Sri.N.Venkat Ram

O.S.No.03 of 2020 1

Date:14-02-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT SHADNAGAR

DATED, THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

PRESENT:SRI.N.VENKAT RAM,

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBMNAGAR.

FAC:SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SHADNAGAR.

OS.NO.03 OF 2020

Between:

1. Smt.M.Neeraja Devi, W/o.Late M.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about:74 years, R/o.H.No.1-1, Raikal Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Smt.K.KavithaReddy,W/o.K.ShakerReddy,D/o.Late M.satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about:55 years, R/o.7-1-212/A/40, Shivbagh, Ameerpet, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

3. Smt.P.Savitha Reddy, W/o.R.Uday Kumar Reddy, D/o.Late M.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about:53 years, R/o.2-4-67/A/5JK, Upparpally, PVNR Express Way, Sunrise Homes, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

4. M.Ranjit Reddy S/o.Late M.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about:52 years, R/o.4714, Major CT, Alexandria, VA22312-2239 USA. Presently residing at R/o.H.No.1-1, Raikal Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5.M.Rajesh Reddy S/o.Late M.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about:47 years, R/o.C-9, Rolling Hills, Near Ramkay Towers, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiffs.

A n d

1.The Tahsildar,

Farooq Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.ALL CONCERNED …Defendants.

Sub:Suit for Declaration to declare title plaintiffs as the Legal Heirs of Late M.Satyanarayana Reddy.

@ @ @

This suit is coming on 24.01.2022, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.N.Bojjaiah, J.Suresh and Sri.M.Shekar, Advocates for the Plaintiffs and Assistant Government Pleader for Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 set exparte and upon perusing the material

O.S.No.03 of 2020 2

Date:14-02-2022

papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration to declare the has owners and possessors of plaint schedule properties.

2. The averments of the plaint is brief:

(i). The plaintiff No.1 is the wife of late Sri.M.Sathyanarayana Reddy.

Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the daughters and plaintiffs No.4 and 5 are the sons of said Sathyanarayana Reddy. During life time of Sathyanarayana

Reddy he was inherited lands in Sy.No.21/A (Ac.1-05gts), Sy.No.280/A (Ac.0-09gts), Sy.No.292 (Ac.1-39gts), Sy.No.293/A (Ac.0-19gts),

Sy.No.294/A (Ac.1-28gts), Sy.No.295/A (Ac.0-12gts), Sy.No.398/E, (Ac.4- 02gts), Sy.No.397/A (Ac.14-10gts), Sy.No.272/A (Ac.2-15gts), Sy.No.273/A (Ac.0-07gts), Sy.No.2740/A (Ac.1-02gts), Sy.No.278/A (Ac.0-21gts),

Sy.No.278/A3 (Ac.0-20gts), Sy.No.270/A (Ac.1-37gts), Sy.No.279/A (Ac.0- 22gts) and Sy.No.239/A1(Ac.0-02gts), totally admeasuring Ac.30-11 gts., situated at Raikal village, Farooqnagar Mandal herein after referred to as suit schedule lands. The said Sathyanarayana Reddy was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands and he got issued patta pass book. His name had been mutated in the revenue records.

(ii). Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy was died intestate on 13.03.2019 leaving behind plaintiffs as his legal heirs. After demise of

Sathyanarayana Reddy the plaintiffs are continuing and enjoying the suit lands. The plaintiffs had approached the office of first defendant since

May, 2019 and recently on 23.12.2019 and 27.12.2019 for mutation of their names in the revenue records with respect to suit schedule lands.

O.S.No.03 of 2020 3

Date:14-02-2022

However the first defendant had refused and advised to get orders from the Hon’ble court that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of late

Sathyanarayana Reddy. Hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit.

3. In pursuance of service of summons defendant No.1 appeared but did not file written statement. Hence on 15.02.2021 right to file written statement was forfeited. Summons against defendant No.2 was served by way of publication in daily news paper. However, in pursuance of publication no one was appeared and no objections received from anybody.

4.In order to prove their claim, on behalf of plaintiffs PW1 was examined and marked Ex.A1 to A7.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiffs. Written arguments filed on behalf of plaintiffs and perused the record.

6 Now the points for consideration are:

1). Whether the late Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy had acquired suit

Schedule lands during his life time and he died intestate?

