Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana

Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal, Principal District and Sessions Judge, is posted at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 115 court orders on record since 2010. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OP, OS, AS cases.

115

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/1180/2012

G.Narsimha Reddy vs Ahmad Bin Omar

09 Oct 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: R.R.DISTRICT AT

L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: M.S.K.JAISWAL, B.Com., B.L.,

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 9 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

O.S.No. 1180 of 2012

Between:

G.Narsimha Reddy, S/o.G.Ranga Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.9-1-105, Champapet, Saroornagar Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. ...Plaintiff

AND

1. Ahmad Bin Omar, S/o.Omar Bin Salam, aged about 75 years, Occ: Agrl.,

2. Jaffar Bin Ahmad, S/o.Ahmed Bin Omar, aged about 30 years, Occ: Business,

Both are R/o.16-2-836/7/9, Press Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad-59.

3. B.Lokeshwar Reddy, S/o.B.Lachi Reddy, aged about 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-6-115/10, Hasthinapuram, Sri Balaji Nagar, Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

4. Challa Sudarshan Reddy, S/o.Narasimha Reddy, aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-30, Jillelaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

5. Challa Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.Narasimha Reddy, aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-30, Jillelaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

6. Challa Surender Reddy, S/o.Narasimha Reddy, aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-30, Jillelaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

7. G.Indrashekar Reddy, S/o.Narayana Reddy, aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-382/B/54, Bhanu Nagar,

Sagar Road, Champapet, R.R.District. ..Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing on 01-10-2013 in the presence of Sri G.Sudhakar Reddy, counsel for plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of declaration that the sale deeds of defendants are inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff.

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

The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, which comprises of land admeasuring 1600 sq.yards in Sy.No.87/26 part, situated at Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District, having acquired the same from his father late Ranga Reddy. Originally the father of the plaintiff was the pattadar and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.4-21 gts in Sy.No.87/26, out of which he gifted the schedule property to the plaintiff under registered gift deed dt.30-08-2006. Except the plaintiff and his father, nobody else have right, title and possession over the suit schedule property and the revenue records, pattadar pass books and title deeds clearly reveals that the father of plaintiff was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.4-21 gts in Sy.No.87/26 of Karmanghat Village,

Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

It is further contended that defendants No.6 & 7 herein filed a suit in

O.S.No.900/2008 on the file of II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, R.R.District against the

plaintiff herein and another for perpetual injunction basing on the title and registered sale deeds in respect of land in Sy.No.134/A, Plot Nos.2 & 3 admeasuring 500 sq.yards each situated at Jillelaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, claiming title through defendant No.1 herein rep.by his GPA Holder i.e defendant No.3. In the said suit the plaintiff filed his detailed written statement stating the above said facts and further stated that the defendants 6 and 7 herein basing on the manipulated sale deeds are making efforts to grab the schedule property, which is in Sy.No.87/26 part of Karmanghat Village. The II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, R.R.District has decreed the said suit in favour of defendants 6 and 7 herein on 06-08-2012 by making a categorical observation that the plaintiff herein is not claiming any title and possession in respect of land in Sy.No.134/A of Jillelaguda Village and as such, defendants 6 & 7 herein are entitled for perpetual injunction and the plaintiff herein 3 ought to have filed a petition for survey of the land to see whether the suit lands are in Sy.No.134/A of Jillelaguda Village or in Sy.No.87/26 part of Karmanghat

Village. The court further made some adverse remarks against the plaintiff herein holding that the land in Sy.No.87/26 is a Government land, which is acquired by the

BDL Company and it is not a patta land, but a Government land. In fact, the

Government acquired the land for the purpose of BDL Company in Sy.No.87/27, but not in Sy.No.87/26. Taking advantage of the said decree, the defendants 6 and 7 are making hectic efforts to grab the suit schedule property. The above facts clearly reveals that it is a dispute regarding the identification of the schedule property between the plaintiff and defendants.

It is further contended that vendor of the defendants, who was having

Ac.5-06 gts of land in Sy.Nos.134/A, 135 and 136/B at Jillelaguda Village has already converted the entire land into 61 house plots and sold the same to various individuals and after exhausting the entire land, the vendor of the defendants again executed a registered AGPA on 24-7-2007 in favour of defendant No.3 to an extent of 1777 sq.yards of land in Plot Nos.2, 3 & 4 in Sy.No.134/A and also executed a gift deed on 24-7-2007 in favour of defendant No.2 to an extent of 500 sq.yards of land in Plot No.1 in Sy.No.134/A of Jillelaguda Village and thereafter executed a regd.sale deeds in favour of defendants 6, 7 and others through his AGPA

Holder/D3. All the above transactions are manipulated and illegal, which are created to grab the schedule property, in which they have no right, title or possession. The defendants along with their men came to the schedule property on 20-11-2012 and tried to dig the pits, which was resisted by the plaintiff and while leaving the place the defendants threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences and hence, the suit.

4 3.

4. Summons of the suit were served on defendants 1 to 7. Defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte and on behalf of defendants 3 to 7 Sri V.Ranga Reddy,

Advocate filed vakalat on 19-02-2013. Since the Written Statement was not filed till 18-6-2013, the right was forfeited and thereafter on 16-7-2013 defendants 3 to 7 were set exparte.

5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced Exs.A1 to A81.

6. Arguments are heard.

7. The point for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff has proved has case for granting the decree, as prayed for.

8. POINT: The specific case of the plaintiff both in the plaint as well as in his evidence as PW1 is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 1600 sq.yards, situated in Sy.No.87/26 part, situated at Karmanghat

Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District. Defendants 6 and 7 herein filed

O.S.No.900/2008 on the file of II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, R.R.District against the

plaintiff and another for perpetual injunction. The vendor of the defendants has already sold away the entire land in Sy.No.134/A to third parties in the year 1990 itself under separate registered sale deeds. Defendant No.1 filed another suit against the plaintiff herein for perpetual injunction in respect of the plot admeasuring 2000 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.139 and 139/A of Jillelaguda Village in O.S.No.25/2006, which was dismissed. In the suit filed by defendants 6 and 7 namely O.S.No.900/2008 the plaintiff took up the specific stand that defendants 6 and 7 are making efforts to grab the suit schedule property, which is part of the land in Sy.No.87/26, with which they are not concerned. The learned II Addl.Junior Civil Judge has granted the decree in favour of defendants 6 and 7 on 06-08-2012 holding that the plaintiff herein ought to have got the land surveyed for determining as to whether it is in Sy.No.134/A of

Jillelaguda Village or in Sy.No.87/26 of Karmanghat Village.

9. In support of the contention of the plaintiff, he has produced Exs.A1 to

A81, which all show that the land in Sy.Nos.134, 135 and 136 was made into plots 5 and they were sold to several persons as long back as in the year 1990 under the registered sale deeds. Having sold away the entire land, defendant No.1 executed a registered AGPA and has created this litigation.

10. What is noticed from the material on record is that while the plaintiff claims that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, which is in

Sy.No.87/26 of Karmanghat Village, defedants 6 and 7 are claiming the plot situated in Sy.No.134/A, which is at Jillelaguda Village. It is manifest that there is a dispute about the identity of the property and the location thereof. The specific claim of the plaintiff is that his land is in Sy.No.87/26 of Karmanghat Village and the land of the defendants is in Sy.No.134/A of Jillelaguda Village. Even though there was serious dispute about the location and identity of the property, neither of the parties have taken any steps to get their land identified and demarcated with the help of Survey

Department. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, which comprises of 1600 sq.yards in

Sy.No.87/26 of Karmanghat Village. The title of the plaintiff is traced through

Ex.A1, which is the certified copy of the gift settlement deed dt.29-8-2006. The plaintiff has also produced the encumbrance certificates (Exs.A2 and A3) continuously from 1-5-1995 to 15-8-2012. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the owner of the schedule property. The defendants, particularly defendants 3 to 7 have not chosen to contest the suit even though vakalat was filed on their behalf and subsequently they remained absent. Since the specific prayer of the plaintiff is to declare him as the owner of the property situated in Sy.No.87/26 of

Karmanghat Village, he is entitled to the relief. The point is accordingly answered.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed, declaring that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, which comprises of 1600 sq.yards of land in Sy.No.87/26 of Karmanghat Village. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant and after correction

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th October, 2013.

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R.DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Plaintiff:

PW1 - G.Narsimha Reddy (plaintiff)

On behalf of defendants: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A1 - C.C. of gift settlement deed vide Doc.No.17799/2006, dt.29-08-2006. Ex.A2 - Encumbrance certificate from 01-05-95 to 30-09-2007. Ex.A3 - Encumbrance certificate from 01-10-2007 to 15-08-2012. Ex.A4 - C.C. of Adangal for the year 2012-2013 (1422 Fasli). Ex.A5 - C.C. of pahani for the year 2009-2010. Ex.A6 - C.C. of pahani for the year 2008-2009. Ex.A7 - C.C. of pahani for the year 2007-2008. Ex.A8 - C.C. of pahani for the year 2006-2007. Ex.A9 - C.C. of pahani for the year 2005-2006. Ex.A10- C.C. of pahani for the year 2004-2005. Ex.A11- C.C. of pahani for the year 2003-2004. Ex.A12- C.C. of survey panchanama report, dt.19-07-2004. Ex.A13- C.C. of Judgment and Decree in OS.No.900/2008, dt.06-08-2012.

Ex.A14- C.C. of certificate issued by the Tahasildar, dt.18-04-2007. Ex.A15- C.C. of gift settlement deed vide Doc.No.8169/2007. Ex.A16- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.8381/2007. Ex.A17- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.8380/2007. Ex.A18- C.C. of AGPA vide Doc.no.8168/2007. Ex.A19- C.C. of sale deed vide doc.No.2447/2002. Ex.A20- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.8441/1990. Ex.A21- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.8444/1990. Ex.A22- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.6581/1990. Ex.A23- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.10039/1990. Ex.A24- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.4468/1990. Ex.A25- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.15796/1990. Ex.A26- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.8440/1990. Ex.A27- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.13720/1990. Ex.A28- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.15797/1990. Ex.A29- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.16088/1990. Ex.A30- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.16089/1990. Ex.A31- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.10041/1990. Ex.A32- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.6584/1990. Ex.A33- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.13719/1990. Ex.A34- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7791/1990.

Ex.A35- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.8740/1990. Ex.A36- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.15800/1990. Ex.A37- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.8442/1990. Ex.A38- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.8443/1990. Ex.A39- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7105/1990. Ex.A40- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.6583/1990. Ex.A41- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.6582/1990. Ex.A42- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.16087/1990. Ex.A43- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.15801/1990.

Ex.A44- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.15803/1990. Ex.A45- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.8438/1990. Ex.A46- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.10042/1990. Ex.A47- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.15804/1990. Ex.A48- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.13724/1990. Ex.A49- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.15799/1990. Ex.A50- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.15794/1990. Ex.A51- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.13718/1990. Ex.A52- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.13721/1990. Ex.A53- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.8439/1990. Ex.A54- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.13722/1990. Ex.A55- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7106/1990. Ex.A56- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.15795/1990. Ex.A57- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.5881/1990. Ex.A58- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.5882/1990. Ex.A59- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.8437/1990. Ex.A60- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7104/1990. Ex.A61- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7794/1990. Ex.A62- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7795/1990. Ex.A63- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7793/1990. Ex.A64- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7792/1990. Ex.A65- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7787/1990. Ex.A66- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.10044/1990. Ex.A67- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.5323/1990. Ex.A68- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.13725/1990. Ex.A69- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7790/1990. Ex.A70- C.C. of gift deed vide Doc.No.4280/2007. Ex.A71- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7788/1990. Ex.A72- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.7789/1990. Ex.A73- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.14665/1993. Ex.A74- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.4469/1990. Ex.A75- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.4470/1990. Ex.A76- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.50802/1990. Ex.A77- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.10040/1990.

Ex.A78- C.C. of sale deed vide Doc.No.15805/1990. Ex.A79- C.C. of ROR proceedings for the year 1987-88. Ex.A80- True copy of order of defendant No.1 in Proc.No.E/218/75. Ex.A81- C.C. of orders in Proc.No.B/620/88.

On behalf of defendants: Nil

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R.DISTRICT

OS/826/2012

B.Satyanarayana Raju vs B.Mahesh Kumar

09 Oct 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: R.R.DISTRICT AT

L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: M.S.K.JAISWAL, B.Com., B.L.,

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 9 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

O.S.No. 826 of 2012

Between:

1. Sri B.Satyanarayana Raju, S/o.late Ganga Raju, aged about 41 years, Occ: Business,

2. Smt.B.Lakshmi Bhavani, W/o.B.Satyanarayana Raju, aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife,

Both are R/o.Flat No.4, Block-01, Nagarjuna Homes, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, A.P.

3. Sri K.Vijaya Rama Raju, S/o.late K.Soma Raju, aged about 61 years, Occ: Retd.Employee,

4. Smt.K.Sivagayatri, W/o.K.Vijaya Rama Raju, aged about 58 years, Occ: Housewife,

Both are R/o.Plot No.40, Gareen Avenues,

Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, A.P. ...Plaintiffs

AND

1. B.Mahesh Kumar, S/o.B.Vishwanatham Setty, aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Vempalli, Cuddapah District.

2. Sri Ananth Saraogi, S/o.Rajendra Kumar, aged about 27 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Hyderabad.

Rep.by their agreement of sale cum GPA Holder

A.Rama Krishna, S/o.late Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.78,

Raasi Avenue, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..Defendants

This suit coming up for final hearing on 01-10-2013 in the presence of Sri J.Srinivas Rao, counsel for plaintiffs and the defendant remained exparte and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiffs and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dt.10-09-2006 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property, which comprises of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts in

Sy.No.14/Part, situated at Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal &

Municipality, R.R.District.

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

The defendants being the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property has entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs on 2 10-09-2009 through his Agreement of sale cum GPA Holder for a total sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- and also delivered the physical possession of the said property and since then, the plaintiffs have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Originally an extent of Ac.3-35 gts of agricultural land in Sy.No.14 situated in Gajularamaram Village was purchased by the defendants and 6 others on 10-02-2006. Thereafter, the defendant executed an agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of A.Ramakrishna on 12-09-2006 in respect of their undivided share of Ac.0-20 gts of land out of Ac.3-35 gts and through the said AGPA the defendants entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- and the defendants agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, whenever they demand, without taking any fresh consideration. Thereafter, the defendants willfully neglected to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice on 07-02-2012 calling upon the defendants to register the sale deed in their favour, but the defendants wantedly returned the registered post of the legal notice, even though they are residing in the same address. The plaintiffs made sincere efforts to solve the issue amicably, but the defendants are avoiding to perform their part of the contract and hence, the suit.

3. Suit summons were not served on the defendants. Paper publication was made in Eenadu daily newspaper. The defendants remained exparte.

4. In order to prove their case, the 1st plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced Exs.A1 to A7.

5. Arguments are heard.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether the plaintiffs have proved their case for granting the decree, as prayed for.

7. POINT: The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants Mahesh

Kumar and Ananth Saraogi, being the joint owners of an extent of Ac.3-35 gts of agricultural land along with 6 others, have entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs in respect of their undivided share of Ac.0-20 gts of land on 10-09- 3 2009 represented by their Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney

Holder by name A.Rama Krishna for a total consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. Ex.A1 is the agreement of sale, under which the defendants received the entire consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- and agreed to register the sale deed whenever the plaintiffs demand, without taking any fresh consideration from the plaintiffs. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed under which the defendants and 6 others have jointly purchased an extent of Ac.3-35 gts of the agricultural land.

Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the registered agreement of sale cum GPA, dt.12-09-2006 executed by the defendants in favour of A.Rama Krishna. Ex.A6 is the Encumbrance Certificate, which shows that the defendants are the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and they executed an agreement of sale cum

GPA in respect of the said property in favour of A.Rama Krishna on 12-09-2006.

Ex.A7 is the another Encumbrance Certificate issued on 18-02-2012, which shows that the defendants Mahesh Kumar and Ananh Saraogi through their AGPA Holder

A.Rama Krishna have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property on 10-09-2009 and the other sharers have also sold their respective undivided shares in the agricultural land.

