Smt.N.HemaLatha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 30 th day of April, 2019

PRESENT: Smt. N. HEMALATHA

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

O.S.NO. 372 of 2018

Between:- Peddamma Susheela, W/o. Late. P. Anjaiah, Aged senior citizen, Occ: Old Age R/o. H. No. 8-8-338/A-149, Green Park Colony, Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. district. …Plaintiff

AND

1. Jakka Kalamma, W/o. Hanuman Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ: Housewife,

2. Jakkula. Salaiah, S/o. J. Mallaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ: Labour,

3. Pellepalli Madhava Rao, S/o. Malakondaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee,

All D1 to 3 R/o. H. NO. 8-8-375, Road No. 1 Green Park Colony,Karmanghat Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District.

4. Adhanki Srinivas Rao, S/o. A. Kondaiah, Aged 32 yrs. Occ: Pvt. Employee

5. Amudalapally Sridevi W/o. A. Ramesh, Aged 45 years, Occ: Housewife

6. Ramana, S/o. Venkateshwarlu, aged 35 Yrs., Occ: Tailor,

7. Gurram Yadi Reddy, S/o. Roshi Reddy, Aged 70 yrs., Occ: Business,

All D4 to 7 R/o. H. No. 8-8-378, Road No. 3 Green Park Colony, Karmanghat Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District

8. Gonugunta Veeraiah, S/o. G. Ramaswamy, Aged 54 Yrs., Occ: Business

9. Gudipati Malakondaiah, S/o. G. Kondaiah, Aged 50 Yrs., Occ: Business 2

Both D8 & D9 R/o. H. No. 8-8-354, Road No. 3, Green Park Colony, Karmanghat Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District

10. Rukkam Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Janga Reddy, Aged 62 Yrs., Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 8-8-41/1, Plot No. 235, Road No. 5, green Park Colony, Karmanghat Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District.

11. Y. Kumari. W/o. Y. Venkat Reddy, Aged 41 Yrs., Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. NO. 8-8-378, Road No. 3, Green Park Colony, Karmanghat Saroornagar mandal, R. R. District

12. Raiyaputi Maladhri, S/o. Kondaiah, Aged 55 Yrs., Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 8-8-284/4, Road No. 6 Green park Colony, Karmanghat Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District

13. Chebrolu Vengal Rao, S/o. Ch. Venkaaiah, Aged 32 yrs., Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 8-8-271, Road No. 8 Green Park Colony, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District

14. Upputuru Govendamma, W/o. Venkatesham Aged 55 yrs. Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 8-8-324/1, Road No. 4 Plot No. 208/A, Green Park Colony, Karmanghat Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. district

15. Mailu Vijay Laxmi, W/o. Damodar Reddy, aged 50 yrs., Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 7-3-18/12, Plot No. 124, Road No. 6 Sriramana Colony, Bairamalguda, Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District

16. Somypalli Ramanaidu, S/o. S. Malakondaiah, Aged 40 Yrs., Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 124, Road No. 6, Venatramana Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District.

17. Kancharla Subba naidu, S/o. Malakondiah, Aged 50 Yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 12-241/2, Plot No. 44, Sri Sai Nagar Colony, Meerpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District 3

18. Soma Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Not Known Aged Major, Occ: Business R/o. H. No. 11-10-54, SBI Colony, Kothapet R. R. District

19. Ganji Murali, S/o. Paramesha, Aged 45 Yrs Occ: Business, R/o. Life Style Fancy Sarees & Textitles, Opp: Bhagyalatha Hospital, At Bhagyalatha, Hayathnagar R. R. District

20. Singam Achi Lingam, S/o. Not known, Aged 60 Yrs., Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 3-11-391/1, 4th Floor, Road No. 2, 3, Sri Shiva Ganga Colony, L. B. Nagar, R. R. District.

21. Namani Dattadri,, S/o. N. Ramulu, Aged 54 Yrs., Occ: Business, R/o. Shop No. 13, Ground Floor, LPT Market, Chintal Kunta, L. B. Nagar, R. R. District

22. Muthyala Hemalatha. W/o. Narsimha Sagar, Aged Major, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. NO. 1-08-05-283/142/1, Madhava Nagar, Bhairamalguda, Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. district

23. M/s. Namani Silk & Sarees, rep by Namani, R/o. H. No. 21-1-661/2/1, Sattar Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad – 002.

24. Gurram Ramulu, S/o. G. Laxminarayana, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H. NO. 3-4, Kuntloor Village, at Anjanadri Nagar, Hayathnagar Mandal, R. R. District.

