Smt.P.Neeraja

Page No. 1 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE: FAMILY COURT-CUM-

III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023

Present:- Smt.P.Neeraja,

Judge,

Family Court-Cum-III ADJ, Mahabubnagar.

A.S.No.28 of 2018

Between:-

Vattipally Sudarshan Reddy S/o. V. Chinna Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ, R/o:H.No.16-11-693, Flat No.104 (Manikanta Apartments), Old Gaddi Annaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

… Appellant/defendant.

AND

M/s.Vision Labs, Rep. by its Director T. Laxmikanth Reddy S/o. T. Rama Reddy, Aged 46 years, Occ:Business, R/o:H.No.16-11-23/27/A, Flat No.205 & 207, II Floor, RTA Office, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad.

…Respondent/plaintiff.

Sub:- An appeal under Section 96 CPC r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6/2010 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar, dated 15.02.2018

O.S.No.6/2010

Between:-

M/s. Vision Labs, Mosarambagh, Hyderabad.

… Plaintiff. AND

Vattipally Sudarshan Reddy.

…Defendant.

Sub:- Suit for recovery of Rs.3,48,320/- towards advance amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as per agreement of sale dated 04.07.2009 including interest.

Page No. 2 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018 * * *

This appeal suit is coming up before me on 10.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Pradeep Kumar Patil, Advocate for the appellant and Sri K. Anand Rao, Advocate for the respondent, and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal filed by the appellant who is unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.6/2010, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar FAC II Additional

Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Mahabubnagar in O.S.No.6/2010, wherein the

suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed for Rs.3,48,320/- with interest @ 6% per annum on Rs.3,11,000/- from the date of suit, till realization.

2.The parties will hereinafter be referred as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of convenience.

3.The facts of the case as set out by the plaintiff in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged in the business/field of environmental consultancy, represented by director/partner,

T.Lakshmikanth Reddy. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale on 04.07.2009, in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.66/A and 66/E situated at Kotha Molgara village, Bhoothpur mandal, Mahabubnagar

Page No. 3 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018

district i.e., the suit schedule land for a total sale consideration of

Rs.12,45,000/-. The plaintiff paid advance of Rs.3,11,000/- to the defendant, on the date of agreement of sale. On receipt of the said amount, the defendant acknowledged the same.

4.The defendant having agreed to demarcate and fix the boundaries to the suit schedule land, by engaging authorized government surveyor within the stipulated time i.e., 45 days, failed to do so. Thereafter, he sought one month time for getting demarcated and to fix the boundaries and the same was endorsed on backside of original agreement of sale by him, with his own writing. Inspite of extending time, the defendant failed to fulfill the conditions as prescribed in para No.6 of agreement of sale. Several times, the plaintiff orally requested the defendant to register the land after fulfilling the conditions in para 6 of the agreement of sale, but the defendant failed to do so. Vexed with dodging attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff issued notice dated 15.10.2009 through registered post, requesting him to fix up the boundaries and to demarcate the said land, by government surveyor and to execute registered sale deed in his favour. The defendant wantonly not claimed the said notice. The plaintiff again issued legal notice to the defendant on 05.11.2009, calling upon him to return the advance amount of Rs.3,11,000/- received under agreement of sale on

Page No. 4 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018 04.07.2009, failing which he will be liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum till realization of the said amount and it will be constrained to file civil and criminal cases against him. The defendant refused to receive the said notice by not claiming. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform its part of contract. The defendant himself dodged the matter.

Hence, the suit.

5.The defendant filed written statement, admitting that the plaintiff and himself entered into an agreement of sale on 04.07.2009 in respect of suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,45,000/- and he received Rs.50,000/- before the agreement on 14.06.2009 and on 04.07.2009 the plaintiff paid Rs.2,61,000/- totaling to Rs.3,11,000/-.

6.It is contended by the defendant that he had questioned the government mandal surveyor as per the application of the plaintiff company's partner by name T. Srinivas Reddy advocate made on 22.06.2009 before Tahasildar Bhoothpur. Bhoothpur mandal surveyor issued notice to T. Srinivas Reddy on 27.06.2009. The mandal surveyor conducted survey of the land bearing Sy.Nos.61/A, 66/A and 66/E, and conducted panchanama by fixing the boundaries. When the survey was conducted before the agreement, the question of again demarcating and fixing boundaries does not arise. The defendant is ready to register the suit

Page No. 5 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018

schedule land in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff with all false allegations filed this suit, and approached the Court with unclean hands. The plaintiff itself was seeking time for payment of remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.9,34,000/- and it did not come to the registration office, as per the agreement. It is further submitted by the defendant that as per the revenue records, he was the absolute owner and title holder of the land vide registered document No.8806/2006 dated 16.11.2006, executed by K.Vazzra Lingam and he was ready to perform his part of contract. As per the link document bearing No.3583/2004 several persons sold the land in Sy.No.66 to Vazzra Lingam and he had purchased the land admeasuring

Ac.05-5½ guntas from him. As there is a big rock in an extent of 23 guntas of his land, leaving it, agreement was executed in respect of

Ac.03-00 guntas of land. Even as on today, he is ready to register the land in favour of the plaintiff as per the agreement. The defendant, prayed to dismiss the suit, with costs.

7.Basing on the above pleadings of the both parties, following issues were framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek refund of advance amount paid to the defendant?

2. To what relief?

Page No. 6 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018

8. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A16 and the defendant examined D.Ws.1 to 3 on his behalf. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

9.The trial Court passed it’s judgment on merits, holding that the plaintiff could establish his case against the defendant, as such he is entitled for refund of money from him. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant preferred this appeal, on the following grounds :-

1. Though the defendant is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the trial Court did not observe the same and decreed the suit for recovery of amount on the ground that he sold part of land to others. When the suit agreement is not terminated and it is still in existence, it is for the respondent’s company to file suit for specific performance of contract as per Section 19 of Specific

Relief Act, with alternate relief. It is not the case of the respondent that the title of his vendor is defective, to seek refund of advance amount.

2. As the plaintiff company was not in a position to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.9,34,000/-, it has filed the present suit.

3. As the plaintiff failed to pay balance amount, within stipulated time, the defendant had forfeited the earnest money paid by him.

The trial Court ignored the said aspect.

Page No. 7 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018

10.The defendant with the above contentions prayed to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

11.The following points emerge for consideration, in this appeal are :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund of amount, from the defendant, as prayed for?

2. Whether the judgment of the trial Court suffers from any illegality and irregularity?

and

3. Whether the judgment of the trial Court dated 15.02.2018 in

O.S.No.6/2010, is liable to be set aside?

12.Learned counsel for appellant filed written arguments. The respondent did not choose to advance arguments, inspite of granting sufficient time.

13.POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

It is the specific case of the plaintiff that in the agreement of sale executed between them in respect of suit schedule property the defendant having agreed to get fixed the boundaries to the suit schedule property, by engaging authorized government surveyor in paragraph No.6 of the agreement of sale, failed to do so, inspite of his issuance of legal notice and that he failed to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.3,11,000/-

Page No. 8 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018 inspite of issuance of legal notice by him and in the circumstances, it is entitled for refund of the advance sale consideration paid by it, to the defendant, along with interest.

14.The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff, on the ground that the suit schedule property was already got surveyed prior to execution of agreement of sale in the presence of plaintiff and that the plaintiff himself failed to get register the sale deed by paying balance sale consideration and that the appropriate remedy available to the plaintiff, is to file suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and seek alternative relief of refund of advance sale consideration.

