Petitioner Respondent

PW-1 : Gugula Rani @ Amararapu Rani - NIL- PW-2 : Amararapu Bixam

Exhibits marked for Petitioner

Ex.P1: Marriage Wedding card. Ex.P2: Copy of attested Aadhar card of petitioner.

Exhibits marked for Respondent - NIL-

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURNAGAR.

SCJ

Page 1 of 7 O.S.No. 486 of 2025

TSSR030005392025

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: HUZURNAGAR

PRESENT: DR. M. RADHA KRISHNA CHAHAVAN,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURNAGAR.

O.S.No. 486 OF 2025

(Dated This, Thursday 06th Day Of November, 2025)

Between:

Mamidi Veera Babu, S/o. Shambaiah, Age about 34 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. H.No. 4-32, Nakka Kondareddy Gari Street, Mellachervu Village, & Mandal, Suryapet District.

...PLAINTIFF

AND

Goli Venkateswar Rao, S/o. Nageswar Rao Aged about 41 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. Plot No. 114, Road No.2, Durgabhavani Nagar, Near Veda Degree College, Champapet, K.V. Ranga Reddy District. Presently R/o. H.No.1-1, Allipuram Village, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District.

... DEFENDANT

This suit came before me for final hearing on 25-09-2025 in the presence of Sri. B.Koti Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiff, while defendants remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

S.C.J

Page 2 of 7 O.S.No. 486 of 2025

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for specific performance of contract by the plaintiff against the defendant, wherein the facts of the case as per the plaint are that:

(a) The defendant is the owner of suit schedule land. He executed an agreement of sale in favor of plaintiff on 11.09.2023. The defendant offered to sell his land to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts out of Ac.0-31 gts in Sy.No. 706/4/2 and Ac.0-34 gts in Sy.No. 707/2 in total Ac.1-05 gts consisting into a single bit situated at

Mattampally Grampanchayat and Revenue village limits,

Mattampally mandal, Suryapet district (herein after referred as suit schedule property).

(b) The plaintiff and defendant have participated in negotiation and it was agreed by plaintiff and the defendant wherein the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule land at a price of

Rs.30,93,750/- (Rupees thirty lakhs ninety three thousand seven hundred and fifty) i.e., Rs.27,50,000/- (Rupees twenty seven Lakhs fifty thousand only) per acre. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid sale consideration i.e., Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) to the defendant thereby entered into an agreement of sale, dt:

11.09.2023. It was agreed that the plaintiff will pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,93,750/- on 31.01.2024 and after

S.C.J

Page 3 of 7 O.S.No. 486 of 2025

receipt of said amount, the defendant will execute a regular Regd.

Sale Deed in favor of plaintiff or his choice at his costs. The defendant executed an Un-Regd Agreement of Sale, Dt: 11.09.2023 on Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamps (2) in favor of plaintiff duly signed by the defendant and witnesses.

(c) It is further submitted that, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract of sale but the defendant intentionally failed to perform his part of contract. Finally, the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested him to receive the balance sale consideration and execute a Regd. Sale Deed in his favor and the defendant stated that on 21.12.2024 he will come and execute a regd. Sale deed in favor of plaintiff. On 21.12.2024 the plaintiff paid required stamp duty and registration fees and booked online slot for registration but due to ill-health of defendant did not present and requested the plaintiff to make arrangement for registration on 06.02.2025 and he assured to plaintiff. On 06.02.2025 the plaintiff also booked a online slot but the defendant did not turn up and there is no explanation by the defendant to that effect.

(d) Inspite of waiting for longer period, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed as such the plaintiff issued Legal

Notice, dt: 01.04.2025 demanding the defendant to come forward

S.C.J

Page 4 of 7 O.S.No. 486 of 2025

to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. After receipt of notice, the defendant did not come and failed to perform his part of contract of agreement of sale,

dt:11.09.2023, as such, the plaintiff had filed the present suit

against the defendant with a plea to direct him to come forward and execute the sale deed by taking the balance of sale consideration.

2. Summons were served on defendant and Sri. J.Nageshwar Rao,

Advocate filed Vakalat for defendant. Inspite of granting ample time, the defendant has not filed the written statement, as such the defendant was set exparte.

3. In order to prove the suit claim, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 toEx.A5as shown in list of appendix. On behalf of Defendant, no oral and documentary evidence is adduced, as he was set exparte.

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

5. Now the point for determination is : “Whether the Plaintiff is

entitled for Enforcement of agreement of sale dated 11.09.2023

against the defendant as prayed for ?”

S.C.J

Page 5 of 7 O.S.No. 486 of 2025

POINT:

6. It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant had offered to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.30,93,750/- (Rupees thirty lakhs ninety three thousand seven hundred and fifty) i.e., Rs.27,50,000/- (Rupees twenty seven Lakhs fifty thousand only) per acre. On 11.09.2023, the plaintiff has paid the part sale consideration amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) as an advance and thereby defendant executed an agreement of sale.