2). Whether plaintiffs alone are the legal representatives of late

Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy?

3). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as owners and Joint possessors of suit schedule lands?

4). To What relief?

POINTS.No.1 & 2:

O.S.No.03 of 2020 4

Date:14-02-2022

7. The plaintiffs have pleaded regarding acquisition of suit schedule lands by late Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy by inheritance and also by mode of purchase. PW1 has testified the same in his evidence. Further it is evident from Ex.A2 regarding land holding of late Sathyanarayana Reddy.

Suit schedule A, B and C lands are reflecting in Ex.A2 pattedar pass book.

(ii). The plaintiffs have pleaded that on 13.03.2019 late

Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy was died intestate. PW1 has testified regarding the death of late Sathyanarayana Reddy on 13.03.2019. On behalf of plaintiffs Ex.A1 death certificate of Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy was filed. Ex.A1 would disclose the date of death as 13.03.2019 and place of death shown as Yashoda Hospital (Somaji guda), Hyderabad.

(iii). The plaintiffs have pleaded that they are the sole legal heirs of late Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy who died intestate. PW1 deposed the same in his chief examination affidavit and remained as unchallenged one. Further Ex.A3 to A6 Aadhar Cards would proves the identity of plaintiffs. No rival claim has been received from anybody. Therefore by virtue of this oral and documentary evidence the plaintiffs could able to establish that they are the only legal representatives of late

Sathyanarayana Reddy.

(iv). By virtue of above referred evidence the plaintiffs could able to prove that the suit schedule A, B and C properties were held by late

Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy as on the date of death. Further the unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1, the plaintiffs could able to prove that late Sathyanarayana Reddy was died intestate on

O.S.No.03 of 2020 5

Date:14-02-2022

13.03.2019 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal representatives.

Accordingly these points are answered in favour of plaintiffs.

Point No.3:

8. (i) The plaintiffs have pleaded that after demise of late

Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy they are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule A, B and C properties and the defendant No.1 had refused to mutate their names in the revenue records. PW1 has deposed the same in the chief examination affidavit. The said evidence is unchallenged one and there is no contra material is available on record.

(ii). The plaintiffs at point No.1 and 2 could able to prove that late Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy had died intestate on 13.03.2019 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal representatives and further could able to prove that suit schedule A,B and C properties are standing in the name of late Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy. Therefore the plaintiffs being legal representatives of they succeeded to the suit schedule A,B and C properties. Hence they are entitled for a decree to declare them as owners and joint possessors and suit schedule A, B and C properties.

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of plaintiffs.

Point No.4:

9. In view of answering points 1 to 3 in favour of plaintiffs as such, plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered.

O.S.No.03 of 2020 6

Date:14-02-2022

In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring the plaintiffs as owners and joint possessors of suit schedule A, B and C properties. No cost.

Typed to my direct dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 14th day of February, 2022.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge,

Mahabubnagar

FAC:Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW-1:M.Rajesh Reddy -None-

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiffs:-

Ex.A1 - is Death Certificate of late M.Satyanarayana Reddy, dt.22-04-2019 and hence same is treated as chief of PW1.

Ex.A2 - Pattedar Pass Book and Title Deed.

Ex.A3 - Aadhar Card of the 1st Plaintiff.

Ex.A4 - Aadhar Card of the 2nd Plaintiff.

Ex.A5 - Aadhar Card of the 3rd Plaintiff.

Ex.A6 - Aadhar Card of the 5th Plaintiff.

Ex.A7 - Market Value Certificate (16 nos).

For Defendants:- -Nil-

Prl.Senior Civil Judge,

O.S.No.03 of 2020 7

Date:14-02-2022

Mahabubnagar

FAC:Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT:: SHADNAGAR

Monday, this the 24 th day of January, 2022

Present:-Sri.N.Venkat Ram, Prl.Senior Civil Judge Mahabubnagar. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

OS No.08 of 2021

Between:

1.P.Ramaswamy, S/o.Bakkaiah, Aged:68 years, Occ:Agriculture,

2.Smt.P.Pushmamma W/o.Sri.P.Ramaswamy, Aged:58 years, Occ:House wife,

Both R/o.H.No.6-2, Narsimha Reddy Road, Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District -501 218.

…Plaintiffs.

And

1.Edla Venkatesh, S/o.Narayana, Aged:38 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.3-1,

2.Smt.Kante Kistamma, W/o Beeraiah, Aged:73 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.H.No.3-45,

3.Kante Laxmaiah, S/o Beeraiah, Aged:42 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.3- 45/3,

4.Kante Mallesh, S/o.Kante Beeraiah, R/o.H.No.3-45/1,

5.Pulimamidi Gopal S/o.Aagamaiah, R/o.H.No.2-56/1,

D1 to D5 all R/o.Mekaguda Village, The then Kothur Mandal, Now Nandigam Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Now Ranga Reddy District.

… Defendants.

@ @ @

This Suit is came up on 27-12-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nagaraju, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri B.Rajashekar Raju, Advocate for Defendants No.1 to 5 and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood-over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

Judgment

OS.No.08 of 2021

2

1. This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for a decree of perpetual Injunction.

2.The case of the Plaint in brief:

i) That the Plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor land ad measuring Ac.2-13gts in Sy.No.537 situated at Nandigam Village,

Mekaguda Grampanchayat. The same was purchased from his vendors

Smt.Muppala Shesha Ratnamamba and others through sale deed bearing doc.No.4873/2002, dt.21.10.2003.

ii) That the Plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.537/A situated at Nandigam Village,

Mekaguda Grampanchayat. The same was purchased from her vendors

Kurva Jangaiah and others through sale deed bearing doc.No.2315/2006, dt.03.02.2006. Further the 2nd plaintiff is also the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1-27 gts in Sy.No.537/AA situated at Nandigam

Village, Mekaguda Grampanchayat. The same was purchased from her vendors Smt.K.Parvathamma and others through sale deed bearing doc.No.3136/2006, dt.14.02.2006.

iii).Later the names of the plaintiffs have been entered into the revenue record and they got pattedar pass books and 1-B of ROR.

iv).One Chakali Mallesh and others had tried to interfere as such the plaintiffs filed OS.No.215/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at

Shadnagar and the said suit was decreed. Despite decree the defendants in the said suit tried to interfere in the possession of petitioners as such FIR

No.116/2020 of PS. Nandigam was registered. The Defendants with their evil design on 04.02.2021 and 06.02.2021 came to the suit land and tried

OS.No.08 of 2021

3 to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs, however they resisted the illegal acts of Defendants. But the defendants have threatened to come again to dispossess the Plaintiffs. Hence plaintiffs prayed to decree the suit.

3.Summons were served on the defendants and appeared through their counsel but did not file their Written Statement. Hence right of filling

Written Statement was forfeited on 18-10-2021.

4.In support of Plaintiffs contention, PW1 and PW2 were examined and marked Ex.A1 to A13.

5. Heard the learned counsel for Plaintiffs and perused the record.

6. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Plaintiffs could able to prove their lawful

possession over the suit land and unjustified interference by the

defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

7. POINTS 1 & 2:

i).The Plaintiffs to substantiate their respective possession examined

Pw1 and Pw2 and further marked Ex-A1 to A13. Pw1 is the plaintiff No.1 he deposed the contents of plaint in his chief examination affidavit. Further examined one Sri Yerrapothu Mohan Naidu as Pw2. Their evidence has remained as unchallenged one. Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.1 and Ex.A2 and A3 are the registered sale deeds executed in favour of plaintiff No.2. Exs.A1 to A3 are showing the purchase of respective lands by the Plaintiffs. Further it is evident from Ex-A4 and A5

OS.No.08 of 2021

4 are Proceedings of Mandal Revenue Officer regarding mutation of their names in the revenue record. It is also evident from Ex.A6 and A7 1-B of

ROR that the names of plaintiffs have recorded as pattedars with respect to their lands. Further it is carried in Ex.A8 and A9 pattedar pass books. Ex-

A10 is the panchanama discloses regarding fixing of boundaries stones of

Sy.No.537. Exs.A11 and A12 Judgment and Decree would disclose that the plaintiffs got a perpetual injunction decree against one Chakali Mallesh and others. Apart from this documentary evidence the evidence of Pw1 and

PW2 has remained as unchallenged one. PW1 has testified regarding acquisition of suit land by both plaintiffs. By virtue of this oral and documentary evidence the plaintiffs could able to prove their possession over the suit land as on the date of filing of suit.

ii). The plaintiffs have pleaded regarding interference of defendants on 04.02.2021 and 06.02.2021. Pw1 has testified the same in chief examination affidavit. As noted in the forgoing part of judgment the evidence of Pw1 has become unchallenged one. The plaintiffs by the strength of unchallenged evidence PW1 and Pw2 could able to prove the unjustified interference by the defendants. Hence the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of perpetual injunction as prayed for.

