Smt. M. Sandya Rani

Page 1 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MEDCHAL - MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT

AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: SMT. M. SANDHYA RANI,

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District

At Kukatpally

Thursday, this the 29th day of January, 2026

O.S. No. 1134 OF 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018)

BETWEEN:-

Smt. Gaddam Sruthi, W/o. Sri Raveen Kumar Katpally, Aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Flat no. 201, Eleti Apts, Laxmi Ganga Enclave, Beside Konarak Hospital, Pipeline Road, Jeedimetla

...Plaintiff

And

1. M/s. Ramrakhyani Associates, Partnership firm having its office at H.No. 10-2-314, West Marredpally, Secunderabad rep by its Managing partner Sri Pramod Ramrakhyani, S/o. Late Sri Pratap Rai

2. Sri Pramod Ramrakhyani, S/o. Late Pratap Rai, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat no. 403, 4th floor, Tirumala Classic Apts, Plot no. 218, Road no. 8, West Marredpally Secunderabad.

...Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 29.01.2026 for final hearing in the present of Sri. M. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri. Resu

Mahender Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page 2 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the defendants as arrears of rent.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property under Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.

2572/2016, dt. 13.04.2016 and it is the commercial shop bearing no. WBSE- 17 in WESTERN Block second floor with total built area adm. 500 Sq Feet (including common areas) in the PNR building situated in sy.nos. 169 (part) and 171 (part) at Kukatpally village, Hyderabad. Further submitted that the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to let out the premises on lease. Subsequently both of them entered into a Registered Lease Deed bearing Doc.No. 5221/2016, dt. 13.07.2016 at SRO, Balanagar for a term of 9 years on monthly rent of Rs. 45,000/- + service tax and the lease commencing from 13.07.2016 to 12.07.2025. Further submitted that the defendants have committed default in payment of rents from September 2016 to 30.11.2018 and the rent @ Rs. 45,000/- per month amounting to

Rs. 12,35,000/- along with interest calculated to 12% amounting to Rs.

2,77,760/- as such the total amount is Rs. 15,12,761/- and the defendants paid Rs. 2,80,000/- and the same was adjusted towards arrears of rent.

Later this plaintiff issued legal notice on 11.01.2017 to the defendant and the defendants issued reply notice on 25.01.2017 and assuring the plaintiff

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page 3 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026 that they pay the amounts on installments as two parts first part on 10.02.2017 and the second part on 20.02.2017. Subsequently the defendant failed to pay the rental amounts. Then again the plaintiff issued legal notices on 21.02.2017 & 02.10.2018 to the defendants and demanded the payment of arrears of rent along with interest. They received the notices but did not comply the same. As such finally the defendant failed to pay the rental amounts of Rs. 15,12,761/- to the plaintiff but the plaintiff restricting her claim only to Rs. 15,00,000/- and filed the suit.

3.The defendants filed the written statements and mentioned that the suit schedule property is unfinished by the time of purchase and also very particularly the defendants approached the plaintiffs in the month of

January 2016 is not true as the Sale Deed of plaintiff demonstrates ownership of plaintiff that they purchased the suit schedule property on 13.04.2016 and further stated that they entered into the Registered Lease

Deed on 13.07.2016 bearing document no. 5221/2016 and the monthly rent of Rs. 45,000/- per month and the conditions are mentioned in the Lease

Deed.

Further stated that the plaintiff gave assurance to the defendants at the time of entering into Registered Lease Deed that she would complete unfinished construction within one month and handover the physical possession furthermore at that time there is no Occupancy Certificate from

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page 4 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026

GHMC and there is no electricity connection and water connection. Hence plaintiff did not delivered the physical possession of the suit schedule property to the defendants in accordance with the Registered Lease Deed.

But this defendant made part payment of Rs. 2,80,000/- to the plaintiff for the purpose of completing the construction and other eminities over the suit schedule property only not as arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff and finally mentioned that the plaintiff failed to conclude and complete the construction of the suit schedule properties as promised by her and not delivered the possession to them. Hence the question of payment of rent along with interest does not arise and the plaintiff created and invented the dates for the purpose of filing the present suit and the suit is devoid of merits. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Heard the Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff and perused the written arguments filed by the plaintiff along with the authorities reported in SLP (CIVIL) No. 19647/2024, dated 12.06.2025. With regard to Arbitration clause mentioned in the Lease Deed. I have carefully gone through the contents of authorities.

