Ms. N. Prema Latha

Page No. 1 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

MAHABUBNAGAR

PRESENT: N.PREMA LATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.18 OF 2025

Between:-

1.Manumarry Anjanamma w/o late M.Madhava Reddy, age 50 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

2.Manumarry Anjamma w/o late M.Goverdhan Reddy, age 48 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

3.Manumarry Jaipal Reddy s/o late M.Chinna Reddy, age 52 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

4.Manumarry Krishna Reddy (Died) rep. by his LRs., Petitioners No.5 to 7

5.K.Jayamma w/o Linga Reddy, age 59 yrs,

6.Manumarry Shekar Reddy s/o M.Krishna Reddy, age 53 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

7.Manumarry Narsimha Reddy s/o M.Krishna Reddy, age 48 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

All are r/o Mallepally village of (Balanagar madnal). Now Rajapur Mandal of Mahabubnagar District.

(It is therefore that the Plaintiff No.4 died recently and his death information to the knowledge after passing of order in I.A.No.279/2024, therefore, their legal heirs shown as Appellants No.5 to 7)

... Appellants/Plaintiffs

A N D

1.Gajji Mallamma w/o late Gajji Yadaiah, age 60 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

2.Gajji Venkataiah s/o late Gajji Yadaiah, age 42 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

3.Gajji Srinivas s/o late Gajji Yadaiah, age 37 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

All are r/o Rajapur village of (Balanagar Mandal). Now Rajapur Mandal of Mahabubnagar District.

4.Takkannapalli Padma w/o Takkannapali Shekhar, age 40 yrs, occ: Agriculture, r/o H.No.2-28, Yedira Mahabubnagar (Urban), Mahabubnagar District.

... Respondents/Defendants

Page No. 2 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025

Appeal Under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC against the Orders passed

by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar in

I.A.No.279 of 2024 in O.S.No.34 of 2024 dated 25-03-2025.

Between:-

1.Manumarry Anjanamma w/o late M.Madhava Reddy, age 50 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

2.Manumarry Anjamma w/o late M.Goverdhan Reddy, age 48 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

3.Manumarry Jaipal Reddy s/o late M.Chinna Reddy, age 52 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

4.Manumarry Krishna Reddy (Died) rep. by his LRs., Petitioners No.5 to 7

5.K.Jayamma w/o Linga Reddy, age 59 yrs,

6.Manumarry Shekar Reddy s/o M.Krishna Reddy, age 53 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

7.Manumarry Narsimha Reddy s/o M.Krishna Reddy, age 48 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

All are r/o Mallepally village of (Balanagar madnal). Now Rajapur Mandal of Mahabubnagar District.

(It is therefore that the Plaintiff No.4 died recently and his death information to the knowledge after passing of order in I.A.No.279/2024, therefore, their legal heirs shown as Appellants No.5 to 7)

... Petitioners/Plaintiffs

1.Gajji Mallamma w/o late Gajji Yadaiah, age 60 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

2.Gajji Venkataiah s/o late Gajji Yadaiah, age 42 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

3.Gajji Srinivas s/o late Gajji Yadaiah, age 37 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

All are r/o Rajapur village of (Balanagar Mandal). Now Rajapur Mandal of Mahabubnagar District.

4.Takkannapalli Padma w/o Takkannapali Shekhar, age 40 yrs, occ: Agriculture, r/o H.No.2-28, Yedira Mahabubnagar (Urban), Mahabubnagar District.

... Respondents/Defendants

CLAIM:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed Under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC to set-aside the orders passed by the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar in I.A.No.279 of 2024 in O.S.No.34 of 2024 dated 25-03-2025.

Page No. 3 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is coming before me on 31-3-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Ramulu, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri M.Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the Respondents, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC against the orders passed by the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge,

Mahabubnagar in I.A.No.279 of 2024 in O.S.No.34 of 2024 dated 25-03-2025. Under the said orders the petition filed by the

Petitioners/Plaintiffs for restraining the Respondents/Defendants, their associates, henchmen or any other person or persons working on their behalf from alienating, transferring, encumbrance or otherwise creating any charge in favour of the third parties over petition schedule property i.e., Land bearing Sy.No.353 admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts., situated within the limits of Rajapur Sivar and village of (Balanagar Mandal), Now

Rajapur mandal of Mahabubnagar District has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the said orders the Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed this Appeal. The

Appellants herein are the plaintiffs therein. The Respondents herein are the defendants therein.

2.The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows:

(i) The above petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for

Temporary Injunction and the main suit is filed against the defendants for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit schedule property.

Page No. 4 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025

Originally one Manumarry Narayana Reddy was the owner and possessor of agriculture land admeasuring Ac.16-22 gts., in Sy.No.343, situated within the limits of Rajapur sivar and village of (Balanagar Mandal), Now

Rajapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and he died long back living behind his two sons and two daughters namely M.Chinna Reddy,

M.Krishna Reddy, Laxmamma and Balingamma and his two daughters died. It is further submitted that the first son M.Chinna Reddy also died about 30 years back leaving behind his three sons namely M.Madhava

Reddy, M.Goverdhan Reddy and M.Jaipal Reddy and that the first son

M.Madhava Reddy died leaving behind his wife who is plaintiff

No.1/Petitioner No.1 herein, the second son M.Goverdhan Reddy also died leaving behind his wife who is plaintiff No.2/petitioner No.2 herein and that the third, son M.Jaipal Reddy is alive who is plaintiff No.3/petitioner

No.3, later second son of M.Narayana Reddy by name M.Krishna Reddy, who is the petitioner No.4 herein. That M.Narayana Reddy is cultivated the total extent of Ac.16-22 gts., in Sy.No.343 till his death. It is further submitted that after his demise, his LR's M.Chinna Reddy and M.Krishna

Reddy who is petitioner No.4 herein and his two daughters Laxmamma and Balingamma cultivated the petition schedule land and after death of

M.Chinna Reddy his three sons along with petitioner No.4 herein cultivated the petition schedule land. After death of husbands of petitioner

Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are cultivated the petition schedule land and remaining land in same survey number. It is further submitted that the petition schedule land of Ac.03-00 gts., in Sy.No.343, situated

Page No. 5 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025 within the limits of Rajapur sivar and village of (Balanagar Mandal), Now

Rajapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District is the subject matter of the suit and hereafter same will be refer to as suit land for the sake of convenience.

(ii) It is submitted that the said Chinna Reddy and his brother i.e., petitioner No.4 used to gave the petition schedule land to various persons for batai (crop share) for last more than 25 years and used to get their share of produce. Sometimes the father-in-law of petitioner Nos.1, 2 and father of the petitioner No.3 and the petitioner No.4 used to cultivate the remaining land and also the petition schedule land personally in the same Sy.No.343. The husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4 by name late Gajji Yadaiah cultivated the petition schedule land and regularly paid crop share to M.Chinna Reddy and his brother petitioner No.4 till his death, after his death, respondent Nos.1 to 3 regularly paid crop share to the petitioners. From the last three years respondent Nos.1 to 3 stopped paying crop share to the petitioners and when the petitioners demanded them to pay crop share, the respondent

Nos.1 to 3 started demanding to the petitioners to sell the petition schedule land to them and to execute registered sale deed offering very meager price, as such petitioners refused their proposal and demanded respondent Nos.1 to 3 to hand over the possession of the petition schedule land to them, for which respondent Nos.1 to 3 postponed the same on one or the other pretext. However, late husband of respondent

No.1 and late father of respondent Nos.2 to 4 by name Gajji Yadaiah,

Page No. 6 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025 managed the revenue officials and created certain illegal documents and illegally got implemented his name in revenue records without any right and title in revenue records without there being any notice to the petitioners or their ancestral. After death of Gaji Yadaiah respondent

Nos.1 to 3 mutated their names in revenue records and later respondent

No.1 intentionally executed registered sale deed bearing document

No.477 of 2024, dated 23-3-2024 in favor of respondent No.4 to the extent of Ac.00-20 gts., in Sy.No.343, as such the respondent No.4 made as party to the petition and suit.