The defendant further agreed that the plaintiff shall pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,93,750/- (Rupees ten lakhs ninety three thousand seven hundred and fifty only) on 31.01.2024 and after receipt of balance sale consideration the defendant will execute a regular sale deed in favor of plaintiff.

7. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, plaintiff himself is examined as

PW-1 who reiterated the contents of plaint and stated categorically that he entered into agreement of sale with defendant on 11.09.2023.

It is further averred that defendant has received the advance amount from him but did not execute sale deed in his favor.

8. On perusal of document under Ex.A1, shows that defendant has entered into agreement of sale dated 11.09.2023 and received the amount from plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the copy of legal notice dated

S.C.J

Page 6 of 7 O.S.No. 486 of 2025

01.04.2025, Ex.A4 is the copy of postal receipt and Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgment.

9. The version of the plaintiff is that the suit is filed within limitation and though the plaintiff was ready to perform his part of contract, the defendant was postponing the issue on one or other pretext. The defendant remained absent to contradict the same. As such, I feel that the defendant had accepted the amount and executed the agreement of sale and thereafter, did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence the defendant is under obligation to execute the registered sale deed in favor of plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration. Accordingly, this issue is answered and hence the suit is to be decreed.

10. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Defendant is directed to execute

Registered Sale Deed in favor of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by receiving the balance sale consideration amount within one month from the date of this Judgment.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 06 th day of November, 2025.)

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURNAGAR.

S.C.J

Page 7 of 7 O.S.No. 486 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: Mamidi Veera Babu - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Agreement of sale dated 11.09.2023.

Ex.A2: Copy of Pattedarn Passbook cum Title Deed No.T29110050896, vide Katha No.1702 in the name of defendant.

Ex.A3: Office copy of Legal Notice, Dt:01.04.2025.

Ex.A4: Postal receipt.

Ex.A5: Postal Acknowledgment.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

- NIL-

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURNAGAR.

S.C.J

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR

PRESENT: Dr.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan.

Senior Civil Judge,

Huzurnagar.

O.S.NO. 172 OF 2025

(Old O.S.No. 184 of 2018 on the file of

Junror Civil Judge, Huzurnagar).

BETWEEN:

Bandi Nagi Reddy, S/o. Saidi Reddy, Aga. 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Paatha Ambapuram Village of Gurajala Mandal in Guntoor district, Andhrapradesh.

...Plaintiff

A N D

1. Bandi Saidi Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Age. 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gurdlapally. Village of Mattampally Mandal in Suryapet district.

2 Naga Malleshwari D/o. Somi Reddy, styling herself as wife of Bandi Saidi Reddy, Age. 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Ragunathapalem Village of Mattampally Mandal in Suryapet district.

3. Kunta Saidaiah, S/o Appalah, Age. 67 yea's, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Revooru village of Mellacheruvu

... Defendants

Claim: Suit for Partition and Separate Possession, Declaration and Injunction.

: DOCKET ORDER, DATED 04-11-2025 :

The learned Counsel for Plaintiff had submitted that the matter is already settled out of the court. The learned counsel for Plaintiff endorsed as not pressing the Suit. As the

Plaintiff is the dominus litis, he want to withdraw the suit, it is permitted to the Plaintiff to withdraw the suit. Accordingly the suit is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR

PRESENT: Dr.M.Radha Krishna Chahavan.

Senior Civil Judge,

Huzurnagar.

O.S.NO. 246 OF 2025

(Old O.S.No. 22/2017 on the file of

Junror Civil Judge, Huzurnagar).

BETWEEN:

Ajmeera Badya S/o Singya Age: 75 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Peeklanayak Tanda, H/o Tammavaram Village, Chintalapalem Mandal, Suryapet Dist

...Plaintiff

A N D

1) A.V. Ram Mohan Rao, S/o Venkateswar Rao, Aged: about 61 yrs, Occ: Govt. Bank employee, R/o 40/3RT Seetharam Nivas, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad

2) Chinthareddy Krishna Reddy Adopted son of Chinnarapa Reddy actual S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged: about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Nemalipuri Village, Chinthalapalem Mandal, Suryapet District presently residing at Rehabilitation Centre Dorakunta.

... Defendants

Claim: Suit for Perpetual Injunction.

Plaint filed under order VII Rule 1 Read with Sec 26 of C.P.C

: DOCKET ORDER, DATED 03-11-2025 :

None appeared for plaintiff even till 4:20 PM. Plaintiff evidence not lead though conditional orders and granting ample time. It seems the plaintiff is not having interest in prosecuting the suit. The plaintiff did not choose to lead evidence and there is no evidence on record. Hence, this suit is dismissed

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR