1 O.S. No.17 of 2025
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT SHADNAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT : Ms MALYALA SAHITI
I Additional Junior Civil Judge, AT Shadnagar.
O.S.No. 17 of 2025
Between:
Sarvaiahgari Sreenivas Reddy, S/o. Late S. Chandra Reddy, aged about 72 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.no. 3-18-224, Pragathi Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, Telangana.
...Plaintiff
AND
1.Parigi Ramulamma, W/o Late Narsimlu, aged about 66 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.1-78/1, Kondareddypally Village, Keshampet mandal, Rangareddy District.
2.Parigi Srinivas, S/o Late Narsimlu, aged about 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.no. 2-45, Kondareddypally Village, Keshampet mandal, Rangareddy District.
3.Parigi Ashok, S/o Late Narsimlu, aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,
4.Parigi Vijayalaxmi, S/o Late Narsimlu, aged about 31 years, Occ: Agriculture,
5.Parigi Neeraja, W/o Ashok, aged about 35 years, Occ: Housewife,
Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are R/o H.no. 1-78/1, Kondareddypally Village, Keshampet mandal, Rangareddy District.
...Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION
Plaint Filed U/Sec.26 r/w Order VII rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Date of presentation of plaint: 31.01.2025
Date of registration of plaint: 31.01.2025
2 O.S. No.17 of 2025
This suit is coming on for final hearing in the presence ofSri. M. Mohan Rao, Counsel for the plaintiff and defendants were set exparte and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
::J U D G M E N T::
1.The present suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 with a prayer to declare the plaintiff as absolute owners and also recovery of possession by directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property i.e.,
SUIT SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY
The agricultural land bearing in Sy.No. 132/A extent Ac.0-02 gts,
Sy.No. 133/A extent Ac.0-08 gts, total extent Ac.0-10 gts (presently shown in revenue record as Sy.No. 132/A3/1 extent Ac.0-02 gts, Sy.No. 133/A4/2 extent Ac.0-04 gts and Sy.No. 133/A5/2 extent Ac.0-04 gts) situated at
Pomalpalle Village, H/o Kondareddypally Villlage, Keshampet Mandal,
Rangareddy District commonly bounded by:
Boundaries as per Registered sale deed document No. 3536/2019:
Boundaries of Sy.No. 132/A (Ac.0-02gts) :
East..Mango Garden
West..Land of Krishnaiah
North ..Land of Bheemaiah
South..Land of Krishnaiah
Boundaries of Sy.No. 133/A (Ac.0-08gts) :
East..Land of S. Sreenivas Reddy (Plaintiff)
West..Land of Sy.No. 154 of Krishnaiah 3 O.S. No.17 of 2025
North ..Land of Vendors in Sy.No. 132A
South..Land of S. Sreenivas Reddy (Plaintiff)
Present joint one compact boundaries for Sy.No. 132/A and 133/A :
East..Land of Ashok now Neeraja (Defendant No.5)
West..Land of S. Sreenivas Reddy (Plaintiff) and Krishnaiah
North ..Land of Sy.No. 132/Part
South..Land of S. Sreenivas Reddy (Plaintiff) (for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property) and also to award costs of this suit.
2. The gist content of the plaint are as follows:
2.1.Plaintiff is the absolute owner, pattadar and was in possession over the suit schedule property which the plaintiff purchased under registered sale deed document No. 3526/2019 dt 23-03-2019 from its earlier owners viz., P.
Narayana, P. Yadamma and P. Pandu.
2.2. Originally the husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendant
No.2 to 4 viz., Parigi Narsimlu was absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the suit land in Sy. No. 132/A extent Ac. 0-02 gts and Sy. No. 133/A extent Ac. 0-08 gts, total extent Ac. 0-10gts of Pomalpally Village,
Keshampet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said Parigi Narsimlu in his lifetime itself for his family necessities sold the above said land to one
Hamed Shareef through registered sale deed document No. 2582/1999 dated 15-09-1999. Later the said Hameed Shareef and one Ahmed Unnisa have 4 O.S. No.17 of 2025 jointly sold the suit land along with other properties through their
Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney Holder Mohammed
Sirajuddin to the vendors of plaintiff namely P. Narayana, P. Yadamma and
P. Pandu by executing registered sale deed document ne 16435/2006 dated 31-08-2006 and delivered possession in favour of the said purchasers.
2.3.However, the schedule of property i.e., survey number and extent were incorrectly mentioned in the registered sale deed as Sy. No. 132/A extent Ac.0-10 gts. As such, the said Hameed Shareef and Ahmed Unnisa represented by their Agreement of Sale cum GPA Holder Mohemmed
Sirajuddin have executed a supplemental-cum-rectification deed in favour of vendors of plaintiff by correcting the survey numbers mentioned in the schedule of land from Sy. No. 132/A extent Ac 0-10 gts to Sy. No. 132/A extent Ac.0-02 gts and Sy. No. 133/A extent Ac. 0-08 gts which is suit land herein. The plaintiff purchased the suit land from said P. Narayana, P.
Yadamma and P. Pandu through registered sale deed document No.
3536/2019 dated 23-03-2019 and obtained possession of the same. The plaintiff after his purchase got implemented his sale deed in revenue records and was in uninterrupted and peaceful possession over the suit land as pattadar and possessor. The plaintiff also purchased other lands in Sy. No.
133/AA3 extent Ac. 1-00 gts, Sy. No. 133/A extent Ac. 1-00 gts, Sy. No.
134/A2 extent Ac. 1-00 gts situated at Pomalpalle Village, Keshampet 5 O.S. No.17 of 2025
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District through registered sale deed document No.
6195/2017 for dated 01-09-2017 from its earlier owner viz., Chakali
Srisailam. The defendant No. 1 herein is the original owner of the above said land of the plaintiff 2.4.The plaintiff became absolute owner, pattadar and possessors of suit land along with other lands by virtue of his purchases and since from the date of purchase the plaintiff was in possession over suit land. The plaintiff also obtained new pattadar pass book from revenue officials and the name of plaintiff is also reflecting in present year pahanies as pattadar and possessor.
The defendants herein are no way concerned with the suit land of plaintiff and nothing to do with the same, as the husband of defendant no. 1 had sold suit land way back in the year 1999 to vendors of plaintiff under specific boundaries and delivered possession of the land. The suit land of plaintiff is well developed and the land values in the area are increased abnormally in recent days. The plaintiff is residing at Hyderabad as such he is cultivating the suit schedule properties with servants and the defendants by taking advantage of non-presence of plaintiff despite alienating their land long back earlier tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit land along with other lands on 20-01-2024 and 10-02-2024 and also tried to grab the same. At such the plaintiff herein to protect his possession filed suit for Injunction vide OS.No. 69/2024 on the file of Additional Junior 6 O.S. No.17 of 2025
Civil Judge, Shadangar against the defendant No. 1 to 4 herein in respect of
suit land and other lands. The said suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff by this court vide its judgement and decree dt. 12-07-2024.
2.5The defendant No.3 herein who got some land in suit survey numbers had created Registered sale deed document No. 2564/2023 dated 26-11- 2023 in favour of his wife i.e., defendant No. 5 herein and under the guise of alleged registered sale deed without any right and whatsoever over the suit land even after having knowledge about the injunction decree in favour of plaintiff along with some unsocial elements criminally trespassed into the suit land of plaintiff on 25-08-2024 when the workers of plaintiff are in suit schedule properties and tried to grab the suit land of plaintiff. The workers of the plaintiff timely resisted the defendants from doing illegal acts and with great difficulty send them and their men away. The defendants while leaving threatened the workers of plaintiff with dire consequences and also said that they will come with more force and at any cost evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule properties. The servants of plaintiff informed the same to the plaintiff as such the plaintiff immediately held panchayat before the village elders and demanded the defendants to not to do such illegal acts.
The defendants kept quiet for some time and thereafter again on 05-10-2024 the defendants along with their followers and some un-social elements came to the suit schedule property and criminally trespassed into the same by 7 O.S. No.17 of 2025 threatening the workers of plaintiff occupied the suit land illegally by damaging the stone khadies etc, The workers of plaintiff tried to resist the illegal acts of defendants but the defendants threatened them and further denied the title of plaintiff over the suit land. The workers of plaintiff informed the same to the plaintiff and plaintiff immediately held panchayat
before the village elders and demanded the defendants to vacate the suit
land but the defendants even before the elders threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences and also denied the title of plaintiff over the suit land.
The defendants have no sort of any right over the land, if the defendants succeed in their illegal acts the plaintiff will put into irreparable loss and damage which cannot be compensated in any manner. Hence, the present suit.
3.Though, the summons were served on defendant Nos.1 to 5, but no one appeared before this court in spite of service of summons. Hence, this court made the defendant Nos.1 to 5 are set ex-parte on 17.07.2025. Thereafter, no petition is filed to set aside the order dated 17.07.2025.
4. To prove the claim of the plaintiff the plaintiff No.1 himself examined as
PW1 and Exs.A1 to A9 are marked on his behalf towards documentary evidence and PW-2 was examined on behalf of plaintiff
5. Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record.