Accordingly these points are answered in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their agents, servants or anybody claiming through the defendants from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs in and over the suit land.

OS.No.08 of 2021

5

Typed to my direct dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 24th day of January, 2022.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

Appendix of Evidence Witness Examined

For Plaintiffs:

PW1-P.Rama Swamy

PW2- Yerrapothu Mohan Naidu

For Defendants:

-None-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex-A1 is Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed No.4873/2002, dt.21-10-2002 issued by Mee Seva.

Ex-A2 is Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed No.2315/2006, dt.03-02-2006 issued by Mee Seva.

Ex-A3 is Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed No.3136/2006, dt.14- 02-2006 issued by Mee Seva.

Ex-A4 is Proceedings of MRO in A/2521/1997, dt.15-04-2003.

Ex-A5 is Proceedings of MRO in A/1420/2006, dt.27-07-2006.

Ex-A6 is 1-B ROR issued by Mee Seva.

Ex-A7 is 1-B ROR issued by Mee Seva.

Ex-A8 is Original Pattedar Pass Book of Plaintiff No.1

Ex-A9 is Original Pattedar Pass Book of Plaintiff No.2

Ex-A10 is True Copy of Panchanama along with plan, dt.18-12-2012.

Ex-A11 is Certified Copy of Judgment passed in OS.No.215/2014, dt.28-10-2014.

OS.No.08 of 2021

6

Ex-A12 is Certified Copy of Decree in OS. No.215/2014, dt.28-10-2014.

Ex-A13 is Certified Copy of FIR No.116/2020 along with report of

PS. Nandigam.

For Defendants:

-Nil-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

.

OS.No.08 of 2021

1

IN THE COURT OF SENOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: SHADNAGAR

Monday, the 3rd day of January, 2022.

Present: Sri.N.Venkat Ram, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

H.M.O.P. No.04 of 2020

Between:

Smt.Rudraraju Nagavalli W/o.Rudraraju Prasad Raju, (D/o.M.Suryanarayana Raju), Age:29 years, Occ: House wife, Presently: R/o.Plot No.22/P, Hitech Colony, Shadnagar town, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

. .Petitioner.

AND

Rudraraju Prasad Raju S/o.Rudraraju Subba Raju, Age:37 years, Occ:Driver, R/o.H.No.1-19, Chiluvurivari Street, Oduru, Penumantra, West Godavari District.

Presently R/o.C/o.Alluri Motors, Plot No.244, Near YSR Statue, Madhapur Hyderabad.

…Respondent.

@ @ @

This petition is coming on 13-12-2021 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.D.Rama Swamy, Advocate and Respondent set ex-parte. And upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood-over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner u/s 13-[1] [i-a][i-b] of Hindu

Marriage Act against the respondent seeking for decree of divorce.

2.The brief averments of the petition:

(i) The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent. The marriage had taken place on 10-02-2005 at Kammadanam Village,

HMOP. 04 of 2020

2

Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as per the rites and customs prevailing in their community. After the marriage, the petitioner has joined the matrimonial society of the Respondent. The marriage has been consummated; They lived happily for a period of one year. On 20-02- 2006 the respondent came to house in drunken condition and bet the petitioner mercilessly as a result the petitioner got aborted her pregnancy.