5.The Learned senior counsel for the defendants argued at length and submitted that there is no dispute about the entering into the Lease Deed with the plaintiff as lessor and lesse but at that time of entering into Lease

Deed the said premises is unfinished and the plaintiff did not delivered the

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page 5 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026 physical possession of the suit schedule property to the defendant. Hence the plaintiff nowhere mentioned in the plaint about the delivery of possession to the defendant. And further submitted that during cross- examination, the plaintiff admitted that there is no occupancy certificate on that date and it is admitted fact that this defendant paid an amount of Rs.

2,80,000/- to the plaintiff for the purpose of completion of unfinished building but not as arrears of rent. As there was no delivery of possession by the plaintiff to the defendants and also the plaintiff did not obtained

Occupancy Certificate. In such circumstances, there is no default of the defendants, hence the defendant is not liable to pay the rent as claimed by the plaintiff. And the defendants filed the written arguments and relied upon the following authorities.

6.I have perused the written arguments and authorities reported in 2024 SCC Online AP 199 betweenK. SaraswathivsG.

Munilakshmamma, this authority is pertaining to the issue that initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish his claim basing on the documents relied by them whether they are genuine or valid documents. But in this present case, the defendants admitted about the execution of Registered

Lease Deed. Hence no such circumstances arises in the suit. Hence the set of facts are different with the above citation. And further filed the authorities reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 120 between Debashis Sinha

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page 6 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026 and others Vs. R.N.R.Enterprise. I have carefully gone through the authorities filed by the defendants.

7.Perused the material on record

8.Now the point for consideration is :- “i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants as prayed for?.

ii) To what relief?”

9.Point (i):

To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of Sale

Deed vide Doc.no. 2572/2016, dated 13.04.2016. Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of Lease Deed vide Doc.No. 5221/2016, dated 13.07.2016. Ex.A3 is the Office copy of Legal notice dated 11.01.2017. Ex.A4 is the Reply notice

dated 25.01.2017. Ex.A5 is the Office copy of Legal notice dated

21.02.2017.

The chief examination affidavit of the plaintiff is the replica of plaint averments and during cross-examination of PW1, she admitted that on the date of execution of Lease Deed, the construction was not yet completed and also admitted that the rent payable for 27 months is @ 45,000/- per month is an amount of Rs. 12,15,000/- only not Rs. 12,35,000/-. And further admitted that they received about Rs. 2,80,000/- but denied that it was

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page 7 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026 paid for the purpose of completion of construction not as arrears of rent till today, the construction is not completed and possession was not delivered to the defendants and she pleaded ignorance about entering into a separate maintenance agreement with the maintaining agency and also about paying property tax, electricity bill and also about issuing of notice of termination of lease and voluntarily stated that the defendants vacated the premises within 3 months. And admitted that as per the Lease Agreement, there is arbitration clause and it shall be binding on both parties. On scrutinizing the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence, the evidence of PW1 is reliable and being the owner of the house, she is able to depose to the extent of her ownership and let out the premises to the defendant on monthly rent and the defendants elicited admissions about that the said building is unfinished by that time. But that admissions are nowwhere helpful to the defendants as there is no suggestion or cross- examination with regard to the date of deliver of possession to them.

The defendants did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence on their behalf to disprove the claim of the plaintiff.

It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant entered into Lease Deed with plaintiff and now the plaintiff is claiming arrears of rent and the rival contention of the defendants is that the said premises is unfinished on the date of execution of Lease Deed and there is no occupancy certificate, hence

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page 8 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026 possession was not delivered to them. Hence they are not liable to pay the arrears of rental amounts. As the physical possession was not delivered by the plaintiff and the plaintiff nowhere mentioned about the date of delivery of possession hence he is not entitled to claim the suit amount as arrears of rent. As discussed supra, the plaintiff admitted that on the date of execution of Lease Deed, the said premises is unfinished and she also did not obtain occupancy right certificate. So it confirms that on the date of execution of Lease Deed, the said premises is unfinished. And she also voluntarily stated that the defendants vacated the premises within 3 months. As such the initial burden is on the plaintiff and now we can see claim of the plaintiff from her pleadings and evidence. The plaintiff relied on the Ex. A2/Lease Deed to establish her claim and it is clearly reflecting the

Lease for 9 years on monthly rent and the said lease period commencing from 13.07.2016 to 12.07.2025 (both days are inclusive and also clearly mentioned about the rent till 12.07.2025 including lock-in period) and further the plaintiff got marked the Ex. A4/Reply Notice dated 11.01.2017 and in which the defendants clearly admitted about payment of rents and agreed to pay the rents in two parts, first part on 10.02.2017 and second part on 20.02.2017 after confirmation of date from Accounts department and the contents of this Ex. A4 are not disputed by the defendants and but at the time of arguments the counsel for the defendant submitted that that

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page 9 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026 letter was issued for another purpose but they did not produce any rebuttal evidence to disprove the contents of Ex. A4.

10.Another contention of the defendants is that there is no physical delivery of the property by the plaintiff as the defendants are admitting the

Registered Lease Deed which is marked as Ex. A2 is clearly reflecting that the possession was delivered on the date of execution of Registered Lease

Deed itself. So it means and includes that the physical possession was delivered to the defendants on that date. But the defendants claiming that the possession was not delivered to them in such circumstances the heavy burden lies on the defendants that the plaintiff not delivered the physical possession to them to establish this except the written statement, the defendants did not aduce any evidence on their behalf. Now the available evidence in the support of pleadings of the defendants is the cross- examination of the plaintiff only as the defendants did not produced any evidence on their behalf. During cross-examination, it is elicited that by way of admissions to establish that they are not taken the physical possession of the suit premises on the date of Lease Deed it is unfinished building and there is no Occupancy Certificate and there is no execution of separate maintenance agreement to maintain the said premises But the defendants did not adduce any evidence on their behalf as they are not acted upon that Lease Deed and also not occupied the said premises in the above mentioned grounds and the entire pleadings is silent about cancellation of

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page 10 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026

Lease Deed. But once there is an existence of Registered document between both the parties, it is binding on both parties. And it is the prime document and both the parties are admitting the execution of that Lease

Deed and in that Lease Deed it is clearly reflecting that the possession was delivered to the defendants on the date of execution of the Lease Deed as the date of execution of the Lease Deed itself. So we can sefely conclude that there is recital with regard to the delivery of possession and it is deemed to be in the knowledge of defendants. But the defendants not even suggested anything about delivery of possession and also not taken any steps for cancellation of such Registered Lease Deed as admitted by them.

But the contention of the defendant that he did not occupied the premises in such circumstances, the defendant has to take necessary steps to cancel the Lease Deed. Furthermore he is also aware that the admitted monthly to the said premises. Due to non payment of the rents, the plaintiff herself issued Legal notice and the said notice received by them and got issued Ex.

A4/Reply Notice and admitted about the payment of rent and subsequently failed to pay the rental amounts. So in the absence of substantive evidence against the Registered Lease Deed it concludes that the said Lease Deed is in force till its cancellation or efflux of time and there is existing liabilities on the said Lease Deed was pertaining to the year 2016 and the contention of the defendants is that they are not occupied the premises as the said building is unfinished and there is no occupancy certificate. In such

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page 11 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026 circumstances, the defendant has to take necessary steps against the plaintiff but he kept quite even though there is existence of Registered

Lease Deed and also not even issued legal notice to the plaintiff for not completing the building and for not delivering the possession to them. In such circumstances, it is deemed to be in the occupation of the defendants only and certainly there is obligation and liability on the defendants to pay the rents according to their Lease Deed and there is no justification by the defendants for non payment of rents.

11.In view of the above discussion and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the suit, the plaintiff entitled for arrears of rents. Hence the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

12.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- against the defendants with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till realization.

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of January, 2026.

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page 12 of 12 Dated 29.01.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Smt. Gaddam Sruthi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of Sale Deed vide Doc.no. 2572/2016, dated 13.04.2016.

Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of Lease Deed vide Doc.No. 5221/2016, dated 13.07.2016.

Ex.A3 is the Office copy of Legal notice dated 11.01.2017.

Ex.A4 is the Reply notice dated 25.01.2017.

Ex.A5 is the Office copy of Legal notice dated 21.02.2017.

FOR DEFENDANTS - NIL -

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District

at Kukatpally.

OS.No. 1134 of 2021

(Old O.S.No. 2626 of 2018) Senior Civil Judge,

Page No.1 of 9 Dated 22.01.2026

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MEDCHAL - MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT

AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: SMT. M. SANDHYA RANI,

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District

At Kukatpally

Dated, this the 22nd day of January, 2026

O.S. No. 16 OF 2023

(Old O.S.No. 1881 of 2012)

BETWEEN:-

Smt.PotturiNagamani,W/o.Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, Aged 42 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. Sneha Apartments, 1c, North Ncl Colony, Kompally, Medchal, R.R.District

...Plaintiff

And

1. Gottumukkala Savitramma, W/o. Late Sri G. Rangaraju, aged 62 years, Flat no. 204, Datla Residency beside Electricity office, Shivarao Peta, Bheemavaram-2, West Godavari District

2. G. Laxmi, W/o. Late Gottumukkala Venkata Raju, Aged 38 years, Occ: Housewife,

3. G. Sowjanya, D/o. Late Gottumukkala Venkata Raju, Aged 23 years, Occ: Pvt Job

4. G. Tejasri, S/o. Late Gottumukkala Venkata Raju, is a minor represented by her mother i.e. G. laxmi nos. 2 to 4 are R/o. H.No. 460, Near NTR Park, Pragathinagar Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, R.R.District.

...Defendants

OS.No. 16 of 2023

(Old O.S.No. 1881 of 2012) Senior Civil Judge, M-M District at Kukatpally

Page No.2 of 9 Dated 22.01.2026

This suit is coming before me on 30.07.2025 for final hearing in the present of Sri N. Darmeshwar, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant no. 1 stood ex parte and Sri Vasantha Rayudu, advocate for defendant nos. 2 to 4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 9,67,000/- against the legal heirs of

Late Sri G. Venkata Raju.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that defendant no. 1 is the mother, defendant no. 2 is the wife and defendant nos. 3 and 4 are the children of said Sri G. Venkata Raju and the said Venkata Raju died in the road accident. During the lifetime, Venkata Raju was having good aquintance with the plaintiff and on such aquintance the plaintiff entered into agreement of sale on 23.01.2019 of lorry bearing no. AP 37 X 3839 for total consideration of

Rs. 8,25,000/-. On the same day, the plaintiff agreed to give Rs. 1 lakh rupees towards lorry permits. And further submitted that she engaged the said vehicle with NCC Company and on 21.08.2019, the said Venkata Raju deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- in the account of plaintiff as per their agreement. Further submitted that the said Venkata Raju approached the plaintiff on the pretext that he would change the C-book on her name and took the said lorry and further without intimating anything to the plaintiff. And subsequently he sold lorry to one Varma of Tadepalligudem. But said Venkata

Raju had taken said amount from the plaintiff for the purpose of his business

OS.No. 16 of 2023

(Old O.S.No. 1881 of 2012) Senior Civil Judge, M-M District at Kukatpally

Page No.3 of 9 Dated 22.01.2026 needs and also family necessities. Hence filed the present suit against the legal heirs of the said Venkata Raju as they succeded estate of the said

Venkata Raju.

3.The defendant no. 1 is the mother of Venkata Raju and she ex parte.

The defendant nos. 2 to 4 filed written statement stating that the plaintiff never given any handloan or hypothecation agreement for lorry. The said

Venkata Raju led a vagabond life and never cared for the welfare of the family and he is having illegal relationship with the plaintiff and due to mental and physical torchure of the plaintiff, the said Venkata Raju, the first wife of the Venkata Raju by name Smt. Krishnaveni died and later the said Venkata Raju was married defendant no. 2 who is none other than the sister of said Krishnaveni. Even after the marriage, with D2 the said

Venkata Raju continued the illicit relationship affair with the plaintiff. And the said Venkata Raju never utilised any amounts for the purpose of family necessities and they were not aware of the transactions between plaintiff and Venkata Raju and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

4.In support of this case, the plaintiff examined as PW1 and PW2 and their chief examination is replica of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A12. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 and DW2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex. B5.

OS.No. 16 of 2023

(Old O.S.No. 1881 of 2012) Senior Civil Judge, M-M District at Kukatpally

Page No.4 of 9 Dated 22.01.2026

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is :- “i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim amount against the defendants as prayed in the plaint”?

ii) Whether the claim of the plaintiff is false and in the light of the averments of the defendant in the written statement?

iii) To what relief”?

7.Point :-

To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff gave evidence as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. Ex.A1 is the original Agreement for purchase of Lorry bearing no. AP37 X 3839. Ex.A2 is the Original receipt no.

1825 for Rs. 23,400/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the purchase of the tyres of the lorry. Ex. A3 is the Original receipt no. CRHP/813990 dated 28.01.2009 for Rs. 60,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to sundaram finance. Ex. A4 is the Original receipt no. CRHP/814870 dated 18.02.2009 for Rs. 50,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to sundaram finance. Ex. A5 is the Original receipt no. CRHP/815276 dated 02.03.2009 for Rs. 30,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to sundaram finance. Ex. A6 is Original receipt no. CRHP/815486 dated 07.03.2009 for Rs. 15,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to

OS.No. 16 of 2023

(Old O.S.No. 1881 of 2012) Senior Civil Judge, M-M District at Kukatpally

Page No.5 of 9 Dated 22.01.2026 sundaram finance. Ex. A7 is the Original receipt no. CRHP/816260 dated 26.03.2009 for Rs. 35,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to sundaram finance. Ex. A8 is the Original receipt no. CRHP/816317 dated 26.03.2009 for Rs. 36,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to sundaram finance. Ex. A9 is the Original charge sheet in Cr.No. 179/2011

dated 05.06.2011 is the statement of A/c of the plaintiff of SBI showing the

transaction of payment of Rs. 20,000/- by late G. Venkata Raju. Ex. A10 is the

Office copy of the legal notice dt. 13.06.2012. Ex. A11 is the postal receipt

RLAD Nos. A RN116077827IN, A RN 11607795IN, A RN116077889IN, A RN 116077858IN. Ex.A12 is the acknowledgment dt.15.06.2012 from the defendant nos. 2 and 4.

8. During the cross-examination, she admitted that she is having acquaintance with the Venkata Raju and never handed over lorry to the

Venkata Raju and further admitted that she is also had knowledge that said

Venkata Raju mortgaged a lorry with Shriram Fiance and he sold away to

Varma. So it clearly establishes that during the lifetime of said Venkata Raju had sold away the lorry and plaintiff also aware of the fact but not taken any steps during the lifetime of said Venkata Raju. In support of her claim, she examined one V. Naga Satya Narayana as PW2 simply he stated that he know

Venkata Raju and his acquaintance with the plaintiff but clearly admitted that he do not know the contents of Ex. A1 and also he is not aware of handling over the lorry to the plaintiff and he nowhere stated about the existing

OS.No. 16 of 2023

(Old O.S.No. 1881 of 2012) Senior Civil Judge, M-M District at Kukatpally

Page No.6 of 9 Dated 22.01.2026 monetary transactions between the plaintiff and Venkata Raju. On behalf of the defendants, the dsefendant nos. 2 & 3 examined as DW1 and DW2 and they stated that they do not know about the transactions of Venkata Raju and they stated that the said Venkata Raju is the owner of the lorry bearing no. AP 37 X 3839. But the plaintiff did not elicit any admissions about the recovery of money from the estate of the deceased.

Heard both sides.

9.The contention of the plaintiff is that the deceased Venkata Raju executed Ex. A1 and subsequently he died in the road accident and the properties of the Venkata Raju succeded by his legal heirs hence the legal heirs of the deceased liable for the discharge of debts. The rival contention of the defendant is that Venkata Raju is the owner of the said lorry and Venkata

Raju lived with the plaintiff and there is illicit relationship and they did not know about the transactions and they did not succeded the purchasers and said Venkata Raju sold away the lorry during his lifetime.

10.On careful perusal of the evidence, it is admitted fact that the said

Venkata Raju purchased the lorry in his name and also the defendant are legal heirs of the said Venkata Raju. But the contention of the defendants is that they are not aware of above said money transactions between plaintiff and the said Venkata Raju and further stated that Venkata Raju vagabond life and never responsible towards his family and never borrowed the amounts to meet the family necessities. And they lived separately and the plaintiff

OS.No. 16 of 2023

(Old O.S.No. 1881 of 2012) Senior Civil Judge, M-M District at Kukatpally

Page No.7 of 9 Dated 22.01.2026 admitted her acquaintance with the said Venkata Raju and out of that acquaintance there are some internal business transactions may be between them and all the documents are stands in the name of Venkata Raju and the payment of installments by the plaintiff on behalf of Venkata Raju only and she admitted that Venkata Raju never delivered the possession of the lorry and also the C-book and RC are stands in the name of Venkata Raju. In view of the above discussion, she paid installments on behalf of Venkata Raju not established and not acceptable in the absence of any valid documentary evidence in support of her claim.

11.In view of the above discussion and on the pleadings of the parties and having regard to over all facts and circumstances of the case and the plaintiff failed to establish her claim from the legal heirs of the deceased who succeded the estate of the deceased.

12.In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of January, 2026.

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Smt. P. NagamaniDW1: Ms. G. Soujanya

PW2: Sri G. Venlata Naga Satyanarayana DW2: Smt. G. Laxmi

OS.No. 16 of 2023

(Old O.S.No. 1881 of 2012) Senior Civil Judge, M-M District at Kukatpally

Page No.8 of 9 Dated 22.01.2026

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the original Agreement for purchase of Lorry bearing no. AP37 X 3839

Ex.A2 is the Original receipt no. 1825 for Rs. 23,400/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the purchase of the tyres of the lorry

Ex. A3 is the Original receipt no. CRHP/813990 dated 28.01.2009 for Rs.

60,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to sundaram finance.

Ex. A4 is the Original receipt no. CRHP/814870 dated 18.02.2009 for Rs.

50,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to sundaram finance.

Ex. A5 is the Original receipt no. CRHP/815276 dated 02.03.2009 for Rs.

30,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to sundaram finance.

Ex. A6 is Original receipt no. CRHP/815486 dated 07.03.2009 for Rs. 15,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to sundaram finance.

Ex. A7 is the Original receipt no. CRHP/816260 dated 26.03.2009 for Rs.

35,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to sundaram finance.

Ex. A8 is the Original receipt no. CRHP/816317 dated 26.03.2009 for Rs.

36,000/- paid by the plaintiff in respect of the lorry to sundaram finance.

Ex. A9 is the Original charge sheet in Cr.No. 179/2011 dated 05.06.2011 is the statement of A/c of the plaintiff of SBI showing the transaction of payment of

Rs. 20,000/- by late G. Venkata Raju

Ex. A10 is the Office copy of the legal notice dt. 13.06.2012

OS.No. 16 of 2023

(Old O.S.No. 1881 of 2012) Senior Civil Judge, M-M District at Kukatpally

Page No.9 of 9 Dated 22.01.2026

Ex. A11 is the postal receipt RLAD Nos. A RN116077827IN, A RN 11607795IN,

A RN116077889IN, A RN 116077858IN

Ex.A12 is the acknowledgment dt.15.06.2012 from the defendant nos. 2 and 4

FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex. B1 is the Pan card of Venkata Raju

Ex. B2 is the Driving Licence of Venkata Raju

Ex. B3 is the Bank passbook of SBI, Kukatpally of D2

Ex. B4 is the Residence certificate issued by Pragathinagar, G.P

Ex. B5 is the Judgment and Decreein FCOP. No. 1625/13, dt. 22.01.2013

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

OS.No. 16 of 2023

(Old O.S.No. 1881 of 2012) Senior Civil Judge, M-M District at Kukatpally

Page 1 Dated 20.01.2026

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MEDCHAL - MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT

AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: SMT. M. SANDHYA RANI,

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District

At Kukatpally

Tuesday, this the 20th day of January, 2026

O.S.No. 219 OF 2025

BETWEEN:-

1. Smt. Uppala Sujatha, W/o Late Sri U. Balraj, aged 64 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No. 32-616,963/B, 1st Phase Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

2. Sri. Uppala Sandeep, S/o Late Sri U.Balraj, aged 37 years, Occ: Pvt Service, R/o H.No. 4-32-558(965/C), Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

3. Sri Uppala Harish, S/o Late Sri U. Balraj, aged 36 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o H.No. 32-616,963/B, 1st Phase Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

4. Smt. Uppala Priyanka, D/o Late Sri U. Balraj, aged 34 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No. 32-616,963/B, 1st Phase Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. … Plaintiffs AND

1. The Thasildar, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

2. All Concerned … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the present of Sri S. Venkatesham and Sri V. Ramulu, Advocate for plaintiffs and the defendants

OS.No. 219 of 2025 Senior Civil Judge,

M-M District at Kukatpally

Page 2 Dated 20.01.2026 remained ex-parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property being the legal heirs of Late Sri U. Balraj, who died on 06.05.2021.