25. D. Malla Reddy, S/o. Not know, aged major, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 2-3-447/1, Plot No. 16, Sainagar Colony Alkapur Nagol Uppal Mandal, R. R. District,

26. Cherupalli Bhasker, S/o. Lingaiah, Aged Major, Occ: Business,] R/o. H. NO. 2-3-550/A/17, Road No. 3 Sainagar Colony, Alkapuri Nagol r. R. district

27. Soma Narsimha, S/o. Not known, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 11-10-54, SBI Colony, Kothapet, Uppal Mandal, R. R. district

28. Munagala Swamy Rao, S/o. Sathyanarayana Rao, 4

Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 2-39, Lalithanagar X Road, Jillelguda, Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. district

29. Kishore S/o. Not known, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 8-162, Plot No. 19, Road No. 1, Mythripuram, Jillelguda, R. R. district

30. Kodi Sudharshamn, S/o. Sambaiah, Aged Major, Occ: Business. R/o. H. NO. 3-211, Plot NO. 889, Meerpet, Nandi Hills, Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District

31. K Vijaya Laxmi, W/o. Not Known, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. 7-4-12/14, Tirumala Colony, Omkar Nagar, Hasthinapuram Sagar Road, R. R. District

32. Gaddam Raghu, S/o. Not known, Aged Major, Occ: Business R/o.H.No. 1-1-3, Tailor Shop, Opp: Hindusmashanawatika, TKR Caman, Bhupeshgupta Nagar, Jillelguda village, saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District

33. Prodhutur veeramani, W/o. Janardhan, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 3-7-58/A, Ramanthapuram,] Uppal Industrial Area, R. R. District.

34. Padma, W/o. Not known, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 17-1-386/S/16, Near S. N. Reddy Nagar, Road No. 8, F-III. Saidabad, Hyderabad.

35. Rama W/o. Not known, aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 17-1-302/P/140, Near Vishnupuri Colony, Road No. 2, Saidabadh, Hyderabad.

36. Rapolu. Shekar, S/o. Ramachandram, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 3-17, Jaipuri Colony, Nagol, Uppal Mandal, R. R. district

37. S. Janga Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, aged Major, Occ: Chit Business, R/o. H. No. 9-7, Reddy Colony, Champapet, Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District.

…..Defendants

CLAIM: Suit for perpetual injunction.

5

This suit is coming before me on 28.03.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Prabhakar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a suit for perpetual injunction by restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants, henchmen from causing any sort of interference or obstruction in any manner over the suit schedule property.

2) As per the averments of plaint, the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner and possessor of H.No.8-8-338/A-149, on plot No. A/149 admeasuring 150 Sq.yards in Survey No. 250 to 260, and 263 to 304 Green

Park colony, Karmanghat village, Saroornagar mandal, R.R.district (herein after referred as Suit schedule property) having purchased the same from one Munnuru Madhusudhan under registered sale deed Doc.No. 1366/2005,

dated 18.11.2005 , since the date of purchase she is in peaceful

uninterrupted possession of suit property. The vendor of the plaintiff

Munnuru Madhusudhan originally purchased the suit property from Sri

Towfeeqraja through registerd sale deed Doc.No. 7427/1993 dated 23.06.1993. As the original documents are missing she filed missing complaint of the original documents before concerned police and it is pending. As the plaintiff is old age person and her sons are residing in the village at Maheshwaram Village, so as the plaintiff given suit property of some portions to different tenants, similarly the ground floor two portion (out of three portions) given on rent to one Tiranda Srinivas who is running cloth business in one portion and also one portion using for his residence. That one of the ground floor portion tenant Sri Kirandas Srinivas from last one year, he is not paying rent and several times she demanded him for rents and also issued notice under section 106 of Transfer of property Act and the plaintiff is taking steps for Eviction of tenant Tirandas Srinivas. Recently she 6 got knowledge about Tirandas Srinivas that he borrowed the money from third parties for his business development and third parties are trespassing into the suit schedule property and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and his other tenants similar in nature on dated 16.06.2018 at about 07.00 PM the defendants tress passed into her house and locked one the plaintiff tenant portion in the ground floor without any right title and interest and also they threatened plaintiff other tenants stating that they are the creditors of said Tirandas Srinivas and insisting the plaintiff to pay the amount due of Srinivas. Immediately plaintiff lodged the complaint against some of the defendants in P.S Saroornagar and the police advised her to approach civil court for injunction. Hence this suit.

3. After registering the suit, a publication was made against defendants but none appeared, hence they were set Exparte on 22.02.2019.

4) In support of the case of the plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.

5) Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6) Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the suit is liable to be decreed as prayed for or not?

7) POINT: As per the plaint and affidavit of PW1, the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner and possessor Suit schedule property having purchased the same from one Munnuru Madhusudhan under registered sale deed Doc.No.

