Ms. N.Ashwini

1

O.S.No. 126 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE II. ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ::

WANAPARTHY

Dated this the 13 th day of May, 2026

Present: Ms. Nomula Ashwini,

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

O.S. NO. 126 of 2025

Between:-

1.Cheemarla Alivelamma W/o Cheemarla Bucha Redy, Age: 68 years, Occ: Household, R/o 39-4, Bandar Nagar, Wanaparthy Town & District.

2.Cheemarla Srinivasa Reddy S/o Chemmarla Bucha Reddy, Age: 42 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o 39-4, Bandar Nagar, Wanaparthy Town & District, Wanaparthy Town and District. … Plaintiffs AND

1.Chavva Venkataiah S/o Chavva Kurumaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Chavva Nagalaxmi W/o Chavva Venkataiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3.Chavva Balakrishna S/o Chavva Venkataiah, Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4.Dhuppaly Balaiah S/o D.Pentaiah, Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture,

5.Dhuppally Venkataiah S/o D.Balaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

6.Dhuppally Pentaiah S/o D.Balaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,

7.Dhuppally Ramulu S/o D.Balaiah, Age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o 1-64, Rajanagaram Village, Wanaparthy Mandal & District.

… Defendant No.1 to 7 * * *

This suit coming up before me for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. K.Ramchandra Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and defendants were set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- 2

O.S.No. 126 of 2025

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or other servants, agents, workers or whosoever claiming through them from interfering or entering on to the suit schedule properties i.e., Land bearing

Sy.No's 82Aa1/1 Ex: 00-2050 Gts., Sy.No's 81/1 Ex: 02-20 Gts., stands in the name of Plaintiff No.1, Sy No's 82Aa1/2 Ex: 00-2050 Gts., & 81/2/1 Ex:

02-20 Gts., stands in the name of Plaintiff No.2 Total Extent: 06 Acre 01 Gts situated in the limits of Rajapeta Village shivar of Wanaparthy Mandal &

District. (Hereinafter referred as suit schedule property).

2. The brief facts of the suit are that the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 are mother and son, and they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that originally the suit schedule property belongs to one Vadde Laxmaiah S/o Vadde Yellaiah, R/o Rajanagaram, The Plaintiffs has purchased said land jointly vide Registered Sale deed Doc No:

6859/2012, dated: 08-05-2012. It is submitted that after purchasing said property the Plaintiffs got mutated suit land in two equal shares and also obtained ROR and New Pattadar passbooks etc., and were in possession and enjoying suit schedule property without anybody’s interruption. Though the plaintiffs got separate passbooks they are jointly cultivating the suit schedule property.

3. That the Defendant No. 1 to 7 belongs to Rajanagaram Village, they are neither concern to the Plaintiffs nor concern to the suit schedule property, they are only adjacent land owners, the suit schedule property situated though in Rajapeta shivar, it is near to the defendants land and the

Plaintiffs are residing at Wanaparthy town for their livelihood, taking the 3

O.S.No. 126 of 2025

plaintiffs absence in village defendants took this advantage have threatened the plaintiffs and trying to interfere into plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It is hereby submitted that the defendants are more in persons and having muscle power and having ill motive intention to grab plaintiffs land with eye soar on plaintiffs without any legal rights and the defendants disturbing the plaintiffs peaceful possession over suit schedule property, the defendants with dishonest intention to grab suit schedule property interfering into peaceful possession and trying to dispose the plaintiffs from suit schedule property. It is submitted that recently the plaintiffs were engaged a Dozer for cleaning suit schedule land to sew Maize seeds in this rainy season the defendants came on to the spot on 25-04-2025 and obstructed the plaintiffs work and tried to dispose the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property without any legal rights, the plaintiffs with great difficulty resisted illegal acts of the defendants with the help of neighbors. The defendants threatened the plaintiffs that they will come with more force again and will occupy suit lands while leaving the spot. In view of the malafide intention and threat of the defendants, the plaintiff has no other remedy approached this Court by way of the present suit.

4. Summons duly served on Defendant No.4, hence he failed to appear

before this court, hence this court set exparte Defendant No.4 on

09.06.2025. Summons duly served on Defendant No.1 to 3, they failed to appear before this court, hence this court set exparte Defendant No. 1 to 3 on 23.09.2025. Summons duly served on Defendant No 5 to 7, failed to 4

O.S.No. 126 of 2025

appear before this court, hence this court set exparte Defendant No. 5 to 7 on 29.10.2025. Later defendants have not contested the suit.