Even in the said critical condition the respondent left the petitioner to her fate. The cousin brother of petitioner by name Ch.Satyanarayana Raju had taken care and bared all treatment expenditure. Despite the harassment the petitioner got adjusted with respondent. Out of their wed lock the petitioner and respondent blessed with two male children namely

Santhosh Varma, R.Tanuji Varma.

ii). Respondent again started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally, however the petitioner got adjusted for the sake of family. The respondent sold the house hold articles and gold ornaments to meet his bad voices. The respondent never shown any interest to work to maintain the family. Whenever the petitioner questioned the respondent, then the respondent threatened the petitioner with dire consequences to see her end.

iii). That on 05-12-2013 the respondent picked up quarrel with petitioner and necked out the petitioner and children by demanding to bring

additional dowry. In such helpless condition the petitioner went to her

step mother house at Shadnagar.

iv). That the respondent never used to contact the petitioner and her children to get back them. The petitioner had lodged a complaint in the year 2016 with police station Shadnagar and then the police Shadnagar summoned the Respondent and conducted counseling. But the

HMOP. 04 of 2020

3

Respondent never cared the petitioner to take back and to look after the petitioner and children.

v). That there is no workable relationship with the respondent, since the respondent willfully deserted the petitioner and children. Hence the petitioner prayed to annul of the marriage dt.10.02.2005 by way of Decree of Divorce.

vi). The notice was served on respondent and the respondent appeared on 18-03-2021. Thereafter the respondent despite directions failed to appear before this court. Having no other alternative on 01-11-2021 the respondent was set ex-parte.

3.In support of petitioner's case the petitioner herself examined as

PW1 and further examined PW2, and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

4.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce?

5.Point:- The petitioner has filed petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner has pleaded and testified about her marriage with respondent on 10-02-2005 as per Hindu rites and customs. Further Ex.P1 and P2 Wedding Card and Photographs are proving the marriage of petitioner and respondent.

6. The petitioner specifically pleaded that they lead happy conjugal life for one year and later the respondent addicted for liquor and used to harass her physically and mentally. PW1 and PW2 have testified regarding the cruelty subjected against petitioner. Further the petitioner has pleaded

HMOP. 04 of 2020

4 regarding giving birth to two boy children and further pleaded pushing the petitioner and her children from the house particularly on 05.12.2013 and thereafter the respondent did not take back the petitioner and her children. PW1 and PW2 have testified the specific incidents regarding cruelty and as well as desertion. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 remained as unchallenged one. No other material is available to doubt the credence of PW1 and PW2.

7. In view of aforesaid discussion and the reasons assigned thereon, the unchallenged evidence of PW1 and PW2 adequately prove the cruelty subjected against petitioner by the respondent and as well as the desertion. Hence petitioner is entitled for divorce. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of petitioner and against respondent.

In the result, Petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of petitioner and respondent solemnized on 10-02- 2005. No costs.

Typed to my direct dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 3rd day of January, 2022.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For petitioner:- For Respondent:-

Pw1 Smt.Radraju Nagavalli -None-

PW2 Chekuri Satyanarayana Raju

Exhibits marked

For petitioner:

Ex.P1 : Wedding card.

HMOP. 04 of 2020

5

Ex.P2 : Photographs (3 nos) with CD.

For respondent:-

-Nil-

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

HMOP. 04 of 2020

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT SHADNAGAR

Monday this the 31st day of January, 2022

PRESENT: SRI.N.VENKAT RAM,

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SHADNAGAR.

S.O.P.NO.01 OF 2019

Between:

1M.Mahender Reddy S/o.M.Ram Reddy, Age:33 years, 2M.Pulla Reddy S/o.M.Ram Reddy, Age:37 years, 3Smt.Manjula W/o.Sudhakar Reddy, Age:38 years,

All R/o.H.No.2-53, Seriguda Badraipally village, Kothur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

…Petitioners.

AND 1Income Tax Officer, 8(1) IT Tower, 8th Floor, AC Guards, near Mahaveer Hospital, Hyderabad.

2To whomsoever it may concern.

…Respondents.

Sub:- Petition filed Under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, for Issue of Succession Certificate.

@ @ @

S.O.P.No.01 of 2019 2

This petition is came up on 27-12-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G.Vikram Dev, Advocate for Petitioners and

Respondent No.2 set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood-over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. This Petition is filed for Succession Certificate for a sum of

Rs.1,53,030/- in favour of the petitioners.

