Sri N Santosh Kumar

1/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT :: N. SANTOSH KUMAR,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SIDDIPET

This the 18th day of December, 2025

O. S. No. 44 of 2022

(Old O.S. No. 13 of 2016)

Between:-

1.Garnepally Pochaiah, S/o. Salanna, Age: 80 years,

2.Garnepally Anjaiah, S/o. Pochaiah, Age: 40 years,

3.Garnepally Ramulu, S/o. Pochaiah, Age: 37 years,

4.Garnepally Narsimhulu, S/o. Pochaiah, Age: 35 years,

5.Vechareni Siddamma, W/o. Ramchandram, Age: 40 years,

All are agriculturists and R/o. Gurijakunta village, Cherial (M), Warangal

District.

. . .Plaintiffs

And

1.Garnepally @ Kummari Mallaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 75 years,

2.Garnepally Prashanth, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 21 years,

3.Shanigaram Laxminarayana, S/o. Yadaiah, Age: 28 years,

4.Shanigaram Yadamma, W/o. Yadaiah, Age: 45 years,

All are Agriculturists and R/o. Gurijakunta village, Cherial (M), Warangal district.

5.Garnepally @ Kummari Lachamma, W/o. Late Garnepally @ Kummari

Mallaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Akunoor village of

Cherial Mandal, Warangal District (Presently in Siddipet district)

6.Shanigaram Yadamma, W/o. Yadaiah, Age: 45 years, R/o. Gurijakunta (V), Cherial Mandal, Siddipet district.

7.Garnepally @ Kummari Bharathamma, W/o. Late Garnepally @

Kummar Mallaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Gurijakunta (V), Cherial Mandal, Warangal District.

2/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

8.Garnepally Alias Kummari Prashanth, S/o. Late Garnepally Alias

Kummari Mallaiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gurijakunta (V), Cherial Mandal, Siddipet District.

…Defendants

This suit coming before me for final hearing in the presence of, Sri M. Tabarak Ali, Advocate for Plaintiffs, Sri K. Mallaiah, Advocate for defendants No.1 to 4, defendants No.5 to 8 remained exparte, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The plaintiff filed the suit for grant of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land to an extent of Ac.4-15 guntas in Sy.No.295, situated at Cherial Revenue Village and Mandal, (hereinafter referred to as “the suit schedule property”).

2.Originally the suit is filed before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at

Jangaon and registered as O.S. No.13 of 2016. After bifurcation of new judicial districts, the said suit was transferred on the point of jurisdiction and the same is re-numbered as O.S. No.44 of 2022.

Brief facts of the plaint:

3. Sarvasri Garnepally Pedda Mallaiah (Kummari Pedda Mallaiah) and

Garnepally (Kummari) Sayanna were the sons of late Garnepally Borraiah and were in long and continuous possession of land admeasuring Ac.4-30 guntas in

Sy.No.295 of Cherial Village and Mandal, Warangal District, having also purchased the same from the original pattedar. However, the Tahsildar, instead of issuing Protected Tenancy Certificates in favour of both the possessors with 3/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, equal shares, issued the certificate only in favour of the elder brother,

Garnepally (Kummari) Pedda Mallaiah. The legal heir of the younger brother, namely Garnepally (Kummari) Pochaiah, S/o Sayanna, filed an application

before the Sub-Collector, Warangal, seeking conferment of ownership rights as

a hissedar. After due enquiry and verification of records, the Sub-Collector issued proceedings conferring ownership rights over Ac.2-15 guntas in

Sy.No.295. Thus, Plaintiff No.1 was in long-standing possession and enjoyment of Ac.2-15 guntas as owner and pattedar. After the death of Garnepally (Kummari) Pedda Mallalah, the 38-E certificate holder, his legal heirs succeeded to his rights, and thereafter his grandson, Garnepally (Kummari)

Mallalah, S/o Ramaiah, sold Ac.2-00 out of the retainable area in Sy.No.295 in favour of Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 submitted a claim petition before the

Tahsildar, Cherial, for regularisation of the unregistered sale of Ac.2-00 and recognition of Ac.2-15 guntas conferred by the Sub-Collector. After thorough enquiry and spot inspection, the Tahsildar regularised the claim and issued

Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in favour of Plaintiff No.1. It was stated that Plaintiff No.1 thereafter gifted the entire extent of Ac.4-15 guntas in

Sy.No.295 to his four legal heirs, namely Garnepally Anjaiah (Ac.1-04 guntas),

Garnepally Ramulu (Ac.1-03½ guntas), Garnepally Narsimulu (Ac.1-03½ guntas) and Smt. Shanigaram Yadamma (Ac.1-04 guntas). The Tahsildar, after due enquiry and verification of documents, issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title 4/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

Deeds in favour of the said donees, who were in peaceful and continuous possession of the land, raising standing paddy crop thereon.

4.The defendants, who had no manner of right or interest over the suit land, filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, relying upon a 38-E certificate issued in favour of their grandfather, late Garnepally (Kummari) Pedda Mallalah, along with fabricated documents. Despite the plaintiffs filing counters and producing relevant records, the RDO, Jangaon, without proper verification or enquiry, passed an impugned order in Appeal

Case No.1/1007/2015 dated 11-01-2016, allowing the appeal, deleting the patta of Plaintiff No.1 to an extent of Ac.4-15 guntas and cancelling the consequential mutations and pattadar pass books, and directing restoration of the name of the defendants’ grandfather in the revenue records. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed a revision petition along with a stay petition before the Joint Collector,

Warangal, which were numbered as Case No.E5/234/2016 on 11-02-2016. It was stated that due to preoccupation of the Joint Collector with Medaram

Jathara arrangements, the matter could not be heard, and the plaintiffs had every likelihood of succeeding as they were in long and undisturbed possession of the suit land. That emboldened by the order of the RDO, the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and, on 05-02-2016 and 07- 02-2016, tried to damage the standing paddy crop and illegally occupy the suit land. Despite intervention by village elders, the defendants continued to threaten the plaintiffs. As the plaintiffs were unable to resist such unlawful interference, 5/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, they were constrained to approach the Hon’ble Court seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

5.The defendants filed written statement by denying all the material allegations made in the plaint in toto. They disputed the plaintiffs’ claim of title and possession over the suit schedule land in Sy.No.295 of Cherial Village and

Mandal and contended that the plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest therein. The defendants asserted that their grandfather, Kummari Pedda

Mallaiah, was the protected tenant in respect of the suit land and was conferred ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Telangana Tenancy Act, 1950.

According to the defendants, upon the demise of their grandfather, they succeeded to the suit property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and have been in continuous, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. They denied the plaintiffs’ version regarding joint possession, alleged purchase from original pattedars, and conferment of ownership rights in favour of the plaintiffs or their predecessors, contending that such claims were false, fabricated and unsupported by records. The defendants further alleged that the plaintiffs managed to obtain illegal mutations and Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds on the basis of created documents.

6.It was further contended that aggrieved by such illegal entries, the defendants preferred Appeal No.1/1007/2015 before the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Jangaon, and that the RDO, after hearing both sides and considering the 6/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, record, passed an order dated 11-01-2016 cancelling the patta, mutations,

Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds granted in favour of the plaintiffs and directing restoration of the name of the defendants’ grandfather in the revenue records. The defendants denied the allegations of interference and asserted that they themselves were in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. They contended that the alleged dates of interference mentioned by the plaintiffs were contradictory and that even the police complaint relied upon by the plaintiffs disclosed the defendants’ possession over the suit property. The defendants further contended that Plaintiff No.1, having admitted distribution of the land among his alleged legal heirs, had no subsisting right over the suit land and therefore was not entitled to maintain the present suit along with Plaintiffs 2 to

7.According to the defendants, the suit was filed suppressing material facts, with malafide intention to grab the defendants’ land, and was liable to be dismissed in limine with compensatory costs.