(iii) It is further averred that, when the petitioner going to survey the petition schedule land with private surveyor the respondents not allowed to survey the land an extent of Ac.03-00 gts., in Sy.No.343 by denying the title of the petitioners and the petitioners came to know that the petition schedule land Ac.03-00 gts., in Sy.No.343 occupied by the respondents and when the petitioners verified revenue records and found that names of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have managed the revenue official and recorded their names in revenue records. Neither the ancestral of petitioners nor the petitioners ever executed any document in favor of the respondents and the respondents created certain illegal documents, managed the revenue officials and illegally got implemented in the name of late Gajji Yadaiah in revenue records and that the respondents are denying the title of petitioners and also refusing to restore the possession to the petitioners. At present, the name of respondent Nos.1 to 4 are reflecting as owners and pattadars and the

Page No. 7 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025 respondent Nos.1 to 4 are in possession of the petition schedule land by denying the title of the petitioners. When the respondent Nos.1 to 3 stopped paying crop share in the year 2021 and on 15-6-2024 the petitioners convened a panchayath before the village elders and demanded the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for restoration of possession and also cooperate for implementation of name of petitioners in revenue records, but the respondents denied the title of the petitioners and refused to restore the possession to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 taking the advantage of their names in revenue records, they are trying to alienate the petition schedule land to third parties to create multiplicity of litigation and to cause wrongful loss to the petitioners. Having no other option left to them the main suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and fled the present petition to restrain the respondents/defendants, their associates, henchmen or any other person or persons working on their behalf from alienating, transferring, encumbrance or otherwise creating any charge in favour of the third parties to avoid multiplicity of litigations, if the petition is not allowed the petitioners would be put to irreparable loss and deprived their rights over the petition schedule property. Hence, the petition.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed common counter admitting that

Manumari Narayana Reddy was the original owner and possessor of the agricultural land bearing in Sy.No.343 to the extent of Ac.16-22 gts.,

Page No. 8 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025 situated within the limits of Rajapur sivar and denied all other material averments of the petition

(i) It is further contended that the respondents specially stated that late Narayarna Reddy was the owner of the land bearing

Sy.No.343 extent Ac.16-22 gts., after his death the petition schedule land was descended to all his legal heirs, after the death of Narayana Reddy meet their family necessities son of Narayana Reddy by name Krishna

Reddy and three sons of Chenna Reddy sold away the petition schedule land to the husband of the respondent No.1 Gajji Yadaiah through registered sale deed document No.530/1982, dated 12-7-1982 by receiving sale consideration and delivered possession of the same to Gajji

Yadaiah 42 years ago and two sons of Chenna Reddy were minors and they under the guardianship of their natural mother Naga Manemma executed the above document to meet their family needs. After purchasing the same, Gajji Yadaiah implemented his name in revenue records as pattedar and cultivated the same as an absolute owner till 15-5-2000 and the same was known to everyone in the village. While so,

Gajji Yadaiah died on 15-6-2000 leaving his wife and children as his legal heirs. After death of the Gajji Yadaiah, the land was mutated in the name of respondent No.1 as a mark of respect. Later, in the year 2011 she gifted Ac.01-00 gts., land to her sons each. Accordingly, Ac:0İ-00 gts., each is in the name of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the Respondent

No.1 kept the Ac.01-00 gts., in her name. Later respondent No.1 sold out

Ac.0-20 gts., out of her Ac.01-00 gts., to respondent No.4 through sale

Page No. 9 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025 deed document No.477/2024, dated 23-3-2024 and further the respondent No.1 alienated Ac.0-20 gts., remaining land to one Burla

Anjamma w/o Burla Ramulu through sale deed document No.1071/2024

dated 25-6-2024. But the petitioners did not add Burla Anjamma as party

to the petition, as such the petition of the petitioners is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and the family of the respondents are the absolute owners and possessors of the petition schedule property and the petitioners kept silent for all these 42 years and now due to the hike in the prices of the lands with false allegations filed the present petition. It appears that the petitioners to grab money from the respondents have filed the present petition and the same is bad for non-joined of necessary parties. There is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners and balance of convenience is also not in their favour, even if injunction is not granted no irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioners. The respondents being absolute owners have every right to alienate their land to meet family needs and the petitioners have no right to seek the equitable relief of injunction against is true owners. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 documents were marked on behalf of the

Petitioner and no document were marked on behalf of the Respondent

before the trial court.

Page No. 10 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025

5.After hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar dismissed the petition.

6.Aggrieved by the same, this C.M.A is filed mainly contending as follows in the grounds of Appeal:-

The lower Court failed to appreciate that the very foundation of the suit is declaration of title cancelation of revenue entries in the name of respondents and for recovery of possession, which clearly demonstrates a cloud over the petitioners’ title that can only be adjudicated after full-fledged trial. The lower Court erroneously placed undue weight on the current possession being with the respondents, without appreciating that such possession is under serious challenge by the petitioners as being illegal and contrary to revenue records that were mutated by fraud and collusion. The lower Court failed to consider that as per law settled in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh and Gujaray Bottling

Company Limited v. Coca Cola Company for grant of temporary injunction, the Court need only be satisfied with a prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury – all of which were made out by the petitioners. The lower Court failed to note that once it is admitted that petition schedule land was previously in the name of petitioners or their ancestors, and there is a plea that names were illegally mutated without their knowledge or consent, a strong prima-facie case for injunction arises. The lower Court failed to consider the danger of

Page No. 11 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025 alienation and alteration of nature of property by the respondents during pendency of suit, which may result in multiplicity of proceedings and irreparable damage to the rights of petitioners. Hence, he pray to allow the petition by setting aside the order dated 25-03-2025 passed in

I.A.No.279/2024 in O.S.No.34/2024.

7.Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for Respondents and perused the record. Learned Counsel for Appellants filed written arguments.

8.Learned Counsel for Appellants filed following citations:- i. Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.,) vs. Baldev Dass reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 104

9. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the Appellants are entitled for setting- aside the orders under Appeal?

10. POINT:-

The petitioners filed main suit for declaration to declare them as owners and possessors of the suit land and further for recovery of possession of the same to an extent Ac.3-00 gts., in Sy.No.343 situated at Rajapur sivar, Rajapur village, Mahabubnagar District. As per the petitioners, their ancestor M.Narayana Reddy was the owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.16-22 gts., in

Sy.No.343 situated at Rajapur village and after his death his two sons

M.Chinna Reddy and M.Krishna Reddy inherited the same and they used

Page No. 12 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025 to give the suit land to various persons on crop share basis for the last more than 25 years. As per the petitioners, they gave suit land on lease to one Gajji Yadaiah, who used to pay the crop share to the petitioners and after his death respondents used to pay the crop share till three years ago. Later respondents stopped payment of crop share and also when the petitioner went to survey the suit land, the respondents have not allowed the same, as such the petitioners verified the revenue records and came to know that the name of Gajji Yadaiah was reflected in revenue records as pattedar and possessor in respect of the suit land and after his death, names of respondents were being reflected. According to the petitioners, respondents have illegally got mutated the suit land in their favour and denying the title of the petitioners over the same.

11. To prove his contention, the petitioners filed and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 are Chessala pahani and pahanies for the years 1960-61, 1963-64, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1971-72, 1976-77 and Old

ROR wherein the name of M.Narayana Reddy ancestor of the petitioner and also the names of his family members including the petitioners were shown as pattedars and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.16-22 gts., in Sy.No.343. However, Ex.P9/New ROR was reflecting the name of Gajji

Yadaiah to an extent of Ac.3-00 gts., in Sy.No.343 and nature of acquiring the land is shown as through registered sale deed bearing document No.530/1982 dt.12-7-1982 and remaining documents viz.,

Ex.P10 to Ex.P19 which are also revenue records reflecting the name of

Page No. 13 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025

Gajji Yadaiah and later the names of Respondents No.1 to 4 for the said extent of Ac.3-00 gts., only. The documents filed by the petitioners themselves reflected the names of respondents in respect of the suit land.

12. Contention of the petitioners is that Gajji Yadaiah managed the revenue authorities and got entered his name and after his death names of respondents also entered by managing the revenue officials. Specific contention of the respondents in this regard is that they have purchased the suit land from the sons of M.Narayana Reddy through registered sale deed in the year 1982 itself. It is also pertinent to note here that the petitioners filed main suit for declaration to declare them as owner and possessors of the suit land and for recovery of possession of the same. Whether the petitioners have sold the suit land to Gajji Yadaiah through registered sale deed or not, whether the respondents have illegally mutated their names in the revenue records are the issues to be decided at the time of trial. The documents of the petitioners themselves reflecting the names of Gajji Yadaiah and other respondents in respect of the suit land from the year 1982 which prima-facie supports the case of the respondents, but not the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners failed to show the prima-facie case, balance of convenience is also in favour of the respondents, as such granting the relief of Temporary Injunction does not arise. Learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar has rightly discussed all the aspects and rightly dismissed the petition. This Court do not find

Page No. 14 of 14 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.18 of 2025 any irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the trial Court. Point is answered accordingly.

13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed by confirming the orders of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar in

I.A.No.279 of 2024 in O.S.No.34 of 2024 dated 25-03-2025.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Digitally signed by NUKALA

NUKALAPREMALATHA

PREMALATHADate: 2026.04.29 18:49:25 +0530

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL- Digitally signed by NUKALA

PREMALATHA

NUKALA Date:

PREMALATHA

2026.04.29 18:49:12 +0530

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Page No. 1 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

MAHABUBNAGAR

PRESENT: N.PREMA LATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.17 OF 2025

Between:-

Mallu Rajitha w/o Mallu Hanumanth Reddy, age 55 yrs, occ: Agriculture and Housewife, r/o H.No.3-4-142/7, Flat No.303, Goutam Apartments, Barkatpura, Near Chaman, Hyderabad, permanent resident of Janampeta village of Moosapet mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

... Appellant

A N D

1.Anpati Venkatamma w/o late Pedda Bheemaiah, age 65 yrs, occ: Housewife,

2.Anpati Sayanna s/o Karrenna, age 72 yrs, occ: Retired Employee,

3.Anpati Srinivasulu s/o late Venkataiah, age 47 yrs, occ: Private Employee,

All r/o H.No.10-04-95/2, Yenugonda Revenue Ward, Mahabubnagar Town and District.

... Respondents

Appeal Under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC against the Orders

passed by the learned III-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

in I.A.No.95 of 2025 in O.S.No.144 of 2025 dated 10-7-2025.

Between:-

1.Anpati Venkatamma w/o late Pedda Bheemaiah, age 65 yrs, occ: Housewife,

2.Anpati Sayanna s/o Karrenna, age 72 yrs, occ: Retired Employee,

3.Anpati Srinivasulu s/o late Venkataiah, age 47 yrs, occ: Private Employee,

All r/o H.No.10-04-95/2, Yenugonda Revenue Ward, Mahabubnagar Town and District.

... Petitioners/Plaintiffs

A N D Mallu Rajitha w/o Mallu Hanumanth Reddy, age 55 yrs, occ: Agriculture and Housewife, r/o H.No.3-4-142/7, Flat No.303, Goutam Apartments, Barkatpura, Near Chaman, Hyderabad, permanent resident of Janampeta village of Moosapet mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

... Respondent/Defendant

Page No. 2 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

CLAIM:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed Under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC to set-aside the orders passed by the learned III-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar in I.A.No.95 of 2025 in O.S.No.144 of 2025 dated 10-7-2025.

@@@

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is coming before me on 5-3-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Pratap Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K.N.Sai Kumar, Sri B.Srikanth, Smt C.Sabitha and Sri A.Anjaneyulu, Advocates for the Respondents, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC against the orders passed by the learned III-Addl.Junior Civil

Judge, Mahabubnagar in I.A.No.95 of 2025 in O.S.No.144 of 2025 dated

10-7-2025. Under the said orders the petition filed by the

Petitioners/Plaintiffs for restraining the Respondent/Defendant, her men, assignees, agents and persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs over petition schedule property i.e., All that part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.22/U extent Ac.0-16 gts., out of the total extent of

Ac.0-17 gts., the land situated at Yenugonda Revenue Shivar,

Mahabubnagar Urban mandal and District has been allowed. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Respondent/Defendant filed this Appeal. The

Appellant herein is the Defendant therein. The Respondents herein are the

Plaintiffs therein.

2.The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows:

Page No. 3 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

(i) It is submitted that the husband of plaintiff No.1 and his brothers jointly purchased land situated in Survey No.22 Part-U, to an extent of Ac.0-22 gts., through Registered Sale Deed Document

No.2876/1987 dated 23-12-1987, their names were mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently, a portion of Ac.0-05 gts., was sold to one

Anantha Reddy for family needs. After the death of the original owners, through an oral family settlement, the remaining land was divided among the legal heirs in the year 2016. Plaintiff No.1 was allotted Ac.0-06 gts.,

Plaintiff No.2 was allotted Ac.0-05 gts., and Plaintiff No.3 was allotted

Ac. 0-05 gts. These extents were recognized under NALA conversion proceedings by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar (File

No.Q/117 12/2016), confirming their ownership and possession. Thus,

Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 jointly possessed and owned a total extent of

Ac.0-16 gts., in the said survey number.

(ii) It is further submitted that on 24-11-2024 and again on 3-5-2025, during the absence of plaintiff No.1 from the property, the defendant along with antisocial elements trespassed into the land and disturbed the possession of the plaintiffs by displacing boundary stones.

This incident was informed to the plaintiffs by neighbours. Upon confrontation, the defendant threatened to return with force and dispossess the plaintiffs. On enquiry, it was found that the defendant relying on a registered sale deed document No.1232/2002 dated 28-3-2002 allegedly executed by one Chenamma w/o Mogulaiah. It was revealed that said Chenamma had already relinquished her rights in

Page No. 4 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 favour of Ayyangari Prabhakar Reddy through a Registered

Relinquishment Deed Document No.3144/2001 dated 28-8-2001 and hence had no remaining title to transfer. The defendant's document is misrepresentation of boundaries.

(iii) It is further submitted that the plaintiffs submitted a representation to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar on 20-11-2024.

After examining the documents and revenue records, the Collector advised the plaintiffs to seek legal remedy through Civil Court, as per

Communication in File No. Rev/D1/ROR/Genl/0004/2025 dated 26-4-2025. The plaintiffs asserted that they are in lawful possession of the suit land and that they have a prima-facie case in their favour. They contended that the balance of convenience is also in their favour and that they will suffer irreparable loss and injury, if the defendant is not restrained. The plaintiffs’ claim is that the defendant is a stranger to the property and is attempting to interfere without any legal title or right.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs pray to grant Temporary Injunction against defendant. Hence, the petition.

3. Respondent filed their counter and specifically denied the assertions made in Paragraph 1 of the petition, including the alleged purchase, alienation, partition, conversion to non-agricultural use, and ownership of the land by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the incidents dated 24-11-2024 and 3-5-2025 have been fabricated solely for purpose of creating a cause of action and initiating the present proceedings. The allegations of interference and threats are denied as

Page No. 5 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 vague, baseless, and without any substantiating material. The incident, as narrated by the plaintiffs, never occurred, and the entire narrative is fabricated with intent to malign and harass the respondent. The respondent further denied the validity and legal effect of the so-called relinquishment deed document No.3144/2001 dated 28-8-2001 allegedly executed by her vendor/Chennamma. It is submitted that Chennamma had validly executed a registered sale deed document No.1232/2002

dated 28-3-2002 in favour of the respondent under which she conveyed

the suit schedule land. The respondent stated that she verified all title documents and obtained an Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 1-1-1996 to 13-5-2025 prior to purchase, and the said Encumbrance

Certificate does not reflect any relinquishment deed. The absence of the alleged relinquishment deed in the Encumbrance Certificate casts serious doubt on its authenticity and enforceability. The respondent, being a bonafide purchaser, relied upon the Encumbrance Certificate and public records and acted in good faith in acquiring the said land.

(ii) The respondent further contended that even if the relinquishment deed exists, the person in whose favour it was allegedly executed namely Ayyangari Prabhakar Reddy, has neither asserted any right nor been impleaded as a party to the suit. The failure of

PrabhakarReddy to raise any objection or take any legal action undermines the petitioners' claims. As such, the petitioners, who are not direct beneficiaries under the relinquishment deed, lack the locus standi to initiate the present suit for injunction. The appropriate party to assert

Page No. 6 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 such a right is the person in whose favour the alleged relinquishment was made. The respondent asserted that she is the lawful owner possessor of the property under a validly executed and registered sale and deed dated 28-3-2002. The said sale deed is backed by revenue and registration records, and the respondent's name has been duly entered into the revenue records following proper procedure. This substantiates her legal title and uninterrupted possession over the property. It is reiterated that the respondent has never interfered with any land allegedly belonging to the petitioners, and in fact, the petitioners do not possess the land claimed by them. The suit schedule property overlaps with the land legally owned and possessed by the respondent. The claim made by the petitioners is false, fabricated, and filed without lawful basis. The legal requirement for an injunction-lawful possession and actual threat-is not fulfilled in this case, as such the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of ingredients necessary to claim permanent injunction. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. No documents were marked on behalf of the Petitioners and no documents were marked on behalf of the Respondent before the trial

Court.

5.After hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, the learned III-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar allowed the petition.

Page No. 7 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

6.Aggrieved by the same, this C.M.A is filed mainly contending as follows in the grounds of Appeal:-

The lower Court failed to appreciate the documents filed by the appellant and passed the order under appeal on pure assumptions and presumptions. The lower Court has not looked into the documents filed by the appellant and came to wrong conclusion and allowed the petition. The lower Court failed to consider that the respondents on one side pleading that they have partitioned the land and they got their independent share and the revenue officials have issued separate pass books to them, but the respondents have not shown their separate extents with specific boundaries and not paid the court fee separately.

This itself clearly proves that the respondents are not in possession of the suit land as they contend. Moreover the revenue records of respondents clearly shows that the individual extents of respondents are converted into house plots, but the lower court by ignoring the said fact, allowed the petition under appeal. The lower Court has not at all considered the documents filed by the appellant more particularly the panchanama conducted by the surveyor in the presence of witnesses. The lower Court has not considered said important documents and given much weight to the alleged relinquishment deed said to be executed by the vendor of the appellant in favour of her joint purchaser. The lower Court has not considered that the said alleged relinquishment deed is not at all executed by the vendor of the appellant and is a created document as such the beneficiary of said document has not implemented the same in revenue

Page No. 8 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 records since long time. Hence, he pray to allow the petition by setting aside the order dated 10-7-2025 passed in I.A.No.95/2025 in

O.S.No.144/2025.

7.Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the Appellant and

Respondents and perused the record.

8.Learned Counsel for Appellant filed following citations:- i. T.Bhopal Reddy and Another vs. K.R.Lakshmi Bai and Another reported in 1998 (1) ALD 770 (DB) ii. R.Parijatham and another vs. M.Kameshwari and others reported in2017 (5) ALD 348 (DB) iii. Chernam Chinna Balmasiah and three others vs. State Teachers Union Telangana State, rep. by its State President, B.Bhujanga Rao, aged 56 yrs, occ: Teacher, r/o H.No.3-2-798, S.T.U.Bhavan, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500027in Civil Revision Petition No.1234 of 2020 dated 28-7-2025

9. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the Appellant is entitled for setting- aside the orders under Appeal?

10. POINT:-

Contention of the petitioners is that husband of petitioner

No.1 and his brothers jointly purchased land in Sy.No.22/U admeasuring

Ac.0-22 gts., through registered sale deed bearing document

No.2876/1987 and their names were also entered in the revenue records.

Subsequently, they sold out Ac.0-05 gts., out of the above extent to one

Anantha Reddy and the remaining land was divided among the family

Page No. 9 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 members wherein the petitioner No.1 was allotted Ac.0-06 gts., while the petitioners No.2 and 3 were allotted Ac.0-05 gts., each and Revenue

Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar has also issued NALA conversion proceeding confirming the ownership of the petitioners over the said extent. As per petitioners, on 24-11-2024 and again on 3-5-2025 respondent along with her supporters trespassed into the petitioners’ land and tried to disturb the possession by removing the boundary stones and the same was resisted by the petitioners. Subsequently the petitioners came to know that respondent based on the registered sale deed bearing document No.1232/2002 dated 28-3-2002 executed by one Chennamma is claiming right over the suit land. It is the contention of petitioners that said Chennamma already relinquished her rights of her land in favour of one Ayyangari Prabhakar Reddy through registered Relinquishment Deed bearing document No.3144/2001 dated 28-8-2001 and she has no right to transfer any land in favour of the respondent.

11. On the other hand, respondent denied and questioned the validity of alleged Relinquishment Deed said to have been executed by her vendor Chennamma and further contended that at the time of purchase of the land, respondent verified the Encumbrance Certificate of the land where no such Relinquishment Deed is mentioned and further even if such Relinquishment Deed exists, then the beneficiary under the said deed namely Ayyangari Prabhakar Reddy ought to have been added as party to the suit. Respondent asserted that she never interfered with the suit land at any point of time.

Page No. 10 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

12.Learned trial Judge while deciding the petition at Para No.V at

Page No.8 of the impugned order stated that the respondent placed reliance on the registered sale deed bearing document mentioned as 1232/2002 under which she purchased the land from Chenamma in

Sy.No.22/AA with an extent Ac.0-30 gts., and this fact, revealed through the respondent’s own pleading and documentation, is crucial to the outcome of this petition. Learned trial Judge further observed that the suit schedule land claimed by the plaintiffs is in Sy.No.22U, to an extent of

Ac.0-16 gts., which is entirely different from the land described in the respondent’s sale deed, the respondent has neither filed nor claimed any document relating to Sy.No.22U, nor shown that 22U and 22/AA are part of the same layout, sub-division, or contiguous tracts and she has also not explained how or why she entered Sy.No.22U despite owning land in 22/AA.

13. Learned trial Judge also mentioned at Para No.VII at Page

No.9 and stated that regarding the petitioners’ possession, their claim is supported by (i) the original purchase by their predecessors, (ii) family partition, (iii) recognition by the Revenue Divisional Officer under NALA proceedings, and (iv) absence of any rival claim to Sy.No.22U except by the defendant, who has no connection to that land.

14. The above observation of the learned trial Judge goes to show that he perused the documents filed by the parties, but the same were not exhibited/marked while deciding the application. Learned Counsel for

Page No. 11 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 the respondent vehemently argued that the trial Court has not marked any document on both sides, but stated that no document filed by the respondent. Learned Counsel further argued that non-marking of the documents in an Interlocutory Application vitiates the order itself. Learned

Counsel relied upon a decision of our Hon’ble High Court inChernam

Chinna Balmasiah and three others vs. State Teachers Union

Telangana State, rep. by its State President, B.Bhujanga Rao, aged

56 yrs, occ: Teacher, r/o H.No.3-2-798, S.T.U.Bhavan, Kachiguda,

Hyderabad-500027 in Civil Revision Petition No.1234 of 2020

dated 28-7-2025 wherein it was held that the Courts while dealing with

the Interlocutory Applications, must mark the documents by strictly adhering to the Rule 51 r/w Rule 60 of Civil Rules of Practice failing which such order stands vitiated.

15. Coming to the present case, though documents were not marked by the trial Court, but during the course of arguments learned

Counsel for the petitioner filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of

CPC to receive the document on his behalf in the present CMA in support of his version. Considering the rival contentions of the parties with regard to the petition schedule property and in order to give opportunity even to the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for dealing the matter afresh by giving opportunity to both the parties to file the documents if any and mark the same while deciding the petition. Point is answered accordingly.

Page No. 12 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is remanded back to the Court of III-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. Learned

III-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar shall hear the matter afresh and receive the documents if any filed by both the parties and dispose of the petition by strictly following the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble High

Court in the above decision expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this Order. Meanwhile there shall be status-quo over the petition schedule property till the disposal of the above petition.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

Digitally signed by

NUKALANUKALA

PREMALATHA

PREMALATHA

Date: 2026.04.30

19:15:59 +0530

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL- Digitally signed by NUKALA NUKALA

PREMALATHA

PREMALATHA

Date: 2026.04.30

19:16:15 +0530

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Page No. 1 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

MAHABUBNAGAR

PRESENT: N.PREMA LATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.17 OF 2025

Between:-

Mallu Rajitha w/o Mallu Hanumanth Reddy, age 55 yrs, occ: Agriculture and Housewife, r/o H.No.3-4-142/7, Flat No.303, Goutam Apartments, Barkatpura, Near Chaman, Hyderabad, permanent resident of Janampeta village of Moosapet mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

... Appellant

A N D

1.Anpati Venkatamma w/o late Pedda Bheemaiah, age 65 yrs, occ: Housewife,

2.Anpati Sayanna s/o Karrenna, age 72 yrs, occ: Retired Employee,

3.Anpati Srinivasulu s/o late Venkataiah, age 47 yrs, occ: Private Employee,

All r/o H.No.10-04-95/2, Yenugonda Revenue Ward, Mahabubnagar Town and District.

... Respondents

Appeal Under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC against the Orders

passed by the learned III-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

in I.A.No.95 of 2025 in O.S.No.144 of 2025 dated 10-7-2025.

Between:-

1.Anpati Venkatamma w/o late Pedda Bheemaiah, age 65 yrs, occ: Housewife,

2.Anpati Sayanna s/o Karrenna, age 72 yrs, occ: Retired Employee,

3.Anpati Srinivasulu s/o late Venkataiah, age 47 yrs, occ: Private Employee,

All r/o H.No.10-04-95/2, Yenugonda Revenue Ward, Mahabubnagar Town and District.