2.The averments in brief:

The father of petitioners namely late Malreddy Ramreddy was died intestate on 16.01.2009. The wife of Ram Reddy was died on 14.02.2009. The petitioners are the sole LRs of Late Malreddy

Ramreddy. It is submitted the 1st respondent had issued a cheque bearing No.728903, dt.16.10.2012 for a sum of Rs.1,52,030/- in favour of late Malreddy Ramreddy. By the date of issuance of said cheque the said Ramreddy was already died. Later the petitioners have approached the 1st respondent for the amount, however the 1st respondent had demanded for succession certificate. Except the petitioners there are no other legal representatives to late Malreddy

Ramreddy. Hence pray to allow the petition by issuing Succession

Certificate.

3 (i). In pursuance of service of notice the 1st respondent was appeared and filed counter. A publication was filed inviting

S.O.P.No.01 of 2019 3 objections from interested persons. However no objections were received from anybody. Hence the respondent No.2 was set exparte on 25-10-2021.

ii).The respondent No.1 in the counter submitted that for the assessment year 2009-2010 a cheque bearing No.728903, dt.16.10.2012 was issued for a sum of Rs.1,52,030/- in favour of

Malreddy Ramreddy and the petitioners have approached for said amount. However the 1st respondent has informed to submit succession certificate. The 1st respondent has no objection to disburse the amount in pursuance of issuance of succession certificate.

4. In support of case of Petitioners, PW1 to PW4 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to P4.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

6. Now the points for consideration are :

1. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of late Malreddy Ramreddy?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for succession certificate as prayed for?

Point No.1:

S.O.P.No.01 of 2019 4

The petitioners have pleaded that they are the sons and daughter of late Malreddy Ramreddy and their father died intestate on 16.01.2009 and their mother Jayamma @ Bharathamma died on 14.02.2009. Pw1 to Pw4 have testified these facts in their chief examination affidavit. Further it is evident from Ex-P2 and P3 Death certificates of Ramreddy and Jayamma that they were died on 16.01.2009 and 14.02.2009 respectively. The Pw1 to Pw4 deposed that the petitioners are the sole legal representatives of late

Malreddy Ramreddy. Further it is evident from Ex-P4 family member certificate that petitioners are the family members of late jayamma.

The evidence of Pw1 to Pw4 is remained as unchallenged one. By virtue of oral and documentary evidence referred herein above the petitioners could able to prove that they are the only legal representatives of late Malreddy Ramreddy. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of petitioners.

Point No.2:

The case of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent had issued

Ex-P1 cheque in favour of their father and inview of demise of their father the petitioners are entitled for the said amount and the 1st respondent has instructed to submit the succession certificate. Pw1 to Pw4 deposed the same in their chief examination affidavit. Even the 1st respondent has stated regarding issuance of Ex-P1 cheque in the name of Late Malreddy Ramreddy and as well as demand for production of succession certificate. At point No.1 this court holds a finding regarding status of petitioners as Legal Representatives of

S.O.P.No.01 of 2019 5

Late Malreddy Ramreddy. The court has not received any rival claim from anybody. Therefore in absence of any rival claim and by the strength of evidence of PW1 to Pw4 coupled with Exs.P1 to P4, this court holds that the petitioners are entitled for succession certificate as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of petitioners.

In the result, Petition is allowed by granting Succession

Certificate in favour of petitioners for a sum of Rs.1,53,030/- on payment of requisite stamp. No costs.

Typed to my direct dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 31st day of January, 2022.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Mahabubnagar.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

Appendix of evidence

[Witnesses Examined]

PW1- M.Mahender Reddy

PW2- M.Pulla Reddy

PW3-Smt.S.Manjula

PW4-Dandu Ramesh

Exhibits marked

Ex-P1: Income Tax Refund Order vide Cheque No.728903, dt.16-10-2012.

S.O.P.No.01 of 2019 6

Ex-P2: Death Certificate of M.Ram Reddy, dt.28-01-2009.

Ex-P3: Death Certificate of Jayamma @ Anasuya, dt.22-06-2009.

Ex-P4: Family Members Certificate, dt.31-07-2009.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

.

S.O.P.No.01 of 2019

1

IN THE COURT OF SENOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: SHADNAGAR

Monday, the 3rd day of January, 2022.

Present: Sri.N.Venkat Ram,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

H.M.O.P. No.16 of 2021

Between:

Kundella Yadaiah S/o.Late K.Istari, Age:45 years, Occ:Driver, R/o.H.No.1-28, Kammadanam Village, Faruqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

. ..Petitioner.

