Smt. Neelima Muddasani

Page 1 of 8 C.C.No.2941 of 2021

Date: 15-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

XI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present: Smt. Neelima Muddasani

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar

Wednesday, this the 15 th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.2941 of 2021

Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Shamshabad

....Complainant

A N D

A1: Thipramoni Satyanarayana, S/o Thipramoni Chandraiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-1, Shankarapuram Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District

A2: Thipramoni Anand, S/o Thipramoni Satyanarayana, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-1, Shankarapuram Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District

A3: Thipramoni Ravi, S/o Rajender, age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-65, Shankarapuram Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District

A4: Thipramoni Srikanth, S/o Dayanand, age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-157, Shankarapuram Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District

....Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and Sri P. Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Rajendranagar has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.384/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 332 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC).

Page 2 of 8 C.C.No.2941 of 2021

Date: 15-04-2026

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22-07-2021 at about 1600 hours PW1/de facto Complainant lodged a report stating that on 22-07-2021 he was allotted with duties at Primary Health Centre, Peddashapur for regulating queue of the persons assembled for COVID-19 Vaccination. At about 11.30 pm the persons who standing in the queue started creating disturbance by pushing each other and causing inconvenience to the hospital staff. When the Complainant intervened to control the situation, accused no.1 allegedly abused him and thereupon, he called accused no.2 to 4 who are his relatives over phone call and all of them abused him and obstructed his discharge of official duties and assaulted him. Hence, requested to take necessary action.

3. Based on the report lodged by the Complainant/PW1, LW10/Y. Prakash Reddy has registered a case in Crime No.384/2021, under Section 332 r/w 34 IPC and entrusted the investigation to PW7. PW7 has examined and recorded the statement of

PW1/Complainant, visited scene of offence and recorded the statement of LWs’2 to 5.

Thereafter, he has conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW4 and LW8. Thereafter, PW7 has collected the medical certificate of PW1/Complainant issued by LW9/Dr. Nazma Banu in which she opined that the injuries are “Simple in nature”. Later, on 23-07-2021 PW7 has issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to the accused no.1 to 4 and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.Based on the report of the police, cognizance was taken against the accused no.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 332 r/w 34 IPC and issued summons to the accused.

Page 3 of 8 C.C.No.2941 of 2021

Date: 15-04-2026

5. On appearance of the accused no.1 to 4 before the court, they were furnished with the copies of the documents as required U/Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6.When the accused no.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., with reference to the allegation made in the charge sheet, they denied the same. A Charge for the offence U/Sec.332 r/w 34 IPC is framed against the accused, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 to 4, the prosecution has examined PWs’1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW6 and LW8. This evidence of LW 9 and LW10 has been closed by this court since police failed to serve summons on them inspite of giving sufficient time.

Prosecution side evidence is closed.

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused no.1 to 4 were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material that appeared against them in the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused. Perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 to 4

for the offence punishable U/ Sec.332 r/w 34 IPC , beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11. The brief case of the prosecution is that the accused have abused the public servants in filthy language and obstructed in discharge of their official duties.

Page 4 of 8 C.C.No.2941 of 2021

Date: 15-04-2026

12. The de facto Complainant is examined as PW1 and he stated that on 22-07- 2021 he was allotted with duties at Peddashapur Primary Health Centre for maintaining queue line for COVID-19 Vaccination program. At about 11.30 pm all the public in the queue line were pushing each other and causing inconvenience to the hospital staff and as such to maintain the queue line and to separate the ladies and gents line, he had imitated steps. But, accused no.1 entered into argument with him stating “nanne nettesthava antu”… he abused in filthy language and manhandled him. Later, he made phone calls to his relatives i.e. accused no.2 to 4 and they also abused him in filthy language. Upon which, he made a phone call to one Shiva Kumar who is the patrol mobile incharge/PW5, and all the accused persons abused him and obstructed their duties. Further, he received injuries such as abrasions on his neck and went to the hospital and thereafter went to the police station and lodged the report. Further, the witness has identified the accused persons in the court hall as the persons who have abused him. Through this witness prosecution got marked Ex.P1 Report, Ex.P2 Medical

Certificate Report and Ex.P3 the Duty Passport issued by the SHO, Shamshabad.

13. PW2 is the Home Guard who also accompanied PW1 on the date of incident. He also stated as stated by PW1 and that accused no.1 entered into argument with PW1 stating that “mammalne dobbuthav” and corroborated the version of PW1.

14. PW3 is the attender who used to work on contract basis at Peddashapur Primary

Centre. He testified that he was giving tokens to the public and it started raining and all the public started running here and there since there was no shelter. As such the police have started pushing public and there was a galata and meanwhile, he went inside and did not see as to what had happened. He further testified that nearly there were 200 public and that the public beat each other and he cannot identify the accused persons.

Page 5 of 8 C.C.No.2941 of 2021

Date: 15-04-2026

He turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. The learned APP though cross examined him at length, but nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution.

15. PW4 is the panch for the scene of offence panchanama who testified that police have conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence.

16. PW5 is the police constable who also stated as stated by PW1 and PW2. He stated that he was on patrolling duty and PW1 made a phone call about the incident and asked to come to the Primary Health Centre. Further, all the accused persons abused him also in filthy language and obstructed their legitimate duties.

17. PW6 is the witness who was working a Lab Technician at Primary Centre on contract basis. He testified that some people have been disturbing the queue line and being rushing to the hospital staff and as such to maintain an order, PW1 has pushed the said public aside. Meanwhile, accused no.1 abused PW1 in filthy language and beat him with hands. Later, the public have called the patrol mobile and he identified the accused persons who were present at the Primary Health Centre.

18. PW7 is the Investigating Officer who testified as to the line of investigation.

19. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Complainant was a public servant and was on duty at the relevant point of time. Now the core question is whether the prosecution has established the essential ingredients of Sec.332 IPC.

20. On careful perusal of the complaint reveals that there is no specific allegation in the report Ex.P1 that the accused has assaulted the Complainant or caused injury to him. There is also no mention of the nature of the injuries, part of the body effected or that the Complainant had taken treatment immediately after the incident. However,

Page 6 of 8 C.C.No.2941 of 2021

Date: 15-04-2026

during the course of trial, the Complainant for the first time deposed that accused no.1 beat him and caused injuries and first he went to hospital and then he lodged the complaint. Though a medical certificate was produced showing simple abrasions on the neck, chest and other parts of the body, this amounts to material improvement over the original version which creates serious doubt about the veracity and reliability of the

Complainant’s testimony.

21. Admittedly, the incident took place at a Primary Health Centre, during COVID-19

Vaccination, where a large number of the public were present. Despite the availability of the independent witnesses, the prosecution has failed to examine any such witnesses.

22. The witnesses who supported the prosecution case are police personnel which makes the prosecution version interested and uncorroaborative. However, the hospital staff has not supported the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

23. Though the medical cerfifiate/Ex.P2 is placed on record, indicating simple injuries, the prosecution has failed to examine the medical officer who issued the said certificate. As such the contents of the medical document remained unproved in the eyes of law. In the absence of proper proof of injuries, the prosecution has failed to establish that hurt was caused to the Complainant.

24. To attract Sec.332 IPC, it must be proved that the hurt was caused to a public servant and such act was done with the intention to deter or prevent him from discharge his official duties.

25. In the present case, the allegations indicate that there was a commotion in the queue and the Complainant himself admitted to pushing the crowd to maintain order.

The alleged utterance attributed to the accused is nearly to the effect that “you are

Page 7 of 8 C.C.No.2941 of 2021

Date: 15-04-2026

pushing me aside” which does not constitute any intention to deter the Complainant from discharging his duty.

26. The evidence on record suggests, at best, a sudden scuffle arising out of crowd management and not a deliberate act aimed at preventing the Complainant from performing his official functions.

27. In view of the above discussion, it is required to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused caused hurt to the Complainant in a legally acceptable manner and that the medical evidence is not proved. There are material omissions and improvements in the testimony of the Complainant. Further, the non-examination of the independent witnesses creates serious doubt. On the other hand, the essential ingredients of intention to deter a public servant are not established. Hence, it is required to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

28. In the result, accused no.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under

Section 332 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of (06) months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 15 th day of April, 2026

Sd/-XXX

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar

Page 8 of 8 C.C.No.2941 of 2021

Date: 15-04-2026

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: PW1/Mudavath Raju - Complainant and Victim PW2/A. Madhusudhan Reddy - Eyewitness PW3/L. Mallesh - Eyewitness PW4/Syed Ghouse - Panch for scene of offence panchanama PW5/G. Shiva Kumar - Circumstantial Witness PW6/P. Babaiah - Eyewitness PW7/K. Satya Kumar - Investigating Officer

For Defence:

-None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the Report Ex.P2 is the Medical Report Ex.P3 is the Duty Passport issued by SHO PS Shamshabad, dated 22-07-2021 Ex.P4 is the Scene of Offence Panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P5 is the FIR Ex.P2 is the Medical Certificate which is already marked through PW1

For Defence: -NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL –

Sd/-XXX

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar //True Copy//

Page 1 of 8 C.C.No.2171 of 2017

Date: 21-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

XI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present: Smt. Neelima Muddasani

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar

Tuesday, this the 21 st day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.2171 of 2017

Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Shamshabad

....Complainant

A N D

A1: Manchala Ushaiah, S/o Rajaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Rasheedguda, H/o Hameedullanagar Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District

A2: Manchala Kumar, S/o Ushaiah, (Abated vide Docket Order, dt. 16-02-2026) Age: 31 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Rasheedguda, H/o Hameedullanagar Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District

A3: Manchala Siddulu, S/o Pentaiah, (Abated vide Docket Order, dt. 24-07-2024) Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Rasheedguda, H/o Hameedullanagar Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District

A4: Manchala Krishna, S/o Pentaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Rasheedguda, H/o Hameedullanagar Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District

A5: Manchala Shankar, S/o Pentaiah, Age: 34 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Rasheedguda, H/o Hameedullanagar Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District

....Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and Sri M. Sudhakar Reddy, legal-aid counsel for the accused persons and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

Page 2 of 8 C.C.No.2171 of 2017

Date: 21-04-2026

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Shamshabad has laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.281/2017 for the offence under Section 447, 427, 324 of Indian

Penal Code (for short herein after referred as IPC).

2. Thebrief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30-06-2017 at 12.30 hours the de facto Complainant/PW1 came to the police station and lodged a report stating that the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 Guntas in Sy.No.44/AA and 44/A1, A2 situated at

Rasheedguda Village belongs to CSK Realtors Company. On 30-06-2017 at about 11.00 am when the kadies were erecting to the said land, M. Ushaiah, M. Kumar,

Siddulu, Krishna, Shankar and others, who are residents of Rasheedguda Village, have criminally trespassed into their land and removed the kadies. When the Complainant questioned them about their actions, the said persons have abused him in filthy language and pelted stones on Sujatha/PW3. Hence, requested to take necessary action.

3. Based on the said report, LW7 has registered a case in Crime No.281/2017 for the offence U/Sec.447, 427, 324 IPC and entrusted the investigation to PW5. During the course of investigation, PW5 has examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch in the presence of mediators PW4 and LW5. On 11-07-2017 the accused no.1 to 6 have voluntarily surrendered before the court and later enlarged on bail. Further, LW6/Dr. Y. Pavithra has issued the medical certificate of PW3 opining that the injuries by her are “Simple in nature”. After completion of investigation and after collection of relevant documents, PW5 has filed charge sheet.

Page 3 of 8 C.C.No.2171 of 2017

Date: 21-04-2026

4.Based on the report of the Police, this court taken cognizance for the offence

U/Sec.447, 427, 324 IPC and issued summons to the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused before the court, they were furnished with the copies of the documents as required U/Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6.Later, accused no.1, 3, 4 to 6 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the charge leveled against them and upon hearing both sides, charges were framed

U/Sec.447, 427, 324 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused, for which accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

7. The case against accused no.2 and 3 was dismissed as abated since they are reported to be died vide docket order dated 16-02-2026 and 24-07-2024, respectively.

8.In order to prove the prosecution case, prosecution has examined PWs’1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. Prosecution side evidence is closed.

9.After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, accused no.1, 4 to 6 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material that appeared against them in the prosecution case. The accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

10.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused. Perused the record.

11.Now the point for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused no.1, 4, 5 and 6 for the offence punishable U/ Sec.447, 427, 324 IPC , beyond all reasonable doubt?

Page 4 of 8 C.C.No.2171 of 2017

Date: 21-04-2026

POINT:

12. The case of the prosecution is that the Complainant company, CSK Realtors is said to be in possession of land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy.No.44 at

Rasheedguda Village, Shamshabad mandal. On 30-06-2017 while PWs’1 to 3 were present at the said land and fencing the land with kadis, all the accused allegedly came there criminally trespassed in to the land, removed the kadis, pelted stones and abused them in filthy language. Further, accused no.3/Siddulu (abated) allegedly caused injury to PW3 by pelting stone.

13. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs’1 to 5.

14. PW1/de facto Complainant deposed that on 30-06-2017 while they were fencing the land with kadis, all the accused trespassed into the land and forcefully removed the kadis and all the accused pelted stones on them and abused in filthy language. Further,

PW3 received injuries.

15.PW2 supported the version of PW1 and deposed in similar lines.

16.PW3, the injured witness stated that she along with other labourers went for doing labour work at CSK Ventures. They were digging the pits for fencing of the kadis.

Meanwhile, all the accused persons started abusing PW1, PW2 and also the other labourers in filthy language and threatened them to leave the site. Further, accused no.3/Siddulu had pelted stone on her due to which, she received bleeding injury on her stomach. Thereafter, she along with PW1 went to police station and lodged a complaint and police have referred her to government hospital, Shamshabad.

Page 5 of 8 C.C.No.2171 of 2017

Date: 21-04-2026

17. PW4 is the panch for the scene of offence panchanama who testified that police have conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence. Through this witness, prosecution got marked Ex.P2 CDF along with the rough sketch.

18. PW5 is the Investigating Officer who testified as to the line of investigation.

19. The defence of the accused is that of total denial. It is specifically contended that the land in Sy.No.44 at Rasheedguda village is a joint family property and there was no partition between the branches of Rajaiah and Ishtharaiah. Rajaiah is the father of accused no.1 and further accused no.2 to 6 are his legal heirs. It is further contended that the legal heirs of Istharaiah without any partition, have sold the land to CSK

Realtors and in turn, they in collusion with them have filed this false case to settle the civil disputes.

20. To establish the offence of criminal trespass the prosecution must prove that the

Complainant was in lawful possession of the property and the accused entered the property with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate and insult. In the present case, the prosecution has not filed any documentary evidence such as title deeds, revenue records or any other material to show that the CSK Realtors was in lawful possession of the said land.

21. On the other hand, the defence has raised a probable contention that the land is a joint family property and not partitioned. When such a plea is raised, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish exclusive possession of the Complainant, which it has failed to do.

22. It is settled principle of law that a co-owner or a person claiming joint possession cannot be held guilty of criminal trespass unless there is a clear proof of exclusive

Page 6 of 8 C.C.No.2171 of 2017

Date: 21-04-2026

possession. In the absence of proof of possession, the very foundation of the offence under Section 447 IPC fails.

23. Coming to Sec.427 IPC, to constitute mischief, the prosecution must prove that the accused caused destruction or damage to the property. Further, such act resulted in wrongful loss and that the amount to damage is Rs.50/- or more. In the present case, though PW1 and PW2 have stated that the accused removed the kadis, but the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence or photographs to substantiate the existence of such fencing or its removal. Further, there is no evidence regarding the value of the damage caused. In the absence of proof of actual damage and its valuation, the ingredients of Sec.427 IPC are not satisfied.

24. Coming to the offence under Section 324 IPC, PW3 who is stated to be the injured witness, has deposed that accused no.3 pelted a stone causing injury to her stomach. However, on careful scrutiny of the record, it is evident that there is a material omission or contradiction in her earlier statement before the Investigating Officer wherein she did not mention that she received injuries on her stomach. Such omission is not a minor discrepancy, but goes to the root of the prosecution. Further, there is no mention in Ex.P1 that PW3 received injury on her stomach except vaguely stating that accused pelted stone on PW3. The testimony of PW3 does not inspire confidence.

Moreover, the Investigating Officer has admitted during the course of cross examination that the medical certificate has been collected after three months of the alleged incident.

Moreover, he admitted that PW3 did not state before him that she received injuries on her stomach. In the absence of the same, the medical certificate does not inspire confidence of this court. therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under

Section 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Page 7 of 8 C.C.No.2171 of 2017

Date: 21-04-2026

25. On overall appreciation of the evidence, it is clear that the case arises out of a civil dispute relating to the land. The prosecution has failed to establish the possession of the Complainant. There is lack of documentary evidence. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and any reasonable doubt must go in favour of the accused.

26. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused under Section 447, 427, 324 IPC.

27. In the result, accused no.1, 4, 5 and 6 are found not guilty for the offence under

Section 447, 427, 324 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of (06) months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 21 st day of April, 2026

Sd/-XXX

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: PW1/Rudra Raj Kiran - Complainant PW2/G. Srinivas - Eyewitness PW3/T. Sujatha - Injured PW4/M. Narsimha - Panch for the scene of offence PW5/Md. Ahmed Pasha - Investigating Officer

For Defence:

-None –

Page 8 of 8 C.C.No.2171 of 2017

Date: 21-04-2026

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the Report Ex.P2 is the Crime Details Form along with rough sketch Ex.P3 is the FIR Ex.P4 is the Medical Certificate

For Defence: -NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL –

Sd/-XXX

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar //True Copy//

Page 1 of 7

O.S.No.164 of 2018

Date: 22-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

XI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present: Smt. Neelima Muddasani

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar

Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026

O.S. No.164 of 2018

Between:

1. M. Narendar Reddy, S/o M. Madhava Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business,

2. M. Mahender Reddy, S/o M. Madhava Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business,

Both are R/o H.No.22-69/1, Rallaguda, Shamshabad Village and Mandal, R.R. District …Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Sunitha Agarwal, W/o Mahesh Agarwal, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Household, R/o 15-1-469, Feel Khana Hyderabad

2. Varsha Agarwal, W/o Nanda Kishore Agarwal, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Housewife,

3. Surendar Kumar Agarwal, S/o Shankar Lal Agarwal, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business,

4. Nanda Kishore Agarwal, S/o Shankar Lal Agarwal, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business,

Defendants no.2 to 4 are R/o H.No.15-1-470, Feel Khana, Hyderabad …Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Raghuveer Pandith, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and Sri P. Vamsheedar Reddy, learned counsel for the Defendant no.1 and Sri Avadhani, learned counsel for Defendants no.2 to 4 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

Page 2 of 7

O.S.No.164 of 2018

Date: 22-04-2026

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

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for grant of perpetual

Injunction in respect of suit schedule property.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that the Plaintiffs have purchased Plot

No.4 admeasuring 903 Sq.yds, in Sy.No.58/part situated at Kishanguda Village and

Ootpally Grampanchayat, Shamshabad Mandal, through a registered Sale Deed vide document no.4416/2015, dated 10-09-2015 from Nandi Balvanth Reddy through GPA holders, K. Bheemarjun Reddy and K. Chandrakanth Reddy. Since the date of purchase, the Plaintiffs claim to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

It is further the case of the Plaintiffs that their vendors were already in possession of the land and Bheemarjun Reddy who is the GPA holder to Sy.No.58 has already filed O.S.No.102/2013 wherein temporary injunction was granted in their favour in respect of the land in Sy.No.58. The grievance of the Plaintiffs is that the Defendants, having no manner of right or title over Sy.No.58, are unlawfully interfering with their possession.

3.The Defendant no.1/Sunitha Agarwal has filed her written statement which is adopted by Defendants no.2 to 4 denying all the averments made by the Plaintiff and inter alia submitted that Defendant no.4 herein Sri Nanda Kishore Agarwal was the absolute owner and possessor of the dry land in Sy.No.28(p), 29(p) and 30(p) admeasuring Ac.2-07 guntas having purchased the same from his vendor P. Pandu vide registered Sale Deed bearing document no.8172/21989, dated 13-07-1989.

Page 3 of 7

O.S.No.164 of 2018

Date: 22-04-2026

Thereafter, Nanda Kishore Agarwal has gifted land admeasuring Ac.1-24 guntas to

Defendant no.2 through four different registered Gift Settlement Deeds bearing documents no.3747/2009 (0.10 guntas), 3748/2009 (0.18 guntas), 3721/2009 (0.18 guntas) and 3722/2009 (0.18 guntas), dated 31-08-2009.

Pursuant to the transfer of the land in favour of Defendant no.2/Varsha Agarwal she became absolute owner of total extent of Ac.1-24 guntas and since then she is enjoying the same. Thereafter, Defendant no.2 has executed registered Gift Deeds in favour of Ram Dulari Bai and after transferring the said land, Defendant no.2 remained to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.18 guntas.

Further, the Defendants contended that the Plaintiffs and their vendors are attempting to encroach upon their land situated at Sy.No.28-30 under the guise of claiming the land in Sy.No.58. Further, Defendant no.1 has filed O.S.No.468/2016 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District against the vendors of the

Plaintiffs in respect of their properties in Sy.No.28, 29 and 30 of Kishanguda Village and obtained temporary injunction order. Further, no cause of action arose in favour of the

Plaintiffs for filing the present suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. During the trial, Plaintiff no.1 got examined himself as PW1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A10 on his behalf. On the other hand, the Defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf nor cross examined PW1.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs. The arguments on behalf of the Defendants were treated as heard. Perused the material available on record.

6. Based on the above pleadings of both parties and their respective documents,

Page 4 of 7

O.S.No.164 of 2018

Date: 22-04-2026

the following issues have been settled for trial:

i. Whether the Plaintiffs proved their lawful possession over the suit schedule

property as on the date of filing of the suit?

ii. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for Perpetual Injunction over the suit

schedule property against the Defendants and all the persons claiming through the Defendants? iii. To what relief?

Since issues no.1 and 2 are interrelated, both are taken up commonly for the sake of convenience.

Issues No.1 and 2:

7. The present suit is one for bare injunction. In such a suit, the primary question that falls for consideration is possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the alleged interference by the Defendants.

8. In order to establish their possession, the Plaintiff no.1 is examined as PW1 and he has relied upon Ex.A1 the registered Sale Deed, dated 10-09-2015 coupled with

Exs.A2 to A4 which are the link documents. These documents clearly disclose that the

Plaintiffs have derived valid title to the suit schedule property. In the absence of any rebuttal, possession is presumed to follow title.

9. Further, Ex.A6 which is certified copy of the Orders in I.A.No.359/2013 in

O.S.No.102/2013 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar, also

supports the case of the Plaintiffs that their predecessors were in possession of the land in Sy.No.58 of Kishnaguda Village.

10.It is pertinent to note that though the Defendants have filed written statement disputing the claim of the Plaintiffs, they have neither entered into the witness box nor cross examined PW1. It is settled principle of law that when the evidence of a witness is

Page 5 of 7

O.S.No.164 of 2018

Date: 22-04-2026

not subjected to cross examination, the same remains unchallenged and is deemed to have been accepted. In the present case, the testimony of PW1 is consistent and supported by documentary evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

11. The crucial aspect of the case is that the Plaintiffs claim land in Sy.No.58 whereas the Defendant claim land in Sy.No.28, 29 and 30. The Defendants have not placed any material on record to show that the suit schedule property overlaps with their land or that the Plaintiffs have encroached upon their property. In the absence of such evidence, the plea of the Defendants cannot be accepted.

12.Further, the Plaintiffs have relied upon Ex.A9, which is the certified copy of the

Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.468/2016 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District. The said Judgment discloses that the present Defendants, who were Plaintiffs therein, failed to establish their possession and it was observed that substantial extent of their land was acquired for Outer Ring Road, leaving only negligible extent. Though the said Judgment is not directly binding, it has persuasive value and creates doubt regarding the possession claimed by the Defendants.

13. Exs.A7 and A8 also show acquisition proceedings issue by the Special Deputy

Collector, HMDA, Hyderabad, affecting the lands of the Defendant’s family. This further weakens the claim of the Defendants regarding the possession and interference.

14. Thus, the Defendants have failed to establish any subsisting right or possession over any land so as to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiffs. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs have successfully established their lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit.

Page 6 of 7

O.S.No.164 of 2018

Date: 22-04-2026

15. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the interference by the

Defendants is illegal and without any basis.

Accordingly, issues no.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Plaintiffs.

Issue No.3:To what relief?

16. In view of the findings of issues no.1 and 2, the Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction.

17. In the result, the suit is decreed and the Defendants are hereby restrained by way of perpetual Injunction from ever interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. In the circumstances of the case, no costs is ordered.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2026

Sd/-XXX

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: PW1/M. Narendar Reddy, S/o M. Madhava Reddy

For Defendants: - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Page 7 of 7

O.S.No.164 of 2018

Date: 22-04-2026

Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of registered Sale Deed document no.4416/2015, dated 10-09-2015 Ex.A2 is the Certified Copy of registered Sale Deed document no.4294/2015, dated 10-09-2015 (Link document) Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of registered Sale Deed document no.2494/2005, dated 23-03-2005 (Link document) Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of registered Sale Deed document no.3030/2005, dated 31-03-2005 (Link document) Ex.A5 is the Office Copy of police complaint, dated 25-07-2018 Ex.A6 is the Certified Copy of Order, dated 28-03-2015 in I.A.No.359/2013 in O.S.No.102/2013 Ex.A7 is the Certified Copy of Memo, dated 04-01-2020 issued by the O/o Govt. of Telangana, Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Outer Ring Road, HMDA, Hyderabad Ex.A8 is the Certified Copy of Proceedings vide Proceedings No.ORR/C/1703/2005, dt. 30-11- 2021 issued by O/o Govt. of Telangana, Special Deputy Collector, for Outer Ring Road, HMDA, Hyderabad Ex.A9 is the Certified Copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.468/2016, dated 25-09-2023 of

Hon’ble I Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District

Ex.A10 is the Certified Copy of Docket Order, dated 18-12-2023 in O.S.No.2401/2018

For Defendants: - NIL –

Sd/-XXX

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar //True Copy//

Page 1 of 5

O.S.No.519 of 2023

Date: 15-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

XI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present: Smt. Neelima Muddasani

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar

Wednesday, this the 15 th day of April, 2026

O.S. No.519 of 2023

Between:

State Bank of India, Attapur Branch, 4-6-69/1/8 1st floor, Vasudevareddy Complex, Hyderguda, X Roads, Rajendranagar Hyderabad, Telangana-500048 Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ms K. Divya Bharathi D/o K. Bheeshmachary, Aged about 33 years, R/o Hyderabad …Plaintiff

A N D

Shaik Shahed Hussain, S/o Hussain Shaik, aged 50 years, Senior Asst., H.No.7-4-123, Gundam Street, Gundam Jenda, Near Machili Bazar, Hanamkonda, OH Souther, Warangal. Also at: Govt. of Telangana, Medical & Health Department, District TB Control Centre, MGM Campus, Warangal …Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.K Lakshmi Kumari, learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant was set ex-parte and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

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

This is a suit for recovery of money of Rs.9,49,812/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs

Forty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Twelve only) along with interest and costs.

2.The Plaintiff is a bank having its one of the branches at Attapur branch. The

Defendant has approached the Plaintiff bank requesting for personal loan vide loan

Page 2 of 5

O.S.No.519 of 2023

Date: 15-04-2026

application dated 21-07-2020 and on the request made by the Defendant, the

Plaintiff conveyed the sanction of term loan vide arrangement letter, dated 21-07- 2020 for an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- subject to terms and conditions. The Defendant availed an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- towards personal account no.39517729494 with an interest of 11.10% per annum. The amount has to be repaid by the Defendant in 72 equated monthly installments of Rs.18,132/- each commencing from 10-08-2020.

Further, in the event of default in payment of any installment, penal interest at the rate of 2% per annum will be charged.

3.The Defendant, after availing the said loan, made some part payments in the years 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 and made the last payment on 08-02-2023 and after that the Defendant had committed default in repayment of installments as per terms and conditions agreed by him. Inspite of repeated requests and demands, the

Defendant did not choose to repay the loan amount and as such the loan account has been classified as nonperforming asset on 10-03-2023. Further, the Plaintiff issued legal notice, dated 22-05-2023 to the Defendant, but the same was unserved.

Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay Rs.9,49,812/- as on 08-06-2023 along with interest at contractual rate. Hence, the suit.

4. After registering the suit, summons were served on the Defendant, but he did not choose to appear before this court and hence, the Defendant was set ex-parte on 14-07-2025.

5.In support of the case, the Plaintiff bank got examined its Branch Manager as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6.

Page 3 of 5

O.S.No.519 of 2023

Date: 15-04-2026

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff. Perused the material available on record and the written arguments on behalf of the Plaintiff.

7.Now the point for my determination is:

Whether the suit is entitled to be decreed as prayed for?

POINT:

8.As per the gist of the plaint and from the chief affidavit of PW1 and arguments of the counsel for the Plaintiff, the Defendant has approached their branch for personal loan of Rs.9,50,000/-. Considering their request and after verification of the necessary documents, the bank had sanctioned said loan. Further, the Defendant has executed all the necessary documents and subsequently he failed to repay the loan amount and he fell due to an amount of Rs.9,49,812/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs

Forty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Twelve only).

9.The Branch Manager of the Plaintiff Bank is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the Original Loan Application for personal loan, dated 21-07-2020. Ex.A2 is the Original Arrangement Letter, dated 21-07-2020. Ex.A3 is the Original Personal Loan Agreement, dated 21-07-2020. Ex.A4 is the Office Copy of Legal Notice, dated 22-05-2023. Ex.A5 is the Original Postal returned unserved cover, dated 05-06-2023. Ex.A6 is the Statement of Account.

10.From the above material, it is clear case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant has approached the bank for the loan amount and agreed to all the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff bank. All the documents under Exs.A1 to A6 goes to show that the

Defendant has taken the loan amount and failed to repay the loan amount.

Page 4 of 5

O.S.No.519 of 2023

Date: 15-04-2026

11.Though, summons were served on the Defendant, he did not choose to ap- pear before the court. The evidence of PW1 and the documents vide Exs.A1 to A6 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the Plaintiff. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, by directing him to pay a sum of Rs.9,49,812/- (Rupees Nine

Lakhs Forty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Twelve only) to the Plaintiff with future interest @ 11.10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Typed to Dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of April, 2026

Sd/-XXX

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs:

PW1/K. Divya Bharathi, D/o K. Bheeshma Chary

For Defendants: - None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 is the Original Loan Application for personal loan, dated 21-07-2020

Page 5 of 5

O.S.No.519 of 2023

Date: 15-04-2026

Ex.A2 is the Original Arrangement Letter, dated 21-07-2020

Ex.A3 is the Original Personal Loan Agreement, dated 21-07-2020

Ex.A4 is the Office Copy of Legal Notice, dated 22-05-2023

Ex.A5 is the Original Postal returned unserved cover, dated 05-06-2023

Ex.A6 is the Statement of Account

For Defendants:

- NIL - -

Sd/-XXX

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar //True Copy//

Page 1 of 4

O.S.No.59 of 2026

Date: 17-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

XI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Present: Smt. Neelima Muddasani Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Rajendranagar at R.R. District

Friday, this the 17 th day of April, 2026

O.S. No.59 of 2026

Between:

1. Talari Om Prakash, S/o late Talari Jangaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.3-22, Gandhamguda, Peeramcheruvu, Rajendranagar, R.R. District

2. Talari Chandra Shekar, S/o late Talari Jangaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-25, Gandamguda, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District

3. Tegulla Lalitha @ Talari Lalitha, W/o Tegula Ashok Kumar, D/o late Talari Jangaiah, aged about 45 years, R/o H.No.9-3, Madhavi Nagar, Hydershakote, Rajendranagar, R.R. District

4. Talari Sunitha, D/o late Talari Jangaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Homemade, R/o H.No.3-22, Gandamguda, Peeramcheruvu, Rajendranagar, R.R. District

....Plaintiffs

A N D

1. The Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

2. Whom so ever it may concern

....Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Nandaiah, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants remained ex-parte and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

Page 2 of 4

O.S.No.59 of 2026

Date: 17-04-2026

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

The suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs no.1 to 4 praying the court to declare them as the legal heirs and successors of late Talari Jangaiah.

2.The case of the Plaintiffs as per the plaint averments is that the deceased Talari

Jangaiah is the father of Plaintiffs, who died on 17-03-2025, leaving behind his two sons and daughters i.e. the Plaintiffs herein as his successors and legal heirs. It is further submitted that the mother of the Plaintiffs late Talari Mallamma died long back prior to the death of their father late Talari Jangaiah and that except the Plaintiffs herein, there are no other legal heirs of late Talari Jangaiah.

3.Further, after the demise of Talari Jangaiah, the Plaintiffs have made an application to Defendant No.1 on 17-03-2025 requesting to issue legal heir certificate, but Defendant No.1 had refused to issue the same and advised the Plaintiffs to approach the civil court. However, Defendant no.1 had issued the Family Members

Certificate mentioning the Plaintiffs herein are the family members of late Talari

Jangaiah. Hence, the suit.

4.The Defendant No.1, inspite of receiving summons, did not appear before the court. Hence Defendant No.1 is set ex-parte. On Defendant No.2 summons were served through paper publication, but no one appeared before the court objecting the claim of Plaintiffs. Hence, Defendant No.2 is set ex-parte.

5.On behalf of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1 himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

Page 3 of 4

O.S.No.59 of 2026

Date: 17-04-2026

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

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are entitled to be declared as the legal heirs and successors of late Talari Jangaiah, as prayed for?

POINT:

8.The Plaintiffs in support of their contention examined Plaintiff No.1 as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is the Original Death Certificate of Talari Jangaiah and Ex.A2 is the Original Family Members Certificate of late Talari Jangaiah.

9.The Chief of PW1 is the replication of plaint averments. Coming to documentary evidence, Plaintiff No.1 himself admitted in plaint averments and in his chief affidavit that Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the only legal heirs of late Talari Jangaiah. On perusal of

Ex.A2 it goes shows that Plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are the sons and Plaintiffs no.3 and 4 are the daughters of late Talari Jangaiah. From the documents relied by Plaintiffs, there is no dispute regarding the relationship of Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 with late Talari Jangaiah.

Further, Ex.A1 established the death of Talari Jangaiah.

10.Since the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 are set ex-parte, the chief of PW1 coupled with

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, remained un-rebutted and unchallenged. In view of unchallenged testimony of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, this court finds nothing to disbelieve the version of Plaintiffs, in respect of Plaintiffs being the legal heirs of late Talari

Jangaiah.

11.Coming to the relief portion, the Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are entitled to be declared as legal heirs of late Talari Jangaiah. Therefore, the point is answered in favour of

Plaintiffs.

Page 4 of 4

O.S.No.59 of 2026

Date: 17-04-2026

12.Having regard to facts and circumstances of case and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded that Plaintiffs no.1 to 4 are entitled to be declared as the Legal

Heirs of deceased Talari Jangaiah.

13. In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring the Plaintiffs no.1 to 4 as legal heirs of late Talari Jangaiah. In the circumstances of the case no costs is ordered.

Typed to Dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026

Sd/-XXX

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS:- PW1/Talari Om Prakash, S/o Late Talari Jangaiah

DEFENDANTS:- - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFFS:- Ex.A1 is the Original Death Certificate of Talari Jangaiah Ex.A2 is the Original Family Members Certificate of late Talari Jangaiah

DEFENDANTS:- - NIL –

Sd/-XXX

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class R.R. District at Rajendranagar //True Copy//