8. According to the plaintiffs, the entire consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid and the possession of the suit schedule property was also delivered and when demanded, the defendants have not come forward to execute the sale deed and hence, they got issued legal notice on 07-02-2012, the office copy of which is

Ex.A4. The defendants wantedly returned the registered post of the legal notice, even though they are residing in the same address. Ex.A5 is the returned postal cover with acknowledgment due.

9. By oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiffs have proved that there was an agreement of sale in between the parties in respect of the suit schedule property and the entire sale consideration has already been paid. In view of the oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for.

The point is accordingly answered.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed directing the defendants to execute the regular sale deed within one month from today, failing which the plaintiffs can initiate steps for getting the sale deed executed through the process of court. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant and after correction

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th October, 2013.

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R.DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Plaintiffs:

PW1 - K.Ravi Kumar (1st plaintiff)

On behalf of defendant: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A1 - Original regd.Agreement of Sale bearing Doc.No.7678/2009, 10-9-2009 Ex.A2 – CC of Regd.Sale Deed bearing No.3398/2006, 10-02-2006 Ex.A3 – CC of Regd.Agreement of sale cum GPA No.25439/2006, dt.12-09-2006 Ex.A4 – Office copy of Legal notice, dt. 7-2-2012 Ex.A5 – Returned Postal Cover with Ack.Due Ex.A6 – EC issued by SRO, Medchal Ex.A7 – EC issued by SRO, Quthbullapur

On behalf of defendant: Nil

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R.DISTRICT

OS/827/2012

K.Ravi Kumar vs M.Sankaranarana

09 Oct 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: R.R.DISTRICT AT

L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: M.S.K.JAISWAL, B.Com., B.L.,

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 9 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

O.S.No. 827 of 2012

Between:

1. Sri K.Ravi Kumar, S/o.Sri Ramulu, aged about 42 years, Occ: Service, R/o.Door No.2-100, K.P.Road, Pippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Sri D.Sanyasi Raju, S/o.D.Surapa Raju Aged about 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Dr.No.8-61/1, K.P.Road, Pippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Sri Ch.Surapa Raju, S/o.late Hunumatha Raju, aged about 56 years, Occ: Employee, R/o.10-54, Reddy Vari Street,

Ganapavaram, West Godavari District. ...Plaintiffs

AND Sri M.Sankaranarayana, S/o.late M.Peddaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.23-76, Banglore Road, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District

Rep.by his agreement of sale cum GPA Holder

A.Rama Krishna, S/o.late Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.78,

Raasi Avenue, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..Defendant

J U D G M E N T

1. Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dt.10-09-2006 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property, which comprises of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts in

Sy.No.14/Part, situated at Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal &

Municipality, R.R.District.

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

The defendant being the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property has entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs on 10-09-2009 through his Agreement of sale cum GPA Holder for a total sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- and also delivered the physical possession of the 2 said property and since then, the plaintiffs have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Originally an extent of Ac.3-35 gts of agricultural land in Sy.No.14 situated in Gajularamaram Village was purchased by the defendant and 7 others on 10-02-2006. Thereafter, the defendant executed an agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of A.Ramakrishna on 20-11-2006 in respect of his undivided share of Ac.0-20 gts of land out of Ac.3-35 gts and through the said

AGPA the defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- and the defendant agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, whenever they demand, without taking any fresh consideration. Thereafter, the defendant willfully neglected to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice on 07-02-2012 calling upon the defendant to register the sale deed in their favour, but the defendant wantedly returned the registered post of the legal notice, even though he is residing in the same address. The plaintiffs made sincere efforts to solve the issue amicably, but the defendant is avoiding to perform his part of the contract and hence, the suit.

3. Suit summons were not served on the defendant. Paper publication was made in Eenadu daily newspaper. The defendants remained exparte.

4. In order to prove their case, the 1st plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced Exs.A1 to A7.

5. Arguments are heard.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether the plaintiffs have proved their case for granting the decree, as prayed for.

7. POINT: The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant

M.Sankaranarayana, being the joint owner of an extent of Ac.3-35 gts of agricultural land along with 7 others, has entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs in respect of his undivided share of Ac.0-20 gts of land on 10-09-2009 represented by his Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney Holder by name A.Rama 3

Krishna for a total consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. Ex.A1 is the agreement of sale, under which the defendant received the entire consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- and agreed to register the sale deed whenever the plaintiffs demand, without taking any fresh consideration from the plaintiffs. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed under which the defendant and 7 others have jointly purchased an extent of

Ac.3-35 gts of the agricultural land. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the registered agreement of sale cum GPA, dt.20-11-2006 executed by the defendant in favour of

A.Rama Krishna. Ex.A6 is the Encumbrance Certificate issued on 18-02-2012, which shows that the defendant is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he executed an agreement of sale cum GPA in respect of the said property in favour of A.Rama Krishna on 20-11-2006. Ex.A7 is the another

Encumbrance Certificate issued on 18-02-2012, which shows that the defendant

M.Sankara Narayana through his AGPA Holder A.Rama Krishna has entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property on 10-09-2009 and the other sharers have also sold their respective undivided shares in the agricultural land.

8. According to the plaintiffs, the entire consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid and the possession of the suit schedule property was also delivered and when demanded, the defendant has not come forward to execute the sale deed and hence, they got issued legal notice on 07-02-2012, the office copy of which is

Ex.A4. The defendant wontedly returned the registered post of the legal notice, even though he is residing in the same address. Ex.A5 is the returned postal cover with acknowledgment due.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed directing the defendant to execute the regular sale deed within one month from today, failing which the plaintiffs can 4 initiate steps for getting the sale deed executed through the process of court. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant and after correction

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th October, 2013.