1366/2005, dated 18.11.2005 , since the date of purchase she is in peaceful uninterrupted possession of suit property. The vendor of the plaintiff

Munnuru Madhusudhan originally purchased the suit property from Sri

Towfeeqraja through registered sale deed Doc.No. 7427/1993 dated 23.06.1993. As the original documents are missing she filed missing complaint of the original documents before concerned police and it is pending. As the plaintiff is old age person and her sons are residing in the 7 village at Maheshwaram Village, so as the plaintiff given suit property of some portions to different tenants, similarly the ground floor two portion (out of three portions) given on rent to one Tiranda Srinivas who is running cloth business in one portion and also one portion using for his residence. That one of the ground floor portion tenant Sri kirandas Srinivas from last one year, he is not paying rent and several times she demanded him for rents and also issued notice under section 106 of Transfer of property Act and the plaintiff is taking steps for Eviction of tenant Tirandas Srinivas. Recently she got knowledge about Tirandas Srinivas that he borrowed the money from third parties for his business development and third parties are trespassing into the suit schedule property and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and his other tenants similar in nature on dated 16.06.2018 at about 07.00 PM the defendants tress passed into her house and locked one the plaintiff tenant portion in the ground floor without any right title and interest and also they threatened plaintiff other tenants stating that they are the creditors of said Tirandas Srinivas and insisting the plaintiff to pay the amount due of Srinivas. Immediately plaintiff lodged the complaint against some of the defendants in P.S Saroornagar and the police advised her to approach civil court for injunction. In support of the version of the plaintiff she relied on the documents marked under Ex.A1 to A6. If really the plaintiff is not the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the sale deed documents, electricity bills, encumbrance certificates under

Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are true and valid, the defendants No.1 to 37 would have come on record and tried to prove the same. But in the case in hand the defendant has not tried to contest the case and prove their genuine duty though a publication made against them, but none appeared on behalf of them, hence they were wet exparte on 22.02.2019 and 28.03.2019 but till the date of pronouncing the judgment they have not tried to came on record 8 by opting setting aside the Exparte order. At the same time through the

Ex.A1 the plaintiff prove that as on the date of filing of the suit she was unlawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. If really defendant has not interfered into the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property why the plaintiff will knocks the doors of the court by spending huge amount and valuable time. The point is answered accordingly.

8) IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents and servants, henchmen from causing any sort of interference or obstruction in any manner whatsoever perpetually over the suit property. No Costs.

Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 30th day of April, 2019

I - ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY AT L.B.NAGAR.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Peddama susheela -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 CC of Reg.sale deed Doc.No.13665/2005, dt. 18.11.2005

Ex.A2 office copy of original complaint to PS. Saroornagar dt.18.06.2018

Ex.A3 police given acknowledgedment No. SRNR RCHKD/180618/00607

Ex.A4 encumbrance certificate original dt. 14.06.2018

Ex.A5 original electricity bill of plaintiff suit schedule property dt.08.06.2018

Ex.A6 original electricity bill of plaintiff suit schedule property dt.20.06.2018

FOR DEFENDANT:- --NIL----

I - ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY AT L.B.NAGAR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE CUM V ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD, AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT:- Smt N.Hema Latha, FAC V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cum V Addl. Junior Civil Judge Cyberabad, At L.B. Nagar.

DATED ON THIS THE 13 th DAY OF JUNE, 2019

C.C. No.331/2016

State through WPS Saroornagar… Complainant

A N D

A1. V.Venkarama Subrahmanyam A2.V.Venkata Padmanaba Murthy A3.V.Naga Laxmi … Accused The case against A2 is abated.

a) Serial Number of the case : 331/2016

b) Date of commission of offence :

c) Name of the complainant : State through WPS Saroornagar

d) Name of the accused person, :A1.V.Venkatarama Subrahmanyam, S/o. his parentage and residence Vemuri Venkata Padmanabha Murthy Aged 29 years, Occ:Pvt employee A2.A2.V.Venkata Padmanaba Murthy,s/o. V.Venkatarama Subrahmanyam Aged 50 years, Occ:Pvt employee A3.V.Naga Lakshmi, W/o.V.Venkata Padmanabha Murthy Aged 45 years, Occ:House wife A1 to A3 are R/o.H.No.2-2-1144/9, Flat no.102, Sri Raghavendra Nilayam beside Brahmanyam Hotel, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad

e) Offence complained of : U/s.498-A, 406, 506 of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act

f) Plea of the accused on their examination : Not guilty

g) Final Order : Accused are acquitted

h) Date of order : 13-06-2019 2

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the

Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Rama Krishna counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The SHO of WPS Saroornagar laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.145/16 seeking to punish them for the offences punishable U/s.498-A, 406, 506 of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 05.07.2016 at 1000 hours the SHO of WPS Saroornagar received a complaint from the defacto complainant Smt.D.Sri Lakshmi, in which she stated that her marriage was performed with one V.Venkata Rama Subramanyam on 22.04.2015 at Sri Padmavathi Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam, Rythu

Bazaar, Kothapet. At the time of her marriage her parents gave

Rs.6,00,000/- cash towards varakatnam, Rs.2 lakhs worth gold and

Rs.75,000/- towards silver, Rs.2 lakhs towards clothes and Rs.1 lakh for miscellaneous expenditure. Her engagement expenditure was approximately Rs.2,20,000/- and Rs.4 lakhs was her marriage expenditure. After the marriage she joined the company of her husband for the consummation of the marriage and lived happily for few weeks.

Subsequently her mother-in-law started harassing her to bring

additional dowry from her parents for buying a house and her father-in-

law and her husband used to support her mother-in-law. On 23.02.2016 she was suffering with high fever, they did not care for her and her husband pushed her out of the house with his hands and ordered her that she should take treatment at her parents house and demanded her to transfer the house on their name. All her belongings which was given by her father at the time of the marriage were kept with them and necked her out of the house. since then she is staying at her parents house. Her elders and parents tried to convince the matter, but her 3 inlaws did not heed to their words and demanded to transfer the house of her father on her husband’s name. On 06.06.2016 her parents and two persons went to her inlaws house Then she lodged a complaint.

On the basis of above complaint LW7-Sri S.Buchaiah,

Inspector of Police registered a case against accused in Cr.No.145/2016.

During the course of the investigation she examined and recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 6 and he issued 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused A1 to A3. After the completion of the investigation she filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.This court has taken case into cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.498-A, 406, 506 of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.

4.After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. was furnished to them.

5. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. charges for the offences U/s.498-A, 406, 506 of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act framed and the contents were read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and preferred a trial.

6.In order to establish its case the prosecution examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

7. Since PW1, the defacto complainant and victim did not depose anything against them and there is no incriminating material available against them. Hence examination U/s.313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.498-A, 406 of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.?

10. POINT:-The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons harassed the complainant physically and mentally for additional dowry 4 and necked her out of the house.

11.To prove the same the prosecution examined PW1-Smt.D.Sri

Laxmi, who is the complainant, PW2-D.Shankar, who is the father of

PW1. The learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of Lws 3 to LW7.

12.As seen from the evidence PW1, who is the complainant deposed her marriage was performed with Accused No.1 on 22.04.2015 at Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam. After the marriage she joined the company of her husband at her inlaws house at Nallakunta and lived happily for two months. Thereafter petty disputes arose between them.

Then they approached elders, who held panchayath and gave complaint by obtaining her signature on the complaint. She doesn’t know the contents of the complaint.

PW2 is the father of PW1 deposed on 22.04.2015 PW1 marriage was performed with A1 at Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam. After the marriage Pw1 joined with A1 at the house of her in laws at

Nallakunta and lived happily for two months. Thereafter petty disputes arose between PW1 and A1. Except this she doesn’t know about the facts of the case.

PW1 and 2 declared hostile in their cross examination by

APPO, no material facts were elicited in support of the prosecution. They clearly stated PW1 entered into compromise with A1 and obtained mutual concerned divorce as such they are not intending to proceed further in this case.

After careful scanning of evidence both oral and documentary proof, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence benefit of doubt given to the accused.

In the result, accused A1 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.498-A, 406, 506 of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.

Accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after the 5 appeal period is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of June, 2019.

FAC V Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE Cum

V Addl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD, AT LB ANAGR

APPENDIX OF EVIDECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1: V.S.V.R.Subramanyam NIL PW2: D.Shankar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Signature on the complaint NIL Ex.P2: Complaint Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement by PW1 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement by PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

FAC V Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE Cum

V Addl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD, AT LB NAGAR

6

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CUM V ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

C.C.NO.277/2016

1Name of the Complainant State through WPS Saroornagar 2Name of the AccusedA1.Md.Younus,S/o.Md.Sarvane(late), Aged 28 years,Occ:Pvt employee A2.Smt.Jameela Begum, W/o.Md.Sarvane(late), Aged 45 years, Occ:House wife A1 and A2 are R/o.H.No.1-9-612/1, near Traffic PS,Adikmet, Nallakunta, Hyd A3.Smt.Kanees Fathima,W/o.Akbar, Aged 32 years, Occ:House wife R/o.Saidabad, Hyderabad A4.Md.Yousuf,S/o.Sarvane(late), aged 34 years, Occ:Business R/o.Near Traffic Police Station, Ramnagar Gundu, Adikmet, Hyderabad 3Offence under sectionU/s.498-A, of IPC and Sec 3&4 of DP Act 4Date of offencePrior to 06.06.2016 5Date of complaint06.06.2016 6Date of ApprehensionIssued 41(A) Cr.P.C notice 7Date of Commencement 25.01.2017 of trial

Date of closure of trial26.11.2018 9Date of Judgment27.11.2018 10Finding of the CourtAccused A1 to A4 present. Judgment

pronounced. In the result, Accused A1 to

A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act. Accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after the appeal period is over.