2.The brief facts of plaintiffs as mentioned in the plaint is that plaintiffs No.1 is the wife and plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 are the children of Late Sri U. Balraj. He died on 06/05/2021, leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and successors and except the plaintiffs, there are no other legal heirs. During the life time of the deceased, he purchased Housing bearing no. 32-616 on plot of land bearing no.

B/963 admeasuring 96 Sq. yards or 80.30 sq. meters in Sy.no. 336 situated at

Hyderabad Allwyn Employees Housing Colony, Kukatpally vide Doc.no.

4460/1993, registered in the office of SRO, Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Ranga Reddy

District and another property house bearing no. 32-558 on plot no. C/963, in

Survey no. 336, admeasuring 96 sq. yards equivalent to 80.30 meters and having built up area of 246 sq. ft situated at Allwyn Colony, Phase-I, Kukatpally village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally Municipality. It is further submitted that, the plaintiffs approached the defendant No.1 for issuance of Legal Heir certificate for which Defendant No.1 advised the plaintiffs to approach the competent authority for issuance of Legal Heir certificate as the deceased is not a government employee. Having no other option, the plaintiffs filed present suit

OS.No. 219 of 2025 Senior Civil Judge,

M-M District at Kukatpally

Page 3 Dated 20.01.2026 and to declare the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased / Late Sri U. Balraj, who died on 06.05.2021.

3.Notice served to defendant No.1 and issued paper publication for defendant No.2 and the defendants called absent and no representation, as such they were set ex-parte.

4.The point for consideration:

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heirs of Late Sri U. Balraj, who died on 06.05.2021 or not ?

5.To substantiate the claim of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 in lieu of his chief examination and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked. This court perused Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 they are as follows : -

Ex. A1 is the C.C. of Sale Deed Doc.no. 4460 of 1993, Joint Sub-Registrar-

II, R.R.District (C.C) dated 25.05.1993. Ex. A2 is the Market Value certificate (C.C) dt. 22.07.2025. Ex. A3 is the Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate, dt.

21.07.2025. Ex. A4 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc.no. 7517/2003, dt.

23.10.2003. Ex. A5 is the C.C. copy of Market value, dt. 22.07.2025. Ex. A6 is the C.C. Copy of Encumbrance certificate, dt. 21.07.2025. Ex. A7 is the Death certificate issued by the GHMC, dt. 17.07.2021. Ex. A8 is the Copy of Aadhar card of 1st plaintiff. Ex. A9 is the Copy of Aadhar card of 2nd plaintiff. Ex. A10 is the Copy of Aadhar card of 3rd plaintiff. Ex. A11 is the Copy of Aadhar card of 4th plaintiff. The plaintiffs are claiming that they are wife and children of U. Balraju and produced their identity cards to establish their identity.

OS.No. 219 of 2025 Senior Civil Judge,

M-M District at Kukatpally

Page 4 Dated 20.01.2026

6. on careful perusal of the documents filed by the plaintiffs establishes that the said Balraj purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed which is marked as Ex. A2 and further other documents establishes that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased.

As the defendants remained ex-parte, the entire oral as well as documentary evidence lead by the plaintiffs remained unrebutted and unchallenged. In the light of the fact that the defendants has opted not to contest the claim of the plaintiffs, meaning thereby that they have indirectly admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. Moreover, there is no reason to discard the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on the record. Hence, in the light of aforesaid unrebutted and unchallenged oral as well as documentary evidence on the record, the plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as legal heirs of Late Sri

U. Balraj, who died on 06.05.2021. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiffs as against the defendants.

7.In the result, suit is decreed in favour of plaintiffs and hereby declaring that the plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property being the legal heirs of Late Sri U. Balraj, who died on 06.05.2021.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of January, 2026.