8.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

i.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

ii. To what relief ?

9.During trial the plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to A20. On the other hand no oral or documentary evidence adduced by defendants.

7/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

ISSUE NO.1:

i.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

10.The burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish their lawful possession over the suit schedule land as on the date of suit and that the defendants, having no manner of right, attempted to interfere with such possession. In the present case,

Plaintiff No.2 has entered the witness box as PW1 and his chief-examination is in consonance with the plaint averments, narrating the origin of title and long-standing possession of Plaintiff No.1 and the subsequent devolution of rights upon Plaintiffs 1 to 4 by way of gift, followed by issuance of Pattadar

Pass Books and Title Deeds in their favour and continuous cultivation of the suit land. The defendants, though filing a written statement disputing title and possession, did not choose to enter the witness box or adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The pleadings, therefore, remain unsubstantiated from the defendants’ side and the sworn testimony of PW1, supported by contemporary revenue records and orders of competent revenue authorities, goes unrebutted. PW1 has proved Ex.A1, the proceedings of the Sub-Collector,

Warangal, in Case No.1532/76 dated 30-11-1978, whereby ownership rights to an extent of Ac.2-15 guntas in Sy.No.295, Cherial Village and Mandal, were conferred in favour of Garnepally (Kummari) Pochaiah, the predecessor of

Plaintiff No.1, as hissedar of late Garnepally (Kummari) Sayanna, thus 8/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, recognising his status as protected tenant turned owner under the tenancy law.

Ex.A2 is the original receipt evidencing purchase of Ac.2-00 guntas by Plaintiff

No.1 from the legal heir of the 38-E certificate holder, Garnepally (Kummari)

Pedda Mallaiah, dated 02-06-1979, while Ex.A3 is the paisalnama dated 02-01-1977 recording the adjustment of rights between the branches. These exhibits, read together, establish that Plaintiff No.1 acquired in all Ac.4-15 guntas in Sy.No.295 by virtue of conferment of ownership as hissedar and purchase from the protected tenant’s branch, thereby stepping into the shoes of the deemed owner.

11.Exs.A4 and A5 are the old ‘Thoka’ Pattadar Pass Books and related revenue entries dating back to 1973, evidencing recognition of the rights of

Plaintiff No.1 and his predecessor in the revenue records. Exs.A6 to A9 are certified copies of Pahanies for the years 1984-85, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, which consistently show the name of Pochaiah / Plaintiff No.1 as pattedar and cultivator in respect of the suit land. Exs.A10 to A12 are land revenue (LR) receipts for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-92, demonstrating payment of land revenue by the plaintiffs’ branch. Exs.A13 to

A16 are Pattadar Pass Books issued in favour of Pochaiah and his donees, namely Ramulu, Narsaiah and Siddamma, pursuant to the gift of Ac.4-15 guntas by Plaintiff No.1 to his legal heirs, while Exs.A17 to A19 are MEESEVA

Pahanies for Fasli 1420 to 1425 and subsequent years standing in the names of the donees, reflecting them as pattadars and possessors. These revenue 9/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, documents, spanning several decades, clearly establish continuous and lawful possession of the plaintiffs’ branch over the suit schedule land.

12.The defendants rely only on Ex.A20, the order in Appeal

No.1/1007/2015 dated 11-01-2016 of the RDO, Jangaon, by which the patta and consequential mutations in favour of the plaintiffs were cancelled and direction was issued to restore the name of the defendants’ grandfather in the revenue records. PW1 has explained that the said order is under challenge before the

Joint Collector in Case No.E5/234/2016 and that no final adjudication has attained finality. Further, Ex.A20 itself is a revenue appellate order dealing only with entries in revenue records and does not constitute a declaration of civil title; it is settled law that civil courts are the ultimate arbiters of title and that pattadar passbooks and revenue entries, though not conclusive, are strong pieces of evidence on possession, whereas cancellation of such entries by revenue authorities does not, by itself, divest the civil right of a person in established possession. The defendants, having failed to adduce any evidence to show their actual possession or cultivation, cannot derive any advantage merely from

Ex.A20, more so when the very origin of the plaintiffs’ rights is traceable to a valid conferment under tenancy law and decades-long possession backed by pahanies and LR receipts.

13.The law is equally clear that in a suit for perpetual injunction, the primary issue is whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession on the date of suit and whether the defendant interfered or threatened to interfere with such 10/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, possession; where title is seriously in dispute, the court may, in appropriate cases, direct the parties to seek declaration, but where, as here, the plaintiff establishes long and consistent possession through unimpeached documentary evidence and the defendant fails to substantiate any better right or possession, the court can grant injunction to protect the status quo of possession. PW1 has deposed that, emboldened by the RDO’s order, the defendants attempted to interfere with the standing paddy crop on 05-02-2016 and 07-02-2016 and tried to forcibly occupy the suit land, which compelled the plaintiffs to approach the court; this version remains unchallenged by any contrary evidence. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence from the defendants, their pleadings alleging fabrication, illegal mutations, and exclusive possession remain mere assertions without proof. Adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them for withholding the best evidence within their reach, particularly when they claim to be successors of the original 38-E certificate holder but produced no certificate, pahanies or LR receipts to substantiate exclusive possession. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have produced cogent documentary evidence from competent authorities demonstrating their title-origin and uninterrupted possession. Once a protected tenant or his hissedar is conferred ownership rights, he is deemed to be full owner of the land under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, and any subsequent dispute as to possession is to be resolved by the civil court; revenue authorities cannot, by a unilateral order, extinguish such civil rights.

11/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

14.Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiffs have successfully proved their lawful, continuous possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and that the defendants, having no established right or possession, attempted to interfere with such possession, warranting the grant of a decree for perpetual injunction. Issue No.1 is therefore answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.2:

To What Relief ?

15.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed, plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and persons claiming through them from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property described in the plaint. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18 th day of December, 2025.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFs DEFENDANTS

PW1: Garnepally Anjaiah-None - 12/12 O.S. No.44/2022 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFFs

Ex.A1Sub Collector Order No. 1532/76, Dt. 30-11-1978

Ex.A2Purchase Sale of Original Receipt, Dt. 02-06-1979

Ex.A3Paisal nama between both parties, Dt. 2-01-1977

Ex.A4Old (Thoka) Pattedar Pass book

Ex.A5Pattedar Pass book (Thoka), Dt 31-12 1973

Ex.A6C.C. of Pahani for the year 1984-85 Dt. 13-01-1987

Ex.A7C.C. of Pahani for the year 1990-91, Ct. 25-11-1994

Ex.A8C.C. of Pahani for the year 1991-92, Dι. 25-11-1994

Ex.A9C.C. of Pahani for the year 1992-93, Dt. 25-11-1994

Ex.A10 LR Receipt for 1987-88

Ex.A11 LR Receipt for 1988-89

Ex.A12 LR Receipt for 1989-92

Ex.A13 Pattedar Pass book of Sri. Pochaiah

Ex.A14 Pattedar Pass book of Sri. Ramulu, Di. 06-07-2011

Ex.A15 Pattedar Pass book of Sri. Narsaiah, Dt. 30-05-2006

Ex.A16 Pattedar Pass book of Siddamma, Dr 30-05-2006

Ex.A17 Meeseva pahani of 1420F of Anjaiah and Ramulu (5 in numbers)

Ex.A18 Meeseva pahani of 1420F to 1425F of G. Narsaiah (5 in numbers)

Ex.A19 Meeseva pahani copy for 1422F to 2015 of Y. Siddamma (5 in numbers)

Ex.A20 Order No. I/1007/15, Dt. 11-01-2016 of RDO Jangaon

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

- NIL -

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

1/10 O.S. No.549/2025, ASCJ Court, Siddipet,

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: :: SIDDIPET

PRESENT :: N. SANTOSH KUMAR,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SIDDIPET

This the 17th day of December 2025

O.S. No. 549 OF 2025

(Old O.S. No. 282 of 2018)

Between:- Bajjuri Prasanna W/o. B. Prabhakar, Age: 52 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.Flat No. 104, Ist Floor, Bhargavi Apartment, Street No. 6. Habsiguda, Hyderabad. …Plaintiff

And

1. Chinta Venumadav S/o. Late C. Jagdeswariah, Age: 59 years, Occ: Rtd, Bank Manager, R/o. Plot No.206/F, Door No.5-4-312, Road No.7, Kamalanagar, Vanastalipuram, Hyderabad.

2.Thota Manjula Rani W/o. Thota Bapur Raja, Aged: 54 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.16-2-741/45/A-2, Moosaram Bagh, A B Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

3.Gunda Nirmala, W/o. G. Ashok, Age: 49 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. D.No.2-1-175, OPP: line of Moon Cafe, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

4. Chinta Prasanthi W/o. Chinta Srinivas, Age: 48 years, Occ: Govt Service, R/o. Plot No. 206/F, Door No.5-4-312, Road No. 7, Kamalanagar, Vanastalipuram, Hyderabad.

5. Chinta Shabarish Nikhil S/o. Chinta Srinivas, Age: 26 years, Occ: Pvt Service, R/o. Plot No. 206/F, Door No. 5-4-312, Road No. 7, Kamalanagar, Vanastalipuram, Hyderabad. … Defendants

This suit coming before me for final hearing, in the presence of Sri K. Prabhakar, counsel for plaintiff and Sri K. Shiva Charan, Counsel for defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5 remained exparte. Upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 2/10 O.S. No.549/2025, ASCJ Court, Siddipet,

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants for Partition and Separate

Possession in respect of Suit Schedule Property.

2.Case of the Plaintiff:-

The Plaintiff and the defendants No. 2 and 3 are the daughters and defendant

No.1 is the son of Late Smt. Krupamani and Late Chinta Jagadiswaraiah. Late Chinta

Srinivas was another son of late Smt. Krupamani and Late Chinta Jagadiswaraiah.

The defendant No.4 is the wife and defendant No.5 is the son of their predeceased son Chinta Srinivas. Smt. Krupamani was the absolute owner and possessor of a house admeasuring 130 Sq. yards, bearing H.No. 7-3-57 & 58, Old Gunj, Siddipet (hereinafter referred to as “the suit schedule property”), having acquired the same through her mother Smt Rajeswari towards Sridhana & Pasupu Kunkuma at the time of her marriage. After her marriage, she was in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, she was blessed with children i.e the

Plaintiff and the defendants No. 1 to 3 herein and later on she performed their marriages. Late Jagdiswariah, father of the Plaintiff was an Assistant Engineer and on account of his frequent transfers, the suit schedule property was being given for rent by her till the retirement of her husband and after his retirement he started living with Smt. Krupamani in the suit schedule property. In the year 2012, mother of plaintiff Smt. Krupamani died on 10.12.2012 and subsequently, the father of the plaintiff also died on 02.06.2018, due to old age. After their death, the suit schedule 3/10 O.S. No.549/2025, ASCJ Court, Siddipet, property is given on rent by the Plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 3 jointly. The

Plaintiff has paid the property tax for the year 2018-2019 in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 never look after the welfare of their parents during their old age. The Plaintiff and the defendants No. 2 & 3 have taken care of their mother and father during their old age till their death. In the month of August 2018, when the plaintiff approached the defendant No.1 and requested him to pay her proportionate share of the monthly rent, the defendant No.1 vehemently denied and abused the plaintiff. The suit schedule property belongs to the mother of the plaintiff, as there is no document executed by her mother in respect of the suit house, the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to claim each 1/5 share in the suit schedule property being her only legal heirs. The suit schedule property is not yet partitioned among the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 5 herein. She came to know that the defendant No.1 is trying to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties with malafied intention. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 are Hindus and Governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. Since, the defendant No.1 is denied her 1/5 share. Therefore, the present suit is filed with a prayer to pass a Preliminary decree by partitioning the suit schedule property into five (5) equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such equal share to the plaintiff and to pass a final decree in pursuance of Preliminary decree.

3.Case of the Defendants:- (i) In this case, summons were served on defendants, when defendant Nos.2 to 5 called absent, hence they were set exparte to 4/10 O.S. No.549/2025, ASCJ Court, Siddipet, the proceedings on 22.03.2019 & 30.10.2019 respectively. Meanwhile, the defendant

No.1 filed his written statement, in which it is admitted the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants and the mother of defendant No.1 namely Smt. Krupammani got the suit schedule property from her parents. During the life time of the father of defendant No.1 and at the time of marriage of plaintiff and defendants No.2 & 3, have given sufficient cash, gold and silver and the mother of the defendant No. 1, namely Smt. Krupamani has decided in the oral family settlement that the defendant

No.1 and his wife namely Smt. Padmawathi have only right, title, ownership over the suit schedule property. When the suit schedule property is in dilapidated condition, the defendant No.1 got repaired the same with his own expenses. It is not out of place to mention here that the wife of the defendant No.1 is the maternal daughter in law of mother of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has kept some portion of the suit schedule property in his custody and got it locked and some portion of the same is leased out to godown. Hence, the question of giving the suit schedule property on lease jointly by plaintiff and defendants does not arise.

(ii)The defendant No.1 further submits that, the parties herein have never in the joint possession of the suit schedule property. The brother of this defendant No.1 namely Sri. Chintha Srinivas was died in the year 1994. Thereafter the father of defendant No.1 has made family settlement and given the amounts to the defendant

Nos. 4 & 5, for which they are entitled including their share in the suit schedule property. The parents of defendant No.1 have alienated their other plots and sale 5/10 O.S. No.549/2025, ASCJ Court, Siddipet, proceeding of the same and also FDR’s which were standing in the name of their mother were released and same was given to the plaintiff and the defendants No.2 to 5, on which the defendant No.1 has never objected for the same.

(iii)The defendant No.1 further submits that the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 5 have not entitled any share in the suit schedule property and defendant No.1 never tried to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties. The suit is barred by limitation and the court fee paid is in sufficient and the plaintiff herein with malafied intention filed the present suit. Therefore, the defendant No.1 prays to dismiss the suit with cost.

4.On considering the rival contention, the court framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate

possession in respect of suit schedule property against the

defendants as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.To substantiate the case of plaintiff, she examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3.

6.To substantiate the case of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and no documents were marked on behalf of defendant No.1.

7.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

Issue No.1

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession in

respect of suit schedule property against the defendants as prayed for?

6/10 O.S. No.549/2025, ASCJ Court, Siddipet,

8.The specific case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property originally belonged to her mother, late Smt. Krupamani, who acquired it from her parents towards sridhana and pasupu kunkuma, and that on the death of the parents, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and predeceased son Chinta Srinivas, being Class-I heirs, are entitled to equal shares and partition. The defendant No.1 set up a plea that there was an oral family settlement whereby his mother allegedly decided that defendant No.1 and his wife Smt. Padmawathi alone would have rights, title and ownership over the suit schedule property, and that sufficient cash, gold, silver and other benefits including sale proceeds of other properties and FDR amounts were given to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 in lieu of their share in the suit schedule property.

9.Defendant No.1, in his written statement as well as in chief, reiterated the plea of oral family settlement, claimed to have repaired the dilapidated house by incurring heavy expenses, and asserted that he alone retained a portion under lock and key and leased out the remaining portion as a godown, thereby denying any joint leasing with the plaintiff or other defendants. Though, PW1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendant No.1, but nothing was putforth in the cross-examination of PW1, to shake the veracity of PW1. Further, PW1 stated in her cross-examination that as on today the suit schedule property was lying in the name of her mother, and this assertion remained unshaken.