11Reasons for delay in-- disposal of case

V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cum V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar Copy To:

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, R.R.District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR.

Dated on this the 3rd May of 2019

PRESENT: Smt. N. HEMALATHA

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY.

O.S.NO. 174 of 2019

Between:

1. Kairamkonda Krushnaveni, W/o. K. Raju, Aged 39 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 2-3-603/7/12/30 Patelnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

2. Jayanth Sharma, S/o. Dumar Sharma, Aged 33 years, Occ: Business,

3. Mukesh Kumar Vishkarma, S/o. Dumar Sharma, Aged 30 years, Occ: Business

No. 2 & # H. No. 4-7-158 Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad – 500 027.

4. Smt. Nasreen Begum, W/o. Sri. Akbar, Aged 32 years, Occ: Housewife. R/o. H. No. 3-4-16/46/B61/1 Sri Ram Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad – 500 013. …Plaintiffs

And

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Deputy Commissioner, Uppal Circle-2, Ranga Reddy District. …Defendant

CLAIM: suit for Perpetual Injunction.

This suit is coming before me on 08.04.2019 for final hearing in the presence of G. Darshan, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a Suit perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs against defendant by the restraining the defendants and it officials, agents subordinates or any person or persons acting under it from 2 interfering with the peaceful possession, enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule A, B and C properties.

2) As per the averments of the plaint, plaintiff NO.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property I.e, house constructed on plot NO. 12 North Part admeasuring 100 sq.yards in

Sy.No. 51/2, situated at Ramanthapur, Bagayat village, under GHMC

Uppal mandal, R.R.district (herein after referred as Suit schedule A property) by virtue of sale deed doc.No.22469/2015 dated 14.10.2015

dated 14.10.2015 and Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the absolute owners of

house constructed on plot No.1/D, south I East part admeasuring 100

Sq.yards in Sy.No. 51/2, situated at Ramanthapur, Bagayat village, under GHMC Uppal mandal, R.R.district (herein after referred as Suit schedule B property) and Plaintiff No.4 is the absolute owner and posessor of the house constructed on Plot No.15 Northen part admeasuring 512.6 sq.yds plot No.16 admeasuring 97 Sq.yrds and

Plot no. 17 southern part admeasuring 52.5 Sq.yards total admesuring 202 Sq.yards in Survey No. 51/2, situated at Ramanthapur, Bagayat village, under GHMC Uppal mandal, R.R.district having all plaintiffs purchased schedule of property A, B and C from Sri Muthyala

Muthamaiah @ M. Muthyalu, since the date of purchase plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by constructing three rooms in their respective plots and residing therein by obtaining electricity connection in the names of plaintiffs.

2.2Originally plaintiffs vendor Sri Muthyala Muthamaiah @ M.

Muthyalau was the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule properties A, B and C vide Patta No.144 Pattadar Pass Book No.

171269 title deed No.176066 and divided the said land into 3 residential plots and sold out to the different purchasers including plaintiffs.

2.3On 22.02.2019 the officials of defendant Municipality visited the

Schedule properties A to C and started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and demanded to verify the documents and on verification of the documents the defendant satisfied for th same and left the suit property. But surprising on 25.02.2019 the defendant came to suit properties and threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them but the plaintiffs vehemently protested and informed the defendant that plaintiffs purchased suit property for valid sale consideration having registered sale deeds in their favour and but defendnats left the place and threatened that they will come again with force and disposes the plaintiffs. Hence this suit.

3) After registering the suit, the summons were served through

Inward. but none appeared on behalf of the defendant, hence they were set exparte on 04.04.2019.

4) In support of the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.1 got examined and marked Exs. A1 to A6.

5) Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs.

6) Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

7)POINT :

4

The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiffs are the aboslute owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties A to C, having all plaintiffs purchased th same from Sri Muthyala Muthamaiah @ M.