... Petitioners/Plaintiffs

A N D Mallu Rajitha w/o Mallu Hanumanth Reddy, age 55 yrs, occ: Agriculture and Housewife, r/o H.No.3-4-142/7, Flat No.303, Goutam Apartments, Barkatpura, Near Chaman, Hyderabad, permanent resident of Janampeta village of Moosapet mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

... Respondent/Defendant

Page No. 2 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

CLAIM:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed Under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC to set-aside the orders passed by the learned III-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar in I.A.No.95 of 2025 in O.S.No.144 of 2025 dated 10-7-2025.

@@@

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is coming before me on 5-3-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Pratap Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K.N.Sai Kumar, Sri B.Srikanth, Smt C.Sabitha and Sri A.Anjaneyulu, Advocates for the Respondents, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC against the orders passed by the learned III-Addl.Junior Civil

Judge, Mahabubnagar in I.A.No.95 of 2025 in O.S.No.144 of 2025 dated

10-7-2025. Under the said orders the petition filed by the

Petitioners/Plaintiffs for restraining the Respondent/Defendant, her men, assignees, agents and persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs over petition schedule property i.e., All that part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.22/U extent Ac.0-16 gts., out of the total extent of

Ac.0-17 gts., the land situated at Yenugonda Revenue Shivar,

Mahabubnagar Urban mandal and District has been allowed. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Respondent/Defendant filed this Appeal. The

Appellant herein is the Defendant therein. The Respondents herein are the

Plaintiffs therein.

2.The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows:

Page No. 3 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

(i) It is submitted that the husband of plaintiff No.1 and his brothers jointly purchased land situated in Survey No.22 Part-U, to an extent of Ac.0-22 gts., through Registered Sale Deed Document

No.2876/1987 dated 23-12-1987, their names were mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently, a portion of Ac.0-05 gts., was sold to one

Anantha Reddy for family needs. After the death of the original owners, through an oral family settlement, the remaining land was divided among the legal heirs in the year 2016. Plaintiff No.1 was allotted Ac.0-06 gts.,

Plaintiff No.2 was allotted Ac.0-05 gts., and Plaintiff No.3 was allotted

Ac. 0-05 gts. These extents were recognized under NALA conversion proceedings by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar (File

No.Q/117 12/2016), confirming their ownership and possession. Thus,

Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 jointly possessed and owned a total extent of

Ac.0-16 gts., in the said survey number.

(ii) It is further submitted that on 24-11-2024 and again on 3-5-2025, during the absence of plaintiff No.1 from the property, the defendant along with antisocial elements trespassed into the land and disturbed the possession of the plaintiffs by displacing boundary stones.

This incident was informed to the plaintiffs by neighbours. Upon confrontation, the defendant threatened to return with force and dispossess the plaintiffs. On enquiry, it was found that the defendant relying on a registered sale deed document No.1232/2002 dated 28-3-2002 allegedly executed by one Chenamma w/o Mogulaiah. It was revealed that said Chenamma had already relinquished her rights in

Page No. 4 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 favour of Ayyangari Prabhakar Reddy through a Registered

Relinquishment Deed Document No.3144/2001 dated 28-8-2001 and hence had no remaining title to transfer. The defendant's document is misrepresentation of boundaries.

(iii) It is further submitted that the plaintiffs submitted a representation to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar on 20-11-2024.

After examining the documents and revenue records, the Collector advised the plaintiffs to seek legal remedy through Civil Court, as per

Communication in File No. Rev/D1/ROR/Genl/0004/2025 dated 26-4-2025. The plaintiffs asserted that they are in lawful possession of the suit land and that they have a prima-facie case in their favour. They contended that the balance of convenience is also in their favour and that they will suffer irreparable loss and injury, if the defendant is not restrained. The plaintiffs’ claim is that the defendant is a stranger to the property and is attempting to interfere without any legal title or right.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs pray to grant Temporary Injunction against defendant. Hence, the petition.

3. Respondent filed their counter and specifically denied the assertions made in Paragraph 1 of the petition, including the alleged purchase, alienation, partition, conversion to non-agricultural use, and ownership of the land by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the incidents dated 24-11-2024 and 3-5-2025 have been fabricated solely for purpose of creating a cause of action and initiating the present proceedings. The allegations of interference and threats are denied as

Page No. 5 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 vague, baseless, and without any substantiating material. The incident, as narrated by the plaintiffs, never occurred, and the entire narrative is fabricated with intent to malign and harass the respondent. The respondent further denied the validity and legal effect of the so-called relinquishment deed document No.3144/2001 dated 28-8-2001 allegedly executed by her vendor/Chennamma. It is submitted that Chennamma had validly executed a registered sale deed document No.1232/2002

dated 28-3-2002 in favour of the respondent under which she conveyed

the suit schedule land. The respondent stated that she verified all title documents and obtained an Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 1-1-1996 to 13-5-2025 prior to purchase, and the said Encumbrance

Certificate does not reflect any relinquishment deed. The absence of the alleged relinquishment deed in the Encumbrance Certificate casts serious doubt on its authenticity and enforceability. The respondent, being a bonafide purchaser, relied upon the Encumbrance Certificate and public records and acted in good faith in acquiring the said land.

(ii) The respondent further contended that even if the relinquishment deed exists, the person in whose favour it was allegedly executed namely Ayyangari Prabhakar Reddy, has neither asserted any right nor been impleaded as a party to the suit. The failure of

PrabhakarReddy to raise any objection or take any legal action undermines the petitioners' claims. As such, the petitioners, who are not direct beneficiaries under the relinquishment deed, lack the locus standi to initiate the present suit for injunction. The appropriate party to assert

Page No. 6 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 such a right is the person in whose favour the alleged relinquishment was made. The respondent asserted that she is the lawful owner possessor of the property under a validly executed and registered sale and deed dated 28-3-2002. The said sale deed is backed by revenue and registration records, and the respondent's name has been duly entered into the revenue records following proper procedure. This substantiates her legal title and uninterrupted possession over the property. It is reiterated that the respondent has never interfered with any land allegedly belonging to the petitioners, and in fact, the petitioners do not possess the land claimed by them. The suit schedule property overlaps with the land legally owned and possessed by the respondent. The claim made by the petitioners is false, fabricated, and filed without lawful basis. The legal requirement for an injunction-lawful possession and actual threat-is not fulfilled in this case, as such the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of ingredients necessary to claim permanent injunction. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. No documents were marked on behalf of the Petitioners and no documents were marked on behalf of the Respondent before the trial

Court.

5.After hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, the learned III-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar allowed the petition.

Page No. 7 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

6.Aggrieved by the same, this C.M.A is filed mainly contending as follows in the grounds of Appeal:-

The lower Court failed to appreciate the documents filed by the appellant and passed the order under appeal on pure assumptions and presumptions. The lower Court has not looked into the documents filed by the appellant and came to wrong conclusion and allowed the petition. The lower Court failed to consider that the respondents on one side pleading that they have partitioned the land and they got their independent share and the revenue officials have issued separate pass books to them, but the respondents have not shown their separate extents with specific boundaries and not paid the court fee separately.

This itself clearly proves that the respondents are not in possession of the suit land as they contend. Moreover the revenue records of respondents clearly shows that the individual extents of respondents are converted into house plots, but the lower court by ignoring the said fact, allowed the petition under appeal. The lower Court has not at all considered the documents filed by the appellant more particularly the panchanama conducted by the surveyor in the presence of witnesses. The lower Court has not considered said important documents and given much weight to the alleged relinquishment deed said to be executed by the vendor of the appellant in favour of her joint purchaser. The lower Court has not considered that the said alleged relinquishment deed is not at all executed by the vendor of the appellant and is a created document as such the beneficiary of said document has not implemented the same in revenue

Page No. 8 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 records since long time. Hence, he pray to allow the petition by setting aside the order dated 10-7-2025 passed in I.A.No.95/2025 in

O.S.No.144/2025.

7.Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the Appellant and

Respondents and perused the record.

8.Learned Counsel for Appellant filed following citations:- i. T.Bhopal Reddy and Another vs. K.R.Lakshmi Bai and Another reported in 1998 (1) ALD 770 (DB) ii. R.Parijatham and another vs. M.Kameshwari and others reported in2017 (5) ALD 348 (DB) iii. Chernam Chinna Balmasiah and three others vs. State Teachers Union Telangana State, rep. by its State President, B.Bhujanga Rao, aged 56 yrs, occ: Teacher, r/o H.No.3-2-798, S.T.U.Bhavan, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500027in Civil Revision Petition No.1234 of 2020 dated 28-7-2025

9. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the Appellant is entitled for setting- aside the orders under Appeal?