5. Heard learned counsel for plaintiffs and perused the documents. Now the points for consideration are:

i)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for or not?

ii) To what relief?

POINT NO.1:

6. In order to substantiate the claim, the Plaintiff No.1 got herself into witness box and got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex. A1 to A10. PW1 chief-examination is reiteration of the averments of plaint. Since defendants did not turn up and cross-examine PW1, the oral evidence of PW1 remains un-challenged. PW1 stated that she and her son are the owner of the suit schedule properties and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property since their acquisition of suit schedule property from owner one Vadde Laxmaiah through registered sale deed vide No. 6859 of 2012, Dated: 08.05.2012, marked as Ex.A1, Ex.A2 : Specimen ROR (1B

Namuna) copy belonging to Plaintiff No. 1, dated 18.04.2025, Ex.A3 :

Specimen ROR (1B Namuna) copy belonging to Plaintiff No. 2, dated 18.04.2025, Ex.A4: Original Mutation Proceedings copy dated 30.06.2012,

Ex.A5: FMB copy of the suit schedule land, including the Tippon/Touch

Map dated 26.06.2016, Ex.A6: Original Pattadar Passbook issued to Plaintiff

No.1 dated 30.11.2019, Ex.A7: Original Pattadar Passbook issued to

Plaintiff No.2 dated 30.11.2019, Ex.A8: Original Old Land Title Deed of the executant dated 20.12.2001, Ex.P9: Certified Copy of 2019 Fasli Pahani of 5

O.S.No. 126 of 2025

Plaintiff No.1 dated 02.12.2019 and Ex.A10: Certified Copy of 2019 Fasli

Pahani of Plaintiff No.2, Dt: 02.12.2019. Ex.A2 to A4, A6, A7, A9 and A10 shows the right and title of plaintiffs over the Suit Scheduled Properties.

Ex.A1 show the flow of the title from owner one Vadde Laxmaiah to them and & Ex.A1 & A8 shows the title of owner one Vadde Laxmaiah over the

Suit Scheduled Property.

7. The prima facie was shown and established in favour of Plaintiffs that they are the owners and possessors of the said suit properties. On the other hand, defendants did not choose to contest the case and they remained exparte. Therefore, the evidence lead by the plaintiffs remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants. There is nothing on the record to disbelief the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the document exhibited by them. The conduct of the defendants apparently shows that they have tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

8. When ownership of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Scheduled Property is proved, the general presumption that possession follows title comes into play. Defendants did not turn up to disprove Ex. A1 to A10 documents or to prove that plaintiffs are not in lawful possession of the Suit Scheduled

Property. In the absence of such plea or denial, this Court holds that plaintiffs have proved their lawful possession over the Suit Scheduled

Property. And hence, they are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for.

9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the suit schedule property exclusively belongs to the plaintiffs by Ex.A2 to A4, 6

O.S.No. 126 of 2025

A6, A7, A9 and A10 and as such, they have right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the point is answered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

ii) To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with cost in favor of plaintiffs against defendants as follows: Defendants, their henchmen, agents, representatives or any other person acting on their behalf or claiming through there are hereby perpetually restrained from interfering into the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the Suit Scheduled Properties i.e., Land bearing Sy.No's 82Aa1/1 Ex: 00-2050 Gts., Sy.No's 81/1 Ex: 02-20 Gts., stands in the name of Plaintiff No.1, Sy No's 82Aa1/2 Ex: 00-2050 Gts., & 81/2/1 Ex: 02-20 Gts., stands in the name of Plaintiff No.2 Total Extent: 06

Acre 01 Gts situated in the limits of Rajapeta Village shivar of Wanaparthy

Mandal & District.. All the IAs in this suit shall be closed accordingly.

Partly typed by the typist on computer and partly typed to my laptop; corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY.

7

O.S.No. 126 of 2025

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

Witnesses examined:

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Pw1. C.Alivelamma NIL

:: Exhibits Marked for ::

Plaintiff :

1.Ex. A-1 : Original Registered Sale Deed (Doc No: 6859/2012) dated 08.05.2012

2.Ex. A-2 : Specimen ROR (1B Namuna) copy belonging to Plaintiff No. 1 dated 18.04.2025

3.Ex. A-3 : Specimen ROR (IB Namuna) copy belonging to Plaintiff No. 2 dated 18.04.2025

4.Ex. A-4 : Original Mutation Proceedings copy dated 30.06.2012

5.Ex. A-5 : FMB copy of the suit schedule land, including the Tippon/Touch Map dated 26.06.2016

6.Ex. A-6 : Original Pattadar Passbook issued to Plaintiff No.1 dated 30.11.2019

7.Ex. A-7 : Original Pattadar Passbook issued to Plaintiff No. 2 dated 30.11.2019

8.Ex. A-8 : Original Old Land Title Deed of the executant dated

9.20.12.2001

10.Ex. A-9 : Certified Copy of 2019 Fasli Pahani of Plaintiff No. 1 dated 02.12.2019

11.Ex. A-10 : Certified Copy of 2019 Fasli Pahani of Plaintiff No. 2,

Dt: 02/12/2019

Defendant :

-NIL-

II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY.

