Sri N.syamasundar

OS.No.201 of 2025 1 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: BHUVANAGIRI

Present: Sri N.Syamasundar,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

Dated, this the 21st day of April, 2026

O.S.No. 201 of 2025

Between:-

Aileni Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Aileni Anantha Reddy, Aged about 61 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Sy.No.201/A, Crystal Township-1, Hussainabad, Bhuvanagiri Town and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

...Plaintiff.

A N D

1.To whomsoever it may concern.

2.The Tahsildar, Bhuvanagiri Town and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

3. The District Collector, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

4.Suraram Narsimha Reddy, S/o.Late Malla Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-16, Serilingampally Nankramguda, Golconda, Ranga Reddy District.

5.Mada Venkata Rama Kumar, S/o.Late Mada Krishnaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ:Agriculture and Business, R/o.H.No.18-126-4, Erramathi Road, A.Narayanapuram, ASR Nagar, Ananthapur Rural District.

6. G.Sriram Sandeep Kumar, S/o.G.Mohan Kumar, Aged about 41 years, Occ:Agriculture and Business, R/o.H.NO.30/197, Shafinagar, Rock Hill Colony, Old Safilguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

7.Namburi Venkata Shivaji Ganesh Varma, S/o.VS.Narayana Raju, Aged about 33 years, Occ:Agriculture and Business, R/o.H.No.2-55, Main Road, Vinayaka Street, Ainavilli, Dr.BR.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh State.

...Defendants.

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Ch.Siddiramulu, counsel for the plaintiff and defendants are set exparte and upon hearing and perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

Date: 21.04.2025

OS.No.201 of 2025 2 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to declare him as the legal heir of late Aileni Jayalaxmi and also to declare the plaintiff as the owner and possessor of the suit "A to E" schedule properties.

2.The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as follows :

The plaintiff is the husband of Late Aileni Jayalaxmi. The Said Aileni

Jayalaxmi died on 14-03-2025 by leaving the plaintiff alone as her legal heir and successor to succeed her properties and liabilities. The plaintiff is the real and true legal heir of Late Aileni Jayalaxmi. Except the plaintiff, there are no other legal heirs to Late Aileni Jayalaxmi.

3. During her life time, Late Aileni Jayalaxmi was the owner, possessor and titleholder of the Open Plot bearing No.82/North Part in Sy.No.194, 197, 197/AA3, 197/AA4, 197/AA9/1, 198/E and 198/A5/1/1 admeasuring an area of 143.50 sq yards, of Crystal Township Premium, situated at Revenue Village

Hussainabad, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, having acquired the same by way of purchase from M/s.Baba Infra & Developers,

Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Mohammed Abdul Majeed through

Registered Sale Deed vide document No.7765/2023, dated:22-09-2022 of

SRO -Bhongir and said property hereinafter called as the Suit "A" Schedule

Property.

4. It is submitted that said Late Aileni Jayalaxmi was the owner, possessor and titleholder of the Open Plot bearing No.35/ South Part in Sy.No.54/E admeasuring an area of 132 sq yards of SV Heights, situated at Hanmapur

Date: 21.04.2025

OS.No.201 of 2025 3 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri

Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, having acquired the same by way of purchase from Donkena Jyothi through Registered Sale Deed vde document No.6475/2024, dated:31-08-2024 of SRO-Bhongir and said property hereinafter called as the Suit "B" Schedule Property.

5.It is further submitted that said Late Aileni Jayalaxmi was the owner, possessor and titleholder of the Open Plot bearing No.34 (north part) admeasuring an area of 180 sq yards in Sy.No.201/A and 201/AA in Crystal

Township-I, situated at Revenue Village Hussainabad, Bhongir Mandal,

Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District having acquired the same by way of purchase from M/s.Bharath Real Estate, Represented by its Managing Partner Sri MA

Majeed through Regstered Sale Deed vide document No.3129/2022,

dated:05-03-2022 of SRO -Bhongir. Out of said purchased plots, said Aileni @

Manthena Jayalaxmi settled Plot No.34 (East Part) admg 16.26 sq.yards and

Plot No.33 (East Part) admg 122 sq.yards, total 138.26 sq.yards executed a

Registered Gift Deed vide document No.7725/2022, dated:16-06-2022 in the name of her husband Aileni Srinivas Reddy. Likewise, said Aileni @ Manthena

Jayalaxmi settled Plot No.34 (West Part) admg 16 sq.yards and Plot No.33 (West Part) admg 120 sq.yards, total 136 sq.yards and executed a

Registered Gift Deed vide document No.7726/2022, dated:16-06-2022 in the name of her husband Aileni Srinivas Reddy. The said Aileni Jayalaxmi also sold away part of the above said plots admg 110 sq.yards to the third parties and after said settlements, the said Aileni Jayalaxmi is left with Plot bearing

No.34 admeasuring an area of 180 sq.yards and said property hereinafter called as the Suit "C" Schedule Property.