8 O.S. No.17 of 2025
6. Now the point for determination is: -
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and Recovery of possession of the suit Schedule property as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
Reasons:
7.To prove his case, the plaintiff/PW.1 filed chief-examination affidavit, wherein he deposed in support of all contents of the plaint and he reiterated the contents of plaint. Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.A1 is certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document No. 3536/2019, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of registered Sale deed Document No. 2582/1999 dated 15-09-1999, Ex A3 is the Certified Copy of Registered Sale deed Document
No. 16435/2006 dated 31-08-2006, Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of
Registered Rectification Deed Document No. 6669/2018 dated 28-07-2018,
Ex.A5 is the certified Copy of Registered sale deed Document No 2564/ 2023 dated 26-11-2023, Ex.A6 is the I-B ROR obtained from Dhaarni,
Ex.A7 Pahanies Obtained From Dharani, Ex.A8 is the Specimen copy of pattadar pass book obtained from Dharani, Ex.A9 is the certified copy of
Judgment and decree in 0.S No. 69 of 2024.
8. It is the case of the PW-1 is that the plaintiff became the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the suit property as well as other lands through his valid purchases. From the date of such purchases, he has been 9 O.S. No.17 of 2025 continuously enjoying possession. The Revenue Authorities have also issued a fresh Pattadar Pass Book in his name, and the latest Pahanies record the plaintiff as the pattadar and possessor of the land.
9.The defendants have absolutely no connection with the plaintiff’s land and have no rights over it. The husband of defendant No.1 had already conveyed the suit land, with specific boundaries to the vendors of the plaintiff in the year 1999 and handed over possession at that time. The suit land is well developed, and in recent times the land value in that locality has increased considerably. As the plaintiff resides in Hyderabad, he is cultivating the land through his farm workers. Taking advantage of his absence and despite having sold the land long ago, the defendants attempted to disturb his peaceful possession and tried to grab the suit land.
10. The chief Affidavit of Pw1 is true replica of his plaint. On perusal of the documents produced by the plaintiff, Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are the documents which were filed by the plaintiff as owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties. A per the Averment of Plaintiff.
11. Further, though the summons were duly served on the defendants, they did not contest the matter and remained Ex-parte. Hence, all the
Averments remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Further, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff cogent and trustworthy and is supported by the 10 O.S. No.17 of 2025 documentary evidence. Therefore, the contention made in the plaint regarding the relationship of the parties. The documents which were filed by the plaintiff substantially support the version of plaintiff and the defendants did not come forward to contest the case and make any objection with regard to the documents filed by the plaintiff.
12.Further, the pleadings are the plaint that, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 did not come to the court and not entered the witness box to support the said version. Further there is no piece of evidence either oral or documentary to prove the said contention. Hence, the defendant No 1 to 5 being no way concerned with the suit schedule properties which are acquired by the plaintiff
13. The un-challenged evidence of the Plaintiff/PW1 both oral and documentary evidence established the claim of the Plaintiff/Pw1 and Prima- facie case is in favour of Plaintiff/PW1. The Plaintiff/PW1 came to the
Court with clean hands and he is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
14.This Court placed reliance on judicial precedent of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court decided in Vidyadhar Vs. Manik Rao and Others reported in 1993 (3) ALT 1 (SC) held that “where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would 11 O.S. No.17 of 2025 arise that the case set up by him is not correct”. Whereas, in the case on hand the defendants remained ex-parte and unchallenged the testimony of plaintiff. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
15. In view of the above discussion and findings given for the issue No-1, the suit deserves to be decreed without costs.
ISSUE NO: 2 - RESULT:
16. In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and consequently, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of possession in accordance with the procedure established under the law. However, there is no order as to costs. IA’s pending if any stands closed.
Typed to my dictation on computer by Typist, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd day of January, 2026.
Sd/-
I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
SHADNAGAR.
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
-WITNESSES EXAMINED-
For Plaintiff:
PW1 Sarvaiahgari Sreenivas Reddy
For Defendant:
None 12 O.S. No.17 of 2025
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A123-03-2019CC of Registered Sale deed Document No. 3536/2019. Ex.A215-09-1999Certified Copy of Registered Sale deed Document No. 2582/1999
Ex.A331-08-2006Certified Copy of Registered Sale deed document No.16435/2006
Ex.A428-07-2018Certified Copy of Registered Rectification deed Document No. 6669/2018.
Ex.A526-11-2023Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed Document No. 2546/2023
Ex.A6Certified Copy of I-B ROR Obtained from Dharani
Ex.A7Certified Copy of Specimen copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani
Ex.A8Specimen Copy of Pattadar Pass book Obtained from Dharani.
Ex.A9Certified Copy of Judgment and decree in
O.S. No.69/2024
For Defendant:
NIL
Sd/-
I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
SHADNAGAR.