7/10 O.S. No.549/2025, ASCJ Court, Siddipet,

10.Exhibits A1 and A2, being the municipal certificate and encumbrance certificate, clearly demonstrate that the suit schedule property stands in the name of late Smt. Krupamani, thereby supporting the plaintiff’s case that the property was exclusively owned by the mother and not by defendant No.1 alone. Ex.A3, the property tax receipt, coupled with the evidence of PW1 that she paid property tax for the suit house, further probabilises her assertion of asserting co-ownership and not acquiescing in any exclusive title of defendant No.1. The stand of defendant No.1 that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property and that they were never in joint possession is inconsistent with his own categorical admission in cross-examination that his mother was the owner and that the municipal records also show the property in her name. Significantly, DW1 admitted that he has no document whatsoever to prove the alleged oral family settlement or partition and that he has no documentary evidence to show that his parents had settled the shares of the plaintiff and other siblings by paying them sale proceeds, FDR amounts, or other benefits as alleged. Once DW1 admits that the mother was the owner of the suit schedule property and fails to produce any valid document of transfer, relinquishment or settlement in his favour, the mere plea of an oral family settlement, unsupported by any independent evidence, cannot defeat the statutory rights of the other Class-I heirs. The so-called defects pleaded in the written statement regarding want of joint possession or alleged prior settlement of shares are, therefore, not substantiated by cogent evidence and cannot be accepted.

8/10 O.S. No.549/2025, ASCJ Court, Siddipet,

11.The other contention raised by the defendant No.1 that during the lifetime of father of defndant No.1 and at the time of marriages of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, they were given sufficient cash gold and silver. This contention of defendant No.1 is not sustainable under law performing the marriages of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 by itself will not take away the legal right of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 since they are legal heirs of the deceased Krupamani.

12.Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by Act 39 of 2005, the interest of a deceased Hindu in her property devolves by succession and not by survivorship, and a daughter is a coparcener by birth in the same manner as a son, with equal rights and liabilities in coparcenary property. In the present case, the owner, Smt. Krupamani, admittedly died intestate, and therefore, the suit schedule property devolves upon her Class-I legal heirs as enumerated in the Schedule, namely her son(s) and daughter(s), each being entitled to an equal share; accordingly, all such

Class-I heirs are entitled to seek partition and separate possession of their respective shares. It is also a settled principle that where a sharer establishes her status as co-owner, she is deemed to be in joint and constructive possession of the entire property along with the other co-sharers, unless there is a clear proof of ouster, which is absent here. Hence, the contention of defendant No.1 that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 were never in joint possession and that the suit is barred by limitation has no merit in the absence of proof of exclusive hostile possession to the knowledge of the other co-sharers.

9/10 O.S. No.549/2025, ASCJ Court, Siddipet,

13.In view of the above discussion, it stands proved that the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 died intestate and that the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3, and the branch of the predeceased son represented by defendants 4 and 5, being Class-I legal heirs, are entitled to their respective shares in the suit schedule property. Accordingly,

Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff, holding that she is entitled to partition and separate possession of her share.

Issue No.2:

To what Relief ?

14.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed by allotting 1/5th share to plaintiff, 1/5th share each to defendant No.1 to 3 and 1/5th share together to defendant No.4 and 5.

No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of December, 2025.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT NO.1

PW1 : Bajjuri PrasannaDW1 : Chinta Venu Madhav 10/10 O.S. No.549/2025, ASCJ Court, Siddipet,

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Original certificate issued by Municipality, Siddipet dt. 15.11.1999.

Ex.A2Encumbrance Certificate.

Ex.A3Original Property Tax Receipt dt. 19.07.2018.

DEFENDANT NO.1 -Nil-

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE::

AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT :: N.SANTOSH KUMAR,

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIDDIPET

MONDAY , THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF MAY, 2022

S. C. No. 256 of 2021

P.R.C. No., Cr.No.and P.S.::P.R.C.No.17 of 2020,Cr.No 191 of 2019, P.S.Kukunoorpally

Case committed by:: I Addl. Judl. Magistrate First Class, Siddipet.

Name of accused::

Bhumani @ Dommata Shiva, s/o. Yellaiah, age 26 years, Occ:Auto Driver, R/o. Velikatta village of Kondapaka Mandal, Siddipet District.

Offence of Charge :: u/Secs 498-A, 306 and 506 of IPC

Plea of accused :: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of court :: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order::

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 506 of IPC, accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.MO1-bottle with name tag MILQUAT shall be destroyed and bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by::Sri. G.Radha Kishan Addl.Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by::Sri D.Krishna Mohan Advocate.

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Radhakishan, Addl. P.P., for State and Sri D.Krishna Mohan, Advocate for accused, upon perusing material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Sessions Case arose out of PRC No. 17 of 2020 on the file of learned I

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet in Crime No. 191 of 2019 of P.S

Kukunoorpally for the offences u/Secs 498-A, 306 and 506 of IPC against accused which has been committed to Court of Sessions by virtue of an order dated 22.07.2021 2 S.C.N o 256/2021, ASJ Court, Siddipet Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Siddipet

2.The grave-men of charge against the accused isthat

That accused herein being husband of Smt. Bhumani Padma(deceased) since two years prior to 29.06.2019 at his residence at Velikatta village of Kondapak

Mandal, Siddipet District subjected her to mental and physical harassment by beating her and suspecting her character by addicting to bad vices and on 29-06-2019 in the morning hours at 11.00 am accused threatened his wife Smt Bhumani

Padma(deceased) as such, unable to bear harassment of accused vexed over her life on 29.06.2029 at about 11.00 am committed suicide by consuming MILQUAT (Organo

Phosphate an insecticide poison) and died on 30.06.2019 in the morning hours at about 3.30 am while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, Thus the acts of accused constitute the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306 and 506 of

IPC.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-

The LW1/Bhumani Padma /deceased belongs to Velikatta village of Kondapak

Mandal of Siddipet district. About six years prior to 29.06.2019, the parents of LW1 performed her marriage with accused herein and they lead happy marital life for a period of two to four years and they were blessed with a son by name : Nikhil aged about 3 years. Thereafter, the accused addicted to bad vices and started harassing

LW1 physically and mentally over petty matters and suspected the chastity of LW1.

Though several panchayaths were conducted the accused did not change his attitude.

While so, on 29.06.2019 in the morning at about 11.00 hrs accused herein threatened the victim, unable to bear harassment of accused vexed over her life on 29.06.2029 at about 11.00 am LW1 consumed MILQUAT (Organo Phosphate an insecticide poison), then accused immediately shifted LW1 to Govt. Hospital, Siddipet. On receipt of intimation from hospital authorities on 29.06.2019, LW14 /T.Mallaiah, ASI rushed to

Siddipet Govt. Hospital and he recorded the statement of LW1 wherein LW1 stated above facts. As per the statement of LW1, LW15/B.Parameshwar, SI of Police registered a case in crime No. 191/2019 for the offence u/Sec. 498-A of IPC and issued 3 S.C.N o 256/2021, ASJ Court, Siddipet Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Siddipet

FIR to all concerned. While so, LW1 died on 30.06.2019 in the morning hours at about 3.30 am while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. On receipt of death intimation of Padma, LW15, altered section of law to 306and 498-A and 506 of

IPC. As the death of LW1 occurred within seven years of marriage, LW15 sent requisition to LW13/B.Prabhulu, Tahasildar of Kondapak to conduct inquest over the dead body of deceased. Accordingly, LW13 proceeded to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad wherein secured two mediators LW8 and LW9 namely: D.Rani,

D.Narsimulu, conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators and thereafter Post Mortem Examination was conducted over the dead body of deceased by LW12/Dr. K.Venkat Nagaraju, Asst. Professor, Dept. of Forensic

Medicine, Gandhi Hospital and issued PME report wherein opined that the cause of death was due to “Organo Phospate an insecticide Poison”. Later the dead body was handed over to relatives of deceased. While so, on 24.08.2019 at 11.30 hours, LW15 arrested the accused by following due procedure of law and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of entire investigation and after collecting all relevant documents, LW15 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306 and 506 of IPC.