Date: 21.04.2025

OS.No.201 of 2025 4 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri

6.It is submitted that said Late Aileni Jayalaxmi was the owner, possessor and titleholder of the Open Plot bearing No.35 admeasuring 277 sq.yards in

Sy.No.123 and 124/A, situated at Cheeryal Village and Keesara Mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District having acquired the same by way of gift from

Aileni Srinivas Reddy (the plaintiff) through Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide document No.10274/2022, dated 08-08-2022 of SRO-Keesara and said property hereinafter called as the Suit "D" Schedule Property.

7.It is further submitted that said Late Aileni Jayalaxmi was the owner, possessor, pattedar and titleholder of 1/5th undivided share in the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.146/1 admeasuring Ac.05-16 Gts, situated at

Mudhol Village, Sedam Taluq, Kalaburagi District having acquired the same by way of purchase along with four others namely 1.Suraram Narasimha

Reddy, 2.Mada Venkata Rama Kumar, 3.G. Sriram Sandeep Kumar and 4.Namburi Venkata Shivaji Ganesh Varma (Defendant No.4 to 7) through

Registered Sale Deed vide document No.1715/2024-25, dated:15-07-2024 of

SRO - Sedam and said property hereinafter called as the Suit "E" Schedule

Property.

8.After death of said Ailen Jayalaxmi, the plaintiff want to mutate the said properties on his name, as such he approached the defendant No.2 in the first week of September, 2025 for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate of late

Aileni Jayalaxmi. But the defendant No.2 declined to issue the Legal Heir

Certificate of deceased Aileni Jayalaxmi and advised him to approach the civil court. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has no other go except to approach the Hon'ble court. Hence the suit.

Date: 21.04.2025

OS.No.201 of 2025 5 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri

9.Despite service of summons, the defendants did not chose to cause its appearance and file vakalat and written statements, hence defendants were set exparte. Despite paper publication against defendant/No.1, no objections were received.

10.In order to establish the suit claim, the plaintiff/Aileni Srinivas

Reddy is examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 are marked. One Purna

Narsimha Reddy is examined in chief as PW2 and Lakavath Venkati is examined in chief as PW3.

11.In view of the contentions of the plaintiffs, the point that arise for consideration is,

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

12.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

13 Point :

a)The plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW1. The evidence of PW1 is the total reiteration of the plaint averments. In support of the case of the plaintiffs Exs.A1 to A7 are marked and PW1 and PW2 are examined in chief. Ex.A1 is the original death certificate of Aileni Jayalaxmi. Ex.A2 is the original registered sale deed vide document No.7765/2023

dated:22.09.2022, which shows that M/s.Baba Infra & Developers,

Represented by its Mohammed Abdul Mateen got executed a registered sale deed vide document No.7765/2023 in favour of Aileni Jayalaxmi,

W/o.Aileni Srinivas Reddy(plaintiff) in respect of Sy.No.194, 197, 197/AA3,

Date: 21.04.2025

OS.No.201 of 2025 6 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri 197/AA4, 197/AA9/1, 198/E and 198/A5/1/1 admeasuring an area of 143.50.

Ex.A3 is the original registered sale deed vide document No.6475/2024

dated:31.08.2024, which shows that Donkena Jyothi, W/o.Donkena

Prabhakar got executed a registered sale deed vide document

No.6475/2024 in favour of Aileni Jayalaxmi, W/o.Aileni Srinivas

Reddy(plaintiff) in respect of Open Plot bearing No.35/South Part in

Sy.No.54/E admeasuring an area of 132 sq yards. Ex.A4 is the original registered sale deed vide document No.3129/2022 dated:05.03.2022, which shows that M/s.Bharath Real Estate, Represented by its M.A.Majeed,

S/o.Late M.A.Mateen got executed a registered sale deed vide document

No.3129/2022 in favour of Aileni Jayalaxmi, W/o.Aileni Srinivas

Reddy(plaintiff) in respect of Open plot bearing No.33 (241.71 sq.yards) and 34 (322.28 sq.yards), total admeasuring an area of 563.99 in Sy.No.201/A and Sy.No.201/AA. Ex.A5 is the original registered sale deed vide document

No.10274/2022 dated:08.08.2022, which shows that Aileni Srnivas Reddy,

S/o.Aileni Anantha Reddy (plaintiff) got executed a registered gift settlement deed vide document No.10274/2022 in favour of Aileni

Jayalaxmi, W/o.Aileni Srinivas Reddy(plaintiff) in respect of plot No.35 admeasuring an area of 277 sq.yards in Sy.No.123 and 124/A. Ex.A6 is the original registered sale deed vide document No.1715/2024-2025

dated:15.07.2024, which shows that Smt Rupa, W/o.Sriram Ture got

executed a registered sale deed vide document No.1715/2024-2025 in favour of Aileni Jayalaxmi, W/o.Aileni Srinivas Reddy (plaintiff) along with

Date: 21.04.2025

OS.No.201 of 2025 7 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri four others namely 1.Suraram Narasimha Reddy, 2.Mada Venkata Rama

Kumar, 3.G. Sriram Sandeep Kumar and 4.Namburi Venkata Shivaji Ganesh

Varma (Defendant No.4 to 7) in respect of agricultural land bearing

Sy.No.146/1 admeasuring Ac.05-16 Gts, situated at Mudhol Village, Sedam

Taluq, Kalaburagi District. Ex.A7 is the Original Market Value certificate issued by the SRO-Bhongir dated:10.09.2025.

b)Ex.A1 is the family members certificate shows that plaintiff is the husband of late Aileni Jayalaxmi. Thus, there is no dispute that the plaintiff is the legal heir of late Aileni Jayalaxmi.

c)It is according to the plaintiff, since he was intending to mutate the suit "A to E" schedule properties on his name, upon which he approached the defendant No.2 for issuance of legal heir certificate, for which the defendant No.2 advised him to approach the Civil Court of Law for obtaining legal heir certificate. Thus, no one is disputing the title of late

Aileni Jayalaxmi or the plaintiff over the suit "A to E" schedule properties.

Therefore, the evidence has to be taken into consideration that the plaintiff is the legal heir of late Aileni Jayalaxmi.

d)On careful consideration of the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A7 along with PW2 and PW3, which shows the plaintiff is the legal heir of late Aileni Jayalaxmi and he is the Original Pattedar and Possessor of the suit "A to E" schedule properties.

e)Hence, all the aforesaid contentions and documentary evidence by

Plaintiffs, wherein it can be said that the Plaintiff evidence have remained

Date: 21.04.2025

OS.No.201 of 2025 8 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri unchallenged and uncontested as a result an adverse inference can be drawn against Defendants to the effect that they had admitted the entire case put up by the Plaintiff. Hence, point is answered accordingly.

14. In the result, the suit is exparte decreed, declaring the plaintiff as the legal heir of late Aileni Jayalaxmi and also the plaintiff is the absolute owner, possessor and titleholder of the suit "A to E" schedule properties.

No costs.

Typed on my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21 st day of April, 2026.

Sd/-(Sri N.Syamasundar)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS : P.W.1: Aileni Srinivas Reddy. -NIL- P.W.2: Pruna Narsimha Reddy. P.W.3: Lakavath Venkati.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF : Ex.A1 is the original death certificate of Aileni Jayalaxmi. Ex.A2 is the original registered sale deed vide document No.7765/2023

dated:22.09.2022.

Ex.A3 is the original registered sale deed vide document No.6475/2024

dated:31.08.2024.

Ex.A4 is the original registered sale deed vide document No.3129/2022

dated:05.03.2022.

Ex.A5 is the original registered sale deed vide document No.10274/2022

Date: 21.04.2025

OS.No.201 of 2025 9 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri

dated:08.08.2022.

Ex.A6 is the original registered sale deed vide document No.1715/2024- 2025 dated:15.07.2024. Ex.A7 is the Original Market Value certificate issued by the SRO-Bhongir

dated:10.09.2025.

FOR DEFENDANTS : -NIL-

Sd/-(Sri N.Syamasundar)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

Date: 21.04.2025

OS.No.40 of 2015 1 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: BHUVANAGIRI

Present: Sri.N.Syamasundar,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

Dated, this the 18th day of February, 2026

O.S.No.40 of 2015

Between:-

Shaganti Ramachander, S/o.Bikshapathi, Aged about 39 years, Occ:Business, R/o.5-143, Gatchibavi Village, Bhongir Mandal.

...Plaintiff.

A N D

1. Samreddy Chandrakala (died)

2. Samreddy Jaideepreddy (died) Both are R/o.1-32, Almasguda, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

3. Samreddy Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Yadi Reddy, Aged about 45 years.

4. Samreddy Rajender Reddy, S/o.Yadi Reddy, Aged about 41 years. Both are R/o.H.No.1-47, Almasguda, Hyderabad.

...Defendants.

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.S.Shankar Goud, counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri.P.Balakrishna Reddy, counsel for defendant No.1 & 2 and upon hearing and perusal of the material on record 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 is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for Specific

Performance of Agreement of sale dated:15.09.2014 executed by

Defendants in favour of Plaintiff in respect of land bearing Sy.No.71 admeasuring to an extent of Acs.3-00 guntas situated at Mustyalapally

Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District and grant permanent injunction against the defendants, their men, agents from ever interfering

Date:18.02.2026

OS.No.40 of 2015 2 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

2.The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows :

The defendant No.1 & 2 are the mother and son respectively, they are legal heirs of one Samreddy Bhaskar Reddy being his wife and son, who owned and possessed an extent of Acs.1.35 cents in Sy.No.96/A/1 situated at Challuru

Village, Rajapet Mandal, having purchased the same from one Gujjula Krishna

Reddy under registered sale deed dated:10.11.2006, after death of said

Samreddy Bhaskar Reddy, the defendant No.1 & 2 herein being the legal heirs.