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R.DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Plaintiffs:

PW1 - K.Ravi Kumar (1st plaintiff)

On behalf of defendant: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A1 - Original regd.Agreement of Sale bearing Doc.No.7678/2009, 10-9-2009 Ex.A2 – CC of Regd.Sale Deed bearing No.3398/2006, 10-02-2006 Ex.A3 – CC of Regd.Agreement of sale cum GPA No.25439/2006, dt.20-11-2006 Ex.A4 – Office copy of Legal notice, dt. 7-2-2012 Ex.A5 – Returned Postal Cover with Ack.Due Ex.A6 – EC issued by SRO, Medchal Ex.A7 – EC issued by SRO, Quthbullapur

On behalf of defendant: Nil

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R.DISTRICT

OS/701/2013

Kantaben Patel vs V.Sindhoori and others

09 Oct 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: R.R.DISTRICT AT

L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: M.S.K.JAISWAL, B.Com., B.L.,

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 9 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

O.S.No. 701 of 2013

Between:

1. Smt.Kantaben Patel, W/o.Harilal Patel, aged about 49 years, Occ: Housewife,

2. Sri Harilal Patel, S/o.Rajabhai Patel, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Business,

Both are R/o.11-9-305/201, Laxminarayan Nivas,

Road No.3, Laxminagar, Kothapet, Saroornagar. ..Plaintiffs

AND

1. Venati Sindhoori, D/o.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Student,

2. Venkati Harshita, D/o.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, aged about 24 years, Occ: Student,

3. V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o.V.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Business,

All are presently residing at H.No.1-72, Near Ayappa Temple, Tatiannaram, G.S.I Post,

Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.Dist -500 068. ..Defendants

This suit coming up for final hearing on 01-10-2013 in the presence of Sri Mohd.Abdul Kareem, counsel for plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners and peaceful possessors of the suit schedule property, which comprises of agricultural land admeasuring 0-11.57 gts in Sy.Nos.31/P and 25/P bearing Unit No.27-B, Eastern Part in North Block, situated at Vanasthali Estates Farm Units, Thatikhana Village,

Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

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

The plaintiffs are the owners and peaceful possessors of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing

Doc.No.3746/1999, dt.25-10-1999 from defendants 1 and 2/minors through defendant

No.3. The plaintiffs being illiterates are unaware of the consequences of the said purchase.

It is contended that defendant No.3, who is father of defendants 1 and 2 2/minors, has purchased the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-23.15 guntas out of

Sy.Nos.31/P and 25/P, situated at Thatikhana Village, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District from its owners P.Papa Rao and Y.Seetharavamma under registered sale deed on 06-02-1998 in the name of his minor daughters/D1 & D2 and after purchase of the property, he divided the same into two equal parts and sold one such part to the plaintiffs and another part to Smt.Manjula Ben Patel. After sale of entire property purchased in the name of minor daughters/D1 & D2, defendant No.3 purchased an agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.33 gts in Sy.No.137, situated at

Yenkeypally Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District in the name of minors/D1 & D2 under registered sale deed on 7-10-1999 for the benefit of minors.

It is further contended that due to financial necessity, when the plaintiffs wanted to sell the suit schedule property, the prospective purchaser made objection to purchase the same stating that they have to get orders from the competent court of law that they are the owners and possessors of the schedule property. Since the date of purchase on 25-10-1999, it is the plaintiffs who are in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 12 years and perfected their title over the said property. The defendants 1 and 2 became majors about 10 years and 6 years back respectively and when the plaintiffs approached them on 03-05-2013 to execute the sale deed as consenting parties on their behalf in favour of the prospective purchaser, they avoided the same. Hence, the suit.

3. The summons of the suit were served on the defendants personally and they were called upon to appear before the court on 6-08-2013. However, on the said date the defendants failed to appear and hence, they were set exparte.

4. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and produced Exs.A1 to A6.

5. Arguments are heard.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff has proved her case for granting the decree, as prayed for.

7. POINT: It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs herein have purchased 3 the suit schedule property from defendants 1 to 3 under registered sale deed bearing

No.3746/1999, dt.25-10-1999, which is marked as Ex.A1. Ever since the purchase, the plaintiffs have been in uninterrupted and continuous possession thereof. The suit schedule property was purchased by defendant No.3, who is the father of defendants 1 and 2 in their name and by that time they were minors. The plaintiffs have purchased the property from defendants 1 to 3, but they have not obtained the leave of the Court, since the property was in the name of minors. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property was purchased by defendant No.3, being the father of minors/D1 & D2 under Ex.A2 and thereafter he sold the property to the plaintiffs by representing his minor daughters and immediately thereafter purchased another property in the name of the minor daughters/D1 & D2, which is marked as Ex.A4.

8. The plaintiff by oral and documentary evidence has proved that the suit schedule property was purchased by defendant No.3 in the name of defendants 1 and 2 during their minority and it is defendant No.3, who sold the suit property to the plaintiffs as natural guardian of defendants 1 and 2 and after selling the suit property, he purchased another property in the name of his minor daughters. Ever since 1999 it is the plaintiffs, who have been in the possession of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed (Ex.A1) dt.25-10-1999. The defendants even though served personally have not contested the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has proved that she is entitled to the decree as prayed for. The point is accordingly answered.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant and after correction

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th October, 2013.