10. POINT:-

Contention of the petitioners is that husband of petitioner

No.1 and his brothers jointly purchased land in Sy.No.22/U admeasuring

Ac.0-22 gts., through registered sale deed bearing document

No.2876/1987 and their names were also entered in the revenue records.

Subsequently, they sold out Ac.0-05 gts., out of the above extent to one

Anantha Reddy and the remaining land was divided among the family

Page No. 9 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 members wherein the petitioner No.1 was allotted Ac.0-06 gts., while the petitioners No.2 and 3 were allotted Ac.0-05 gts., each and Revenue

Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar has also issued NALA conversion proceeding confirming the ownership of the petitioners over the said extent. As per petitioners, on 24-11-2024 and again on 3-5-2025 respondent along with her supporters trespassed into the petitioners’ land and tried to disturb the possession by removing the boundary stones and the same was resisted by the petitioners. Subsequently the petitioners came to know that respondent based on the registered sale deed bearing document No.1232/2002 dated 28-3-2002 executed by one Chennamma is claiming right over the suit land. It is the contention of petitioners that said Chennamma already relinquished her rights of her land in favour of one Ayyangari Prabhakar Reddy through registered Relinquishment Deed bearing document No.3144/2001 dated 28-8-2001 and she has no right to transfer any land in favour of the respondent.

11. On the other hand, respondent denied and questioned the validity of alleged Relinquishment Deed said to have been executed by her vendor Chennamma and further contended that at the time of purchase of the land, respondent verified the Encumbrance Certificate of the land where no such Relinquishment Deed is mentioned and further even if such Relinquishment Deed exists, then the beneficiary under the said deed namely Ayyangari Prabhakar Reddy ought to have been added as party to the suit. Respondent asserted that she never interfered with the suit land at any point of time.

Page No. 10 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

12.Learned trial Judge while deciding the petition at Para No.V at

Page No.8 of the impugned order stated that the respondent placed reliance on the registered sale deed bearing document mentioned as 1232/2002 under which she purchased the land from Chenamma in

Sy.No.22/AA with an extent Ac.0-30 gts., and this fact, revealed through the respondent’s own pleading and documentation, is crucial to the outcome of this petition. Learned trial Judge further observed that the suit schedule land claimed by the plaintiffs is in Sy.No.22U, to an extent of

Ac.0-16 gts., which is entirely different from the land described in the respondent’s sale deed, the respondent has neither filed nor claimed any document relating to Sy.No.22U, nor shown that 22U and 22/AA are part of the same layout, sub-division, or contiguous tracts and she has also not explained how or why she entered Sy.No.22U despite owning land in 22/AA.

13. Learned trial Judge also mentioned at Para No.VII at Page

No.9 and stated that regarding the petitioners’ possession, their claim is supported by (i) the original purchase by their predecessors, (ii) family partition, (iii) recognition by the Revenue Divisional Officer under NALA proceedings, and (iv) absence of any rival claim to Sy.No.22U except by the defendant, who has no connection to that land.

14. The above observation of the learned trial Judge goes to show that he perused the documents filed by the parties, but the same were not exhibited/marked while deciding the application. Learned Counsel for

Page No. 11 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025 the respondent vehemently argued that the trial Court has not marked any document on both sides, but stated that no document filed by the respondent. Learned Counsel further argued that non-marking of the documents in an Interlocutory Application vitiates the order itself. Learned

Counsel relied upon a decision of our Hon’ble High Court inChernam

Chinna Balmasiah and three others vs. State Teachers Union

Telangana State, rep. by its State President, B.Bhujanga Rao, aged

56 yrs, occ: Teacher, r/o H.No.3-2-798, S.T.U.Bhavan, Kachiguda,

Hyderabad-500027 in Civil Revision Petition No.1234 of 2020

dated 28-7-2025 wherein it was held that the Courts while dealing with

the Interlocutory Applications, must mark the documents by strictly adhering to the Rule 51 r/w Rule 60 of Civil Rules of Practice failing which such order stands vitiated.

15. Coming to the present case, though documents were not marked by the trial Court, but during the course of arguments learned

Counsel for the petitioner filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of

CPC to receive the document on his behalf in the present CMA in support of his version. Considering the rival contentions of the parties with regard to the petition schedule property and in order to give opportunity even to the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for dealing the matter afresh by giving opportunity to both the parties to file the documents if any and mark the same while deciding the petition. Point is answered accordingly.

Page No. 12 of 12 Pages. Orders in CMA.No.17 of 2025

16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is remanded back to the Court of III-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. Learned

III-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar shall hear the matter afresh and receive the documents if any filed by both the parties and dispose of the petition by strictly following the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble High

Court in the above decision expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this Order. Meanwhile there shall be status-quo over the petition schedule property till the disposal of the above petition.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

Digitally signed by

NUKALANUKALA

PREMALATHA

PREMALATHA

Date: 2026.04.30

19:15:59 +0530

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL- Digitally signed by NUKALA NUKALA

PREMALATHA

PREMALATHA

Date: 2026.04.30

19:16:15 +0530

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Page 1 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

MAHABUBNAGAR.

PRESENT: N.PREMA LATHA,

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026

M.V.O.P.NO.224 OF 2023

Between:-

1.Renivatla Ananthaiah @ Dormi Ananthaiah s/o Bhagavanthaiah, age 62 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

2.Renivatla Krishnaiah @ Dormi Krishnaiah s/o Renivatla Ananthaiah @ Dormi Ananthaiah, age 30 yrs, occ: Agriculture,

Both are r/o Masaipally village of Kosgi mandal, Presently residing at H.No.1-2-151/A, Padmavathi Colony, Mahabubnagar.

... Petitioners

A N D

1. Itikyala Kashinath @ Etukala Kashinath s/o Sayappa @ Sayanna, age 25 yrs, occ: Driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing No.TS-06-UB-7906, r/o Nidjintha village of Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District.

2. Golla Anjaneyulu s/o Golla Barappa, age: Not Known, but Major, occ: Owner of Bolero vehicle bearing No.TS-06-UB-7906, r/o H.No.1-13, Mannapur village of Maddur mandal, Narayanpet District. … Respondents

This petition coming before me on 16-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Harichandra Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri Anantha Reddy and Sri P.Veera Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 and 2, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 R/W Rule 476 of M.V.Rules claiming compensation of

Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) on account of death of

R.Venkatamma in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13-12-2022.

Page 2 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023

2. The averments of the petition are as follows:-

The Claim Petitioner No.1 is the husband and Claim Petitioner

No.2 is the son of the deceased/R.Venkatamma. On 13-12-2022 at about 1830 hours the deceased was proceeding from her agriculture land i.e., in-front of Balaji Rice Mill to her Masaipally village, at that time one Bolero vehicle bearing No.TS-06-UB-7906, came from Kosgi side, being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained bleeding injures to left hand, fingers of right hand and head. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment, but the deceased died on 23-12-2022 at about 2200 hours while undergoing treatment. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero vehicle bearing No.TS-06-UB-7906 by respondent No.1.

3.On receipt of the report, Kosgi P.S. registered a case in Crime

No.263 of 2022 under Section 337 of IPC against the Respondent No.1 and took up the investigation.

4.The deceased was aged 55 years at the time of her death and was hale and healthy. At the time of accident, the deceased was doing agriculture and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month and used to contribute the same for the welfare of the petitioners. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners have suffered with great mental

Page 3 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023 shock and agony and petitioners No.1 and 2 lost love and affection of the deceased and no person is there to look after the welfare of the petitioners. Due to untimely death of the deceased and considering her age and income, the claim petitioners No.1 and 2 claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

5.The respondent No.1 is the driver and respondent No.2 is the owner of the crime vehicle. Therefore, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

6.Respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter, denying the manner of accident, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was further contended that the Respondent No.1 was driving the said Bolero in careful and cautious manner by adhering to all traffic rules and regulations. it is further contended that the accident if any occurred due to the negligence of the deceased alone and the police falsely implicated the crime vehicle.

It is further submitted that on the date of accident, the deceased was negligently moving on the road without observing the vehicles and she herself came on to the road and contributed to the accident, however there is no negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1/Driver of the crime vehicle and that the claim is excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7.Basing on the above pleadings, the following Issues were settled for trial:-

Page 4 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023

i) Whether the death of the deceased occurred in the motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

8.During the course of trial, on behalf of the claim petitioners,

PW1 and PW2 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. On behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 no witness was examined and no document was marked.