Both of them agreed to sell the same for a valid consideration of Rs.9 lakhs to the plaintiff, they received an advance part payment of sale consideration of

Rs.1,50,000/- and acknowledged the same under the receipt dt.15.09.2014 by issuing a separate receipt. On the same day they executed an agreement dt.15.09.2014 with terms and conditions, the plaintiff agreed to pay another

Rs.1,50,000/- by 15.10.2014 and to pay the balance of consideration of

Rs.6,00,000/- within sixty days from the date of the agreement of sale and the defendants undertook to produce all their original documents, pahanies etc., In terms of the said agreement, the plaintiff paid another amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 28.10.2014. Though there was a delay of 13 days in paying the same, the defendants received the same ignoring such time stipulation which is not stated to be the essence of the contract.

3.As per the terms of the sale agreement, the plaintiff has to pay the balance of consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- by 15.12.2014, the plaintiff

Date:18.02.2026

OS.No.40 of 2015 3 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri approached the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the regular registered sale deed his favour. But the defendants dodged the same on one pretext or the other. Ultimately the plaintiff vexed with the delaying tactics of the defendants, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.16.02.2015 to the defendants calling upon them to receive the balance of sale consideration and to execute the regular sale deed. Till today, the defendants did not give any reply to the same.

4.The plaintiff further submits that there was no response from the defendants, he approached his counsel with instructions to file a suit for specific performance of the contract. When the counsel took up the case and started the preparation of the plaint, for the first time it was noticed that the defendant

No.1 signed as a party to the receipts. Since the plaintiff is not well versed with the legal formalities, he was under the impression that both the defendants signed as parties to the sale agreement as well as the receipts. Thus, even if the defendant No.2 signed in such manner, for all practical and legal purposes both the defendants are the parties to the sale agreement and both of them have received the sale consideration and have agreed to sell the said property.

He is deemed to be a party to the same and he is also liable to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in specific performance of the above said sale agreement.

5.The plaintiff further submit that in pursuance of the sale agreement stated above, the defendants have delivered the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got measured the land, fenced it

Date:18.02.2026

OS.No.40 of 2015 4 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri and also constructed a house as well as bore in it. Thus, he has been in the possession of the same. Now the defendants are threatening to dispossess him from the same having raised false contentions against the sale agreement.

Irrespective of their claims against the same they cannot resort to highhanded action of forcible dispossession of the plaintiff and they have to necessarily follow due process of law. Since the defendants did not dispute the delivery of the possession to the plaintiff and the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule land, they are liable to be restrained by way of a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property under due process of law.

6.The defendants filed their written statement, stating that they offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for valid sale consideration.

The plaintiff agreed and paid an advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- at that time acknowledged the same under the receipt dt.15.09.2014 by issuing a separate receipt, on the same day they executed an agreement dt.15.09.2014, further the plaintiff agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 15.10.2014 and remaining balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid within 60 days from the date of agreement of sale. But he did not pay the balance amount within the time. As such the defendants cancelled the agreement of sale dated:15.09.2014, same was intimated to the plaintiff and he also agreed.

But subsequently the plaintiff falsely filed this suit. Hence he cannot seek the relief of specific performance.

Date:18.02.2026

OS.No.40 of 2015 5 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri

7.Basing on the above rival pleadings, the following issues were settled for the purpose of trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Specific Performance for agreement or not?

2. To what relief?

8.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and

Exs.A1 to A5 were exhibited on his behalf and one Baira Lakshminarayana is examined in chief affidavit. Though the defendant No.1 & 2 filed their written statement but they did not participate in the trial and no evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants.

9.The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff filed memo on 17.01.2022 that the defendant No.1 died on 12.11.2020 and defendant No.2 died on 01.05.2021. Further the plaintiff brings the class-II legal heirs of Defendant

No.1 & 2 on record.

10.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record. During arguments, the learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued the

Defendants got executed agreement of sale in Ex.A-1 and subsequently not come forward to execute the regular Registered Sale Deed in favour of

Plaintiff as per agreement of Sale. Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 clearly proves the averments of Plaint by the Plaintiff. Hence, he prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

11. POINT :

Date:18.02.2026

OS.No.40 of 2015 6 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri

On perusal of Ex.A1 is the Original agreement of sale executed by the

Defendant No.1 & 2 in favour of Plaintiff, dated:15.09.2014, which shows that Sri Samreddy Chandrakala (Defendant No.1) got executed an

Agreement of Sale in favour of Shaganti Ramachander (Plaintiff) in respect of Suit Schedule Property. On perusal of Ex.A2 is the original cash receipt,

dated:28.10.2014, which shows that the defendant No.1 received an

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff as part payment of sale consideration in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.A3 is the legal notice,

dated:16.02.2015. Ex.A4 is the postal receipts. Ex.A5 is the letter of

request to Post Master, Bhongir dated:11.03.2015.