IN THE COURT OF

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

AT WANAPARTHY ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

(Presided Over by Ms. N.Ashwini)

STC/839/2026

Exhibit No.

SHO KHILLA GHANPUR PS

VERSUS

CHINNA KESHAVULU

Age: 38 Occupation :

MAMIDIMADA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Sr.APP for Junior Civil Judge Court, WNPY, Advocate for appearing for CHINNA KESHAVULU Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 185, of MV ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 13-05-2026)

Accused called present and he is examined U/s 274 BNSS for the offences U/s 185(a) MV Act. He voluntarily admitted the guilt. The admission of accused is voluntary in nature. Hence, the accused found guilty for the offence U/s 185(a) MV Act. Accordingly, he is convicted U/s 275 BNSS on questioning of quantum of sentence accused pleaded that he is the sole bread winner of his family and requested to take lenient view while imposing the sentence. In view of the submission made by the accused, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer S.I. for five days for the offence U/s 185(a) MV Act.

(Ms. N.Ashwini) II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

WANAPARTHY

IN THE COURT OF

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

AT WANAPARTHY ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

(Presided Over by Ms. N.Ashwini)

STC/838/2026

Exhibit No.

SHO KHILLA GHANPUR PS

VERSUS B.SAILU Age: 41 Occupation :

SALKAPUR

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for B.SAILU Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 185, of MV ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 13-05-2026)

Accused called present and he is examined U/s 274 BNSS for the offences U/s 185(a) MV Act. He voluntarily admitted the guilt. The admission of accused is voluntary in nature. Hence, the accused found guilty for the offence U/s 185(a) MV Act. Accordingly, he is convicted U/s 275 BNSS on questioning of quantum of sentence accused pleaded that he is the sole bread winner of his family and requested to take lenient view while imposing the sentence. In view of the submission made by the accused, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer S.I. for five days for the offence U/s 185(a) MV Act.

(Ms. N.Ashwini) II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

WANAPARTHY

IN THE COURT OF II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

AT WANAPARTHY(Presided Over by Ms. N.Ashwini)

STC/857/2026 (PROSECUTION): SHO Khillaghanapur PS Through Police Station Officer , SHO Khillaghanapur PS

VERSUS :

V.HEERALAL

Age: 35 Occupation :

GHANPUR THANDA

Offence punishable under : 185, of MV ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 18-05-2026)

Accused called present and he is examined U/s 274 BNSS for the offences U/s 185(a) MV Act. He voluntarily admitted the guilt. The admission of accused is voluntary in nature. Hence, the accused found guilty for the offence U/s 185(a) MV Act. Accordingly, he is convicted U/s 275 BNSS on questioning of quantum of sentence accused pleaded that he is the sole bread winner of his family and requested to take lenient view while imposing the sentence. In view of the submission made by the accused, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer S.I. for five days for the offence U/s 185(a) MV Act.

(Ms. N.Ashwini) II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

WANAPARTHY

IN THE COURT OF II Addl JCJ cum JMFC AT WANAPARTHY

(Presided Over by Ms. N.Ashwini)

STC/856/2026 (PROSECUTION): SHO Khillaghanapur PS Through Police Station Officer HO Khillaghanapur PS VERSUS :

K. KURUMAIAH

Age: 40 Occupation : AGARAM

Offence punishable under : 185, of MV ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 18-05-2026)

Accused called present and he is examined U/s 274 BNSS for the offences U/s 185(a) MV Act. He voluntarily admitted the guilt. The admission of accused is voluntary in nature. Hence, the accused found guilty for the offence U/s 185(a) MV Act. Accordingly, he is convicted U/s 275 BNSS on questioning of quantum of sentence accused pleaded that he is the sole bread winner of his family and requested to take lenient view while imposing the sentence. In view of the submission made by the accused, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer S.I. for five days for the offence U/s 185(a) MV Act.

(Ms. N.Ashwini) II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

WANAPARTHY