9.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

10. ISSUE NO.1:-

As per the evidence of PW1 who is the claim petitioner No.1, the accident occurred on 13-12-2022 while his deceased wife was proceeding from her agriculture land i.e., in-front of Balaji Rice Mill to their Masaipally village, at that time one Bolero vehicle bearing

No.TS-06-UB-7906, came from Kosgi side, being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained bleeding injures to left hand, fingers of right hand and head. His deceased wife was died on 23-12-2022 at about 2200 hours while undergoing treatment at Yashoda

Hospital, Hyderabad. The accident occurred solely due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero vehicle.

Page 5 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023

11.Basing on the complaint, Kosgi Police registered Crime

No.511/2023 under Section 337 of IPC against the respondent

No.1/driver of Bolero vehicle. Certified copy of First Information Report is marked as Ex.A1. The claim petitioner No.1 who is the husband of the deceased lodged the complaint with the Police about accident and death of the deceased. Ex.A1 was investigated and charge sheet was filed which is marked as Ex.A6 which reveals that investigation was done on proper lines. As per Ex.A2, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle, i.e., Bolero vehicle bearing

No.TS-06-UB-7906, who is the sole accused in Ex.A6. As per

Ex.A4/Certified copy of Postmortem Examination Report, the cause of death was due to “Multiple Injuries”. Ex.A5 is the Motor Vehicles Inspector

Report discloses that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident and his name is mentioned as LW3 in the Charge Sheet/Ex.A6 and he supported the version of PW1. The respondents No.1 and 2 claimed that the alleged accident took place due to the entire negligence of the deceased himself, but there is no negligence on the part of the

Respondent No.1/driver of the crime vehicle, but they did not file any document and not adduced any evidence in that regard. Therefore, from the above, it is proved that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners.

Page 6 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023

12. ISSUE NO.2:-

The claim petitioner No.1 is the husband and claim petitioner

No.2 is the son of the deceased. Thus, they are the dependents of the deceased and are entitled for compensation.

13.The pleadings and oral evidence of PW1 shows that the deceased was aged about 55 years as on the date of accident. There is no documentary evidence to show the exact age of the deceased at the time of accident. Therefore, Ex.A4/Postmortem Examination Report is taken into consideration. As per Ex.A4/Postmortem Examination Report, the age of the deceased is 57 years and the same is accepted by this Tribunal.

14.The pleadings and oral evidence of PW1 shows that the deceased was working doing agriculture and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month and used to contribute the same for the welfare of the petitioners, but the claim petitioners neither choose to examine any witness nor to produce any document to prove that the deceased was doing agriculture and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. In the absence of any such document, the plea of the claim petitioners with regard to the occupation and income of the deceased cannot be accepted by this Tribunal.

Considering the age of the deceased as 57 years during the period of accident, this Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month.

Page 7 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023

15.With regard to the Future Prospects, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance company vs Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, held thus :

“(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(iv) In case the deceased was self- employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”

16.In the present case on hand, the deceased was aged 57 years, as such an addition of 10% to be added towards future prospectus.

Accordingly, 10% of Rs.7,000/- i.e., Rs.700/-, is added towards future prospects, making the total monthly income Rs.7,700/- and annul income comes to Rs.92,400/- (Rs.7,700/- x 12).

17.As per the petition and evidence, the claim petitioner No.1 is the huband and claim petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased. Now the

Page 8 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023 question is how much amount can be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

18.As already held supra, the annual income of the deceased was

Rs.92,400/-. Now the question is how much the amount can be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the land mark Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma v. D.T.C” reported in(2009) 6 SCC - 121, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

“14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deduction. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one- third (1/3 rd ) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4 th ) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5 th ) where the number of dependent family members exceed six.”

19.In the present case, the dependents are Two in number and as per the above decision the appropriate deduction is 1/3rd annual income of the deceased is determined as Rs.92,400/- and 1/3rd of deduction of it comes to Rs.30,800/-. So, after deducting Rs.30,800/- from Rs.92,400/-, the Annual contribution comes to Rs.61,600/-.

20.In order to determine the appropriate multiplier, it is appropriate to refer the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of

Sarla Verma’s case (cited supra), wherein it was held as follows;

Page 9 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023 “21. We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie ), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

21.As per my findings on age, the age of deceased is arrived at 58 years. The appropriate multiplier for person in the age group of 56-60 is “9”. Therefore, the multiplier “9” is adopted for calculation of amounts.

By adopting this multiplier i.e., Rs.61,600/- x 9 = 5,54,400/- is awarded to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.

22.In National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the

Hon’ble Apex Court held at para (61) as under:-

21. “Reasonable figures on conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.’’

23. In view of the above decision, the conventional heads will be paid with enhanced rate of 10% for three years and accordingly, an amount of Rs.19,500/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.52,000/- under the head of loss of consortium are granted.

Page 10 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023

24.In view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal

No.9581 of 2018, in between Magma General Insurance Company

Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others, it is held that

Parental Consortium is awarded to the Children who lost their parents and

Spousal Consortium is awarded to the wife and husband who lost their company. In view of the above decision, amount of Rs.52,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium to the claim petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is granted. Thus, the claim petitioners No.1 being husband and claim petitioner No.2 being son of the deceased are awarded the following com- pensation amount:-

Sl. No. Head Amount of compensation

awarded

1. Towards Loss of Dependency Rs.5,54,400=00

2.Towards Loss of EstateRs.19,500=00

3. Towards consortium Rs.1,04,000=00

4. Towards loss of love and affection Rs.19,500=00

Total Rs.6,97,400=00 (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Four Hundred only)

25.It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1 is the driver, and respondent No.2 is the owner of the crime vehicle. As such, both the

Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the claim petitioners. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners.

26. ISSUE NO.3:-

Page 11 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023

In the result, this petition is allowed in part awarding a sum of

Rs.6,97,400/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Four Hundred only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

(i)The Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation awarded to the claim petitioners with proportionate costs and interest and they are hereby directed to deposit the above said amount into the Court within (2) two months from the date of this order, failing to do so the Respondents shall pay the said amount with interest @ 12% per annum.

(ii) The claim petitioner No.1 being the husband of the deceased is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,97,400/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Four Hundred only) with proportionate costs and interest including funeral expenses, loss of estate (Rs.19,500/- each) and consortium of Rs.52,000/-.

(iii) The claim petitioner No.2 son of the deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with proportionate costs and interest, including consortium of Rs.52,000/- each.

(iv) On such deposit, the claim petitioners No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their share amounts along with proportionate costs and interest.

(v) Office is directed to prepare the decree after collection of Court Fee from the claim petitioners.

(vi) The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, seen, corrected and pronounced by me in the court on this the 5 th day of May, 2026. Digitally signed by

NUKALANUKALA

PREMALATHA

PREMALATHA

Date: 2026.05.05

17:54:39 +0530

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESS EXAMINED:

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

P.W.1- R.Ananthaiah -NIL-

Page 12 of 12 Orders in MVOP.No.224 of 2023

P.W.2- Pedda Mogulaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of FIR with Complaint

Ex.A2:Certified copy of Charge Sheet

Ex.A3:Certified copy of Inquest Report

Ex.A4:Certified copy of PME Report

Ex.A5 : Certified copy of MVI Report

Ex.A6 : Copy of Charge Sheet

Ex.A7 : Copy of Pattadar Online Pass book of R-2

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Digitally signed by

-NIL- NUKALA

NUKALAPREMALATHA

PREMALATHADate: 2026.05.05 17:54:21 +0530

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Page No. 1 of total 10 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.75 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHABUBNAGAR.

PRESENT: N.PREMA LATHA

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026

S.C.No.75 OF 2025

(CR.NO.379/2024 OF PS.II-TOWN, MAHABUBNAGAR)

PRC No.15 of 2025 on the file of III-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mahabubnagar

Committed by Smt. Niharika Juttur,

III-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

Crime No. & P.S. Cr.No.379/2024, PS.II-Town, Mahabubnagar

Description of the Accused Mohammad Sadiq s/o Mohammad Chotumiya, age 46 yrs, occ: Auto Driver, r/o H.No.1-1-9/17/O/1/P, New Mothi Nagar, Mahabubnagar.

Charges U/Sec.109(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court Found not guilty

Sentence or Order In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 109(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 258(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months from today as per Sec.481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. MO-1/Knife shall be destroyed after

Page No. 2 of total 10 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.75 of 2025 expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by Sri Gaddam Gopal and Sri E.Srinaiah, Advocates for Accused

This case coming on this day before me on 23-4-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri K.Shankar, Counsel for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, PS.II-Town, Mahabubnagar has filed a charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.379 of 2024 of

PS.II-Town, Mahabubnagar for the offence punishable under Section 109(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(i) On 7-12-2024 at 12.30 hours LW1/Complainant/V.Ravi

Goud came to the Police Station and lodged a written complaint in Telugu.

He stated that on 6-12-2024 at about 00.30 hours when he was present at RTC Bus Stand with his auto for passengers, one another Auto driver directly entered into the bus stand with his Auto for passengers by breaking their queue line, upon which he asked the said Auto driver not to go into the bus stand directly by avoiding their Auto queue line. The said

Auto driver while leaving from the bus stand, threatened him by saying

Page No. 3 of total 10 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.75 of 2025 that he will do way with his life. After sometime at about 03.00 hours when he was present in his auto at Bus stand, the said Auto driver keeping previous grudge in his mind, came to him with a knife with an intent to kill him and slash his throat due to fear he ran away from the auto to protect himself by making hues and cries, but the said Auto driver followed him with the knife, the surrounding person witnesses the incident and stopped him. Immediately police personals arrived to the spot and sent him to hospital for treatment where he was got 5 stitches to his throat injury. On enquiry the said person is Mohammed Sadiq i.e.,

Accused. He requested the police to take necessary action against the accused.

(ii) Based on the complaint, LW-8/S.Krishna Obula Reddy,

Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.379/2024 under Section 109(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and took up the investigation.

(iii) During the course of investigation, LW-8/S.Krishna Obula

Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of

LW1/Complainant/V.Ravi Goud, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of eyewitnesses i.e., LW2/Jahangir Pasha and LW3/Shaik Babar.

(iv) On 7-12-2024 in early morning hours, the Accused was handed over to police by the public along with knife. On interrogation, the

Accused confessed his guilt of offence. Thereafter LW-8/S.Krishna Obula

Page No. 4 of total 10 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.75 of 2025

Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police secured the presence of LW5/Rallolla

Shasidar and LW6/Damistapuram Ramulu and conducted seizure panchanama and seized one knife which was used by the accused in commission of offence.

(v)Subsequently LW-8/S.Krishna Obula Reddy, Sub

Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and draw rough sketch of the scene in the presence of LW5/Rallolla Shasidar and LW6/Damistapuram Ramulu, thereafter

LW-8/S.Krishna Obula Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused and produced him before the Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation LW-8/S.Krishna Obula Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the Accused.

3.The learned III-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar took cognizance of the offence under Section 109(2) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Copies of documents were furnished to the Accused under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the case was committed to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar under Section 232 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as the offence was triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions.

4.Upon the appearance of the accused before this Court, and after hearing both the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel

Page No. 5 of total 10 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.75 of 2025

for the Accused, and on perusal of the material available on record,

charge under Section 109(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was framed, read over, and explained to the accused in a language known to him. He denied the charge, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and MO-1.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He did not choose to adduce any evidence in his defence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 109(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:-

PW-1/V.Ravi Goud (Complainant, Injured and

Eyewitness),stated about one year ago, he was waiting at

Mahabubnagar bus stand and at about 3.00 AM he fell down on the road and people gathered at that place. Later police came to that place and obtained his signatures on some white papers. He identified his signature

Page No. 6 of total 10 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.75 of 2025 on complaint, but he do not know the contents of the complaint. PW1 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and nothing incriminating could be elicited from his cross-examination.

10. PW-2/Jahangeer Pasha (Eyewitness), stated that about one year ago, he was waiting at Mahabaubnagar bus stand and at about 3.00 AM there was a mob near bus stand and police were also present. He do not know anything about the case. PW2 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and nothing incriminating could be elicited from his cross- examination.

11. PW-3/Shaik Babar (Eyewitness), stated that he do not know anything about the case. PW3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and nothing incriminating could be elicited from his cross- examination.

12. PW-4/Mekhala Naresh (Eyewitness), stated that about one and half year ago, at about 3.00 AM while he was preparing tea, he found some persons gathered near his Tea stall. He do not know anything about the case. PW4 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and nothing incriminating could be elicited from his cross-examination.

13. PW-5/R.Shashidhar and PW-6/Damistapuram Ramulu (Panchas for scene of offence and confession-cum-seizure) stated that when police obtained their signatures on crime details form and on confession and recovery panchanama. They further stated that no

Page No. 7 of total 10 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.75 of 2025 panchanama was conducted and no material objects were seized in their presence. PW5 and PW6 both turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and nothing incriminating could be elicited from the cross examination of

PW5 and PW6 to prove the scene of offence and confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

14. PW-7/S.Krishna Obula Reddy (Sub Inspector of Police,

CC Kunta) deposed that on 7-12-2024 at about 12.30 PM he received a complaint from PW1, basing on the complaint, he registered a case in

Cr.No.379/2024 u/Sec.109(2) of BNS and issued FIR and recorded the statement of PW1. PW7 further deposed that he visited the scene of offence at New RTC Bus Stand, Mahabubnagar, there he examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and PW3. On 17-3-2024 the public handed the accused to police.PW7 further deposed that on interrogation, the accused revealed his name and particulars and confessed his guilt, upon which he secured the presence of PW5 and PW6 and in their presence he recorded the confession panchanama and recovered one knife from the possession of accused possession. He also recorded the video and issued certificate u/Sec.63(4)(c) of BSA Certificate.PW7 further deposed that on the same day at about 5.20 PM he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW5 and PW6 and drawn rough sketch. Later he arrested the accused and produced him before the Court for judicial custody.PW7 further deposed that on 8-12-2024 he examined and recorded the statement of PW4, collected all the documents including

Page No. 8 of total 10 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.75 of 2025 the medical certificate of PW1 from Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 109(2) of BNS. PW2 to PW4 stated before him as in their 181 BNSS statement which are marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P5.

15.It is the case of the prosecution that prior to 6-12-2024 during night hours a quarrel took place between PW1 and Accused regarding maintaining queue line at RTC Bus Stand, Mahabubnagar for boarding passengers. Keeping the said grudge in mind on the same night at about 3.00 AM, the accused came to RTC Bus Stand, Mahabubnagar, attacked and cut the throat of PW1 with knife, upon which PW1 escaped from the spot, but the accused chased PW1 with knife and tried to kill

PW1. Due to hues and cries of PW1, surrounding people caught hold the accused and handed over to the police.

16.To establish the case against the accused, prosecution got examined PWs1 to 7, marked Exs.P1 to P14. PW1 is the complainant, eyewitness and injured deposed that at about 3.00 AM he fell down on the road and people gathered at that place. Police obtained his signatures on some white papers, but he do not know the contents of the complaint.

PW2 to PW4 are the eyewitnesses deposed that they do not know anything about this case. PW5 and PW6 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence and confession-cum-seizure pacnahanama deposed that police obtained their signatures on some white papers, but no panchanama was conducted and no material objects were seized in their presence and all of

Page No. 9 of total 10 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.75 of 2025 them turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and nothing has been elicited in-spite of their cross-examination by the learned Public

Prosecutor to connect the accused with the alleged offence.

17.PW7 is the police official deposed about his conducting investigation in this case at various levels.

18.Thus, none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case, except the official witnesses, which is not sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 109(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond reasonable doubt and hence, he is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

19.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 109(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 258(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months from today as per Sec.481 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. MO-1/Knife shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Digitally signed by NUKALA NUKALA

PREMALATHA

PREMALATHA

Date: 2026.05.01

17:07:33 +0530

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Page No. 10 of total 10 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.75 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Prosecution: Defence: ---Nil---

PW-1 V.Ravi Goud PW-2 Jahangeer Pasha PW-3 Shaik Baber PW-4 M.Naresh PW-5 R.Shashidhar PW-6 D.Ramulu PW-7 S.Krishna Obula Reddy, I.O.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on Complaint Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P6 is Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form Ex.P7 is Signature of PW5 on Confession-cum-Recovery Panchanama Ex.P8 is Signature of PW6 on Crime Details Form Ex.P9 is Signature of PW6 on Confession-cum-Recovery Panchanama Ex.P10 is Complaint Ex.P11 is FIR Ex.P12 is Scene of Offence Panchanama Ex.P13 is Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama Ex.P14 is Medical Certificate

Defence:- -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 is One Knife Digitally signed by NUKALA

NUKALAPREMALATHA

PREMALATHADate: 2026.05.01 17:07:17 +0530

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.