4.Learned I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet took cognizance for the offences punishable U/Secs 498-A, 306 and 506 of IPC against the Accused and after furnishing copies of relevant documents to the accused U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. the said Magistrate committed the case U/Sec. 209 (a) Cr.P.C. to Hon'ble Principal Court of

Session, Sessions Division, Medak at Sangareddy as mentioned in the first para of

Judgment.

5.The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy registered the case and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to Law.

6.On appearance of Accused before this court, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel were heard under Section 226 of Cr.P.C.

4 S.C.N o 256/2021, ASJ Court, Siddipet Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Siddipet and considering the material on record and as per 228 Cr.P.C. the charges under

Sections 498-A, 306 and 506 of IPC were framed against accused and the same has been read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.11 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and MO1.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence on his behalf.

9.Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Learned counsel for accused and perused the material available on record.

10. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution had made out the guilt of Accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A,306 and 506 of IPC, beyond

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11.The prosecution to prove it’s case should prove that on or prior to 29.06.2019,

Accused has harassed the deceased B.Padma physically and mentally by suspecting her chastity and threatened and thereby accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

12.The prosecution in order to prove it’s case have examined PW.1 to PW.11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and MO1. The evidence of LW12 to LW14 was closed.

13.PW.1 and PW2 are parents of deceased. PW3 to PW5 are witnesses and panchayath elders. PW6 is witness. PW7 and PW8 are mediators for inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased. PW9 and PW10 are mediators for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. PW11 is Investigation officer.

5 S.C.N o 256/2021, ASJ Court, Siddipet Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Siddipet

Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW1. Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW2.

Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW3, Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW4,

Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW5. Ex.P6 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW6. Ex.P 7 to Ex.P10 are signatures of PW8 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P11 is signature of

PW9 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P12 is signature of PW10 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P13 is FIR. Ex.P14 statement of

LW1/Padma/deceased. Ex.P15 is inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased. Ex.P16 Post Mortem Examination Report. Ex.P17 is FSl Report. MO1 one bottle with name tag of MILQUAT.

14.PW.1 and PW2 who are parents of deceased Padma deposed that deceased was their daughter and her marriage was performed with accused 7 years back and after marriage they lived happily. They further deposed that their daughter used to suffer with severe stomach pain and approximately three years back, on one day due to severe stomach pain she consumed poison and died while undergoing treatment.

Police did not examine them.

15.PW3 and PW4 also deposed that deceased Padma and accused after marriage lead happy marital life and deceased used to suffer with severe stomach pain and approximately three years back on one day he came to know that Padma committed suicide by consuming poison. PW5 and PW6 have deposed that they do not know anything about the case.

16.PW7 and PW8 who are mediators for inquest panchanama also deposed that

Padma/deceased committed suicide due to severe stomach pain and on receipt of intimation when they go to Gandhi hospital, police obtained their thumb impression and signatures son written papers.

17.PW9 and PW10 who are mediators for scene of offence seizure panchanama deposed that police obtained their signatures on white paper 6 S.C.N o 256/2021, ASJ Court, Siddipet Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Siddipet

18. PW.1 to PW.6 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, with the permission of this court cross-examined PW.1 to PW.6, but nothing of substance was elicited in their cross-examination in favour of prosecution case except marking their 161 Cr.P.C. statements and their evidence is of no way helpful to the case of prosecution to prove guilt of the accused. PW7 to PW10 mediators for inquest panchanama and scene of offence cum seizure panchanama also turned hostile, as such, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor with the permission of this court cross-examined PW.7 to PW.10, but nothing of substance was elicited in their cross-examination in favour of prosecution.

19.On a careful perusal and consideration of the evidence of PW.1 and PW6, this court is of the considered opinion that, the, father, mother and panchayath elders might have entered into compromise with the accused and for that reason PW.1 to PW.6 turned hostile to their own case.

20.The only evidence available on record in favour of prosecution is of PW11.

PW.11 is the investigation officer in the present case. PW.11 deposed about recording statement of LW1 by LW14/T.Mallaiah, ASI, basing on the said statement registering case, issuing of First Information Report under Ex.P13 and on receipt of death intimation from hospital authorities altering section of law, conducting of inquest by

LW13/Prabhulu, Tahasildar in the presence of mediators PW7 and PW8, examining

PW1 to PW6, conducting of PME over dead body of deceased, conducting of scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators PW9 and PW10 seizure of MO1 and arresting of accused, filing of charge sheet.

21.The evidence of PW.11 with regard to registering the case, issuing of FIR, examiningwitnesses, conducting inquest panchanama and Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, is not at all supported and corroborated by the evidence of

PW.1 to PW10, hence, nothing incriminating was elicited against the 7 S.C.N o 256/2021, ASJ Court, Siddipet Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Siddipet accused to prove the guilt of accused. PME under Ex.P16 also not proved as the prosecution not examined the LW12/Dr. Venkat Nagaraju who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. The evidence of PW.11 is formal in nature since

PW.11 deposed about his investigation.

22.On considering the evidence of PW11, this court is of the considered view that it is not safe to convict the accused only basing on the un-corroborated oral evidence of

PW11. On considering the entire evidence available on record, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A , 306 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the Accused is entitled to acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

23In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 306 and 506 of IPC, accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.MO1-bottle with name tag MILQUAT shall be destroyed and bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of May,2022).

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

-:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

PW1-Smt. B. Sujatha - Mother of deceased PW2-B. Yellaiah- Father of deceased PW3-D.Kumar i- Panchayath elder/witness PW4-A.Ramulu Panchayath elder/witness PW5-M.DevadanamPanchayath elder/witness PW6-D.Chandra ShekarWitness PW7-Smt. D.RaniPanch for inquest PW8-D.NarsimuluPanch for inquest 8 S.C.N o 256/2021, ASJ Court, Siddipet Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Siddipet

PW9-P.AnjaiahPanch for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama PW10-.A.NarsimuluPanch for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama PW11-B.Parameswhar Investigation Officer.

FOR DEFENCE:- NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW1. Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW2. Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW3, Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW4, Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW5. Ex.P6 is 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW6. Ex.P 7 to Ex.P10 are signatures of PW8 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P11 is signature of PW9 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P12 is signature of PW10 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P13 is FIR. Ex.P14 statement of LW1/Padma/deceased. Ex.P15 is inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased. Ex.P16 Post Mortem Examination Report. Ex.P17 is FSl Report..

FOR DEFENCE:-

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

FOR PROSECUTION:-

MO1 one bottle with name tag of MILQUAT

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE::

AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT :: N. SANTOSH KUMAR,

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

MONDAY , THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

S. C. No .12 of 2019

P.R.C. No., Cr.No.and P.S.::P.R.C.No. 16 of 2018, Crime No.61 of 2018, P.S. Kukunoorpally

Case committed by:: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet

Name of accused::

A1-Kuncham Raju, S/o. late Kanakaiah, age 25 years, Caste:Vaddera, Occ:Driver,

A2- Kuncham Srikanth, S/o. late Kanakaiah, age 22 years, Caste:Vaddera, Occ:Driver,

A3- Makkala Ramesh, S/o. Late Mallaiah, age 35 years, Caste: Vaddera,Occ:Business, R/o. Konaipally village of Kondapak Mandal.