Muthyalu, since the date of purchase plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by constructing three rooms in their respective plots and residing therein by obtaining electricity connection in the names of plaintiffs as Originally plaintiffs vendor Sri Muthyala Muthamaiah @ M. Muthyalau was the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule properties A, B and C vide Patta

No.144 Pattadar Pass Book No. 171269 title deed No.176066 and divided the said land into residential plots and sold out to the different purchasers including plaintiffs. On 22.02.2019 the officials of defendant Municipality visited the Schedule properties A to C and started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and demanded to verify the documents and on verification of the documents the defendant satisfied for th same and left the suit property. But surprisingly on 25.02.2019 the defendant came to suit properties and threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them but the plaintiffs vehemently protested and informed the defendatn that plaintiffs purchased suit property for valid sale consideration having registered sale deeds in their favour and but defendants left the place and threatened that they will come again with force and disposess the plaintiffs.

7.2 In support of the claim of the plaintiffs she got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A4. ExA1:CC of Reg. Sale

Deed doc. No. 22469/2015 dated 14-10- 2015. ExA2:CC of Regd. Sale

Deed Doc. No. 17824/2015, Dt. 26-08-2015. ExA3:Cc of Reg. Sale Deed 5 doc. No. 138787/2015, Dt. 03-07-2015. ExA4: Electricity bills. If really the plaintiffs are not the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the sale deed documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are not true and not valid, the defendants would have come on record and tried to prove the same. But in the case in hand the defendant has not tried to contest the case and prove their genuine duty though summons served through inward, but none appeared on behalf of them, hence they were wet exparte on 04.04.2019 but till the date of pronouncing the judgment they have not tried to come on record by opting setting aside the exparte order. At the same time through the

Ex.A1 to ex.A4 the plaintiffs prove that as on the date of filing of the suit plaintiffs are in unlawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. If really defendant has interfered into suit properties A to C, why the plaintiffs will knock the doors of the court by spending huge amount and valuable time. The point is answered accordingly.

11) IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant granting perpetual injunction restraining the

Defendant and its officials, agents subordinates or any person or persons acting under it from interfering with the peaceful possession enjoyment of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule A B and C properties. No costs.

Dictated to the Typist,, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 03rd day of May, 2019.

I- ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Kairamkonda Krushnaveni ---None---

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PLAINTIFF:

ExA1:CC of Reg. Sale Deed doc. No. 22469/2015 dated 14-10- 2015.

ExA2:CC of Regd. Sale Deed Doc. No. 17824/2015, Dt. 26-08- 2015

ExA3:Cc of Reg. Sale Deed doc. No. 138787/2015, Dt. 03-07- 2015.

ExA4:Electricity bills

FOR DEFENDANTS:

---NIL----

I- ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Tuesday, the 08th day of May, 2019

PRESENT : Smt. N. Hemalatha

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district

O.S NO. 797 of 2018

Between :-

1. K. Brahmeshwari, W/o. Late. Kanasanai Srinivasa Rao, Aged 44 years, Occ: House Hold, R/o. 4-325/1, Sarvodaya Nagar, Street No.2, Meerpet, Saroonagar, R. R. District, Telanaga

2. Kanasani Pavan, S/o. Late. KanasaniSrinivasa Rao, Aged 24 years, Occ: Student, R/o. 4-325/1, Sarvodaya Nagar, Street No.2, Meerpet, Saroonagar, R. R. District, Telanaga

.. Plaintiffs

AND

1. Sri. M. Ravinder, S/o. Sri. M. Upendra Chari, Aged 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 66/S, Sarvodaya Nagar, Meerpet, Saroonagar, R. R. district, Telanagana

2. All Concerned

.. Defendants

This suit coming on 04-04-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been set exparte and having perused the material papers available on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Suit is filed for declaring the Plaintiffs No.s 1 and 2 as legal heirs of Kanasanai Srinivasa Rao and the Plaintiffs herein are the joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule property.

2.The averments of the paint in brief are as follows:

Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff no.2 is the son of deceased

Kanasanai Srinivasa Rao. The Late Kanasanai Srinivasa Rao and

Defendant No. 1 had jointly purchased Plot NO. 14, admeasuring 340

Sq. Yds., in Sy. No. 74 of rest of area, situated at Nadergul Village,

Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide Doc. No. 3244 of 2 2004. dated 08-03-2004 (the same is more fully described in the schedule or property and the same is hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property) from S. Arjun. From the date of purchase of the suit schedule property, Late. K. Srinivas Rao and Defendant No. 1 have become the absolute owner and possessors of the said plot. After death of the late. K. Srinivas Rao, Plaintiff No. 1 and 2 being the legal heirs and successors of Late. Srinivas Rao inherited to the suit schedule property along with Defendant No. 1 have become the absolute joint owners and possessors of suit schedule property.