12.It is settled principle of law that granting of relief of specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is a discretionary and equitable relief and the said discretion shall not be exercised in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner and should be exercised on sound principles of law.

13.On perusal of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, coupled with Exs.A2 to A5 shows that the defendant having received Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff, executed the said agreement of sale promising to execute registered sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration amount from the plaintiff and though the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and

Date:18.02.2026

OS.No.40 of 2015 7 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri pay the balance sale consideration, the defendant failed to come forward to execute the sale deed and failed to honour the terms of the agreement of sale. The evidence of PW1 & PW2, coupled with Exs.A1 to A5 establish the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also gave a Legal Notice to the defendants through Ex.A3 though the defendant appeared through his counsel, filed his written statement but he did not lead any evidence to prove his case, hence there is no other evidence placed on record to review the evidence of the plaintiff and the evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. In these circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff has proved his case and hence he is entitled for decree against the defendants.

14. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to execute a Registered Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit property in pursuance of Ex.A1, within two months from the date of

Judgment, on payment of balance sale consideration. If the defendant failed to comply with the directions of this court, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the decree implemented through the process of court and also by granting injunction against the defendants, their men, agents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 18th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-(N.Syamasundar)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

Date:18.02.2026

OS.No.40 of 2015 8 Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS :

P.W.1: Shaganti Ramchander. -None- P.W.2: Baira Lakshminarayana.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF : Ex.A1 is the Original agreement of sale executed by the Defendant No.1 & 2 in favour of Plaintiff, dated:15.09.2014. Ex.A2 is the original cash receipt, dated:28.10.2014. Ex.A3 is the legal notice, dated:16.02.2015. Ex.A4 is the postal receipts. Ex.A5 is the letter of request to Post Master, Bhongir dated:11.03.2015.

FOR DEFENDANTS : -NIL-

Sd/-(N.Syamasundar)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

Date:18.02.2026

Page 1 of 5 H.M.O.P No.44 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: BHUVANAGIRI

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026

Present:- Sri N.Syamasundar

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

H.M.O.P No.44 of 2025

Between :-

Mabbu Prashanth, S/o.Mabbu Narsaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Private service, R/o.H.No.2-2-185/21/A, Ramkrishna Nagar, Bagh Amberpet, Near SBI Bank, GHMC Branch, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

...Petitioner No.1

AND

Gudla Lavanya, W/o.Mabbu Prashanth, Aged about 28 years, R/o.H.No.4- 85/G/1, Gayathri Temple, Annojiguda, Ghatkesar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.B.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 and 2, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

: O R D E R :

This is a petition filed by the petitioner No.1/husband initially against petitioner No.2/wife under Section 13-1(ia) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) seeking the court to dissolve their marriage, dated:27.03.2024.

2.Pending petition, the parties filed petition to amend the petition to

Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the court to dissolve their marriage, dated:27.03.2024 by passing decree of divorce on mutual

Date:17.04.2026.

Page 2 of 5 H.M.O.P No.44 of 2025

consent and the same is allowed vide orders of this court in

IA.No.158/2026, dt:13.04.2026.

3.In the petition, it is stated by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 that their marriage was performed on 27.03.2024 at ANR Gardens, Alair, Yadadri-

Bhuvanagiri District as per Hindu rites and customs as prevailed in their community. After the marriage, the petitioner No.2 joined the society of the petitioner No.1. Their marriage was consummated and out of their wedlock no children were born to them. During the marital life, there were serious disputes and differences arose in between them, as such both the parties are living separately from the month of July 2024. Hence, their relatives, elders and well-wishers had tried their level best but the petitioners did not reunite, as their disputes could not be resolved.

Therefore, the petitioners have decided to live separately by taking mutual consent divorce. Both the parties have compromised and agreed upon the following terms and conditions:

(a) The Petitioners No.1 and 2 have mutually agreed for dissolution of their marriage solemnized on 27.03.2024. Accordingly have filed the present petition seeking divorce by mutual consent.

(b) The Petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) through Demand Draft (D.D) drawn on nationalized Bank as permanent alimony to petitioner No.2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims. The same has agreed by petitioner No.2 as full and final settlement of her claims.

Date:17.04.2026.

Page 3 of 5 H.M.O.P No.44 of 2025

(c) The Petitioner No.2 has agreed that she shall not have any claim/s regarding maintenance whatsoever in future against the petitioner No.1. Further petitioner No.2 has no right to claim any share in properties acquired by petitioner No.1 or any ancestral properties either movable or immovable in future.

(d) Both the parties have agreed to exchange their gold articles, household articles and motorcycle given at the time of marriage. Further they shall not claim gold, silver, household articles and any other things in future from each other.

(e) Both the parties have agreed not to implicate any civil or criminal cases

before any court of law.

(f) Both the parties have agreed that they will not interfere in the life of each other and also agreed to delete all the marriage photos and any other photos taken together.