A4- Kuncham Laxmi @ Lachamma, W/o. late Kanakaiah, age 45 years, Caste:Vaddera, Occ:Coolie,

A5- Kuncham Kavitha, D/o. late Kanakaiah, age 21 years, Caste:Vaddera, Occ: Student,

A6- Kuncham Rajitha, W/o. Raju, age 21 years, Caste:Vaddera, Occ:Coolie,

A1,A2 A4,A5 and A6 are residents of Ravindra Nagar, H/o. Velikatta village of Kondapak Mandal.

A7- Makkala Ellamma, W/o. Late Mallaiah, age 62 years, Caste: Vaddera,Occ:Coolie, R/o. Konaipally village of Kondapak Mandal.

A8-Mergu Banuchander, S/o. Balnarsaiah, age 18 years, Caste:Vaddera, Occ:Coolie, R/o. Velikatta village of Kondapak Mandal.

A9-Arutla Arun, S/o. Raju, age 19 years, Occ:Co1.00 "olie, Caste: SC-Madiga, R/o. Velikatta village of Kondapak Mandal.

Offence of Charge :: u/Sec.307 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC

Plea of accused :: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of court :: Found not guilty 2 S.C.No 12/2019, Assistant Sessions Judge Court,Siddipet

Sentence or Order::

In the result, the Accused No.1 to 9 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec. 307 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section of 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the said offence. MO1 Sticks(3Nos) MO2-Stones vide CPR No. 124/15/2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by::Sri. G.Radha Kishan Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by::Sri Y.Rajeshwar Reddy Advocate

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Radhakishan, Additional Public Persecutor for State and of Sri Y.Rajeshwar Reddy, Advocate for accused, upon perusing material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Sessions Case arose out of PRC No.16/2018 on the file of learned

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet in Crime No.61 of 2018 of P.S.

Kukunoorpally for the offence u/Sec. 307 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC against Accused which has been committed to Court of Sessions by virtue of an order dated 04.01.2019.

2.The grave-men of charge against the accused is that on 16.05.2018 at about 6.30 pm at Ravindra Nagar, H/o. Velikatta village of Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet district in furtherance of their common intention A1 to A9 herein with an intention to kill

LW1/Deshetti Sattavva, LW2/Deshetti Sunitha, keeping the grudge in mind that, LW1 and LW2 purchased the ancestors’ land of accused No.1 to 9, attacked on them with sticks and stones and when LW3/Pallapu Sunitha, LW4/ Deshetti Ashok, LW5/ Deshetti

Ellavva, LW6/Kuncham Narsimulu, LW7/Kuncham Anjaiah, LW8/ Yadavva,

LW9/Kuncham Kishan intervened to rescue LW1 and LW2, then accused also beat them with sticks and stones and caused lacerations and abrasions to LW1 to LW9, and the act of accused which may cause death of LW1 to LW9 thereby constitute the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC r/w. Sec 34 of IPC.

3 S.C.No 12/2019, Assistant Sessions Judge Court,Siddipet

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-

On 16.05.2018, at 9.00 pm, LW1/Smt. Deshetti Sathavva/de facto complainant/injured went to Kukunoorpally police station and lodged a complaint alleging that she along with her sister Sunitha/LW2 have purchased land admeasuring 2guntas each from one Kuncham Bhoomaiah, R/o. Ravindra Nagar, while so, on 16.05.2018 in the evening at about 6.30 pm, while she along with her sister were present in their house, at that time, A1 to A9 herein came to them alleging that LW1 and

LW2 purchased their grandfather’s property and keeping the said grudge in mind and with an intention to kill LW1 and LW2, took stones and sticks available there, attacked on LW1 and LW2 and started beating LW1 and LW2 and caused severe injuries to them, when LW3 to LW9 intervened to rescue LW1 and LW2, then accused also beat them and caused injuries to them also and accused also demolished the house of LW1.

Hence, LW1, requested to take necessary action against the accused.

4.Basing on the report of LW1, LW13/B.Parameshwar, S.I of Police, P.S

Kukunoorpally registered a case in Crime No. 61 of 2018 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC r/w. Sec 34 of IPC, and issued FIR to all concerned and took-up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded statement of LW1, later rushed to scene of offence, but the injured LW2 to LW9 were sent to Govt.

Hospital, Siddipet for treatment, wherein, LW12/Dr. Mahesh, Duty Medical Officer treated the injured. Due to late night, LW13 could not continue his investigation. On 17.05.2018, LW13 again visited the scene of offence wherein he conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized (3) sticks, (2) stones from the scene used in commission of offence by accused in the presence mediators LW10 and LW11 namely:

N.Mallesham and D.Kumar. Later, LW13 examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW9 and on 17.05.2018 itself at about 10.00 am, LW13 apprehended

A1,A4,A5,A6,A7 and A9 at their houses and brought them to P.S.Kukunoorpally and effected their arrest by following due procedure of law and remanded them to judicial custody. Later, LW13 collected the Medical/injury certificates of LW1 to LW9 from 4 S.C.No 12/2019, Assistant Sessions Judge Court,Siddipet

Lw12 wherein, LW12 opined that injured sustained simple injuries. While so, A2, A3 and A8 granted bail vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.383/2018 dated 08.06.2018 of Hon’ble

VI Addl. District and Sessions Court, Siddipet and they surrendered before Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet and released on bail on 25.06.2018. After

completion of entire investigation and after collecting all relevant documents, LW13 filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence u/Sec.307 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of

IPC.

5.Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet took cognizance for the offence punishable u/Sec. 307 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 to 9, and after furnishing copies of relevant documents to the accused U/Sec. 207

Cr.P.C., the said Magistrate, committed the case U/Sec. 209 (a) Cr.P.C., to Hon'ble

Principal Court of Session, Sessions Division, Medak at Sangareddy as mentioned in

the first para of Judgment.

6.The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy registered the case and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to Law.

7.On appearance of Accused No.1 to 9 before this court, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel were heard under Section 226 of

Cr.P.C. and considering the material on record and as per 228 Cr.P.C. the charge under

Section 307 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC was framed against A1 to A9, same has been read over and explainedto them in their vernacular language, for which, they pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

[8.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got exhibited ExP1 to Ex.P20 and got marked MO1, MO2.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 to 9 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence on their behalf.

5 S.C.No 12/2019, Assistant Sessions Judge Court,Siddipet

10.Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Learned counsel for accused and perused the material available on record.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of Accused No.1 to

9, for the offence punishable u/Sec. 307 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

12.The prosecution to prove it’s case should prove that Accused No.1 to 9 on 16.05.2018 about 6.30 pm at Ravindra Nagar, H/o. Velikatta village of Kondapak

Mandal, Siddipet district in furtherance of their common intention attempted to Kill LW1 and LW2 with grudge that they purchased the ancestors’ land of A1 to A9 and LW3 to

LW9 who tried to rescue LW1 and LW2, by beating them with sticks and stones

13.The prosecution in order to prove it’s case have examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got exhibited ExP1 to Ex.P20 and also got marked MO1 and MO2.

14.PW.1 is the de-facto complainant and injured person. PW.2 is sister of PW1 and injured. PW3 to PW8 are eyewitnesses and injured. PW9 is the investigation officer in the present case. 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 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P7 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6. Ex.P8 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7. Ex.P9 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8. Ex.P10 is FIR. Ex.P11 is

Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P12 is Medical Certificate PW1,

Ex.P13 is Medical Certificate of PW2. Ex.P14 is Medical Certificate of PW3. Ex.P15 is

Medical Certificate of PW4. Ex.P16 is Medical Certificate of PW5. Ex.P17 is Medical

Certificate of PW6. Ex.P18 is Medical Certificate of LW7/K.Anjaiah. Ex.P19 is Medical

Certificate of PW7. Ex.P20 is Medical certificate of PW8. MO1-(3)sticks, MO2-(2) stones.