2.1Originally the suit schedule property purchased K. Srinivas Rao and Defendant No. 1 from one G. Sunitha through a registered sale deed vide No. 1095/2004 if BK. I, C.S No. 1154/2004, dated 27-01- 2004. from the date of purchase she is peaceful possession and enjoyment and same and later.

2.2The Plaintiff further submits that the schedule property is the self acquired property of the deceased K. Srinivas Rao to the extent of 110

Sq. Yds., the Plaintiff No. 1 being the wife and Plaintiff No. 2 being his son of the Late. K. Srinivas Rao they are entitled to claim the property left by Late. K. Srinivas Rao. After death of the said K. Srinivas Rao

Plaintiff herein approached Defendant No. 2 on 23-11-2018 to incorporate their names as co owners in the sale deed in respect of the schedule property by way of rectification, the Defendant No. 2 refused to oblige the request of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No. 2 denying the Plaintiffs title and ownership over the schedule property and he also denied the legal status of the Plaintiffs and directed the

Plaintiffs to furnish the legal heir certificate. Hence this suit.

3

3.After registering the suit, publication was made for D1 and defendant No.1 made no Objection. Hence D1 set Exparte..

4.The plaintiff no.1 examined himself as P.w.1 and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A5.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point before this court are :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heirs of deceased Late K. Srinivas Rao, or not?

7. Point :

As per the averments of plaint and as per the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff no.2 is the son of deceased Kanasanai Srinivasa Rao. The Late Kanasanai

Srinivasa Rao and Defendant No. 1 had jointly purchased suit schedule property, thereafter Late. K. Srinivas Rao and Defendant No. 1 is have become the absolute owner and possessors of the said plot. After death of the late. K. Srinivas Rao, Plaintiff No. 1 and 2 being the legal heirs and successors of Late. Srinivas Rao inherited to the suit schedule property along with Defendant No. 1 have become the absolute joint owners and possessors of suit schedule property.

Originallythesuitschedulepropertypurchased

K.Srinivas Rao and Defendant No. 1 from G.Sunitha through a registered sale deed vide No. 1095/2004 if BK. I, C.S No. 1154/2004,

dated 27-01-2004 and from then she is peaceful possession and

enjoyment and same and after death of the said K. Srinivas Rao

Plaintiff herein approached Defendant No. 2 on 23-11-2018 to incorporate their names as co owners in the sale deed in respect of the schedule property by way of rectification, the Defendant No. 2 refused to oblige the request of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No. 2 denying the Plaintiffs title and ownership over the schedule property 4 and he also denied the legal status of the Plaintiffs and directed the

Plaintiffs to furnish the legal heir certificate. In support of their case plaintiffs relied on Ex.A1 to A5. They are Ex.A1 is the original death certificate of Late K. Srinivas Rao, dated 29.06.2012, Ex.A2, certified copy of sale deed doc.No. 3244/2004, Ex.A3 encumbrance certificate,

Ex.A4 certified copy of Market Value certificate, Ex.A5 Attested copy of

Aadhar cards of Plaintiff No.1 and NO.2. After registering the suit though publication made against defendant NO.1 and Defendant No.2 issued no objection. In the said circumstances the evidence of PW1 and Ex. A1 to A5 are remained unshaken and unchallenged. Therefore if really the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Late. K. Srinvas Rao or suit schedule property definitely it would be questioned by any other third person. But fortunately or unfortunately non appeared and questioned the case of plaintiffs except Defendant No.2. Hence, the suit can be decreed as prayed for. Point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result suit is decreed Plaintiffs herein are the joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule property to an extent of 110 Sq.

Yds., and declaring that the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs and successors of decreased K. Srinivas Rao. Who died on 29-06-2012. in the circumstances no costs.

Typed to my direct dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of May, 2019.

I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: K. Brahmeshwari -none-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

ExA1: Original Death Certificate of Late. Srinivas Rao, dated 29- 06-2012.

ExA2:CC of Reg. Sale Deed Doc. No. 3244/2004.

ExA3:Encumbrance Certificate.

ExA4: CC of Market value certificate.

ExA5: Attested copy of Aadhar Cards of Plaintiff No. 1 and 2.

For Defendant:

- Nil -

I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

1

OS 779 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

 RANGA REDDY AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 08 th day of May, 2019

PRESENT: Smt. N. HEMALATHA

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

O.S.NO. 779 of 2018

Betweeen:­

Neelakantam, Bikshamaiah, s/o N. Rajaiah, aged 42 year,s Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o New maruthi nagar, Karmanghat, Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District…Plaintiff AND

1. Tharala Mallaiah, S/o T. Arvapally, aged 50 years, Occ: Judicial Employee, O/o Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, Nalgonda District.

