Sri. P. B. Kiran Kumar

9 of 9 OS No. 387 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: AT CHEVELLA: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT :- P.B.KIRAN KUMAR , JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-Cum-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, CHEVELLA R.R.DISTRICT

DATED THIS THE 01st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024.

O.S.No.387 of 2022

Between :

1. Patlolla @ Kasala Aruna W/o Late Ananthaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Housewife.

2. Kasala Sudheer Kumar S/o Late Ananthaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ:Pvt.Service.

3. Kasala Chaitanya D/o Late Ananthaiah, Aged about 28 years, Occ:Pvt.Service All R/o H.No.1-73, Girmapur Village, Kondapur Mandal,

Sanga Reddy District. ...Plaintiffs.

// A n d //

1. Kasala Madhu S/o Late Ananthaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ:Pvt.Service.

2. Kasala Praveen Kumar S/o Late Ananthaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ: ---

3. Varala Mamatha W/o Ramesh, D/o Late Ananthaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ:Housewife.

4. Kasala Survana W/o Late Ananthaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ:Housewife. All R/o H.No.4-38, Jonnada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R.Ditrict.

5. All concerned.

...Defendants

This suit came before me for final hearing on 26.9.2024 in the presence of Sri. Ch.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri K.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the defendant No.5 set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :- 9 of 9 OS No. 387 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs in the interests of Justice.

2. Briefly, the averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff No.1 is the first wife of Late Kasala Ananthaiah, who died on 10.5.2001 leaving behind the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 4 as his sole surviving legal heirs.

Late Kasala Ananthaiah died intestate and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to inherit and succeed the property and status left behind by the deceased person. Originally, Smt.Kasala

Satyamma was the pattadar and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.169/1 admeasuring

Ac.1-09 guntas situated at Janwada village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R.District (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property). The said Kasala Satyamma purchased the said land through registered sale deed bearing document No.278 of 1983 dated 25.01.1983 from its rightful owners and possessors and she became absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. After the death of Kasala Satyamma, the defendant No.1 filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella to mutate the above said land in his favour and the same was numbered as proceeding No.C/1125/2014 dated 26.09.2015 and the same is pending. Recently, the plaintiffs approached the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Chevella Division, R.R.District and requested to effect partition and allot their legitimate share in the suit schedule property. Then the plaintiffs were informed that since Late Kasala

Ananthaiah was not the Government employee, no legal heir certificate could be issued to the plaintiffs and they also advised the plaintiffs to approach the competent court of law for issuance of legal heir certificate.

9 of 9 OS No. 387 of 2022

3. The defendants 1 to 3 are the children of Late Kasala Ananthaiah through his second wife namely Kasala Suvarna i.e., defendant No.4 and the defendants 1 to 3 are trying to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties, as such, the plaintiffs have no other alternative except to seek the indulgence of this court by way of filing this suit. The plaintiffs are badly in need of the legal heir declaration for the purpose of their status and also to fulfill all other statutory requirements. The plaintiff No.1 filed an objection petition

before the Revenue Divisional Officer, at Chevella vide its letter No.942 of 2016 dated

29.02.2016 to stop the mutation proceedings in the name of the defendant No.1 and the same was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled to legal share in the schedule property being the legal heirs and successors of Late

Kasala Ananthaiah, who is the only son of Late Kasala Satyamma. The plaintiff No.1 filed

Maintenance Case vide MC.No.15 of 1982 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at

Sanga Reddy and this court passed order by directing her husband to pay an amount of

Rs.400/- towards her maintenance. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to approach this court by way of filing of this suit.

4. After receipt of summons, the defendant No.1 entered into appearance and filed his written statement. Adoption memo filed by the defendants 2 to 4 adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. The brief averments of the written statement are as follows:-

The plaintiff No.1 is the first wife of Late Kasala Ananthaiah and the said Kasala

Ananthaiah died on 10.5.2001 leaving behind the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 4 as his surviving legal heirs and late Kasala Ananthaiah died intestate and as such, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to inherit and succeed the property and status left behind by the deceased Kasala Ananthaiah. One Smt.Kasala Satyamma W/o Narsimulu is the 9 of 9 OS No. 387 of 2022 mother of the deceased Kasala Ananthaiah i.e., mother-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.4 and grandmother of plaintiffs 2 and 3 and defendants 1 to 3 and the said

Smt.Kasala Satyamma was the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the land bearing