6 S.C.No 12/2019, Assistant Sessions Judge Court,Siddipet

15.Before going into merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention here is that,

PW1/de facto complainant/injured, PW2 to PW8 eyewitnesses and injured have not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. PW.1 to 8 deposed that they do not know anything about the case and police did not examine them. Hence, their evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.

16.The only evidence available on record in favour of prosecution is of PW9. PW.9 is the investigation officer in the present case. PW.9 deposed about receiving of complaint from PW.1, registering case, issuing of First Information Report under

Ex.P10, examining and recording the statements witnesses, preparing scene of offence cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P11 in the presence of mediators and effecting the arrest of accused collecting medical certificates under Ex.P12 to Ex.P20 and filing of charge sheet.

17.The evidence of PW.9 is with regard to the receiving of complaint from PW.1, registering case, issuing of First Information Report under Ex.P10, examining and recording the statements witnesses, preparing of scene of offence cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P11 is not at all corroborated by the evidence of PW.1 to PW.8.

Moreover, the evidence of mediators for preparation of scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and the Medical officer who examined and treated PW1 to PW8 was closed as prosecution could not produce them before the court. Thereby, the prosecution could not establish Ex.P11 and seizure of MO1 and MO2 and injuries sustained by PW1 to PW8 under Ex.P12 to Ex.P20 which is fatal to the case of prosecution. No doubt, PW9 who is Investigating Officer in the present case, categorically deposed that he has effected the arrest of the accused, but it cannot be said that mere arresting of the accused by itself will prove the case of the prosecution.

The prosecution has to prove its entire case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW9 is formal in nature since PW.9 deposed about his investigation.

‘ 7 S.C.No 12/2019, Assistant Sessions Judge Court,Siddipet

18.On considering the evidence of PW9, this court is of the considered view that it is not safe to convict the accused only basing on the un-corroborated oral evidence of

PW9. On considering the entire evidence available on record, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC r/w. Sec.

34 of IPC. Accordingly, the Accused No. 1 to 9 are entitled to acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

19In the result, the Accused No.1 to 9 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec. 307 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section of 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the said offence. MO1 Sticks(3Nos) MO2-(2)Stones vide CPR No.

124/15/2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of May,2022).

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

-:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

PW1-D.SattavvaDe-facto complainant /injured PW2-D.SunithaEyewitness/injured PW3-P.AbbammaEyewitness/injured PW4-D.AshokEyewitness/injured PW5- D.EllavvaEyewitness/injured PW6-K.NarsimuuEyewitness/injured PW7-K.YadavvaEyewitness/injured PW8-K.KishanEyewitness/injured PW9-B.ParameshwarInvestigation officer

FOR DEFENCE:-

NIL

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.

8 S.C.No 12/2019, Assistant Sessions Judge Court,Siddipet

Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P6 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P7 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6. Ex.P8 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7. Ex.P9 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8. Ex.P10 is FIR. Ex.P11 is Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P12 is Medical Certificate PW1, Ex.P13 is Medical Certificate of PW2. Ex.P14 is Medical Certificate of PW3. Ex.P15 is Medical Certificate of PW4. Ex.P16 is Medical Certificate of PW5. Ex.P17 is Medical Certificate of PW6. Ex.P18 is Medical Certificate of LW7/K.Anjaiah. Ex.P19 is Medical Certificate of PW7. Ex.P20 is Medical certificate of PW8.

FOR DEFENCE:-

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

MO1-3sticks, MO2-2 stones.

FOR DEFENCE

NIL

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

9 S.C.No 12/2019, Assistant Sessions Judge Court,Siddipet

1/11 O.S. No.23/2015 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

IN THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: :: SIDDIPET

PRESENT :: N. SANTOSH KUMAR,

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026

O. S. No. 23 of 2015

Between:-

1.Baby Purumandla Varshitha D/o. Late P. Karunakar Reddy, Aged: 11 years, (Minor). Represented by her natural mother and guardian Purmandla Subhadra Rani W/o. Late P. Karunakar Reddy, Aged: 35 years, Occ:Employee R/o. H.No.3-36 of Chandlapur village. Presently R/o. H.No. 19-93, Srinivas Nagar, Near BMR College, Siddipet.

2. Baby Purumandla Babiya D/o. Late P. Karunakar Reddy, Aged: 5 years, (Minor). Represented by her natural mother and guardian Purumandal Subhadra Rani W/o. Late P.Karunakar Reddy, Aged: 35 years, Occ:Employee, R/o. H No 3-36, of Chinnakodur village. Presently residing at H. No.19-93, Srinivasnagar, Near BMR College, Siddipet.

...Plaintiffs

AND

1.Purumandla Anasuya W/o. Late P. Venkat Reddy, Aged: 65 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.3-36, Chandlapur village, Chinnakodur mandal, Medak District.

2. Purumandla Srinivas Reddy S/o. Late P. Venkat Reddy, Aged: 34 Years, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.No. 3-36, Chandlapur village, Chinnakodur mandal, Medak District.

3. Purumandla Raghupathi Reddy S/o. P. Venkat Reddy, Aged: 30 years, Occ:Employee, R/o. H.No.3-36, Chandlapur village, Chinnakodur mandal, Medak District.

...Defendants

2/11 O.S. No.23/2015 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

This suit coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Tabarak Ali, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri S. Srinivas Goud, Advocate for defendants No.1 & 3. Upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for Partition and Separate Possession in respect of suit schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ Properties.

2.Case of the Plaintiff:- (i) The Plaintiffs submits that the originally

Sri Purumandla Venkat Reddy S/o. Ram Reddy was the owner of agricultural lands comprised in ‘B’ schedule properties and the house properties fully described in the ‘A’ schedule property. The said Sri P. Venkat Reddy demised on 16.01.2005 leaving behind his wife and three sons of whom the plaintiffs are the grand daughters of Late P. Venkat Reddy borne through his son namely

Karunakar Reddy.

(ii)The plaintiffs further submits that the plaintiffs have represented by the natural guardian and mother namely Purumandla Subhadra Rani. The defendant No.1 is the wife of Late P. Venkat Reddy and the defendant No.2 & 3 are the sons of Late P. Venkat Reddy. Taking advantage of the fact, that the mother of the plaintiffs namely Subhadra Rani who is household women and not well verse with the Legal affairs, making wrongful game of the profits and the income and the income of the 'A' and 'B' schedule mentioned properties 3/11 O.S. No.23/2015 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, situated at Chandlapur village, Siddipet Town, defendants were trying to alienate the plaint schedule properties in favour of third parties without there being any valid partition of the joint family properties by metes and bounds. The plaintiff got issued the legal notice to the defendants on 14-06-2014 demanding that the plaint schedule properties be partition by metes and bounds and that the just share of the plaintiffs be delivered to them, but inspite of the said legal notice, the defendants have not partitioned which are joint family ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants. Therefore, the present suit is filed for partition together with the mesne profits.

3.Case of the Defendants:- (i) In this case, summons served on defendant No.2, when he was called absent. Hence he was set exparte to the proceedings on 17.03.2016.

(ii)The defendant No.1 filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendant No.3 and denying the material allegations levelled in the plaint and the mother of plaintiffs filed the present suit with ulterior motive with malafied intention, as such defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.

4.On considering the rival contention on both oral and documentary pleadings, the court framed the following issues for Trial:-

1.Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties?

4/11 O.S. No.23/2015 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the Partition of suit schedule properties as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5.To substantiate the case of plaintiffs, Smt. Purumandla Subhadra Rani who is natural guardian and mother of plaintiffs examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A28. On the other hand, the defendants did not choose to lead evidence on their behalf.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Issue No.1 & 2:-

Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the Partition of suit schedule properties as prayed for?

(Issues No.1 & 2 are interrelated, as such they are discussed together).