2. Singagapanga Jangaiah S/o Narsimha, Aged 40 years, Occ: Judicial employee,

O/o I ADM court, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda Dist....Defendant

CLAIM: Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,70,750/­ with costs and interest.

This suit is coming before me on 07.05.2019 for final hearing in the presence of K. Madhava Reddy Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­ :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,70,750/­ from the defendant with costs and interest.

2) As per the averments of plaint, plaintiff and defendant are known to each other since long time, and there is acquaintance with each other.

Taking advantage of the same defendant approached plaintiff in the first week of October, 2016 and requested the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/­ for urgent family necessities and after repeated requests made by the defendant, 2

OS 779 OF 2018

plaintiff arranged the said amount and paid an amount of Rs.1,35,000/­ to the defendnat on 23.10.2016 on which the defendant executed a promissory note for Rs.1,35,000/­ in the presence of Y.Srisailam where as defendant No.2 stood as guarantor by promissing to repay the same with in one year along with interest @ 12 % per annum. But defendant not paid the amount as per his promise, then plaintiff personally approached the defendant and requested him to repay the said amount along with interest, but defendant postponed the matter on pretext or other. Due to which plaintiff got vexed and issued a legal notice to the defendant on 29.09.2018 which was received by the defendant but defendant not repaid the amount. The defendant is due of amounts are as follows:

a) Principal /borrowed amount­ Rs.1,35,000/­

b) interest from 23.10.2016 to 23.11.2018­Rs. 33,750/­

c) Legal notice and incidental charges­Rs. 2,000/­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ total dueRs. 1,70,750/­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Hence this suit.

3. After registering the suit, summons were served on the defendant and one Sri M. Venkataiah, Advocate filed vakalat for defendant but failed to file

Written statement. Hence defendant set exparte on 25.04.2019

4) In support of the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff Neelakantam

Bikshamaiah got examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4.

5) Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

3

OS 779 OF 2018

6) Now the point for consideration is:­

Whether the suit is liable to be decreed as prayed for or not?

7) POINT:

7.1As per the plaint and affidavit of PW1, plaintiff and defendant are known to each other since long time, and there is acquaintance with each other.

Taking advantage of the same defendant approached plaintiff in the first week of

October, 2016 and requested the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/­ for urgent family necessities and after repeated requests made by the defendant, plaintiff arranged the said amount and paid an amount of Rs.1,35,000/­ to the defendant on 23.10.2016 on which the defendant executed a promissory note for

Rs.1,35,000/­ in the presence of Y.Srisailam where as defendant No.2 stood as guarantor by promissing to repay the same with in one year along with interest @ 12 % per annum. But defendant not paid the amount as per his promise, then plaintiff personally approached the defendant and requested him to repay the said amount along with interest, but defendant postponed the matter on pretext or other. Due to which plaintiff got vexed and issued a legal notice to the defendant on 29.09.2018 which was received by the defendant but defendant not repaid the amount. In support of the case of the plaintiff, he relied on Ex.A1

Original promissory note dated 23.10.2016, ExA2 office copy of legal notice

dated 29.09.2018, Ex.A3 original postal receipt dated 01.10.2018, ExA4 postal

acknowledgement card of D2.

7.2If really defendants never approached the Plaintiff and never availed took any amount by executing promissory note under Ex.A1, they ought to have contest the suit by filing their written statement. But, unfortunately the defendants were set exparte and they have not taken any steps for setting a side 4

OS 779 OF 2018

the said order . If really there was no such transaction between the parties, why the plaintiff will approach this court by spending valuable amount and time. In the said circumstances the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are remained unchallenged and unshaken. Hence plaintiff proved his plea that the defendant has to pay Rs. 1,35,000/­ to plaintiff towards the principal amount and interest of transaction under Ex.A1. Point is answered accordingly.

8) IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs and directed the

Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,70,750/­ (Rupees One Lakh Seventy thousand Seven Hundred and fifty only ) with future interest @ 12% per annum on prioncipal amount of Rs.1,35,000/­ (Rupees one

Lakh thirty five Thousand only) from the date of the suit till the realization on

principal amount.

Typed to my dictation, by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08th day of May, 2019

I­ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY AT L.B.NAGAR.

5

OS 779 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Neelakantam BikshamaiahNIL

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PLAINTIFF: 

Ex.A1 Original promissory note dated 23.10.2016, 

ExA2 office copy of legal notice dated 29.09.2018,

 Ex.A3 original postal receipt dated 01.10.2018, 

ExA4 postal acknowledgement card of D2.

FOR DEFENDANT:

­­­NIL­­­­

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY AT L.B.NAGAR