Sy.No.169/1 admeasuring Ac.1-09 guntas situated at Janwada village, Shankarpally

Mandal, R.R.District as she purchased the said land through registered sale deed bearing document No.278 of 1983 dated 25.1.1983 from its rightful owners and possessors of the said property. The defendants 1 to 3 are also entitled to their respective equal shares in the suit schedule property being the sons and daughter of Late Ananthaiah through his second wife Smt.Kasala Suvarna, the defendant No.4. But the plaintiffs are not entitled to legal heir certificate by themselves only and since the defendants 1 to 3 are also legal heirs of the said Late Kasala Ananthaiah being his sons and daughter through his second wife. The plaintiff No.1 is the first wife and the defendant No.4 is the second wife of Late Kasala

Ananthaiah and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are his children through 1st wife and the defendants 1 to 3 are his children through his 2nd wife. The said Ananthaiah died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants as his successor and legal heirs, as such all of them i.e., plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 are legal heirs of Late Kasala Ananthaiah, as such all of them are entitled to legal heir certificate as well as entitled for all benefits accruing from the deceased Ananthaiah being his legal heirs. Hence, this court may dispose of the case duly declaring the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 are legal heirs of Late Kasala

Ananthaiah S/o Late Kasala Narsimhulu.

5. From the pleadings of both parties, the following issues are framed to be trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to the relief of declaration of legal heirs of the deceased Ananthaiah?

9 of 9 OS No. 387 of 2022

2. Whether the plaintiff No.1 filed maintenance case against her husband vide

MC.No.15 of 1982 on the file of JCJ Court, Sanga Reddy ?

3. Whether the plaintiff No.1 is entitled to half share as per the agreement deed

dated 28.1.1996 jointly executed by the Kasala Narsimhulu, Satyamma and

Ananthaiah in favour of father of plaintiffs and the plaintiff No.1 in all properties standing in the name of Kasala Narsimhulu, Smt.Kasala Satyamma and Kasala Ananthaiah?

4. To what relief?

6. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.1 as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

8. Point:-

In order to substantiate their claim, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.1 as PW.1, who reiterated the contents of the plaint in her chief affidavit. The plaintiff also exhibited

Exs.A1 to A13 to support their case.

9. Coming to the oral evidence of PW.1 she deposed that she is the first wife of Late

Kasala Ananthaiah and he died on 10.05.2001 leaving behind him, herself plaintiffs 2 and 3 and defendants 1 to 3 as his sole surviving legal heirs and they are entitled to inherit and succeed the property and status left behind by the deceased person. It also discloses that

PW1 filed maintenance case against her husband vide M.C.No.15 of 1982 on the file of

Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy and the court had also passed the orders directing her husband to pay an amount of Rs.400/- per month towards her maintenance. Further, it also 9 of 9 OS No. 387 of 2022 discloses that Kasala Narsimulu, Smt.Kasala Satyamma and Kasala Ananthaiah were jointly executed an agreement deed in favour of her father. The evidence of PW1 further discloses that the defendants 1 to 3 are the children of Late Kasala Ananthaiah through his second wife namely Kasala Suvarna (defendant No.4) and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are trying to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties. Thus, from the material available on record and the oral evidence of PW1 it shows that there is no dispute with regard to her marriage with the deceased Ananthaiah and also the marriage of deceased Ananthaiah with the defendant No.4.

10. Further it is to be seen that Late Ananthaiah and the defendant No.4 lived as wife and husband and they were blessed with three children and even in the absence of proof, a presumption of valid marriage between them would arise. When the marriage of deceased

Ananthaiah and PW1 is still subsisting and was not declared as null and void, the marriage of deceased Ananthaiah with the defendant No.4 is said to be in contravention of Section 5(i) of Hindu Marriage Act and hence, it can be said that it is a void marriage. But under section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act the children of a void marriage are legitimate. Further, under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956 when the property of a male Hindu died intestate devolves upon firstly on heirs in class I of schedule, which includes widow and sons. Among the widow and sons they all get shares. In the instant case, the defendant No.4 cannot be described as a widow of deceased Ananthaiah when her marriage with the said

Ananthaiah being void. Whereas the sons and daughter of marriage in between the deceased Ananthaiah and defendant No.4 being legitimate would be entitled to the property in equal shares along with the plaintiffs 1 to 3. As mentioned earlier, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between deceased Ananthaiah and PW1 and also marriage of the deceased Ananthaiah with the defendant No.4 and during the subsistence of the 9 of 9 OS No. 387 of 2022 marriage with PW1, the deceased Ananthaiah performed another marriage with defendant

No.4, which is a void marriage, as deceased Ananthaiah and plaintiff no.1 were not legally separated.

11. Coming to the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiffs vide Ex.A1 to A13, it shows that Ex.A1 is the original wedding card of PW1 with the deceased Ananthaiah.

Ex.A2 is the death certificate of Sri Kasala Ananthaiah which shows about his death on 10.5.2001. Exs.A3 and A4 are the death certificates of Sri Kasala Narsimhulu and

Smt.Kasala Satyamma. Ex.A5 is the copy of proceedings vide Proc.No.C/1125/2014 dated 26.9.2015 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella. Ex.A6 is the copy of proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer vide Letter No.C/942/2016 dated 29.2.2016.

Ex.A7 is the copy of objection petition filed by the plaintiff No.1 before the Tahasildar,

Shankarpally Mandal, R.R.District. Ex.A8 is the objection petition filed by the plaintiff

No.1 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella. Ex.A9 is the copy of Memorandum submitted before the Tahasildar, Shankarpally dated 07.8.2018. Ex.A10 is the certified copy of maintenance petition vide M.C.No.15 of 1982 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,

Sanga Reddy District. Ex.A11 are the original Aadhar cards of the plaintiffs. Ex.A12 is the encumbrance certificate and online dharani pahani in respect of suit schedule property.

Ex.A13 is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.278 of 1983 dated 25.1.1983 which shows that mother of the deceased Ananthaiah purchased the suit schedule property.

12. Thus, the documentary evidence vide Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 clearly shows that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Ananthaiah.

But, as discussed supra, the marriage between the deceased Ananthaiah and defendant No.4 9 of 9 OS No. 387 of 2022 is void marriage in view of existence of marriage between deceased Ananthaiah and plaintiff No.1 at the time of their marriage. But the defendants 1 to 3, who are legitimate children of late Ananthaiah and defendant No.4 are entitled to the share along with plaintiffs 1 to 3 equally. In view of above discussion, it can be said that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to declare themselves as legal heirs of the deceased

Ananthaiah. This point is answered accordingly.

13. In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed partly declaring the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 as the legal heirs of late Ananthaiah in respect of suit schedule property. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed in my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 01st day of October, 2024.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHEVELLA, R.R.DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1 Smt.Patlolla @ Kasala Aruna - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED: For Plaintiffs:

1.Ex.A1: Original wedding card

2.Ex.A2: Copy of death certificate of Sri. Late Kasala Ananthaiah

3.Ex.A3: Copy of death certificates of Sri Late Kasala Narsimhulu

4.Ex.A4: Copy of death certificates of Smt.Kasala Satyamma.

5.Ex.A5: Certified Copy of proceedings vide Proc.No.C/1125/2014, dated 26.09.2015 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella.

6.Ex.A6: Certified copy of proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer vide Letter No.C/942/2016 dated 29.02.2016.

7.Ex.A7: Copy of objection petition filed by the plaintiff No.1 before the Tahasildar, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R.District. dated 22.02.2016

8.Ex.A8: Copy of objection petition filed by the plaintiff No.1 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella. Dated 24.02.2016 9 of 9 OS No. 387 of 2022

9.Ex.A9: Copy of Memorandum submitted before the Tahasildar, Shankarpally dated 07.08.2018.

10.Ex.A10: Certified copy of maintenance petition vide M.C.No.15 of 1982 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy District.

11.Ex.A11: Original Aadhar cards of the plaintiffs.

12.Ex.A12: Copy of online dharani pahani and encumbrance certificate

13.Ex.A13: Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.278 of 1983 dated 25.01.1983

For Defendants: -Nil-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHEVELLA, R.R.DISTRICT.

1 of 8 OS No. 266 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

AT CHEVELLA RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT :- P.B.KIRAN KUMAR

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, CHEVELLA

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024.

O.S.No.266 OF 2022

Between :

1.Mohd. Naseeruddin S/o. Mohd. Zainulabedin Aged about 70 years, Occ: Retired Govt Employee, R/o. H.No. 9-8-152/34/A, Saleh Nagar, Golconda, Hyderbad.

2.Mohd Najibuddin S/o. Mohd. Naseeruddin, Aged about 40 years,Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.9-8-152/34/A, Saleha Nagar, Golconda, Hyderabad.

3.Mohd Baseeruddin S/o. Mohd Naseeruddin, Aged about34 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o. H.No. 9-8-152/34/A, Saleha Nagar, Golconda, Hyderabad.

4.Mohd Nazeeruddin S/o. Mohd. Naseeruddin, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o. H.No. 9-8-152/34/A, Saleha Nagar, Golconda, Hyderabad.

5.Baby Umme Salma D/o. Mohd Naseeruddin, Aged about 6 years, represented by Mohd Naseeruddin S/o. Mohd Zainulabedin, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Govt employee, R/o. 9-8-152/34/A, Saleha Nagar, Golconda, Hyderabad.

6.Ameena Sultana W/o. Mohd Mahmood Hussain, D/o. Mohd Naseeruddin, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 9-8-152/34/A, Saleha Nagar, Golconda, Hyderabad.

7.Najam Unisa W/o. Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin 2 of 8 OS No. 266 of 2022

D/o. Mohd Naseeruddin, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Housewife R/o. H.No. 9-8-152/34/A, Saleha Nagar, Golconda, Hyderabad.

8.Mohd. Khaja Mubeen Uddin S/o.Mohd Naseeruddin Aged about 28 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. H.No. 9-8-152/34/A, Saleha Nagar, Golconda, Hyderabad.

……Plaintiffs. // A n d //

1.Gulam Samdani S/o. Gulam Dastagir, Aged about 50 years, R/o. H.No. 9-8-110/B/1, Saleh Nagar, Hyderabad.

2.Syed Mahboob Pasha S/o. late Syed Abdul Ghani Aged about 50 years, R/o. H.No. 9-8-122, Kumar Wadi, Hyderabad. Defendants.

This suit came before me for final hearing on 14.10.2024 in the presence of Sri S.Raghunath Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiffs and the defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this court to grant perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the land admeasuring Ac.1-02 guntas, situated at Qutubuddinguda village earlier Chinna Mangaralaram village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’).

3 of 8 OS No. 266 of 2022

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

Originally, the suit property belongs to Mohd.Azeemuddin S/o

Mohd.Moulana was the absolute owner and possessor of the property of the suit schedule property. The said Azeemuddin voluntarily executed gift settlement deed bearing document No.616 of 1990 dated 17.1.1990 to Ameerunnisa Begum, who is the wife of plaintiff No.1. Subsequently, with the consent of the said

Ameerunisa Begum entered the name of plaintiff No.1 in the revenue record vide proceedings No.IA270/89/92 dated 30.9.1992.

The said Azeemuddin delivered the physical possession of the said property to the plaintiff No.1 and later, he cultivated the said property as owner and possessor of the suit land. The plaintiffs 2 to 8 are the children of plaintiff No.1. Out of love and affection, the plaintiff No.1 gifted his property through registered gift settlement deeds for different extent of lands. All the plaintiffs fenced with the kaddies and tied with barbed wire to the suit schedule property and they also dug a borewell in the suit schedule property.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs planted guava, mango and Sagwa trees in the suit schedule property and since then they are enjoying as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The defendants, who are no way concerned with the title and 4 of 8 OS No. 266 of 2022 possession of the suit schedule property, came to the suit property on 24.03.2022 and tried to damage the kaddies and also tried to damage the borewell and mango trees. Immediately, the plaintiffs resisted them with the help of neighbours and villagers, but they threatened the plaintiffs with dire consequences and openly threatened that they would occupy the property at any cost.

Hence, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff filed this suit.

3. The defendant No.1 refused to receive the summons and as such, the defendant No.1 was set exparte. Paper publication was filed against the defendant No.2 but no objections received from any corner and hence, the defendant No.2 was set exparte.

4. To substantiate his case, the plaintiffs examined 1st plaintiff as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A26.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

7. Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

2. To what relief?

5 of 8 OS No. 266 of 2022

8. Point No.1 :- Plaintiffs filed the chief affidavit of PW1 in lieu of his examination-in-chief and a perusal of the same would show that he reiterated the contents of the suit. He also exhibited

Exs.A1 to A26 to support his claim. Coming to the documentary evidence, it shows that Ex.A1 is the certified copy of Gift

Settlement deed bearing document No.616 of 1990 dated 17.1.1990 and a perusal of the same would show that the original owner namely Mohd.Azeemuddin gifted the suit schedule property in favour of one Smt.Ameerunnisa Begum and plaintiff No.1. Ex.A2 is the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad which shows that the name of the plaintiff No.1 was mutated in respect of suit schedule property. Exs.A3 to A9 are the certified copies of Gift settlement deeds bearing document Nos.2052 of 2018, 2053 of 2018, 2054 of 2018, 2055 of 2018, 2056 of 2018, 2057 of 2018 and 2058 of 2018 respectively which shows that the plaintiff No.1 gifted the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs 2 to 8 for different extents. Exs.A10 to A16 are the mutation proceedings granted in favour of the plaintiffs 2 to 8 in respect of their extents of suit schedule property. Exs.A17 to A24 are the certified copies of pahanies for the years 1989-90, 1992-93, 1995-96, 1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2004-2005, 2013-2014, 2009-2010, 2017 and 2020- 6 of 8 OS No. 266 of 2022 2021 respectively which shows that the plaintiffs as the pattadars and possessors of the suit schedule property.

9. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs show that initially, the plaintiff No.1 has been in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 gifted the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs 2 to 8 under Exs.A3 to A9. It is to be noted that since the defendants remained exparte, the oral evidence of Pw.1 and documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A26 remained unchallenged and unrebuttable. Hence, it can be said that the plaintiffs proved their case by adducing both oral evidence of Pw.1 and documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A26 and as such, the defendants are to be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

10. Point No.2:-

In view of findings on the point No.1, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as prayed for.

7 of 8 OS No. 266 of 2022

In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining them, their agents, servants, henchmen, relatives or any other person or persons acting or claiming on their behalf from wrongfully interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. No costs. Pending I.A’s., if any stands cancelled.

Typed in my laptop directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 16th day of October, 2024.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHEVELLA.

.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1: Mohd Naseeruddin - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Plaintiffs:

1.Ex.A1: Certified copy of settlement deed document bearing No. 616/1990

2.Ex.A2: Revenue Proceedings No. IA/270/89892, dated 30.09.1992

3.Ex.A3: Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed document bearing No.2052/2018

4.Ex.A4: Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed document bearing No. 2053/2018 8 of 8 OS No. 266 of 2022

5.Ex.A5: Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed document bearing No.2054/2018

6.Ex.A6: Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed document bearing No.2055/2018

7.Ex.A7: Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed document bearing No. 2056/2018

8.Ex.A8: Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed document bearing No. 2057/2018

9.Ex.A9: Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed document bearing No. 2058/2018

10.Ex.A10: Mutation proceedings No.B/1707/2018

11.Ex.A11: Mutation proceedings No.B/1709/2018

12.Ex.A12: Mutation proceedings No.B/1708/2018

13.Ex.A13: Mutation proceedings No.B/1712/2018

14.Ex.A14: Mutation proceedings No.B/1711/2018

15.Ex.A15: Mutation proceedings No.B/1706/2018

16.Ex.A16: Mutation proceedings No.B/1710/2018

17.Ex.A17: Pahani for the year 1989-90

18.Ex. A18: Pahani for the year 1992-93

19.Ex.A19: Pahani for the year 1995-96

20.Ex.A20: Pahani for the year 1999-2000

21.Ex.A21: Pahani for the year 2001-02

22.Ex.A22: Pahani for the year 2004-05

23.Ex.A23: Pahani for the year 2013-14

24.Ex.A24: Pahani for the year 2009-10

25.Ex.A25: Dharani record of 2017

26.Ex.A26: Pahani for the year 2020-21

For Defendants:

- NIL –

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHEVELLA.

1 of 6 CC No. 456 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS: AT CHEVELLA: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT:- P.B.KIRAN KUMAR

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, CHEVELLA.

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

CC.NO.456 OF 2017

Between :

The State represented through PS Shankarpally ….Complainant. // A n d //

A1: Baddam Krishna Reddy S/o. Baddam Malla Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1-30, Shankarpally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. A2: Chithanuri Prameela W/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 56 years Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 2-39, Kammeta village, Chevella Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

....Accused

This case came before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri.C. Ravishankar Goud, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The case of the prosecution is that the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Police station, Shankarpally filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 420, 468, 471 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) against A1 and section 420 and 201 IPC against A2 by alleging that on 25.4.2016 at 1430 hours, a private complaint was received from this court. Basing on which, LW11/Investigating officer registered a case in crime No.53 of 2016 under section 420 and 468 IPC 2 of 6 CC No. 456 of 2017 and recorded the statements of the complainant and another witness.

Later, he issued a notice to the complainant under section 91 of Cr.P.C., directing her to produce the documentary evidence connected with this case. Later, LW12/SI of Police served a notice under section 91 of

Cr.P.C., to the complainant and collected Xerox copy of no objection certificate as alleged to have fabricated by the accused No.1. LW12 also collected standard signatures and specimen signatures of the complainant and sent the same to FSL for comparison. Thereafter,

LW13/SI of Police took up further investigation in this case and served (3) notices to the accused No.1 directing him to furnish the original no objection certificate alleged to have fabricated by him, but he failed to do so and avoiding the same. Later, LW13/Investigating officer examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. After obtaining search warrant, LW13/Investigating officer along with mediators went to the house of accused No.1 and searched the each and every corner of the house, but in vain. After collecting all the relevant documents and after completion of investigation, LW13/SI of police filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

2. On considering the material available on record, the then Learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella took cognizance of the offence under

Section 420, 468, 471 and 201 of IPC against the accused No.1 and section 420 and 201 IPC against A2. After appearance of the accused, 3 of 6 CC No. 456 of 2017 the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to the accused persons as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused persons under section 239 Cr.P.C., for which the accused denied the offence. Charges under section 420, 468, 471 and 201 IPC are framed against A1 and section 420 and 201 IPC against A2, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available on record, for which the accused persons denied the same. Reported no defence on behalf of the accused persons.

4. After hearing arguments of both sides, the point that arose for determination in this case is: - “Whether the prosecution proved that the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt”?

5. Point :- To establish its case, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 coupled with the evidence of Pw7. Coming to the evidence of Pw1, who is to be said to be victim failed to support the 4 of 6 CC No. 456 of 2017 case of the prosecution. She simply deposed that in the year 2016 she came to know that her mother is having plot to an extent of 120 q.yards situated at Shankarpally village and later, after her death, she came to know that her signatures were appearing on the documents with regard to the said plot. Later, she went to the police station and lodged a report, but the police failed to register the same. Then she filed a private complaint before this court but she do not know as to how the signatures came on the said documents.

6. Further, Pws.2 to 6 also failed to support the prosecution case and they simply stated that they do not know about this case. Thus, the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 are no way helpful to the prosecution case.

7. Now the left over evidence is that of Pw7, who is the investigating officer. A perusal of evidence of PW2 shows about receiving of report from PW1, registering of case, examining the witnesses and after collecting the documents from them, he filed the charge sheet. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has not found the document relating to cheating though he has searched the house of accused and basing on the court referred complaint and on investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused persons. Thus, the evidence of PW7 only shows about the investigation done by him and it also discloses that he has not collected the document relating to cheating as 5 of 6 CC No. 456 of 2017 mentioned in the report. When the main and crucial witness failed to support the case of prosecution and there is no document on record to show that the accused fabricated the said document, the evidence of

PW7 is also not much helpful to the prosecution case. Hence, it can be said that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable under section 420, 468, 471 and 201 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently, they are entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

8. In the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 and 201 IPC and accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence under section 420 and 201 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code and set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 15th day of October, 2024.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, CHEVELLA.

6 of 6 CC No. 456 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1:B. Shalini Reddy -Nil- PW2: B. Baga Reddy PW3: P. Bhargavi Reddy PW4: Baddam Devi Reddy PW5: N. Om Reddy PW6: M. Dayakar Reddy PW7: K. Kranthi Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on private complaint -Nil- Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P6: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P7: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P8: First Information Report Ex.P9: Search panchanama

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, CHEVELLA.

1 of 5 OS No. 398 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHEVELLA:RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Sri P.B.Kiran Kumar Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.Dist.

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024.

O.S.No. 398 OF 2024

Between:

1. Vadla Ashok Chary S/o Vadla Yadaiah Chary, Aged about 46 years, Occ:Agriculture. R/o.1-36, Nakkalapally village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, T.G.

2. Vadla Spandana D/o Vadla Ashok Chary, Aged about 17 years, Occ:Student R/o.1-36, Nakkalapally village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, T.G.

3. Vadla Lasya Priya D/o Ashok Chary, Aged about 14 years, Occ:Student. R/o.1-36, Nakkalapally village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, T.G. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are minors rep., by their father Vadla Ashok Chary S/o Vadla Yadaiah Chary. ….Plaintiffs // A n d //

1. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevella, R.R.District

2. All concerned. Defendants.

This suit came before me for final hearing on 01.10.2024 in the presence of Sri. K.Yadagiri Goud, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :- 2 of 5 OS No. 398 of 2024

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this court to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of Late Vadla Nagalatha and declare the plaintiffs as successors of the suit schedule property, in the interests of Justice.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The plaintiff No.1 is the husband and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the daughters of deceased Vadla Nagalatha who died on 09.06.2023 due to ill-health leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs to succeed her properties. The plaintiffs are the only surviving legal heirs of the deceased Vadla Naga Latha and there are no other legal heirs except the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are born hindus and therefore they are governed by the Hindu Succession Act. Late Vadla Naga Latha was the absolute owner and possessor of the open plot bearing Nos.177/EE, 177/U, 177/LU, 177/LUU, plot No.98 admeasuring 133.33 sq.yards situated at Metro Colony, Devuni Yerravally village, Chevella Mandal, R.R.District (hereinafter referred to suit schedule property). The said Late Vadla Naga Latha has purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed bearing document No.11773 of 2018 from Mannam

Nageshwar Rao. Late Vadla Naga Latha was put into physical possession of the suit schedule property and in continuous enjoyment of the same till her death and from then the plaintiffs being her Legal heirs succeeded the same and in possession of the same coupled with lawful ownership. After demise of the said Vadla Naga Latha, the plaintiffs had approached the defendant No.1 on 20.08.2024 which shows that they 3 of 5 OS No. 398 of 2024 are the only surviving legal heirs of Late Vadla Naga Latha thereby to execute registered Gift Deed by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The defendant No.1 insisted the plaintiffs to produce the legal heir certificate issued by the Competent Authority to entertain any sort of document for registration of the suit schedule property and advised the plaintiffs to approach the competent Civil Court of law for obtaining the legal heir certificate. Hence, left with no other alternative, the plaintiffs filed this suit.

3. Despite receipt of summons, the defendant No.1 failed to appear before this court and as such, he was set exparte. Plaintiff issued publication in daily newspaper by way of substituted service against the defendant No.2 but none appeared before the court and filed any objections. Hence, the defendant No.2 is set exparte.

4. To substantiate their case, the plaintiffs examined the 1st plaintiff as PW1 and also got marked Exs.A1 to A8.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

6. Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of

Late Vadla Naga Latha?

2. To what relief?

4 of 5 OS No. 398 of 2024

7. Point No.1:- To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff filed chief affidavit his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief. A perusal of the same would show that he reiterated the contents of the plaint. Plaintiffs further exhibited documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A8 in support of their case. A perusal of

Ex.A1 which is the original death certificate of Smt.Naga Latha which shows about the death of the deceased on 09.6.2023. Exs.A2 to A5 are the original Aadhar cards of the deceased and the plaintiffs. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.11773 of 2018 dated 30.7.2018 which shows that the vendor of the deceased Vadla Nagalatha purchased the suit schedule property. Ex.A7 is the encumbrance certificate which shows about the encumbrances of the suit schedule property. Ex.A8 is the market value certificate of the suit schedule property.

8. It is to be noted that Pw1 categorically deposed that himself and the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of the deceased Smt.Vadla Nagalatha and since the defendants were set exparte, the oral evidence of Pw1 and documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A8 remained unchallenged and unrebuttable and further no objections received from any corner to the publication issued by the plaintiffs.

9. Thus, the oral evidence of Pw1 coupled with the documentary evidence vide

Exs.A1 to A8 proves that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Smt.Vadla

Naga Latha and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as legal heirs. This point is answered accordingly.

5 of 5 OS No. 398 of 2024

10. Point No.2:-

In view of findings on point No.1, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as claimed for.

In the result, the suit is decreed declaring the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of deceased Smt.Vadla Naga Latha in respect of suit schedule property. No costs.

Typed in my laptop directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 15th day of October, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW1: Vadla Ashok Chary - NIL - EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Plaintiff:

1.Ex.A1:Original death certificate of Smt.Naga Latha

2.ExA2: Original Aadhar cards of the deceased Vadla Naga Latha

3.Ex.A3:Original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.1

4.Ex.A4:Original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.2

5.Ex.A5:Original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.3

6.Ex.A6:Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.11773 of 2018

dated 30.07.2018

7.Ex.A7: Encumbrance certificate

8.Ex.A8:Certified copy of market value certificate

For Defendant:

-NIL-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

1 of 6 OS No. 155 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT CHEVELLA:RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Sri P.B.Kiran Kumar Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.Dist.

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024.

O.S.No. 155 OF 2024

Between:

1.Smt Sushmita Datta W/o. Amit Kumar Datta, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Hd.No. F-3, 34-148 Sri Sai Avenuem Balaji, Nagar, Neredmet, Secunderabad, Hyderabad.

2.Sri Sushmit Datta S/o. Amit Kumar Datta, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o. Hd.No. F-3, 34-148 Sri Sai Avenuem Balaji, Nagar, Neredmet, Secunderabad, Hyderabad. Plaintiffs // And //

1.All concerned

2.The Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District. Defendants.

This suit came before me for final hearing on 14.10.2024 in the presence of Sri B.Suresh, Advocate for Plaintiffs and the defendants set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :- 2 of 6 OS No. 155 of 2024

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this court to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of deceased Sri Amit Kumar

Datta, in the interests of Justice.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

Late Sri Amit Kumar Datta acquired the property bearing

Sy.No.66/U, 66/UU and 66/E part admeasuring 250 sq.yards situated at Reddypally village, Chandanagar Grampanchayath,

Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District, which is referred to as ‘suit schedule property’ under the registered sale deed bearing document

No.5402 of 2006 dated 30.11.2006 and the said Amit Kumar Datta had become full and absolute owner of the said property. The said

Amit Kumar Datta died on 28.8.2022 due to old age leaving behind his wife Smt.Sushmita Datta and his son namely Sushmit Datta i.e., plaintiffs herein and they are only surviving legal heirs of Sri Amit

Kumar Datta. The plaintiffs also obtained family members certificate wherein the plaintiffs are shown as the surviving family members of the said Sri Amit Kumar Datta. The plaintiffs intend to sell the suit property to third parties but the prospective purchasers are entertaining doubt as to whether the plaintiffs are the only surviving legal heirs to acquire the property from the said Amit 3 of 6 OS No. 155 of 2024

Kumar Datta husband. Then the plaintiffs approached the revenue authorities to issue legal heir certificate but the revenue authorities i.e., defendant No.2 refused to issue such legal heir certificate by stating that they do not have power to issue the same and advised the plaintiffs to approach the competent civil court. Hence, left with no other alternative, plaintiffs filed this suit.

3. On receipt of summons, the defendant No.2 failed to appear

before this court and as such, he was set exparte. Plaintiffs issued

publication in daily newspaper by way of substituted service against the defendant No.1 but none appeared before the court and filed any objections. Hence, the defendant No.1 is set exparte.

4. To substantiate his case, the plaintiffs examined the 1st plaintiff as PW1 and also got marked Exs.A1 to A4.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

6. Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as legal heirs of Late Sri Amit Kumar Datta?

2. To what relief?

4 of 6 OS No. 155 of 2024

7. Point No.1:- To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed chief affidavit of PW1 in lieu of her examination-in- chief. A perusal of the same would show that he reiterated the contents of the plaint. Plaintiffs further exhibited documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A4 in support of his case. A perusal of

Ex.A1 which is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document

No.15402 of 2006 dated 30.11.2006 which shows that the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 has purchased the suit schedule property. Ex.A2 is the death certificate of Sri Amit Kumar

Datta which shows his death on 28.8.2022 Ex.A3 is the copy of market value certificate in respect of suit schedule property.

Ex.A4 are the original Aadhar cards of the plaintiffs showing about the relationship with Late Sri Amit Kumar Datta.

8. It is to be noted that Pw1 categorically deposed that herself and plaintiff No.2 are the only legal heirs of Late Sri Amit Kumar

Datta and since the defendants were set exparte, the oral evidence of Pw1 and documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A4 remained unchallenged and unrebuttable and further no objections received from any corner to the publication issued by the plaintiffs.

5 of 6 OS No. 155 of 2024

9. Thus, the oral evidence of Pw1 coupled with the documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A4 proves that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Sri Amit Kumar Datta and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as legal heirs. This point is answered accordingly.

10. Point No.2:-

In view of findings on point No.1, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as claimed for.

In the result, the suit is decreed declaring the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of Late Sri Amit Kumar Datta. No costs.

Typed in my laptop directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 16th day of October, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.Dist. .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: Sushmita Datta - NIL - 6 of 6 OS No. 155 of 2024

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Plaintiff:

1.Ex.A1: Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.15402 of 2006 dated 30.11.2006

2.Ex.A2: Copy of death certificate of Sri Amit Kumar Datta

3.Ex.A3: Copy of market value certificate in respect of suit schedule property.

4.Ex.A4: Original Aadhar cards of the plaintiffs 1 and 2

For Defendant: -Nil-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.Dist.