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R.DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Plaintiff:

PW1 - Smt.Manjula Ben Patel (plaintiff)

On behalf of defendants: Nil 4

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A1 - Original registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.3745/1999, dt.25-10-1999 Ex.A2 – CC of Sale Deed bearing document No.768/1998, dt.06-02-1998 Ex.A3 – CC of Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.3746/1999, dt.25-10-1999 Ex.A4 – CC of Regd.Document No.7173/1999, dt.27-10-1999 Ex.A5 – Encumbrance Certificate dt.21-04-2013 Ex.A6 – Market Value Certificate dt.23-04-2013

On behalf of defendants: Nil

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R.DISTRICT

OS/700/2013

Manjula Ben Patel vs V.Sindhoori and others

09 Oct 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: R.R.DISTRICT AT

L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: M.S.K.JAISWAL, B.Com., B.L.,

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 9 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

O.S.No. 700 of 2013

Between:

Smt.Manjula Ben Patel, W/o.Narender Kumar Patel, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.11-9-305/202, Laxminarayana Nivas, Road No.3, Laxminagar Colony, Kothapet,

Hyderabad-500 036. ...Plaintiff

AND

1. Venati Sindhoori, D/o.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Student,

2. Venkati Harshita, D/o.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, aged about 24 years, Occ: Student,

3. V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o.V.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Business,

All are presently residing at H.No.1-72, Near Ayappa Temple, Tatiannaram, G.S.I Post,

Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.Dist -500 068. ..Defendants

J U D G M E N T

1. Suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and peaceful possessor of the suit schedule property, which comprises of agricultural land admeasuring 0-11.57 gts in Sy.Nos.31/P and 25/P bearing Unit No.27-B, Eastern

Part in North Block, situated at Vanasthali Estates Farm Units, Thattikana Village,

Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

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

The plaintiff is the owner and peaceful possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing

Doc.No.3745/1999, dt.25-10-1999 from defendants 1 and 2/minors through defendant No.3. The plaintiff being an illiterate is unaware of the consequences of the said purchase.

It is contended that defendant No.3, who is father of defendants 1 and 2/minors, has purchased the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-23.15 guntas out 2 of Sy.Nos.31/P and 25/P, situated at Thattikhana Village, Hayathnagar Revenue

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from its owners P.Papa Rao and Y.Seetharavamma under registered sale deed on 06-02-1998 in the name of his minor daughters/D1 &

D2 and after purchase of the property, he divided the same into two equal parts and sold one such part to the plaintiff and another part to Smt.Kantaben Patel and

Harilal Patel. After sale of entire property purchased in the name of minor daughters/D1 & D2, defendant No.3 purchased an agricultural land admeasuring

Ac.0.33 gts in Sy.No.137, situated at Yenkeypally Village, Moinabad Mandal,

R.R.District in the name of minors/D1 & D2 under registered sale deed on 27-10-1999 for the benefit of minors.

It is further contended that due to financial necessity, when the plaintiff wanted to sell the suit schedule property, the prospective purchaser made objection to purchase the same stating that she has to get orders from the competent court of law that she is the owner and possessor of the schedule property. Since the date of purchase on 25-10-1999, it is the plaintiff who is in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 12 years and perfected her title over the said property. The defendants 1 and 2 became majors about 10 years and 6 years back respectively and when the plaintiff approached them on 03-05-2013 to execute the sale deed as consenting parties on her behalf in favour of the prospective purchaser, they avoided the same. Hence, the suit.

4. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and produced Exs.A1 to A6.

5. Arguments are heard.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff has proved her case for granting the decree, as prayed for.

7. POINT: It is not in dispute that the plaintiff herein has purchased the suit schedule property from defendants 1 to 3 under registered sale deed bearing No.3745/1999, dt.25-10-1999, which is marked as Ex.A1. Ever since the purchase, the plaintiff had been in uninterrupted and continuous possession thereof. The suit schedule property was purchased by defendant No.3, who is the father of defendants 1 and 2 in their name and by that time they were minors. The plaintiff has purchased the property from defendants 1 to 3, but they have not obtained the leave of the Court, since the property was in the name of minors. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property was purchased by defendant No.3, being the father of minors/D1 & D2 under Ex.A2 and thereafter he sold the property to the plaintiff by representing his minor daughters and immediately thereafter purchased another property in the name of the minor daughters/D1 & D2, which is marked as Ex.A4.

8. The plaintiff by oral and documentary evidence has proved that the suit schedule property was purchased by defendant No.3 in the name of defendants 1 and 2 during their minority and it is defendant No.3, who sold the suit property to the plaintiff as natural guardian of defendants 1 and 2 and after selling the suit property, he purchased another property in the name of his minor daughters. Ever since 1999 it is the plaintiff, who has been in the possession of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed (Ex.A1) dt.25-10-1999. The defendants even though served personally have not contested the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has proved that she is entitled to the decree as prayed for. The point is accordingly answered.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant and after correction

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th October, 2013.