8.The case of the plaintiff is that, originally Puramandla Venkat Reddy is the original owner of suit schedule properties and died intestate on 16.01.2005 leaving behind the defendants who are wife and sons and another son namely

P.Karunakar Reddy who is father of plaintiffs, but he is no more. The plaintiffs who are minors represented by their natural guardian and mother namely

P. Subhadra Rani, alleging that the suit schedule properties are ancestral 5/11 O.S. No.23/2015 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and they are the members of joint family property are entitled to their respective share. Despite of repeated demands the defendants failed to effect the partition and moreover, defendants have trying to alienate the suit schedule properties in favour of third parties without partitioning of the joint family properties. For which reasons, plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants on 14.06.2014 demanding for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share of 5/16th share of plaint schedule properties, on which defendants gave reply to the legal notice with all false allegations. Since the suit is filed for partition and separate possession claiming 5/16th share by the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule properties which are originally belongs to plaintiff’s grandfather by name Purumandla Venkat Reddy, who died long back and leaving behind his wife defendant No.1 and three sons who are defendant

No.2 & 3 and another son namely P.Karunakar Reddy, who is father of plaintiff died long back. Therefore, the plaintiffs and defendants are the only legal heirs to succeed the suit schedule properties.

9.On the other hand, defendants No.1 & 3 have filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and there is no dispute with regard to the 6/11 O.S. No.23/2015 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants and stating that the present suit is filed with ulterior motive with malafied intention.

10.To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs being minor children represented by their natural mother namely Smt. Purumandla Subhadra

Rani, has entered into the witness box as PW1 and filed her affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the entire facts that are pleaded in the plaint and she got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A28. Ex.A1 is Certified copy of ROR obtained from Meesaeva dt. 27.09.2013. Ex.A2 is CC of pahani for fasli year 1424 dt.

10.02.2015. Ex.A3 is CC of Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.A4 is Family member certificate dt. 15.02.2005 issued by MRO, Chinnakodur. Ex.A5 is death certificate of P. Karunakar Reddy dt. 13.05.2009. Ex.A6 is Family member certificate of P. Karunakar Reddy dt. 23.05.2009. Ex.A7 to A9 are Aadhar cards of Plaintiffs and mother of plaintiffs. Ex.A10 & A11 are Birth certificates of plaintiffs. Ex.A12 is Registered Sale Deed No.2133/2004 dt. 31.03.2004.

Ex.A13 is Registered Sale Deed No.4975/2006 dt. 19.06.2006. Ex.A14 is Office

Copy of Legal Notice dt. 14.06.2014. Ex.A15 is RPAD postal receipts. Ex.A16 is

Returned RPAD postal cover. Ex.A17 is RPAD postal receipts. Ex.A18 is Postal

Acknowledgment of Defendant No.1. Ex.A19 is Returned RPAD postal covers of defendant No.2 & 3. Ex.A20 is RPAD postal Receipts. Ex.A21 Returned RPAD 7/11 O.S. No.23/2015 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, postal covers of defendant No.2 & 3. Ex.A22 is Reply notice dt. 26.06.2014 issued by defendants. Ex.A23 to Ex.A28 are valuation certificates dt.25.02.2015. More particularly on perusal of Ex.A1 i.e 1-B (ROR), it reveals that the name of defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule ‘B’ properties are reflected subsequent to the death of her husband namely P. Venkat Reddy.

Further Ex.A2 certified copy of pahani for fasli year 1424 stands the name of defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule property. Further, Ex.A3 certified copy of Encumbrance discloses the name of ancestor in respect of house property shown in Sl.No.2 of suit schedule ‘A’ property. Ex.A5 death certificate of P.Karunakar Reddy who is father of plaintiffs and on perusal of the said document, it is evident that the father of plaintiffs died on 08.05.2009.

Further the plaintiffs relied upon Ex.A5 to A11 which includes Aadhar cards, birth certificates and family member certificate, which establishing the relationship between the parties and their status as legal heirs of the deceased.

Ex.A12 is Registered Sale deed showing the name of ancestor i.e., P. Venkat

Reddy in respect of house property shown in Sl.No.2 of suit schedule ‘A’ property. Further, Ex.A13 Registered sale deed standing in the name of defendant No.1.

8/11 O.S. No.23/2015 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

11.The burden initially lies on the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule properties are ancestral/joint family properties. The plaintiffs have asserted that the properties belongs to their ancestor namely P. Venkat Reddy who is grandfather of plaintiffs and after his demise, they devolved upon the family. During the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited that after the death of husband of the defendant No.1 the properties stand in the name of the defendant No.1 who is a wife of Late P. Venkat Reddy. This fact however does not by itself establish absolute ownership of the defendant No.1. It is a settled principle that mere mutation or revenue records do not confer title and such entries are primary for fiscal purposes.

12.On the other hand, though the defendants have taken a plea denying the ancestral nature of the properties, but they have failed to step into the witness box and failed to adduce any rebuttal evidence. Mere suggestions in cross examination without supporting evidence are not sufficient to disprove the plaintiffs case. Further, the relationship between the parties is admited, which supports the plaintiffs claim of joint family status. Though PW1 cross examined at length but however, no substantiate evidence was elicited during the cross- examination to shake the veracity of the PW1 and also to believe the case of the defendants or disprove the evidence of PW1. Further, inspite of granting 9/11 O.S. No.23/2015 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, sufficient time by this court, the defendants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the evidence of plaintiff and hence the evidence of defendants is closed on 23.04.2026. The defendants have failed to prove any exclusive title or prior partition in respect of suit schedule properties and the case of the plaintiffs remains unchallenged and unrebuttal. Hence, this court holds that the suit schedule properties are ancestral/joint family properties and the plaintiffs are entitled to their lawful share as prayed for. Accordingly the Issue No.1 & 2 are answered in favour of plaintiffs.

13.ISSUE NO.3:-

To what relief ? In view of the findings in Issue No.1 & 2, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for.

14.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby Preliminarily decreed with cost, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/16th in the suit schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties with partition to be effected by metes and bounds.

The plaintiffs are at liberty to file an application for passing final decree for divisions by metes and bounds and for separate possession of their share.

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

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

10/11 O.S. No.23/2015 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

PW1 : Purumandla Subhadra Rani - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Certified copy of ROR obtained from Meesaeva dt. 27.09.2013.

Ex.A2CC of pahani for fasli year 1424 dt. 10.02.2015.

Ex.A3CC of Encumbrance Certificate.

Ex.A4Family member certificate dt. 15.02.2005 issued by MRO,

Chinnakodur.

Ex.A5Death certificate of P. Karunakar Reddy dt. 13.05.2009.

Ex.A6Family member certificate of P. Karunakar Reddy dt. 23.05.2009.

Ex.A7Aadhar cards of Plaintiffs and mother of plaintiffs. Ex.A10 & A11 are to A9 Birth certificates of plaintiffs.

Ex.A10Birth certificate os plaintiffs. & A11

Ex.A12 Registered Sale Deed No.2133/2004 dt. 31.03.2004.

11/11 O.S. No.23/2015 Prl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

Ex.A13 Registered Sale Deed No.4975/2006 dt. 19.06.2006.

Ex.A14 Office Copy of Legal Notice dt. 14.06.2014.

Ex.A15 RPAD postal receipts.

Ex.A16 Returned RPAD postal cover.

Ex.A17 RPAD postal receipts.

Ex.A18 Postal Acknowledgment of Defendant No.1.

Ex.A19 Returned RPAD postal covers of defendant No.2 & 3.

Ex.A20 RPAD postal Receipts.

Ex.A21 Returned RPAD postal covers of defendant No.2 & 3.

Ex.A22 Reply notice dt. 26.06.2014 issued by defendants.

Ex.A23Valuation certificates dt.25.02.2015. to A28

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

- Nil -

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.