15.The plaintiff examined P.W.1 on its behalf and got marked Exs.A1 to A16. As seen from Ex.A3 agreement of sale dated 04.07.2009, executed between both parties, the defendant sold Ac.03-00 guntas of land i.e., suit schedule property out of Ac.05-05 guntas of land, to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,45,000/- and received Rs.3,11,000/- towards advance sale consideration. It was agreed that purchaser shall pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.9,34,000/- to the vendor at the time of registration of sale deed before 45 days from the date of agreement. It was further agreed that in the event of failure of execution of registered sale deed by the vendor by receiving remaining sale consideration from

Page No. 9 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018

vendee, the vendee shall have right to initiate for execution of registered sale deed against the vendor and that the vendor has to fix up the boundaries of the schedule property, by engaging authorized government surveyor. As per the endorsement on the backside of page No.2 of agreement of sale dated 18.08.2009, the parties could not get the document registered due to unavoidable circumstances within 45 days, as such, one month time was extended with the consent of both parties, without any force from anybody.

16.It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant did not get surveyed the land and fixed the boundaries, as agreed in paragraph 6 of the agreement, for payment of balance sale consideration by him and to get the registered sale deed executed. Ex.A5 is the receipt issued by the defendant for Rs.3,11,000/- paid by the plaintiff towards advance sale consideration.

Under Ex.A6 legal notice dated 15.10.2009, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to fix up the boundaries of schedule property, by engaging authorized surveyor and to come forward to execute registered sale deed in his favour, within 7 days. It was alleged in the said legal notice that, inspite of several requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant had postponed the survey of the land on one pretext or the other, despite lapse of time, as agreed between them. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the said

Page No. 10 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018 legal notice was returned unclaimed. Ex.A6 is the returned postal envelope. Under second legal notice dated 05.11.2009, got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, it was alleged that as per the agreement, the defendant had not demarcated the land to be sold to him and that the legal notice got issued by him was returned unclaimed and that inspite of his readiness to pay balance sale consideration, the defendant did not come forward to get surveyed the land and execute the sale deed and that when he visited the said land, some third parties were in occupation of it, raising objection that they are in possession of the land and it belongs to them, as such, he is unable to proceed with completion of the sale deed as agreed and that he is clear in his mind that the land which was offered to be sold by the defendant is, in some dispute. Under Ex.A9, the plaintiff cancelled the agreement of sale and demanded advance sale consideration paid by him with interest @ 2% per month, till realization.

17.It is further contended by the plaintiff that the said notice was also unclaimed by the defendant, therefore, it is deemed service of notice on him. The plaintiff in support of his plea that, the land sold by the defendant under Ex.A3 agreement of sale to him is in dispute, relied upon

Ex.A15 copy of complaint filed by the defendant against his vendors

K. Vazzra Lingam and M. Narsimha Reddy, wherein, it was averred that,

Page No. 11 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018

through accused No.2, he had purchased part of land by Sy.No.66/E admeasuring Ac.04-25½ guntas, situated at Kothamolgara village of

Bhoothpur mandal through registered sale deed document bearing

No.8806/2006 dated 16.11.2006. A perusal of Ex.A3 agreement of sale reveals that the defendant had mentioned the said sale deed, in it.

18.It was further alleged in Ex.A15 complaint by the defendant that, after purchase of the said land, on enquiry, with Tahasildar Bhoothpur, he was informed that the land admeasuring 23 guntas purchased by him, through said registered sale deed is not in existence and that he had purchased the land under bonafide belief and that when he went to the suit land for cultivation, one Laxmaiah, resident of Kothamolgara raised objection stating that, he is the owner of that piece of land. Thus, the accused with common intention sold 23 guntas of land, which is not in existence and thereby played fraud on him. Ex.A16 is certified copy of

FIR registered on the complaint of the defendant for the offences under

Sections 420 and 417 of IPC. P.W.1 in his cross examination deposed that, it was incorporated in the agreement of sale dated 04.07.2009 that, in the event of failure of registration of sale deed by the vendor, by receiving remaining consideration from the vendee, the vendee shall have right to initiate proceedings for execution of registered sale deed against him and

Page No. 12 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018 that there is no specific recital in the agreement of sale that in case of failure of execution of sale deed by the vendor, the vendee shall get refund of the amount paid. The plaintiff has denied the alleged survey, conducted by the surveyor, prior to execution of agreement of sale.

19.P.W.1 in his cross examination further deposed that Ex.A4 endorsement was written by the defendant and it contains his signature. It is not the case of the defendant that, he had taken any steps for cancellation of agreement of sale, when the plaintiff failed to pay balance sale consideration. There is no recital in Ex.A3 agreement of sale that, the defendant can rescind the agreement of sale, in case of the plaintiff’s failure to pay balance sale consideration. The defendant for the first time in his affidavit of examination in chief, pleaded that the market value of agricultural land is decreasing day-by-day and that with mutual consent himself and P.W.1 settled that he shall adjust Rs.3,11,000/- advance money paid by P.W.1 in lue of loss and damage, that would be caused to him, in the event of sale of the land, due to decrease in the market value of land and that P.W.1 has renounced his claim over the amount paid by him, towards advance sale consideration and given consent for sale of the land to anybody else.

Page No. 13 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018

20.D.W.1 in his affidavit of examination in chief itself, categorically admitted that consequent to failure of P.W.1 to purchase the land covered by agreement of sale, with his consent in order to meet his family necessity, he had sold Ac.02-27 guntas of land out of it, to one

Smt.K.Nirmala, through registered sale deed document No.6977/2013

dated 24.06.2013, at the prevailing market value and that he had also sold

the land in Sy.No.61/AA admeasuring Ac.00-10½ guntas, in Sy.No.66/E admeasuring Ac.02-09½ guntas and in Sy.No.66/EE admeasuring Ac.00- 20 guntas to K. Ashok Reddy, C. Gal Reddy and B. Venkateshwarlu through registered sale deed document No.6978//2013 dated 24.06.2013 for a total sum of Rs.3,78,500/- which was the prevailing market value.

21.D.W.1 in his cross examination also admitted that, he received

Rs.3,11,000/- from the plaintiff. D.W.1 further deposed that he does not know whether clause 6 of Ex.A3 says that he had agreed to fix up the boundaries of the schedule property, by engaging an authorized government surveyor, since, he is an uneducated person. D.W.1 admitted the private complaint lodged by him under Ex.A15. D.W.1 in his cross examination, categorically admitted that Ex.A6 and Ex.A9 legal notices reflect his residential address as H.No.16-11-693, plot No.104 old

Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. D.W.1 further admitted that, he

Page No. 14 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018 was residing in the said address as on the date of suit. In the regard, it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that above admission of D.W.1 makes it clear that, he has knowledge of Ex.A6 and Ex.A9 legal notices and wantonly he got them returned. When admittedly, there was dispute regarding the suit schedule property and it was not got surveyed and boundaries were not fixed as agreed in agreement of sale, the question of the plaintiff seeking specific performance of said agreement of sale does not arise. That apart, admittedly the defendant had sold away part of the suit schedule land, pending disposal of the suit.

22.The defendant in support of his case, relied upon the testimony of

D.Ws.2 and 3. The evidence of D.W.2 also makes it clear that, there was dispute regarding the land in suit survey number between the defendant and his vendors. The evidence of D.W.3 though supports the case of defendant, regarding the alleged survey of the suit schedule land, admittedly, he did not sign on the alleged survey and panchanama and he does not know, who signed on it and he does not know about the survey report. The evidence adduced by both parties, clinchingly establishes the fact that there was dispute regarding the land sold by defendant, in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A3 agreement of sale and due to which, he failed to get surveyed the land and fixed the boundaries, as agreed in agreement

Page No. 15 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018

of sale and that on coming to know the same, the plaintiff got issued legal notice initially for survey of land and to execute the registered sale deed and thereafter for refund of the amount paid by him towards advance sale consideration. Though, the time was essence of the contract under Ex.A3, the evidence makes it clear that due to lapse on the part of the defendant, it could not be performed. Learned trial Judge relied upon the judgment between Mudureddipalle Sanjeeva Reddy AND Butturu Rama Mohan

Reddy and others reported in 2010(1) ALD 470, wherein it was held that the suit for refund of earnest money is maintainable, as it is not possible to execute registered sale deed by the defendant, as he admittedly sold away suit schedule property to third parties”. In this case also, when admittedly the defendant sold away the part of the suit schedule property to third parties and said land is in dispute, specific performance of Ex.A3 agreement of sale is not possible and only remedy available for the plaintiff is, to seek refund of advance sale consideration paid by him.

23.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly, the point

Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

24.POINT No.3:-The trial Court has properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence on record and came to a right conclusion that, in

Page No. 16 of 16 A.S.No.28 of 2018 view of the defendant selling away the suit schedule property to third parties, it is not possible to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and remedy available for the plaintiff is to seek refund of the advance sale consideration paid by him. Therefore, this Court has not seen any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of the trial Court and the defendant/appellant is not entitled to set aside the judgment of the trial

Court dated 15.02.2018 in O.S.No.6/2010. Accordingly, the point is answered.

25.In the result, the appeal dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018 in O.S.No.6 of 2010, passed by the trial Court.

No costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-III ADJ., Mahabubnagar. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined -NIL-

Exhibits Marked. -Nil-

Judge,

Family Court-cum-III ADJ., Mahabubnagar. Fair copied by me.

Page No. 1 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE: FAMILY COURT-CUM-

III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023

Present:- Smt.P.Neeraja,

Judge,

Family Court-Cum-III ADJ, Mahabubnagar.

A.S.No.46 of 2018

Between:-

K. Srinivasa Chary S/o. K. Narayana, age 45 years, Occ:Business, R/o:Balanagar village and mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

… Appellant/Plaintiff.

AND

1. Karde Laxmaiah S/o. Karde Yellanna, 52 years,

2. Purugula Anjaneyulu S/o. Baganna, age 30 years,

Both Agriculture, Appannapally village, Mahabubnagar. …Respondents/Defendants.

Appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.172/2010 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar.

O.S.No.172/2010

Between:-

K. Srinivasa Chary S/o. K. Narayana, age 45 years, Occ:Business, R/o:Balanagar village and mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

… Plaintiff.

AND

1. Karde Laxmaiah S/o. Karde Yellanna, 52 years,

2. Purugula Anjaneyulu S/o. Baganna, age 30 years, Both Agriculture, Appannapally village, Mahabubnagar.

…Defendants.

Page No. 2 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

Claim: Suit for declaration of title of plot admeasuring 300 Sq.yards out of Sy.No.295 situated within the limits of Appannapally H/o. Yedira of Mahabubnagar mandal and district and for recovery of 150 Sq.yards of area out of said plot as shown in red colour in the annexed sketch map and for mandatory injunction for removal of structures from the occupied area.

* * *

This appeal suit is coming up before me on 10.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Srinivasa Chary, Advocate for the appellant and Sri P. Jagadeeshwar Reddy, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 remained ex parte, and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants under Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C., challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar,

FAC, I Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar dated 04.04.2018, in O.S.No.172/2010, wherein the suit was dismissed.

2.The parties will hereinafter be referred as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience.

The facts of the case as set out by the plaintiff in the above suit in

O.S.No.172/2010, filed for declaration of title in respect of plot

admeasuring 300 Sq.yards in Sy.No.295, situated within the limits of

Appannapally hamlet of Yedira Mahabubnagar district and for recovery of

Page No. 3 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

150 Sq.yards out of it, and mandatory injunction for removal structures, are as follows:

3.The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same from its previous owner Kummari Hanmaiah son of Masaiah, through registered sale deed document No.5221/2002

dated 24.12.2002, for a valid sale consideration. The vendor of the plaintiff

delivered the possession of the said plot to the plaintiff. Ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the suit plot, as an absolute owner.

4.The plaintiff being resident of Balanagar town Mahabubnagar district, with a view to have a residential house site in the vicinity of district headquarters for future needs of his family, purchased the suit plot.

His co-brother, who is resident of housing board colony, also purchased 300 Sq.yards in the same survey number, adjacent to suit plot.

5.The plaintiff used to visit the suit plot now and then. Due to busy work, he could not visit the suit plot for the last two months. Taking advantage of the situation, the defendants who are father-in-law and son- in-law, without having any right or concern over the suit schedule plot, illegally occupied an extent of 150 Sq.yards, out of it, in middle unauthorizedly and raised construction upto basement. On 20.07.2010, the

Page No. 4 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018 plaintiff went to the suit schedule plot and noticed the defendants, busy with construction work over the suit plot shown in red colour in the plaint.

When the plaintiff questioned the high handed acts of the defendants, they denied his title over 150 Sq.yards and said that they will complete the construction of the house over the occupied area and threatened him with dire consequences.

6.The plaintiff and his co-brother have reported the matter to village elders, but in vain. The defendants bluntly refused the demand of the plaintiff, to deliver vacant possession of 150 Sq.yards, occupied by them.

Hence the suit.

7.The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement, denying the averments of the plaint. The written statement filed by the defendants, is in the following lines.

The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are agriculturists and poor people working on daily wages. The wife of defendant No.1 K. Bhagyamma purchased a house site admeasuring 150 Sq.yards in Sy.No.295 bounded by West: Plot of T. Balaiah, East: 10 feet road, South: Plot of

K.Krishnaiah and North: Plot of Anand, with their hard earned money from one Kummari Balaiah of Appannapally village, through registered sale deed dated 16.05.2008 vide document No.2969/2008. Since then, she

Page No. 5 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. With the permission of Bhagyamma, his relative, P. Anjaneyulu started construction in her plot.

Due to over sight, a mistake was crept in, in the registered document regarding survey number and the same was rectified through rectification deed dated 24.08.2010 vide document No.6304/2010. The plaintiff is no way concerned with the said plot of the defendants. In fact, the boundaries shown by the plaintiff are different from the boundaries of the plot of the defendants. The plaintiff, taking advantage of the illiteracy and poorness of the defendants and having failed to locate his plot, sketched a plan to knock away their plot and filed this suit, suppressing the real facts. The plaintiff is a stranger to Appannapally village and unable to locate his plot, used to obstruct poor people in the same way, with an intention to occupy their plots. The defendants with the above contentions, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

8Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, following issues were framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration that

he is the owner of the schedule property, as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the structures as shown in red colour in the plaint plan?

Page No. 6 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the property from the defendants, as prayed for?

4. If so, to what relief?

9. The trial Court, after recording the evidence and after hearing the arguments, proceeded to dismiss the suit, filed by the plaintiff, holding that, he has failed to prove his title over the suit schedule property and he has not impleaded the wife of the defendant No.1 who said to be the owner of the plot admeasuring 150 Sq.yards, claimed by him.

10.Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit, the plaintiff preferred this appeal, on the following grounds.

1. Learned judge erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff had purchased suit plot with specific boundaries for a valid sale consideration, under registered sale deed in the year 2002 under

Ex.A1 and obtained possession of it.