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge – cum-

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

OS.No. 219 of 2025 Senior Civil Judge,

M-M District at Kukatpally

Page 5 Dated 20.01.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

PW1: U. Sujatha

FOR DEFENDANTS:- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex. A1 is the C.C. of Sale Deed Doc.no. 4460 of 1993, Joint Sub-Registrar-II, R.R.District (C.C) dated 25.05.1993

Ex. A2 is the Market Value certificate (C.C) dt. 22.07.2025

Ex. A3 is the Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate, dt. 21.07.2025

Ex. A4 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc.no. 7517/2003, dt. 23.10.2003

Ex. A5 is the C.C. copy of Market value, dt. 22.07.2025

Ex. A6 is the C.C. Copy of Encumbrance certificate, dt. 21.07.2025

Ex. A7 is the Death certificate issued by the GHMC, dt. 17.07.2021

Ex. A8 is the Copy of Aadhar card of 1st plaintiff

Ex. A9 is the Copy of Aadhar card of 2nd plaintiff

Ex. A10 is the Copy of Aadhar card of 3rd plaintiff

Ex. A11 is the Copy of Aadhar card of 4th plaintiff

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge – cum-

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District

at Kukatpally.

OS.No. 219 of 2025 Senior Civil Judge,

M-M District at Kukatpally

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUKATPALLY

Present: SMT. M. SANDHYA RANI,

Senior Civil Judge,

At Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

S.O.P. No. 2 of 2024

Between:

1.Smt. Vuyyuru Nirmala, W/o. Late V. Ramulu, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 7-2-1814/5/A/1, Flat No. 317, Vasavi Central Court, Czech Colony, Near HDFC Bank, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, Balanagar Mandal, M.M.District

2.Vuyyuru Srikanth, S/o. Late V. Ramulu, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No. 7-2-1814/5/A/1, Flat No. 317, Vasavi Central Court, Czech Colony, Near HDFC Bank, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.

3.Vuyyuru Sridhar, S/o. Late V. Ramulu, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Pvt Employee, R/o. USA, rep. by his GPA Holder Vuyyuru Srikanth

4.Smt. Jammugani Anuradha, D/o. Late V. Ramulu, W/o. J. Durga Prasad, aged about 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 8-3-219/A & B, Divya Shakthi Bhavan, Srinivasa Nagar West, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

… Petitioners AND

1. The Director, M/s. Sri Yadadri Lifesciences Pvt Ltd., Flat No. 103, Sai Balaji Complex, Balanagar, Hyderabad-500042 Manufacturing Unit at: Sy.No. 188 & 189, Ramajipet Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri District, Pin: 508286, Telangana, INDIA.

2. All concerned … Respodents

Docket Order dated 11/03/2026

Petitioners called absent. No representation. Costs not paid. On perusal of the docket order, it appears that the matter is coming up for marking of documents but, petitioner called absent since 14.11.2025 and there is no representation and this court adjourned the matter time to time and has given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and finally passed conditional order on 05.01.2026 but inspite of passing conditional order the petitioner not proceed with the matter, hence, after giving reasonable time and opportunity this SOP is dismissed for default.

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Kukatpally, M.M.District.

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUKATPALLY

Present: SMT. M. SANDHYA RANI,

Senior Civil Judge,

At Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

O.S. No. 116 of 2024

Between:

Smt Barla Pushpalatha, W/o B. Sujeet Kumar, Aged about 42 years, Occupation: Pvt Employee, R/o H.No. 5-3-26/2, Ramalayam Temple Road, Near Ramalayam, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Smt. J. Prabhavathi, W/o Late J. Ramulu, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Household,

2. J. Anil Kumar, S/o. Late J. Ramulu, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Private Employee, 1 & 2 are H.No. 4-32-1494/2/24, Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad- 72.

3. Sachin Kumar Katarey, S/o. K. Narsing Rao, aged about 27 years, Occ Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No. 4-32-1427/1/1, Plot No. 50, Kavita Kunj, Road No. 1, Venkatapapaiah Nagar, Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. … Defendants

Docket Order dated 31/03/2026

Both called present and plaintiff filed the memo stating that the matter settled out of court and request to withdraw the suit as Not Pressed. Considered the same permitted to Not Press the suit. Accordingly suit is hereby dismissed as Not Pressed

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Kukatpally, M.M.District.