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R.DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Plaintiff:

PW1 - Smt.Manjula Ben Patel (plaintiff)

On behalf of defendants: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of plaintiff:

On behalf of defendants: Nil

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R.DISTRICT

Order Record 112 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/700/2013	Manjula Ben Patel vs V.Sindhoori and others	09 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/701/2013	Kantaben Patel vs V.Sindhoori and others	09 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/826/2012	B.Satyanarayana Raju vs B.Mahesh Kumar	09 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/827/2012	K.Ravi Kumar vs M.Sankaranarana	09 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1180/2012	G.Narsimha Reddy vs Ahmad Bin Omar	09 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/775/2013	N.V.Subba Rao vs J.Srinivasa Rao	04 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/223/2004	LAO.Inds vs M.Rajeshwari Bai	30 Sep 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/549/2013	Dinesh Waghmare vs Sultana Begum	26 Sep 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/843/2012	Jhansi Laxmi Poultry vs Articulated Vessels and Utility Engineers Pvt. Ltd	26 Sep 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1161/2012	A.Buchi Babu vs Smt.Devala Malavika	26 Sep 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/519/2013	Dr.Shyam Lal Saini vs All concerned	12 Sep 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/85/2011	Geeta Devi vs Ms GKB Optolab Pvt.Ltd	12 Sep 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/143/2013	N.Ramadevi vs N.Yashoda	03 Sep 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/788/2013	R.Narasimha Reddy vs The Tahsildar Uppal Mandal	03 Sep 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/359/2013	Master T.Kiran vs All concerned	30 Aug 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/45/2011	A.Rama Rao vs V.Nageswara Rao	30 Aug 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/909/2012	Ms.Neni Hi-tech Club Pvt.Ltd. vs A.Satyanandam	31 Jul 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/853/2012	D.Saibaba vs Ms.Abode Projects India Limited	29 Jul 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1105/2012	Shriram Chits Private Ltd. vs G.Rajendra Kumar	15 Jul 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/42/2007	Kota Krishna Rao vs Dasari Bujjeswar Rao	28 Jun 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/67/2006	Mr. Kota Krishna Rao. vs Mr. Dasari Bujjeshwar Rao,	28 Jun 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/685/2009	Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited vs M.Vasudev	14 Jun 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/75/2013	K.Prameela vs T.Nageshwar Rao	10 Jun 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/131/2013	N.Rami Reddy vs All concerned	07 Jun 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/40/2012	Smt.C.Madhavi vs Smt.Balamani	03 Jun 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/368/2011	M.Srinivasa Raju vs G.Bhavani	03 Jun 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/369/2011	M.Srinivas raju vs G.Bhavani	03 Jun 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1172/2008	Special Deputy Collector L.A.Unit-I vs Ram Pyari	03 Jun 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/148/2004	K. Naga Mohan Murlidhar vs Smt. kalyana Sundaram Geetha	03 Jun 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/714/2010	petnm vs Vsresnm	03 Jun 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/65/2013	Kum.B.Ikshitha and another vs All concerned	30 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/255/2013	S.Pushpalatha vs N.Kalyan Reddy	29 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/198/2013	Ahmed Alia vs All concerned	12 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/60/2011	M.Praveen Reddy vs Y.Kistamma	03 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1212/2012	P.Madhu Mohana Reddy vs P.Manemma	19 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/84/2011	P.Subhashini vs P.Sri Krishna	19 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/158/2011	C.Narendranath vs Ms Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd	05 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/258/2011	K.Subhash vs Ch.Buchi Reddy	05 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1236/2008	T.Sahil Kanth Reddy vs B. Shravan Reddy	05 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/669/2009	Y.Maruthi Devi vs P.Pushpa	04 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/642/2012	Shaik Saida vs Kurian Matew	31 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1018/2012	Bokka Yadi Reddy vs Bokka Janga Reddy	31 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/798/2011	New India Assurance co.ltd vs Varma Transport Road Carries	21 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/868/2012	Ishrath Jehan vs All concerned	21 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/33/2004	petnm vs Vsresnm	04 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/896/2011	Ms LIC Housing Finance Ltd vs V.V.K.Jagadish	04 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/349/2012	A.Vijaya Sekhar Reddy vs M.Shivarami Reddy	20 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/69/2012	Shri Ram Chits Pvt Ltd vs V.Madhusudhan Reddy	30 Nov 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/53/2000	Syed Meraj Ahmed vs The Na Vodaya Co.Operative House Building Society Ltd	31 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/35/2012	S.Vijaya Laxmi vs B.V.S.Chowdary	15 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/34/2011	U.Raghavulu vs PS.Chevella	10 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/36/2011	Lemuel vs G.Laxmi Narasimha Rao	05 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/14/2012	N.Chandu vs A.Prathap Reddy	05 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/242/2009	G.Sujatha vs Anugu Kondal Reddy	05 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/534/2011	Reliance Infratel Limited vs R.Mahidhar Kumar	05 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/151/2009	Domala Naga Raju vs A.Narasimha	27 Sep 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/100020/2010	G.Sree Devi vs The Asst Supply Officer	24 Sep 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/940/2009	Surya Gangaratnam vs A.P.S.R.T.C.	17 Sep 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/49/2010	Manthri Sathaiah vs M.Chinna Yellaiah	12 Sep 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/177/2004	petnm vs Vsresnm	29 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/31/2012	G.Sree Ram Murthy vs Suguna Devi	22 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/464/2011	Ch.V.S.Murthy vs All concerned	21 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/465/2011	Ch.Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy vs All concerned	21 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/751/2006	Janachaitany Housing Limited vs Mohd.Osman	11 Jul 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/244/2008	M.A.Sattar vs Smt. K.Prameela	08 Jun 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/758/2011	N.Kalavathi vs B.Simhachalam	08 Jun 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/911/2011	Ashok Kothari vs Simran	08 Jun 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/334/2010	petnm vs Vsresnm	04 Jun 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/136/2000	V. Narasimha Reddy vs Sanjeev Kumar Singh	04 Jun 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/71/2010	A.Renuka Devi vs Arjun Kumar Goel	31 May 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1281/2008	G.Tara Devi vs The Registrar,ANGAU Rajendranagar, Hyd	31 May 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/482/2009	Rupa vs Mr.P.Srikanthi Reddy	04 May 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/929/2006	K.Butchaiah vs Mr. Sri Ramulu	03 May 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1032/2008	Smt. Dandu Tulasi vs K.Tirupathi	03 May 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1206/2008	Rajapu Nageshwara Rao vs Kollem Jaganreddy	03 May 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/812/2008	Basetty Rajeshwar vs Ms Sew Constructions LImited	27 Apr 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1245/2008	Smt. Kanchugantal Varalaxmi vs S.Janaki Ramulu	27 Apr 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/94/2010	M.S.Raju vs Sada Bikshapathi	25 Apr 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/243/2012	Ms Narne estate Pvt Ltd vs Raj Kumari	18 Apr 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/135/2011	S.Pentaiah vs S.Narsimha	09 Apr 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/623/2011	A.Usha Ratnam vs M.Vajranath	04 Apr 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/702/2008	Smt. A.Indira vs Feroz Khan	03 Apr 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1448/2008	Akkala Rajani vs G.Mahender	03 Apr 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/307/2009	Janga Sujatha vs C.V.Subba Rao	20 Mar 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/500/2007	Mohd Rajab Ali vs V.Sudarshan Goud	20 Mar 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1366/2008	Pasulla Sai vs Mrs. Prasoona	20 Mar 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1543/2007	Thumalapally Satyanarayana vs B.Bal Reddy	16 Mar 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1428/2008	D.Raj Kumar vs Sri K.Balchander	06 Mar 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/839/2010	P.Shakuntala vs Ms.Ramakrishna Bore Wells	24 Feb 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/840/2010	P.Koushik Kumar vs Ms.Ramakrishna Borewells	24 Feb 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/841/2010	P.Karthik Kumar vs Ms.Ramakrishna Borewells	24 Feb 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1061/2009	P.Madhavi vs P.Chandrakala	24 Feb 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1147/2008	Thotapalli Anasuya vs APSRTC	24 Feb 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1241/2008	Smt. G.Mary Aruna Kumari vs Mr. Basheer V.P.	24 Feb 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/55/2011	M.Saritha vs APSRTC	17 Feb 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/503/2011	P.Ramaiah vs The state of A.P.	17 Feb 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1213/2007	Abdula Jitender Reddy vs Sree Raghavendra Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.	17 Feb 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/169/2006	Sri . Leeladhar Patel vs Ms.Lakshmi Durga Granites Ltd.,rep.by its S .Ramchander Rao	14 Feb 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/607/2009	Parigi Narsamma vs Md. Iqbal	03 Feb 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/1/2006	PS.Alwal vs Dilawarkhan	31 Jan 2012	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 112 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2013		6
Sep 2013		8
Aug 2013		2
Jul 2013		3
Jun 2013		11
Apr 2013		4
Mar 2013		1
Feb 2013		5
Jan 2013		6
Dec 2012		1
Nov 2012		1
Oct 2012		7