2. The Court ought to have seen that the defendants have to prove their title or possession over the occupied area of the suit plot and after receipt of suit summons, they got executed a registered rectification deed through wife of their vendor. The Court failed to observe that the defendants have failed to file any gift, deed in favour of wife of defendant No.2.

3. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence of

P.Ws.2 and 3, who supported the plaintiff, more particularly the evidence of P.W.2 who is co-brother of P.W.1 stating that he purchased plot in the same survey number and one of the boundaries

Page No. 7 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

of suit plot, is his plot. The plaintiff/appellant prayed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2018 in O.S.No.172/2010 and to decree the suit, as prayed for.

11.The points emerge for consideration, in this appeal are :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as owner of the suit schedule property, as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession of 150 Sq.yards out of suit schedule property, from the defendants, as prayed for?

3. Whether the judgment of the trial Court suffers from any irregularity or illegality?

and

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 04.04.2018 in O.S.No.172/2010, as prayed for?

12.Both counsel for appellant and respondents filed their written arguments.

13.POINT Nos.1 AND 2:-

As the plaintiff is seeking declaration of title of suit schedule property, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession of part of the suit schedule property i.e., 150 Sq.yards, the burden squarely rests upon him to prove his title over it, by standing on his own legs, without relying upon the weakness, if any, in the case of the defendants.

Page No. 8 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

14.Learned counsel for the appellant in his written arguments submitted that, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, properly and dismissed the suit on assumptions and presumptions and that at the time of purchase, neither the plaintiff nor wife of the defendant No.1 had approved layout and in the absence of approved layout, it is not possible to hold that part of the suit plot belongs to wife of the defendant No.1.

15.Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the plaintiff clearly admitted that there is no approved layout to the suit plot, prior to his purchase and he failed to produce the document, regarding the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural and to file link documents. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that, the plaintiff has failed to take steps for appointment of advocate commissioner to locate the suit plot and to implead the wife of defendant

No.1, who is the owner of 150 Sq.yards and that the defendants are in possession of the plot purchased by them, by constructing a house and they are paying taxes to grampanchayath and that as boundaries of the suit plot and plot of the defendants are entirely different, it cannot be said that they are one and the same. It is relevant to note here that, the plaintiff having sought declaration of title in respect of suit schedule plot admeasuring 300

Page No. 9 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

Sq.yards and mandatory injunction and recovery of possession in respect of 150 Sq.yards out of it, failed to show the said two properties separately with boundaries. The plaintiff has simply shown the suit schedule property as 300 Sq.yards in Sy.No.259 situated at Appannapally with boundaries. The plaintiff ought to have shown 150 Sq.yards of plot allegedly occupied by the defendants for which, he is seeking mandatory injunction and recovery of possession, with separate boundaries in the suit schedule.

16.The plaintiff in support of his case, having examined himself as

P.W.1, relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed vide document No.5221/2002

dated 24.12.2002 under which, the plaintiff allegedly purchased the suit

schedule property. As seen from the said document, it was allegedly executed by one Kummari Hanmaiah, stating that it is his ancestral property and for his financial necessities, he sold the same to the plaintiff, for a sale consideration of Rs.27,000/-. The plaintiff has not filed any document under which, his vendor acquired the suit schedule property. No document of title on the name of ancestors of his vendor or his vendor is filed, inspite of the defendants raising the said aspect. Ex.A2 is the photographs of the alleged construction of the defendants.

Page No. 10 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

17.P.W.1 during the course of his cross examination by the defendants deposed that, there is no approved layout to the suit plot and that he did not enquire whether there is any conversion from agricultural to non- agricultural plot and that he did not receive any link document, in respect of suit plot. In this regard, it is relevant to note here that, admittedly the plaintiff has not filed any link document before the Court, to prove the title of his vendor over the suit schedule property. In the absence of filing of any link document to prove that his vendor acquired the suit schedule property from his ancestors, Ex.A1 sale deed alone cannot be a basis to declare the plaintiff, as owner of the suit schedule property.

18.P.W.1 has pleaded ignorance about wife of defendant No.1

Bhagyamma, purchasing the plot under registered sale deed and defendant

Nos.1 and 2 constructing a house in the said plot, after obtaining permission from the grampanchayath. P.W.1 admitted that in the suit schedule plot, now the house of the defendant No.1 is existing. P.W.1 in his cross examination further deposed that, he does not know whether the boundaries of suit plot are altogether different from the plot of defendant

No.1 and he did not get conducted any survey of suit plot till date. In this context, it is the version of the defendants that in spite of dispute between both the parties, regarding the location of suit schedule plot, the plaintiff

Page No. 11 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

has not taken any steps, to get surveyed the suit plot, by the advocate commissioner.

19.The plaintiff, in support of his case, examined P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 is said to be co-brother of the plaintiff, who allegedly purchased another plot of 300 Sq.yards in Sy.No.295 adjacent to the alleged plot of the plaintiff. P.W.2 stated that on his advise, the plaintiff purchased the suit plot, through registered sale deed with specific boundaries and the defendants occupied 150 Sq.yards of plot out of it and made construction, in the absence of plaintiff. Ex.X1 certified copy of his registered sale deed

dated 23.07.1999 vide document No.2287/1999 was marked through

P.W.2. P.W.2 also in his cross examination deposed that no layout is appended to Ex.X1 and that he has not filed document of his vendor and any record of conversion of agricultural land to house plots. P.W.3 also deposed about the sale transaction under Ex.A1. P.W.3 in his cross examination deposed that, he does not know total extent of land in

Sy.No.295 and that there is no layout and that there will be record in the grampanchayath regarding construction of the house at the village and that municipality is collecting house tax from the defendant No.1 in respect of his house numberand that he does not know whether wife of the defendant

No.1 purchased 150 Sq.Yards in suit survey number.

Page No. 12 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

20.On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 who is the defendant No.2 was examined and Ex.B1 to B7 were marked. Ex.B1 is the registered sale deed bearing document No.2969/2008 dated 16.05.2008, under which, wife of defendant No.1 K. Bhagyamma allegedly purchased 150 Sq.yards in

Sy.No.296 subsequently rectified as Sy.No.295 from Kummari

Venkataiah. It is pertinent to note here that the surname of the vendors of the plaintiff and defendants is one and the same. In the schedule of property under Ex.B1, northern side, the plot of Anand, who is P.W.2 was shown. In the sale deed under Ex.A1, on northern side 3 feet shery was shown. Whereas, in the suit schedule, northern boundary is shown as 3 feet shery and plot of Anand (P.W.2). The boundaries under Ex.B1 are different from the boundaries of suit schedule property. Under Ex.B2, the survey number was got rectified from 296 to 295 by wife of the defendant

No.1. The defendants further exhibited Exs.B3 to B5 property tax demand bills and Ex.B6 miscellaneous receipt in respect of the said house. Ex.B7 is the proceedings of Mahabubnagar municipality, regarding water connection. Though D.W.1 was cross examined by the plaintiff, nothing contra could be elicited out. The plaintiff for the first time during the cross examination of D.W.1,pleaded that the defendants have occupied several other plots, at the village and police cases are pending against them.

Absolutely there is no document, placed before the Court by the plaintiff,

Page No. 13 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

to prove that the defendants occupied several plots at the village and police cases are pending against them. Though the defendants have pleaded that wife of the defendant No.1 is the owner of 150 Sq.yards of land being claimed by the plaintiff, she was not impleaded as party to the suit by the plaintiff, for the reasons best known to him.