It is submitted that, for the reasons stated supra, it is just proper, and necessary, in the interest of justice and equity, that the marriage between the petitioners be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, so as to enable them to lead their respective lives peacefully, independently and to remarry, if they so desire. Hence the petition.

4.This court registered the petition as HMOP.No.44 of 2025 and both the petitioners were present before the court and stated that they were living separately and there was no possibility of their reunion in between them. The matter was placed after the statutory waiting period of six months as prescribed under Section 13-B (“the Act”). After expiry of the

Date:17.04.2026.

Page 4 of 5 H.M.O.P No.44 of 2025

said period, both the petitioners appeared before the court and they stated that they were not willing to lead marital life and they were also not withdrawing their consent to take mutual consent divorce. This court has also conducted consolation talks, but the same was failed.

5.Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed their evidence affidavits in chief as

Pws.1 & 2 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked.

6.The point that arises for consideration in this petition is:-

“Whether the marriage in between the Petitioner Nos.1 and

2, dated:27.03.2024 can be dissolved by passing the mutual

consent divorce decree as prayed for?”

7.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and I have also gone through the material available on record.

POINT:

8.As seen from the petition averments and the evidence affidavits of

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, the marriage in between petitioner Nos.1 and 2, was performed on 27.03.2024 as per Hindu rites and customs. They lived together for a period of four months from the date of their marriage, during their wedlock, they were not blessed with children, thereafter both the petitioners have started living separately with each other as disputes and misunderstandings arose in between them which could not be resolved inspite of their best efforts. Hence, their relatives, well-wishers had tried their level best but there was no possibility of their reunion of the petitioners and both of them had decided to take mutual consent divorce. Both the petitioners have compromised, executed terms and conditions as stated supra. Reconciliation talks held by this court had also

Date:17.04.2026.

Page 5 of 5 H.M.O.P No.44 of 2025

failed and none of the parties have withdrawn his/her consent for the divorce on mutual consent.

9.All the essential conditions for mutual divorce are proved, neither of the parties have withdrawn the consent either at the time of hearing of the petition or after the period of six months, and there is no chance of the petitioners living together in future, hence this court feels it appropriate to dissolve the marriage, dated:27.03.2024 in between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 by passing a decree of divorce. The point is answered accordingly.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed. Marriage in between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, dated:27.03.2024 is dissolved by granting divorce under mutual consent from the date of this order. Accordingly, the decree of divorce on mutual consent is passed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-(Sri N.Syamasundar)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

P.W.1: Mabbu Prashanth. P.W.2: Gudla Lavanya.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1: Original Wedding Card. Ex.P2: Marriage Photographs. Ex.P3: Original MOU.

Sd/-(Sri N.Syamasundar)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

Date:17.04.2026.

Page 1 of 4 H.M.O.P No.54 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: BHUVANAGIRI

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Present:-Sri N.Syamasundar,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

H.M.O.P. No. 54 of 2025

Between :-

Udutha Jyothi, W/o.Venkatesh, Aged : about 28 years, Occ : House wife, R/o.H.No.1-5-443, Hanumanwada, Bhuvanagiri Town and Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. Presently residing at her Parents house situated at Dathaipally Village, Thurkapally Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District.

...Petitioner No.1

AND

Udutha Venkatesh, S/o. Late Rajaiah, Aged : about 40 years, Occ:Printing Press, R/o.H.No.1-5-443, Hanumanwada, Bhuvanagiri Town and Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt.Kalakuntla Jaya, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 and 2, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

: O R D E R :

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner No.1/Wife initially against petitioner No.2/husband under Section 13-1 (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) seeking the court to dissolve their marriage, dated:22.06.2014.

2.Pending petition, the parties filed petition to amend the petition to

Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the court to dissolve

Date:17.04.2026.

Page 2 of 4 H.M.O.P No.54 of 2025

their marriage, dated:22.06.2014 by passing decree of divorce on mutual consent and the same is allowed vide orders of this court in

IA.No.131/2026, dt:07.04.2026.

3.In the petition, it is stated by the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 that their marriage was performed on 22.06.2014 at petitioner No.1 parent's house at Dathaipally Village, Thurkapally Mandal, as per Hindu rites and customs as prevailed in their community. At the time of marriage, the parents of the Petitioner No.1 presented Splendor bike worth of

Rs.60,000/-, house-hold articles worth of Rs.30,000/-, Beeruva worth of

Rs.7,000/-, Beds, Double Cot worth of Rs.20,000/-, 4 tulas of gold worth of Rs.1,40,000/- and gave Net Cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and Marriage expenses of Rs.2,00,000/-, totally of Rs.5,50,000/-. After the marriage, the

Petitioner No.1 joined the conjugal society of Petitioner No.2. Out of their wedlock no children were born to them. During the marital life, there were serious disputes and differences arose in between them, as such the petitioner No.1 left the house of petitioner No.2 on 08.05.2019, since then the parties are living separately. Hence, their relatives, elders and well- wishers had tried their level best but the petitioners did not reunite, as their disputes could not be resolved. Therefore, the petitioners have decided to live separately by taking mutual consent divorce.