AND

Smt. Kundella @ Gantela Sujatha W/o.K.Yadaiah, D/o.Gantala Ramchandraiah, Age:40 years, Occ:House wife, R/o.H.No.1-28, Kammadanam Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Presently R/o.H.No.1-42, Near Delhi World School, Vijayanagar Colony, Shadnagar Municipality, Shadnagar Town, Farooqnagar Ranga Reddy District.

…Respondent.

@ @ @

This petition is coming on 27-12-2022 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Srinivas Goud, Advocate for the petitioner and

Respondent set ex-parte. And upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood-over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner u/s 13-[1][ia] of Hindu Marriage

Act seeking a decree of divorce.

2.The brief averments of the petition:

HMOP.16 of 2021

2 i. (a) the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent had taken place on 14- 04-2004 at Kammadanam Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District as per the rites and customs prevailing in their community. After the marriage, the respondent joined the matrimonial society of the petitioner. Out of their wedlock they blessed with a daughter namely

Sowmya aged 14 years and two sons namely Nanda Kishore aged 12 years and Pranay aged 9 years.

(b) The respondent has left the society of petitioner on 10-07-2018 without any intimation to petitioner. Despite request of petitioner, the respondent bluntly refused and not showed interest to live with petitioner. The respondent has started living with her parents, moreover respondent is disliking petitioner with the allegation that petitioner is not according to her expectations and the petitioner has no permanent income source to lead luxury life and petitioner having petitioner having old age mother and he is only son to his parents. The children are living with petitioner and respondent is not looking the welfare of the children.

(c) In the year 2018 the petitioner purchased open plot admeasuring 116.6 Sq.yds in Sy.No.712 of Chattanpally Shadnagar Municipality through sale deed No.2799/2018, dt.12-02-2018 in the name of respondent.

Thereafter the respondent's attitude has been changed and started avoiding petitioner. After the marriage petitioner came to know that the respondent married one company Srinu prior to the marriage with the petitioner, the respondent and her family members hide the same and performed the marriage with the petitioner.

HMOP.16 of 2021

3 ii). It is further submitted that the family members, of the petitioner with the help of relatives and elders have conducted several conciliation meetings and tried their level best for re-union. The results are in vain.

Finally respondent entered into simple divorce deed with petitioner on 22- 08-2019. Hence prayed to allow the petition.

3. Notice was served on respondent but the respondent did not appear on 19-04-2021. Since 19-04-2021 the respondent did not appear before this court as such on 11-10-2021 the respondent was set exparte.

4.In support of petitioner's case the petitioner himself examined as

PW1 and further examined PW2, and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce?

6.Point:- The petitioner has filed petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. The petitioner has pleaded and testified about his marriage with respondent on 14-04-2004 as per Hindu rites and customs.

Further Ex.P1 and Ex-P3 Wedding Card and Photographs are proving the marriage of petitioner and respondent.

7. The petitioner specifically pleaded that they lead happy conjugal life for some years and blessed with one daughter namely Sowmya and two sons namely NandaKishore and Pranay and later the respondent left the matrimonial society of petitioner on 10-07-2018. PW1 and 2 have deposed the same in their chief examination affidavits. Further PW1 deposed that in the year 2018 he purchased open plot in the name of respondent and since then the respondent avoided him. He also deposed that the respondent had married to one Srinu prior to his marriage and the same

HMOP.16 of 2021

4 was suppressed and cheated him. He also deposed about execution of

Ex-P2 divorce agreement. On careful perusal of Ex-P2 it appears both parties have agreed for divorce and had accepted the responsibility of maintenance and education of children. This evidence has become unchallenged. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 adequately proves the ground of desertion from 22-08-2019. Hence the petitioner is entitled for divorce as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of petitioner and against respondent.

In the result, Petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of petitioner and respondent solemnized on 14-04-2004. No costs.

Typed to my direct dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 3rd day of January, 2022.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For petitioner:- For Respondent:-

Pw1 Kundella Yadaiah -None-

PW2 Kante Shiva Kumar

Exhibits marked

For petitioner:

Ex.P1 Wedding card.

Ex.P2 Divorce Agreement dt.22-08-2019.

Ex.P3 Photographs with CD.

For respondent:-

HMOP.16 of 2021

5 -Nil-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

HMOP.16 of 2021