21.The defendants examined D.W.2, in support of their case that, they have purchased 150 Sq.yards in suit survey number. The plaintiff has not filed any link document of his vendor to prove that he had valid title in respect of suit schedule property to convey it in his favour, in spite of the defendants raising the said objection and there is no document on record, like layout, to prove the existence of the suit schedule plot within the boundaries mentioned. Though the defendants have also not filed any link document and layout plan of plot claimed by them, as the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction, the burden rests upon him to prove his case and he cannot take advantage of weakness, in the case of the defendants.

22.In a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between

Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan and Damodar Trimbak Tansale

(Dead) and others reported in (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 737, it was held that

Page No. 14 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018 “The suit is for recovery of possession on the strength of title, obviously the burden is on the plaintiff to establish title. No doubt, in appreciating the case of title set up by the plaintiff, the Court is also entitled to consider the rival title set up by the defendants. But, the weakness of the defence or the failure of the defendants to establish the title set up by them, would not enable the plaintiff to a decree. There cannot be any demur to these propositions.”

23.In a judgment between Madanlal Pujari and Sharad Joshi reported in 2012(1) ALD 601, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., held that “The plaintiff has to prove his own case, in a suit for declaration and shall not have recourse to the weakness in the case of the defendants, in proving the same.”

24.In the case on hand, absolutely there is no document of title and possession of vendor of the plaintiff, over the suit schedule property. In the absence of the plaintiff establishing the title of his vendor, Ex.A1 alone is not sufficient proof for him to succeed in this case. For the forgoing discussion, the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs of declaration of title, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession against the defendants.

Accordingly, the points are answered.

Page No. 15 of 15 A.S.No.46 of 2018

25.POINTS Nos.3 AND 4:-

As seen from the judgment of the trial Court, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties was properly appreciated and the trial Court came to a right conclusion that absolutely, there is no material placed on record by the plaintiff, to prove that the defendants occupied his plot except oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3. This Court has not seen any irregularity or illegality in the judgment of the trial Court dated 04.04.2018 in O.S.No.172 of 2010. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to set aside the said judgment. Accordingly, the points are answered.

26.In the result, the appeal dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2018 in O.S.No.172 of 2010, passed by the trial Court.

No costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-III ADJ., Mahabubnagar. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined -NIL-

Exhibits Marked. -Nil-

Judge,

Family Court-cum-III ADJ., Mahabubnagar. Fair copied by me.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 18th day of April, 2023

Present: Smt.P.Neeraja,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

III Addl. District. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.202 of 2020

Between: Shriram City Union Finance Limited Narayanpet Branch represented by its GPA Holder A. Senior Manager Division office Mahabubnagar as GPA holder of the company.

…………...Decree Holder

And

1. A. Krishnaiah, S/o. A. Yankappa, Age: 44 Years, Occupation: Dairy Form, H.No: 4-40, Pagidyal Village, Gandeed Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Working: Driver cum Conductor Staff No 210288, TSRTS at Narayanpet.

2. A. Sushila, S/o Krishnaiah, Age: 37 Years, Occupation: Dairy form, H.No: 4-40, Pagidyal Village, Gandeed Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. N. Venkataiah S/o. N. Yashamaiah, Age: 46 Years, Occupation: Driver, H.No: 4-38, Ajnampet, Addakala Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

4. K. Krishnaiah S/o Narsaiah Age: 33 Years, H.No: 1-45, RangaReddy Pally, Gandeed, Mahabubnagar District. Working: Driver Gr2 Staff No 273292 Tandur Town, Vikarabad District.

..…….Judgment debtors

Sub:- Execution petition filed U/O. 21 rule 48 CPC for recovery of Rs. 5,88,208-00 by way of attaching salary of J.Dr.No. 1, 3 and 4.

****

DOCKET ORDER, DATE 18.04.2023

Counsel for DHR filed a memo stating that salaruy warrant of JDr No 1, 3 and 4 are served. Accordingly EP is closed.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 18th day of April, 2023.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2022

Present: Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.689 of 2017

Between: M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd., having its registered office at Mumbai Inter alia its state office at D.No.1-8-304-307, Kamala towers, Patigadda, S.P.Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad, represented by its Area Manager (collections) Kanna Babu, S/o Venku Naidu, age 47 years.

And

K.Thirupathi H.No.2-9, Near Water Tank, Antaram village, Talakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist 509321 earst while District Mahabubnagar

Claim: Execution petition Under Order 21 R 43 64 and 66 of CPC R/w Sec.36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Akarapu Udaya Bhaskar, Advocate for DHR/Claimant and Sri M.Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for JDR and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER, DATE 24.03.2022

DHr is called absent. Process not deposited. No representation. Hence

E.P. is dismissed.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 24th day of March, 2022.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2022

Present: Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.440 of 2016

Between: CITI Corp Finance India Limited, an NBFC incorporated under Companies act having its registered office at 1st floor, Angson Centre 153 Chennai Inter alia its concern office situated at Lower Grand Floor, Queens plaza, SP Road, Begumpet, Secunderabad 500003 represented by its Legal officer cum power of attorney Sri Ravinder S/o Channaiah, age 29 years.

And

1.M.Raghuma Reddy S/o Chinna Ranga Reddy, age Major R/o H.No.4-36, Mucharlapally, Midjil, Mahabubnagar Dist.509 320.

2.M.Raghavendhar Reddy, age Major, R/o H.No.4-36, Mucharlapally, Midjil, Mahabubnagar 509320

Claim: Execution petition Under Order 21 R 43 64 and 66 of CPC R/w Sec.36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Akarapu Udaya Bhaskar, Advocate for DHR/Claimant and Sri K.Venkatesh, Advocate for JDR No.1 and 2, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER, DATE 24.03.2022

DHr is called absent. Process not deposited. No representation. Hence

E.P. is dismissed.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 24th day of March, 2022.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2022

Present: Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.446 of 2016

Between: CITI Corp Finance India Limited, an NBFC incorporated under Companies act having its registered office at 1st floor, Angson Centre 153 Chennai Inter alia its concern office situated at Lower Grand Floor, Queens plaza, SP Road, Begumpet, Secunderabad 500003 represented by its Legal officer cum power of attorney Sri Ravinder S/o Channaiah, age 29 years.

And

1.P.Linga Reddy, age Major H.No.12-43, CN Reddy Colony, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar-509324.

2.Mr.K.Narayana Reddy, age Major R/o H.No.1-4, Kethireddypally, Mahabubnagar 509202

Claim: Execution petition Under Order 21 R 43 64 and 66 of CPC R/w Sec.36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Akarapu Udaya Bhaskar, Advocate for DHR/Claimant and Sri K.Venkatesh, Advocate for JDR No.1 and 2, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER, DATE 24.03.2022

DHr is called absent. Process not deposited. No representation. Hence

E.P. is dismissed.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 24th day of March, 2022.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 03th day of February, 2021

Present: Sri P.Vasanth,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.264 of 2019

Between:

Shriram city union finance Ltd., Mahabubnagar Branch, Rep. by its GPA holder, N. Srinivas S/o N. Somaiah Rep. by its GPA holder, N. Srinivas S/o N Somaiah Senior manager Division Officer Mahabubnagar as GPA Holder of the Company.

And

1.K RaviKumar, s/o BalaRaju, Age :31 yrs, Occ: business (Sri Balaji Internet & xerox, Srinivas colony Mahabubangar) R/o 7-14/3, Srinivas colony Mahabubnagar.

2.G.Venkateshwaralu, S/o G Ramulu, Age; 31 yrs Occ: Govt Emp, R/o H.No.8- 1-42, Venkateshwara colony, Mahabubnagar. Working: Junior Asst At Register office Jadcherla mahabubangar (Dist).

3.A Venkat Ramana Reddy S/o A.Sanjeeva Reddy, Age 38 yrs Occ: Business, R/o H.No.5-3-68, sattur nagar Mahabubangar.

Claim: Execution petition Under of Order XXI Rule 48 of C.P.C.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Chandra Mouli, Advocate for DHR/Claimant, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

ORDER

Full Satisfaction Memo filed. E.P is terminated.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 03th day of February, 2021.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 18th day of February, 2020

Present: Sri P.Vasanth,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.142 of 2019

Between:

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd Branch, Shadnagar, Authorized signatory N.Srinivas S/o N.Somaiah, age 40 years, Occ:Senior Manager, R/o Mahabubnagar.

And

1.M.Gowraiah S/o M.Laxmaiah, age 41, H.No.9-25, Railway Station Thimmapur Vg. Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

2C.Sathosh S/o C.Narsimulu, Occ:Govt. Emp. Age 39 H.No.6-47, SC colony kishannagar (V), Farooqnagar (M), Rangareddy (Dist), Working TSSPDCL Chinnarevelly (V) Balanagar (M), Mahabubnagar Dist. Staff No.01075724.

Claim: Execution petition under order 21 Rule 48 of C.P.C.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sripad Rao, Advocate for DHR/Claimant, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER DT.18.02.2020

Full Satisfaction memo filed. E.P. is terminated.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 18th day of February, 2020

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2020

Present: Sri P.Vasanth,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.10 of 2017

Between:

M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Rep. by authorized signatory, branch office at D.No.1-5-107/4A, 2nd floor, New Town, Mahabubnagar.

And

1.Ashok R S/o Nagaiah age 41 years, Occ:Business, R/o H.No1-38/A, Doddalonipally village Mahabubnagar Mandal and Dist.

2Jakaraiah S/o Narsaiah, age 53 years, Occ:Business, R/o H.No.1-2-63/3, Subhashnagar, Christianpally, Mahabubnagar Mandal and Dist.

Claim: Execution petition under order 21 Rule 37 and 38 of C.P.C.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Prabhu, Advocate for DHR/Claimant, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER DT.27.02.2020

No representation. DHR called absent. E.P. is dismissed.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 27th day of February, 2020.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 6th day of February, 2020

Present: Sri P.Vasanth,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.106 of 2016

Between:

M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., having its Reg. Office, Fathe Maidan Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-4, Rep. by its Prl.Officer and General Manager Sri A.Suryanarayana Raju S/o A.Bangar Raju, aged 63 years, residing at Flat 409, Gayathri Towers, St.No.1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad 500 017.

And

1.Mr.P.Har Hara Rao, S/o P.V.V.S.Prasad Rao, a/a 48 years, R/o R.R.District. 2Mr.R.Praveen Kumar S/o R.Venkatesham, a/a 42 years, R/o R.R. District.

3.Mr.D.Pulla Reddy, S/o D.Sudarshan Reddy, a/a 37 years, R/o R.R.District.

4.Mr.G.Singa Rao, S/o G.Thrupathaiah, a/a 53 years, R/o B/o Occ:Prop. M/s G.Singa Rao Poultry Farms (Poultry Farms), # 6-102, Survey No.632, B.V.Rao Nagar, Chatanpally (V), Shad Nagar, Mahabubnagar District.

Claim: Execution petition under order 21 Rule 64 and 66 of C.P.C.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Pratap Kumar, Advocate for DHR/Claimant, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER DT.06.02.2020

Full Satisfaction memo filed. E.P. is terminated.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 6th day of February, 2020.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 4th day of November, 2020

Present: Sri P.Vasanth,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.233 of 2019

Between:

Shriram city Union Finance Ltd., Mahabubnagar branch rep. by its GPA holder, Senior Manager, division Office Mahabubnagar as GPA Holder of the company.

And

1.Habeebur Rahman S/o Abdul Mannan, Occ:Civil Contractor, H.No.6-33, Nagarkurnool (V&M), Mahabubnagar Dist.

3.P.Narender Reddy S/o P.Swamy Reddy, Occ:Govt.Emp. H.No.18-147, Sripuram Road, Nagarkurnool (V&M), Mahabubnagar (Dist) working SGT Teacher UP School Keshampet (V&M), Ranga Reddy Dist.

4.Abdul Raheem, S/o Abdul Rasool, Occ:Govt Emp. H.No.11-208/1, Nagarkurnool (V&M), Mahabubnagar Dist. working TSRTC Conductor in Nagarkurnool Depot, staff No.281187.

Claim: Execution petition under order 21 Rule 48 of C.P.C.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Chandra Mouli, Advocate for DHR/Claimant, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER DT.04.11.2020

Full Satisfaction memo filed. E.P. is terminated.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 4th day of November, 2020.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT:

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Wednesday, the 20th day of July, 2022

Present:- Smt.P.Neeraja, I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

N.D.S.C.No. 10 of 2021

Between: The State of Telangana through Proh. & Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Jadcherla. ….Complainant. And.

K.Chandra Sekhar Goud S/o. Anjaneyulu Goud, age 30 yrs., Caste; Goud, Occ. TFT licensee, R/o. Maddigatla village of Bhoothpur mandal.

...Accused.

Nature of offence : U/Sec.8(c) r/w.22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

Sentence or order : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 8(c) r/w.22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and he is acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months. MO.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

-o0o-

Page 2 of 10NDSC.No. 10 of 2021

This case coming up before me for hearing in the presence of

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. M.Chennayya

Goud, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This case emerges from the charge sheet filed by Proh. &

Excise Inspector, SHO, Jadcherla, against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 8(c) r/w.22 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2)The facts of the case, as narrated in the charge sheet, in brief are as follows;

On 18.04.2017, at about 11.30 a.m., LW3 Proh. & Excise

Inspector, ESTF, (DTF), Mahabubnagar along with staff, proceeded to Maddigatla village, secured two mediators near TFT toddy shop, and all of them went to the toddy shop counter No.3, where they found accused conducting sales of toddy. On enquiry, he revealed his particulars. On demand, he produced copy of licence bearing No.41/2016, dt.06.09.2016 issued by Proh. &

Excise Superintendent, Mahabubnagar in his favour for counter

No.3 and it was renewed from 06.09.2016 to 30.09.2017. The boundaries tallied with the licence copy. On inspection of the premises, they found 20 plastic crates filled with toddy, each

Page 3 of 10NDSC.No. 10 of 2021 crate containing 12 bottles and each bottle containing 650ml, total 156 liters. On conducting the spot test, by the officer as per procedure, it was found to be free from chloral hydrate. The officer had drawn three samples of toddy, each containing 350ml., sealed them as per procedure under the cover of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. They returned to the Excise

Station, Jadcherla, along with samples and handed over them to

LW4 SHO, Jadcherla, for further action.

The SHO, Jadcherla, issued PCOR.No.74/17 u/r.27(1) of A.P.

Excise Rules, 2007 and submitted the case papers before the court. He had also deposited the samples vide CPR.No.110/17, with a request to send one of the samples for chemical analysis.

The Chemical Examiner in his report dt.04.05.2017, opined that the sample is fermented toddy adulterated with Diazepam.

Basing on the Chemical Examiner’s report, the investigating officer filed section alteration memo before the court altering the section of law from Rule 27(1) of AP Excise Rules, 2007 to u/s.8(c) r/w. 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985. The Hon’ble High Court directed the investigating officer that he shall scrupulously follow the procedure as contemplated u/s. 41-A of Cr.P.C., during the course of investigation, vide orders in Crl. Petition No.8940/17,

Page 4 of 10NDSC.No. 10 of 2021 dt.21.09.2017 filed by the accused. Thus, the investigation reveals that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s. 8(c) r/w.22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985.

3)Cognizance for the offence punishable u/s.8(c) r/w.22 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was taken against the accused.

4)On appearance, accused was furnished with copies of documents. The accused was examined u/s.228 of Cr.P.C., and charge u/s.8(c) r/w. 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 was framed against him. When the charge was read over and explained to him in vernacular, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)In support of its case, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PWs1 to 5 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5 and M.O.1.

6) After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused has been examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. The accused having denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, reported no defence evidence.

Page 5 of 10NDSC.No. 10 of 2021

7)Heard arguments on both sides.

8)Now the point which emerges for determination is;

Whether the prosecution has established the

guilt of the accused for the offence u/s. 8(c)

r/w.22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 beyond all reasonable

doubt?

Point:-

9)In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.8(c) r/w.22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985, the burden rests upon the prosecution to prove that the accused was found selling toddy in TFT shop by mixing Diazepam in it, as he has pleaded innocence for the charge leveled against him. On such proof, the presumption arises against the accused and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption and to prove his innocence.

10)The prosecution, in support of its case, relied upon the testimony of PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5 and M.O.1.

11)PWs1 and 2, who are cited as panch witnesses to the alleged seizure panchanama have not supported the case of the prosecution, by deposing that no panchanama was conducted by

Proh. & Excise officials, Jadcherla in their presence at any point of

Page 6 of 10NDSC.No. 10 of 2021 time; and that about 5 years back, they obtained their signatures on some written papers, when they were at Grampanchayat

Maddigatla. Their signatures on panchanama were marked as

Exs. P1 and P2. Though PWs1 and 2 were cross examined by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, nothing contra could be elicited out regarding the alleged seizure.

12)In view of the panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama not supporting the case of prosecution, the evidence of PWs3 to 5 has to be scrutinized with care and caution, regarding the alleged seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused.

13)The prosecution examined the investigating officer who allegedly conducted panchanama, as PW5. PW5 deposed about his proceeding to Maddigtla village, Bhoothpur mandal along with staff and panch witnesses, possession of toddy by the accused in counter No.3 toddy shop, for conducting sales his observing 20 plastic crates, each crate containing 12 bottles, each bottle containing 650ml., of toddy, his conducting spot test and drawing samples under cover of panchanama, in the presence of panch witnesses. Ex.P5 panchanama and M.O.1 sample bottles were marked through PW5. PW5 in his cross examination admitted that he did not mention the names of his staff members in

Page 7 of 10NDSC.No. 10 of 2021 panchanama and did not obtain their signatures on it and that he did not mention the house number of the shop, boundaries and its survey number, in panchanama and that he did not examine the inmates of neighboring houses and did not seize cash from the counter. PW5 further admitted that Ex.P5 panchanama is in printed proforma, by filling the blank and it is in English. In this regard, it is relevant to note here that Ex.P5 panchanama is in printed proforma in English, by filling the blanks also in English, though PWs1 and 2 are uneducated persons. Even the panchanama in silent about door number of the accused and its boundaries. Having mentioned in panchanama that the boundaries tallied with licence, PW5 failed to file the said licence copy before the court, in order to prove that the accused was running the toddy shop at the scene of offence, by obtaining licence and that he is selling toddy mixed with Diazepam.

14)PW4, is the investigating officer who registered the P.C.O.R., and deposited the samples before the court. Ex.P3 PCOR and

Ex.P4 Chemical examiner’s report were marked through PW4.

15)PW3, the investigating officer, who filed charge sheet deposed that PW3 himself received Chemical Examiner’s report opining that the sample is fermented toddy adulterated with

Page 8 of 10NDSC.No. 10 of 2021

Diazepam basing on which, he altered the section of law to 8(c) r/w. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is also relevant to note here that the entire case of prosecution including panchanama is silent about the door number of the accused and its location at Maddigatla village.

Absolutely, there is no document on record, to connect the accused to the said shop. It is not the case of investigating officers that they made any efforts to obtain the door number of alleged shop of the accused.

16) In the absence of the panch witnesses to the panchanama supporting the case of prosecution and any document to connect the accused to the said shop and in view of the lapses in conducting panchanama as discussed above,this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s. 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, beyond all reasonable doubt.

As the prosecution itself failed to prove the alleged seizure of contraband and panchanama, the question of drawing presumption against the accused does not arise. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to extent the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Page 9 of 10NDSC.No. 10 of 2021

17)In view of the above discussion, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 8(c) r/w. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

18)In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 8(c) r/w.22 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and he is acquitted u/s.235(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months. MO.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.1, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7th day of July, 2022.

I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of Evidence:

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:

PW1 K. Basaiah PW2 P.Venkataiah PW3 R.Balaji PW4 Md.Waheeduddin PW5 B.Praveen Kumar

Page 10 of 10NDSC.No. 10 of 2021

Defence:

-None-

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Signature on panchanama by PW1 Ex.P2 Signature on panchanama by PW2 Ex.P3 PCOR Ex.P4 FSL Report Ex.P5 Panchanama

Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects marked

MO.1 : Two Sample bottles

I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 20th day of April , 2023 Present: Smt.P.Neeraja,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

III Addl. District. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No. 198 of 2020

Between: Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Mahabubnagar Branch, Rep. by its GPA holder, N. Srinivas S/o. N. Somaiah Senior Manager Division Office Mahabubnagar as GPA Holder of the Company. …………...Decree Holder

And

1. Abdul Khader S/o. Md. Sardhar, Age: 41 Years, Occupation: Business, R/o H.No: 5-7-51/4, Old Palamur, Mahabubnagar District.

2. Shaik Jahangeer S/o Shaik Dawood, Age: 45 Years, Occu: Gov.Emp, R/o. H. No. 5-3-65/1, Masdoos Nagar, Mahabubnagar District. Working as : TSRTC Driver Grade-II, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

..…….Judgment debtors

Sub:- Execution Petition filed Under Order 21 Rule 48 CPC for recovery of Rs. 1,27,758-00 by way of attaching salary of J.Dr No.2 ****

DOCKET ORDER, DATE 20.04.2023

Counsel for DHR filed a memo stating that salary warrant of J.Dr no.2 is served. Accordingly EP is closed.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2022

Present: Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.689 of 2017

Between: M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd., having its registered office at Mumbai Inter alia its state office at D.No.1-8-304-307, Kamala towers, Patigadda, S.P.Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad, represented by its Area Manager (collections) Kanna Babu, S/o Venku Naidu, age 47 years.

And

K.Thirupathi H.No.2-9, Near Water Tank, Antaram village, Talakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist 509321 earst while District Mahabubnagar

Claim: Execution petition Under Order 21 R 43 64 and 66 of CPC R/w Sec.36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Akarapu Udaya Bhaskar, Advocate for DHR/Claimant and Sri M.Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for JDR and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER, DATE 24.03.2022

DHr is called absent. Process not deposited. No representation. Hence

E.P. is dismissed.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 24th day of March, 2022.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2022

Present: Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.440 of 2016

Between: CITI Corp Finance India Limited, an NBFC incorporated under Companies act having its registered office at 1st floor, Angson Centre 153 Chennai Inter alia its concern office situated at Lower Grand Floor, Queens plaza, SP Road, Begumpet, Secunderabad 500003 represented by its Legal officer cum power of attorney Sri Ravinder S/o Channaiah, age 29 years.

And

1.M.Raghuma Reddy S/o Chinna Ranga Reddy, age Major R/o H.No.4-36, Mucharlapally, Midjil, Mahabubnagar Dist.509 320.

2.M.Raghavendhar Reddy, age Major, R/o H.No.4-36, Mucharlapally, Midjil, Mahabubnagar 509320

Claim: Execution petition Under Order 21 R 43 64 and 66 of CPC R/w Sec.36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Akarapu Udaya Bhaskar, Advocate for DHR/Claimant and Sri K.Venkatesh, Advocate for JDR No.1 and 2, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER, DATE 24.03.2022

DHr is called absent. Process not deposited. No representation. Hence

E.P. is dismissed.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 24th day of March, 2022.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2022

Present: Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.446 of 2016

Between: CITI Corp Finance India Limited, an NBFC incorporated under Companies act having its registered office at 1st floor, Angson Centre 153 Chennai Inter alia its concern office situated at Lower Grand Floor, Queens plaza, SP Road, Begumpet, Secunderabad 500003 represented by its Legal officer cum power of attorney Sri Ravinder S/o Channaiah, age 29 years.

And

1.P.Linga Reddy, age Major H.No.12-43, CN Reddy Colony, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar-509324.

2.Mr.K.Narayana Reddy, age Major R/o H.No.1-4, Kethireddypally, Mahabubnagar 509202

Claim: Execution petition Under Order 21 R 43 64 and 66 of CPC R/w Sec.36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Akarapu Udaya Bhaskar, Advocate for DHR/Claimant and Sri K.Venkatesh, Advocate for JDR No.1 and 2, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER, DATE 24.03.2022

DHr is called absent. Process not deposited. No representation. Hence

E.P. is dismissed.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 24th day of March, 2022.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 03th day of February, 2021

Present: Sri P.Vasanth,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.264 of 2019

Between:

Shriram city union finance Ltd., Mahabubnagar Branch, Rep. by its GPA holder, N. Srinivas S/o N. Somaiah Rep. by its GPA holder, N. Srinivas S/o N Somaiah Senior manager Division Officer Mahabubnagar as GPA Holder of the Company.

And

1.K RaviKumar, s/o BalaRaju, Age :31 yrs, Occ: business (Sri Balaji Internet & xerox, Srinivas colony Mahabubangar) R/o 7-14/3, Srinivas colony Mahabubnagar.

2.G.Venkateshwaralu, S/o G Ramulu, Age; 31 yrs Occ: Govt Emp, R/o H.No.8- 1-42, Venkateshwara colony, Mahabubnagar. Working: Junior Asst At Register office Jadcherla mahabubangar (Dist).

3.A Venkat Ramana Reddy S/o A.Sanjeeva Reddy, Age 38 yrs Occ: Business, R/o H.No.5-3-68, sattur nagar Mahabubangar.

Claim: Execution petition Under of Order XXI Rule 48 of C.P.C.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Chandra Mouli, Advocate for DHR/Claimant, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

ORDER

Full Satisfaction Memo filed. E.P is terminated.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 03th day of February, 2021.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII

Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 18th day of February, 2020

Present: Sri P.Vasanth,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.142 of 2019

Between:

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd Branch, Shadnagar, Authorized signatory N.Srinivas S/o N.Somaiah, age 40 years, Occ:Senior Manager, R/o Mahabubnagar.

And

1.M.Gowraiah S/o M.Laxmaiah, age 41, H.No.9-25, Railway Station Thimmapur Vg. Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

2C.Sathosh S/o C.Narsimulu, Occ:Govt. Emp. Age 39 H.No.6-47, SC colony kishannagar (V), Farooqnagar (M), Rangareddy (Dist), Working TSSPDCL Chinnarevelly (V) Balanagar (M), Mahabubnagar Dist. Staff No.01075724.

Claim: Execution petition under order 21 Rule 48 of C.P.C.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sripad Rao, Advocate for DHR/Claimant, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER DT.18.02.2020

Full Satisfaction memo filed. E.P. is terminated.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 18th day of February, 2020

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2020

Present: Sri P.Vasanth,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.10 of 2017

Between:

M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Rep. by authorized signatory, branch office at D.No.1-5-107/4A, 2nd floor, New Town, Mahabubnagar.

And

1.Ashok R S/o Nagaiah age 41 years, Occ:Business, R/o H.No1-38/A, Doddalonipally village Mahabubnagar Mandal and Dist.

2Jakaraiah S/o Narsaiah, age 53 years, Occ:Business, R/o H.No.1-2-63/3, Subhashnagar, Christianpally, Mahabubnagar Mandal and Dist.

Claim: Execution petition under order 21 Rule 37 and 38 of C.P.C.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Prabhu, Advocate for DHR/Claimant, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER DT.27.02.2020

No representation. DHR called absent. E.P. is dismissed.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 27th day of February, 2020.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 6th day of February, 2020

Present: Sri P.Vasanth,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.106 of 2016

Between:

M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., having its Reg. Office, Fathe Maidan Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-4, Rep. by its Prl.Officer and General Manager Sri A.Suryanarayana Raju S/o A.Bangar Raju, aged 63 years, residing at Flat 409, Gayathri Towers, St.No.1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad 500 017.

And

1.Mr.P.Har Hara Rao, S/o P.V.V.S.Prasad Rao, a/a 48 years, R/o R.R.District. 2Mr.R.Praveen Kumar S/o R.Venkatesham, a/a 42 years, R/o R.R. District.

3.Mr.D.Pulla Reddy, S/o D.Sudarshan Reddy, a/a 37 years, R/o R.R.District.

4.Mr.G.Singa Rao, S/o G.Thrupathaiah, a/a 53 years, R/o B/o Occ:Prop. M/s G.Singa Rao Poultry Farms (Poultry Farms), # 6-102, Survey No.632, B.V.Rao Nagar, Chatanpally (V), Shad Nagar, Mahabubnagar District.

Claim: Execution petition under order 21 Rule 64 and 66 of C.P.C.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Pratap Kumar, Advocate for DHR/Claimant, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER DT.06.02.2020

Full Satisfaction memo filed. E.P. is terminated.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 6th day of February, 2020.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT:: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 4th day of November, 2020

Present: Sri P.Vasanth,

Judge,Family Court-cum-

VIII Addl.Dist. Judge, Mahabubnagar.

E.P.No.233 of 2019

Between:

Shriram city Union Finance Ltd., Mahabubnagar branch rep. by its GPA holder, Senior Manager, division Office Mahabubnagar as GPA Holder of the company.

And

1.Habeebur Rahman S/o Abdul Mannan, Occ:Civil Contractor, H.No.6-33, Nagarkurnool (V&M), Mahabubnagar Dist.

3.P.Narender Reddy S/o P.Swamy Reddy, Occ:Govt.Emp. H.No.18-147, Sripuram Road, Nagarkurnool (V&M), Mahabubnagar (Dist) working SGT Teacher UP School Keshampet (V&M), Ranga Reddy Dist.

4.Abdul Raheem, S/o Abdul Rasool, Occ:Govt Emp. H.No.11-208/1, Nagarkurnool (V&M), Mahabubnagar Dist. working TSRTC Conductor in Nagarkurnool Depot, staff No.281187.

Claim: Execution petition under order 21 Rule 48 of C.P.C.

@@@

This E.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Chandra Mouli, Advocate for DHR/Claimant, and upon perusing the record this Court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER DT.04.11.2020

Full Satisfaction memo filed. E.P. is terminated.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court, dated this the 4th day of November, 2020.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.