2.This court registered the Petition as HMOP.No.54 of 2025 and both the Petitioners were present before the court and stated that they were living separately and there is no possibility of their reunion. The matter was placed after the statutory waiting period of six months as prescribed

Date:17.04.2026.

Page 3 of 4 H.M.O.P No.54 of 2025

under Section 13-B (“the Act”). After expiry of the said period, both the petitioners appeared before the court and they stated that they were not willing to lead marital life and they were also not withdrawing their consent to take mutual consent divorce. This court has also conducted consolation talks, but the same were failed.

3.Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed their evidence affidavits in chief as

Pws.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 & P2 were marked.

4.The point that arises for consideration in this petition is:- “Whether the marriage in between the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, dated:22-06-2014 can be dissolved by passing the

mutual consent divorce decree as prayed for?”

5.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and I have also gone through the material available on record.

POINT:

6.As seen from the petition averments and the evidence affidavits of

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, the marriage in between Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was performed on 22.06.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs. They lived together till 08-05-2019 and on the same date, both the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are living separately from each other as disputes arose in between them which could not be resolved inspite of their best efforts. The matter was placed before elders, but there was no reunion of the Petitioners and both of them had decided to take mutual consent divorce. Reconciliation talks held by this court had also failed and none of the parties have withdrawn his/her consent for the divorce on mutual consent.

Date:17.04.2026.

Page 4 of 4 H.M.O.P No.54 of 2025

7.All the essential conditions for mutual divorce are proved, neither of the parties has withdrawn the consent either at the time of hearing of the petition or after the period of six months, and there is no chance of the petitioners living together in future, hence this court feels it appropriate to dissolve the marriage, dated 22.06.2014 in between the Petitioner

Nos.1 and 2 by passing a decree of divorce. The point is answered accordingly.

8. In the result, the Petition is allowed. Marriage in between the

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, dated:22.06.2014 is dissolved by granting divorce under mutual consent from the date of this order. Accordingly, the decree of divorce on mutual consent is passed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-(Sri N.Syamasundar)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

P.W.1: Udutha Jyothi P.W.2: Udutha Venkatesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1: Original wedding card, dt:22.06.2014 Ex.P2: Original marriage photos.

Sd/-(Sri N.Syamasundar)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

Date:17.04.2026.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: BHUVANAGIRI

(Dated this the 18 th day of February, 2026)

Present: Smt. M.Ushasree Prl.Sr.Civil Judge FAC Addl.Sr.Civil Judge Bhvanagiri

O.S.No. 59 of 2021

Between:

1. Belde Lalithamma , W/o. Eshwariah , aged 85 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.2-22, Cheekatimadmidi Vilalge, Bommalramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

2. Belde Bhagyamma, W/o. Late Bla Veeraiah, aged 58 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Plot No.301, Pinnamaneni Residency, Srinvas Officer colony, Kapra Secunderabad -500062.

3. Belde Santhosh, S/o. Late Bala Veeraiah, aged 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.301, Pinnamaneni Residency, Srinivasa Officer colony, Kapara Secunderabad.

4. Uppala Suvarana, W/o. Venkatesh, D/o. Belde Bala Veeraiah, aged 38 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.9-65, Venkateshwara Colony, near salvesh Company, Malkajgiri, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

5. Dasagiri Sunitha, W/o. D.Srinvas, D/o. Late Bala Veeraiah, aged 28 years, Occ:Household, H.No.9-65, Venkateshwara colony, near savlesh Company, Malkajgiri, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

6.Belde Sujatha, D/o.Late Bala Veeralah, aged 25 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.Plot No.301, Pinnamaneni Srinivasa Officer colony, Kapra Secunderbad-500062 7.Belde Vijaya Laxmi, W/o.Late Lingamalah, aged 56 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.H-No.17-1-181/A/77, Chandraiah Huts, Madannapet, Hyderabad-500059 2 8.Belde Santhosh Kumar, S/o.Late Unga malah, aged 38 years, Occ:Pvt.Job, R/o. H-No.17-1-181/A/77, Chandralal Huts, Madannapet, Hyderabad-500059 9.Belde Eshwar Babu, S/o. Late Lingamaiah, aged 33 years, Occ: Pvt.Job R/o. H-No.17-1-181/A/77, Chandraiah Huts, Madannapet, Hyderabad- 500059 10.Belde Chandra Shekar, S/o.Late Ungamaiah, aged 32 years, Occ: Pvt.Job, R/o. H-No.17-1-181/Α/77, Chandraiah Huts, Madannapet, Hyderabad-500059 11.Belde Dhanunjaiah, S/o. Late Eshwaraiah, aged 63 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H-No.13-72/2, Indira Nagar H.B.Colony, Opp:Mee-Seva Mouli,Secunderabad, Hyderabad-500040.

12.Belde Pandu. S/o.Late Eshwaraiah, aged 60 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H-No.16-2-147/57, Anand Nagar, New Malakpet, Hyderabad-500036.

13.Belde Dakshana Murthy, S/o.Late Eshwaraiah, aged 54 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H-No.13-1/36/21, Thirumala Residency, Saipuri Colony, Beside Sai Ram Theatre Malkajgiri, Hyderabad-500047.

14.Belde Bhagavan, S/o.Late Eshwariah, aged about 50 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Plot No.301, Pinnamaneni Residency, Srinivasa Officer colony, Kapra Secunderbad-500062 15.Prodduturi Haritha, W/o.Praveen, D/o.Belde Eshwaraiah, aged 50 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.Plot No.402, Ishwaraya Bless Apartments, Teacher's colony, Behind Kenadi School, East Maredpally, Secunderabad-500026

16. Prodduturi Manju, W/o.Anand, aged 40 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.H-No.10-15, P.V.N Colony, St. School, Hyderabad-500047.

....Plaintiffs

AND

3 1.Belde Vaikuntam, S/oLate Nare, aged 71 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H- No.3-16-112/89, Street No.3 Ram Reddy Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

2. Yerram Amrutha, W/o.Vittal, aged 65 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.16-9-11, Shankar Nagar, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500036 3.Bejja.Nagamani, W/o. Yadaiah Goud, aged about 51 years, Occ:House wife, R/o.H-No.2-32, Nagaram Village and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri Dist.

4.V.Lavanya, W/o.Srinivasulu Goud, Aged 34 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.H- No.1-241/5F/68, A.P.1.1.C. Colony Kapra, Medchal Malkajgiri Dist.

5.Bejja Yadaiah Goud, S/o. Veeraiah, aged 61 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.2-32, Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri Dist.

6. Bejja Saritha, W/o. Srinivas, aged years, Occ: House hold, R/o.H-No.2- 32, Nagaram Village and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

7.Bejja Anjali, W/o.Dasharatha, aged years, Occ:House hold, R/o. H-No.2- 32, Nagaram Village and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri Dist.

8. Madire Manemma, W/o. Late Pochaah, aged 70 years, Occ:Agriculture, 9.Gulani Laxmi, W/o.Late Bixapathi Occ:Agriculture, 10.Gulani Shankaraiah, S/o.Mallalah, aged about 64 years, Occ:Agriculture,

11. Cheerla Pentalah S/o LateYellaiah, aged about 62yrs, Occ:Agriculture,

12. Cheerla Sailu s/o Late Yeelaiah, aged about 59years, Occ: Agriculture,

13. Cheerla BuchalluS/o Late Yellalah, aged about 55yrs, Occ: Agriculture, 4 14.Cheerla Buchalu, S/o.Peddulu, aged 60 years, Occ:Agriculture

15. Burkala Buchalu S/o Late Buchalah, aged 50years, Occ: Agriculture, 16.Dokuri Yadagiri @ Yadaiah, S/o.Beeraiah, aged 60 years, Occ:Agriculture, 17.Madire Sai Mallaiah @ Sai Mallu, S/o.Agaiah, aged 56 years, Occ:Agriculture.

18. Bollu Babu S/o Late Bollu Thirumallaiah, aged about45 years, Occ:Agriculture., 19.Gade Buchalu, S/o.Narsaiah, aged 55 years, Occ:Agriculture, 20.Gulani Yadagiri, S/o.Beeraiah, aged 50 years, Occ:Agriculture,

21. Gulani Komuraiah, S/o.Galaiah, aged 60 years. Occ:Agriculture, 22.Budida Veera Swamy, S/o.Mallaiah @ Malla, Goud, aged about 60 years, Occ:Agriculture, Cheekati Mamidi village, Bommala Ramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

23.Nukalagudem Sathi Reddy, S/o.Late Ram Reddy, aged about 52 years, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o. H.No.2-18/2, Theatre Road Keesara Village and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

....Defendants.

Claim: Suit filed for Perpetual Injunction infavour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, restraiaing them permanently from illegal interference over the suit schedule property in any manner while enjoying by the Plaintif.

****

This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, counsel for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs, Sri. G.Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for the Respondents/Defendants No.3 to 7, 23 and Respondents/Defendants No.8 to 10,16,17,19, 20,21,22 were set exparte and Respondents/Defendants No.1,2,11 to 18, 11 dismissed and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

5 -:: DOCKET ORDER DATED: 18.02 .2026 ::-

Advanced to today by filing an out of order petition.

A memo is filed by Plaintiff No.14 on behalf of all the Plaintiffs though and in presence of their counsel.

The other side is also served with in memo of wihdrawal and the withdrawal is not objected. Hence, the suit is disposed otherwise as withdrawn by Plaintiffs and not objected by defendants.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 18th day of February, 2026.

for FAC Addl.Senior Civil Judge Bhuvanagiri.