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal handled?

Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal has handled 115 court orders since 2010 at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 3 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal hear?

Based on available records, Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal primarily handles Civil matters (Original Petitions, Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Criminal Appeals) at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal currently posted?

Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal is posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal dispose cases?

Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal disposes approximately 3 cases per month, based on 115 orders handled over their tenure at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal serving?

Sri M.S.K.Jaiswal has been serving at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2010.

Case Types

OP 43%

OS 38%

AS 13%

CC 3%

CRLA 2%

CMA 1%

Posting History

Dec 2010 — Oct 2013

Principal District and Sessions Judge · 115 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri A.karna Kumar

Principal District and Sessions Judge

264 orders

Sri. Vinod Kumar

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

1 orders

Smt. Ch.ashalatha

Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal for Rang...

143 orders

Sri.Y.Sathyendra

III Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaR...

173 orders

Sri. K. Jayaram Reddy

IV ADJ-IV Addl.MSJ-cum-I Addl.Family Court

3 orders

Smt.M.Bhavani

V Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

0 orders

Dundhigalla Sadhana

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga...

19 orders

Smt.T.JayaLakshmi

X Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

891 orders

Smt.M.K.Padmavathi

XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRe...

0 orders

Smt T Anitha

XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaR...

0 orders

Smt.M.Vani

Special Sessions Judge for Fast tracking the Cases...

1,621 orders

Ms. K. C. Reddy Devarapalli

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

0 orders

Smt.Shraddha Sehgal

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Special(Mobile)...

87 orders

Ms.Penumala Gopika Naga Sravya

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise...

69 orders

Ms. S.Swarna Mallika

III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Addl.Jud...

21 orders

Sri B.Kiran Teja

VI Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Addl.Judic...

45 orders

Ms. Shereena Mohd

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistra...

0 orders

Mrs. Sravana Swathi Chintada

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Metropolitan Magi...

2 orders

Sri J.Hanumantha Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Ma...

12 orders

Arpitha Maram Reddy

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Chief Judi...

24 orders

Sri. Gannarapu Sudarshan

Family Court Judge

0 orders

Smt. P. Srivani

Additional Family Court, L.B.Nagar

0 orders

G. Srinivas

Special Sessions Judge for trial and Disposal of P...

55 orders

Sri G.Sampurna Anand

Commercial Disputes Courts RangaReddy

0 orders

← View all judges at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex