Sri. P. Prabhakar

1

OS.No. 1175 of 17

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE’S

COURT-Cum-XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT-

CUM-III ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT MALKAJGIRI

PRESENT: Sri. P.PRABHAKAR,

XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, R.R. DISTRICT AT MALKAJGIRI

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

O.S. No. 1175 of 2017

Between:

1. Dr.R.S.Saluja S/o S.Kesar Singh, Aged 65 years, Occ: Doctor.

2. Dr. Amrita Saluja W/o R.S.Saluja, Aged 64 years, Occ: Doctor.

Both are R/o H.no. 9-4-269/95, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad.

..Plaintiffs.

AND

M/s KVR Infra Tech (india) Pvt. Ltd. Having its regd. Office at Plot no. 386, Phase III Road No.81, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, being represented by its Manging Director, Sri P.Vinay Kumar Reddy.

..Defendant.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 17.12.2018 in the presence of Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and defendant remained ex parte and on hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This is the suit filed for cancellation of development agreement cum GPA vide document No.3346 of 2012 dt. 31-07-2012, for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the illegal structures constructed in plaint schedule and to deliver vacant possession of schedule property, to pay a sum of Rs.36,00,000/- with future interest 18% per annum as compensation from the date of filing of suit till realization and to 2

OS.No. 1175 of 17

return the original documents such as pattedar pass book, title deed, mutation proceedings and ling documents in respect of schedule property, costs of the suit and all other reliefs as the court deems fit and necessary.

2.Case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are husband and wife. They are absolute owners and possessors of schedule property admeasuring 1750 Sq. Yards covered by Sy.No.32/B situated at Kompally Village and it is part and parcel of Ac.1- 04 Gts., purchased by them under registered sale deed vide

Doc.No.9238/1989 dated 14-12-1989. They entered into development agreement cum GPA with defendant on 31-07-2012 vide Doc.No.3346/2012 for construction of commercial complex comprising to basement floors, G+7 upper floors. As per the terms of the agreement plaintiffs are entitled for a share of 50% in built up area inclusive of common areas balconies etc and defendant is entitled for remaining 50%.Defendnant has to complete the construction of complex within a period of 18 months from the date of taking delivery of possession of suit property or from the date of receiving the approved plan from HMDA whichever is later. If for any reason defendant was unable to complete a grace period of three months is given to the builder/developer.

Plaintiffs handed over the possession of suit property along with all the documents. Defendant committed breach of contract and failed in completion of complex within 18 months nor obtained sanctioned plan till date. 1st plaintiff made hundreds of call to the managing director of defendant to know the status but in vain. Attempts made by him to meet the managing director of defendant company time and again also failed. Vexed with the attitude of managing director of defendant company plaintiff No.1 3

OS.No. 1175 of 17

met Mr.Jeevan Reddy one of the directors of the defendant company and also signatory to the development agreement cum GPA in the 1st week of

July, 2016. He informed he is no more director of defendant company and he was removed on 17-01-2014 due to internal disputes in between him and

MD Vinay Kumar Reddy.

Due to financial constraints and health conditions of plaintiffs they decided to sale away part of the suit property and accordingly sold 276 Sq.

yards to one Mrs. A. Rajitah Reddy on 20-08-2016 vide Doc.No.6444/2016 and 451 Sq. yards to one Mr. Damodar Reddy on same day vide doc.No.6450/2016. Till such time the suit property was in same condition as it was given at the time of execution of development agreement cum GPA.

On 23-10-2017 having visited schedule property and noticed construction of a sub cellar in suit property and in the adjacent property belonging to third parties leaving open pillars in adjacent property. Plaintiffs shocked on observing the same. Plaintiffs have no knowledge about the construction activities taken up by the defendant in schedule property. On enquiry plaintiffs came to know defendant constructed sub cellar and cellar in suit property which is in total breach of the terms and conditions of development agreement cum GPA belatedly without any sanctioned plan as per the terms of development agreement cum GPA plaintiffs are entitled for compensation @ 1 lakh per month for delayed period till 36 months and thereafter the agreement stands cancelled. Stipulated period is lapsed on 31-01-2014.

Plaintiffs were entitled for compensation for the delayed period till 36 months from 01-02-2014 to 31-01-2017 @ 1lakh per month and the agreement cum GPA stands cancelled on 01-02-2017. Hence the suit.

3.Defendant remained exparte.

4

OS.No. 1175 of 17

4.On behalf of plaintiffs 1st plaintiff No.1 is examined as Pw1. Ex-A1 to

A4 marked.

Pw1 is 1st plaintiff,

Ex-A1 is certified copy of development agreement cum GPA in favour of defendant, Ex-A2 is market value certificate, Ex-A3 is sale deed of plaintiffs dt. 14-12-1989, Ex-A4 is Digital photos showing the suit property.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs of cancellation of development agreement cum GPA and for recovery of possession on demolition of structures and compensation as prayed.

POINT

6.1st plaintiff examined as Pw1 filed chief examination affidavit reiterating the averments made in the plaint and affirmed the same on oath.

In support of his evidence he also filed the certified copy of deveopment agreement cum GPA executed in favour of defendant on 31-07-2012 marked as Ex-A1 and digital photos showing the construction of cellar and sub cellar by the defendant in schedule property marked as Ex-A1 and A4. He also filed the link documents of plaintiffs under which they purchased the schedule land along with some more extents and it is marked Ex-A3. Pw1 in his evidence categorically stated that the defendant had not obtained sanctioned plan from HMDA authorities to make construction of shopping complex in terms of Ex-A1 development agreement cum GPA and further stated he made constructions without such approval reflected in Ex-A4 digital photos illegally without the knowledge of the plaintiffs taking advantage of 5

OS.No. 1175 of 17

possession given to him in terms of Ex-A1 development agreement.

According to the plaintiffs the defendant shall complete the construction of proposed complex within a period of 18 months from the date of taking delivery of possession of the schedule or from the date of receiving building permit sanction from HMDA authorities whichever is later. As per the evidence defendant had not obtained building permit sanction from the concerned HMDA authorities and made constructions illegally. Relevant clause in Ex-A1 development agreement cum GPA clause 7. In the later clause 7 authorizing the defendant to complete construction within a period of 18 months either from the date of taking delivery of possession or from the date of receiving building permit sanction from HMDA authorities whichever is later the plaintiffs cannot contend that the defendant failed to complete the proposed construction within stipulated period, as so far defendant had not obtain any permission. In the light of clause 7 of the agreement the period of 18 months stipulated is to commence only from the date of taking sanction to make constructions in the schedule lands from

HMDA authorities. Hence in the circumstances plaintiff has no right to cclaim any compensation much less Rs.30 lakhs with interest for breach of contract.

It is manifest from the evidence of the plaintiff and plaint pleadings that the plaintiff did not ascertain from the defendant as to the reason for not taking sanctioned plan for the proposed construction from HMDA authorities. They did not even issue any notice even causing for the remarks of the defendant company. Plaintiffs vaguely pleaded that time and again 1st plaintiff tried to meet the managing director but in vain. The same is not inspiring confidence as it is not supported by any documentary proof. Similarly the evidence spoken by plaintiff that he met another director of defendant company in the year 2016 who is allegedly removed from the defendant company in the 6

OS.No. 1175 of 17

year 2014 itself. It is also patent from the plaint pleadings that out of 1750 sq. yards is sold away an extent of 727 Sq. yards out of 1750 Sq. yards in the year 2016 within four years after execution of the development agreement in favour of defendant thus, it is patent the available extent of plaint schedule is only 1023 Sq. yards out of 1750 Sq. yards delivered possession to defendant. It is not the case of the plaintiff that they could not deliver vacant possession of the sites sold to Rajitha Reddy and

Damodar Reddy to whom they sold under registered sale deed dated. 20-08- 2016. Plaintiffs have no subsisting interest in the extent already sold in the year 2016, they have not filed the suit on behalf of their vendees nor filed documents to show whether they delivered possession of the extents sold to them in the circumstances it is not safe to order delivery possession of the entire extent covered by the development agreement infavour of the plaintiffs and to award compensation as claimed at it has no basis.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed ordering cancellation of the development agreement cum GPA executed by the plaintiffs infavour of defendant vide doc.No.3346 of 2012 dated 31-07-2012 and to order eviction of defendant from the plaint schedule extents 1023 Sq. yards out of plaint schedule extents by removing the super structures made by the defendant illegally without the sanctioned plan from HMDA authorities. The suit is decreed accordingly negative the relief of compensation with interest, but in the circumstances without costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of December, 2018.

XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, R.R.DISTRICT, MALKAJGIRI

7

OS.No. 1175 of 17

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

PW1: Dr.R.S.Saluja

FOR DEFENDANT: Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex-A1 is certified copy of development agreement cum GPA in favour of defendant

Ex-A2 is market value certificate

Ex-A3 is sale deed of plaintiffs dt. 14-12-1989

Ex-A4 is Digital photos showing the suit property.

FOR DEFENDANT:

NIL

XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, R.R.DISTRICT, MALKAJGIRI

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT

HELD AT MANDAL LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE,

AT MALKAJGIRI. R.R.DISTRICT.

In the court of XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Malkajgiri.

[Organised by Mandal Legal Services Committee under Section 19, of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (Central Act)]

PRESENT:- SRI. P. PRABHAKAR,

CHAIRMAN, MLSC-CUM-CHAIRMAN OF

LOK ADALAT BENCH

(1) Sri. A.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate –Member –I. (2) Sri. P.Vishwanath,Advocate –Member-II.

DATED THIS THE 31dst DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

LOK ADALAT CASE NO. OF 2018 In

OS. 654 OF 2016.

Between: K. Sandeepana, D/o. B. Manohar, W/o. K. Srikanth, aged about 26 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 5-61/1, Petbasheerabad,

Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District. …..Plaintiff.

AND

1. Bangarigalla Vasanth Rao, S/o. Late Swamy, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. H. No. 6-69/1, Near Govt. School, Jeedimetla Village, Petbasheerabad, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District.

2. Bangarigalla Ramdas, S/o. Late Swamy, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Service, R/o. 5-61/1, Near Govt. School, Jeedimetla Village, Petbasheerabad, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District.

3. Bangarigalla Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Swamy, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Service, R/o. H. No. 1-5-631/1, Weaker Section Colony, Old Alwal, Alwal, Secunderabad.

4. Bangarigalla Manohar, S/o. Late Swamy, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Service, R/o. H. No. 6-69/1, Near Govt. School, Jeedimetla Village, Petbasheerabad, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District.

5. Bangarigalla Radhamma, D/o. Late B. Swamy, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 5-61/1, Near Govt. School, Jeedimetla Village, Petbasheerabad, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District.

6. Bangarigalla Pushpalatha, D/o. Late Swamy, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Housewife, H.No. 1-5-631/1, Weaker Section Colony, Old Alwal, Alwal, Secunderabad.

7. Smt. Errolla Padma, W/o. Late Dhanpal, D/o. Late Ramaiah, aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 10-1-108, West Marredpally, Secunderabad.

8. Errolla Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Ramaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. H. No. 6-41, Near Govt. School, Jeedimetla, Petbasheerabad, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District.

9. Smt. Barma Sunitha, W/o. Late B. Sudarshan Rao, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Housewife,

10. Smt. Barma Meghana, D/o. Late B. Sudarshan Rao, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Housewife,

11. Smt. Barma Keerthi, D/o. Late B. Sudharshan Rao, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Housewife,

12. Barma Sheshu Rao, S/o. Late B. Sudarshan Rao, Aged about 24 years, Occ: Not Known,

13. Mrs. Barma Supraja, D/o. Late B. Sudarshan Rao, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Not Known, (Defendant Nos. 9 to 13 are R/o. H. No. 1-10-86, Temple Alwal, New Ganapathi Temple & Water Tank, Alwal, R.R. District. ….Defendants.

AWARD

Whereas the Plaintiff filed the above Suit for Partition and Separate Possession of

Suit Schedule “A” and “B” Properties claiming 1/16th share against Defendant No’s. 1 to

13. Further the Plaintiff also pleaded that the entries in the Revenue Records in the name of one Burma Sudarshan Rao who is Husband of Defendant No. 9 and father of

Defendant Nos. 10 to 13 are illegal and not binding on the Plaintiff.

That subsequently with the advice and intervention of elders and well wishers the

Plaintiff and the Defendant No’s. 1 and 3 to 6, Defendant No’s. 9 to 13, have arrived to a settlement to settle the dispute in the above Suit and agreed to enter into the present

Memorandum of Compromise.

1. That the Plaintiff, Defendant No’s. 1 and 3 to 6 hereby admit that Defendant No’s.

9 to 13 are the absolute owners and possessors of Suit Schedule “A” and “B” Properties who succeeded the same from B. Sudarshan Rao, S/o. Sanjeeva Rao who is the

Husband of Defendant No.9 and father of Defendant No’s. 10 to 13.

2. That the Plaintiff, Defendant No’s. 1 and 3 to 6, hereby admit and confirm that the

Husband of Defendant No.9 and father of Defendant No’s. 10 to 13 namely B. Sudarshan

Rao, S/o. Sanjeeva Rao was the owner and possessor of Suit Schedule Lands by virtue of Occupancy Rights Certificate granted by R.D.O. (East) (Sy. No’s. 1, 3, 4 and 361, situated at Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal, earlier R.R. District, vide

File No. J/807/1995 Dt: 20-11-1996, 07-01-1997, 12-03-1997 respectively. The Plaintiff,

Defendant No.s. 1 and 3 to 6, further admit that the Defendant No’s. 9 to 13 are in possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule Properties.

3. That in order to avoid litigation the plaintiff and the defendants received amounts as under through IDBI Bank Cheques.

a) B. Vasanth Rao, Defendant No.1 an amount of Rs.9,75,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs

Seventy Five Thousands only) Cheque No.973960.

b) B. Ramakrishna, Defendant.3 an amount of Rs.9,75,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs

Seventy Five Thousands only) Cheque No.973962.

c) B. Manohar, Defendant.4 an amount of Rs.9,25,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty

Five Thousands only) Cheque No.973963.

d) B. Pushpalatha, Defendant.6 an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) Cheque No.973964.

e) B. Radhamma, Defendant No.5 received an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) towards her share in schedule property.

f)K. Sandeepana, Plaintiff an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only)

Cheque No.973965.

4. That the Defendant No.6 hereby undertakes that she will withdraw the Review

Application No. 37935/2017 in W.P. No. 5274 of 2005 on the file of Hon’ble High Court,

Hyderabad.

5. That the Plaintiff, Defendant No’s. 1 and 3 to 6, herein admit that they have no right or claim over the Suit Schedule Properties and they will not interfere with the Suit

Schedule Properties in any manner.

6. That the Plaintiff, Defendant No’s. 1 and 3 to 6, hereby declare and undertake that they will not create any litigation in future either by themselves or through their Heirs,

Agents, Representatives, etc., as they have no right or interest over the Suit Schedule

Properties.

That in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise the above Suit may be dismissed.

SCHEDULE “A” PROPERTY

All that the Agricultural Land in Sy. No. 1 admeasuring Ac. 2-17 Gts, Sy. No. 3 admeasuring Ac. 0-21 Gts and Sy. No. 4 admeasuring Ac. 0-07 Gts situated at

Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District and bounded by:

North : By Road

South : Land in Sy. Nos. 368 & 369

East : Land in Sy. No. 2

West : Land in Sy. No. 360/AA

SCHEDULE “B” PROPERTY

All that the Agricultural Land in Sy. No. 361 admeasuring Ac. 0-10 Gts situated at

Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District and bounded by:

North: Harijana Basthi

South : By Road

East : House belongs to Byagari Laxmaiah

West : Harijana Basthi

Plaintiff is entitled for refund of court fee.

This Award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a Decree of a Civil Court.

The terms of Lok Adalat Award are read over and explained to the parties and the parties admitted that the same are true and correct and signed before Lok Adalat Bench on this the 31st day of December, 2018.

Plaintiff: Defendants:

Counsel for Plaintiff: Counsel for the Defendants:

Sri. P. Prabhakar Sri. A.Srinivasa Rao Sri. P.Vishwanath Chairman, MLSC-cum- Chairman Member-I Member-II of Lok Adalat Bench.

1

OS.NO.1498 OF 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE’S

COURT-Cum-XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT-

CUM-III ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT MALKAJGIRI

PRESENT: SRI P.PRABHAKAR

XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, R.R. DISTRICT AT MALKAJGIRI

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

OS No. 1498 of 2017

Between:

Shaik Shabbir S/o Late Shaik Buddan Sahib, Aged 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o 16-2-875/1, Jeevan Yar Jung colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. … Plaintiff

AND

Mujeebuddin Ghalib S/o Late Shamshuddin Ghalib, Aged 57 years, Occ: Landlord, R/o 19-2-25, Maqbara Ghalib Jung, Misrigunj, Hyderabad.

… Defendant

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 26.11.2018 in the presence of Sri Dr. Sireesh Anumula, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This is the suit filed for specific performance of contract directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in terms of agreement of sale dt.

25-11-2015 receiving the balance sale consideration and in case of default the Hon’ble Court to execute registered sale deed on behalf of defendant, costs of the suit and all other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deem fit and necessary.

2.Case of the plaintiff is as follows:- 2

OS.NO.1498 OF 2017

That the properties bearing old survey No.329 and its new survey numbers 358/1 and 358/2 admeasuring Ac.9-15 Gts., locally known as “Thota Mussalam Jung Kanche Boda,” now known as “Mussalam Jung

Colony” Hyderabad-(ii), Sy.No.370 admeasuring Ac.3-00 Gts., including houses with compound wall which is known as Galib Jung Bawarchi Khana situated at Moulali, Hyderabad-(iii), Sy.No.381 admeasuring Ac.1-16 Gts., “Devdi along with houses and mulgies situated at Moulali, Hyderabad-(iv)

Masjid-e-Mussalam Jung situated at Moulali Hyderabad are the subject matter of release order vide CCLA’s reference No.NA2/49/2004, dt.14-03- 2005 issued by the office of CCLA in favour of the legal heirs and GPA of other legal heirs of late Galib Jung @ Mussalam Jung @ Laiq – Ud- Dowla @

Ghalib – Ul – Mulk along with the defendant herein.

The plaintiff submit that after the above release order of CCLA no other revenue or any other records having any contrary entry have value as the release order prevails. As per Shariat Law the defendant being Great grandson of Late Ghalib Jung and son of Late Shamshuddin Ghalib have a right of 3.87% of share in all the properties of Ghalib Ul Mulq. Accordingly in

Ac.9-15 Gts., is absolute owner and possessor of 1756 Sq. yards.

Defendant offered to sell his 1756 Sq. Yards to plaintiff and on settlement of bargain he entered into an agreement of sale with plaintiff agreeing to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs.73,75,200/- @ rate of 4200 per square yard on receipt of advance of Rs.53,75,000/- and executed an agreement of sale agreeing to execute registered sale deed on receipt of remaining balance sale consideration at the time of registration.

On 28-10-2017 plaintiff informed defendant as to his readiness with balance sale consideration and his willingness to get registered sale deed. Defendant 3

OS.NO.1498 OF 2017

refused to execute registered sale deed receiving the balance sale consideration. Tough, he tried to convince him he did not hear. He became greedy and with a malafide intention he failed to perform his part of contract. Plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract in terms of the agreement of sale dt.25-11-2015. In the aforesaid circumstances the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for specific performance of contract Act. Hence the suit.

3.Defendant remained exparte.

4.On behalf of plaintiff Pw1 is examined as PW1 Ex-A1 marked.

PW1 is 1st plaintiff

Ex-A1 is agreement of sale cum GPA executed by defendant dt. 25- 11-2015

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract as prayed?

POINT

6.Plaintiff examined as Pw1 filed chief examination affidavit reiterating the averments made in the plaint and affirmed the same on oath. In support of his evidence he also filed agreement of sale cum GPA executed by defendant in his favour having entered into agreement of sale agreeing to sale schedule property for consideration of Rs.73,75,200/- @ rate of 4200 per square yard on receipt of advance of Rs.53,75,000/- agreeing to execute registered sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration as and when demanded. Plaintiff in his evidence categorically stated that though he is 4

OS.NO.1498 OF 2017

ready to perform his part of contract in terms of agreement of sale.

Defendant did not come forward and evaded to execute sale deed forcing him to file the present suit seeking specific performance of contract.

Evidence of plaintiff which remained unchallenged and unshattered duly established that the defendant being executant of agreement in favour of plaintiff committed breach of contract and he is at fault. In the circumstances as a matter of right plaintiff has got every right to enforce the suit agreement of sale and to seek specific performance of contract.

7.In the result, suit is decreed granting the relief of specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff in terms of agreement of sale dt. 25-11- 2015 directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed within three months on receipt of balance sale consideration. Plaintiff is directed to deposit balance sale consideration on or before 31-01-2019 giving notice to the defendant. In the event of defendant failure to execute registered sale deed receiving the balance sale consideration plaintiff is at liberty get the sale deed executed through the process of this court with costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of December, 2018.

XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, R.R.DISTRICT, MALKAJGIRI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

PW1: Shaik Shabbir

FOR DEFENDANTS: Exparte 5

OS.NO.1498 OF 2017

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 is agreement of sale cum GPA executed by defendant dt. 25-11-2015

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, R.R.DISTRICT, MALKAJGIRI

DECREE IN APPEAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-Cum-

XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT :: AT MALKAJGIRI

PRESENT: SRI. P. PRABHAKAR,

XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE AT MALKAJGIRI

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

A.S. No.498 OF 2015

Between:

1. Ponnaboina Shyamala Devi D/o. Late Sriramulu, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee,

2. Ponnaboina Ramalaxmi D/o. Late Sriramulu Aged about 43 years, Occ:Household,

Both are R/o.H.No.4-216, Bhavani Nagar, suraram Colony, Qutbullapur Municipal Circle, GHMC, Qutbullapur Mandal, erstwhile R.R. District Presently Medchal Malkajgiri District.

.. Appellants/Plaintiffs

AND

1. G. Varalaxmi W/o. Narsimha Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.6-482/2/C, Dwaraka Nagar, Chintal, Qutbullapur Municipal Circle, GHMC, Qutbullapur Mandal, erstwhile R.R. District Presently Medchal Malkajgiri District.

2. To whomsoever it may concern. …Respondent/defendants

Appeal Filed on behalf of the appellant under Order 41, Rule 1 CPC

against the Decree and Judgment O.S.No. 162 of 2015 dated 30.09.2015

on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, at MEdchal, Rangareddy

District.

OS. No. 162 OF 2015

BETWEEN:-

1. Ponnaboina Shyamala Devi D/o. Late Sriramulu, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee,

2. Ponnaboina Ramalaxmi D/o. Late Sriramulu Aged about 43 years, Occ:Household,

Both are R/o.H.No.4-216, Bhavani Nagar, suraram Colony, Qutbullapur Municipal Circle, GHMC, Qutbullapur Mandal, erstwhile R.R. District Presently Medchal Malkajgiri District. ….plaintiff s AND

1. G. Varalaxmi W/o. Narsimha Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.6-482/2/C, Dwaraka Nagar, Chintal, Qutbullapur Municipal Circle, GHMC, Qutbullapur Mandal, erstwhile R.R. District Presently Medchal Malkajgiri District.

2. To whomsoever it may concern.

… defendants Contd...2 -2-

Claim: This appeal suit filed under Order 41 rule 1 r/w section 96 of CPC to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.162 of 2015 dated:30.09.2015, on the file of Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Medchal.

Valuation: The appeal suit is valued at Rs.10,000/- and court fee of Rs.786/- is paid in the lower court and in the appeal also same court fee of Rs.786/- is paid

U/Sec.49 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act .

Appeal suit presented on : 21.11.2015.

Appeal suit numbered on : 28.12.2015.

Date of Disposal on : 31.12.2018.

This Appeal Suit is coming before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri P.Subba Rao, Advocate for the Appellants and respondent remained exparte and upon hearing and perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and DECREE as follows:

i) That the appeal suit of the appellant be and the same is hereby allowed, setting aside the decree and judgment 30-09-2015 and the suit of plaintiffs/appellants is decreed declaring them as legal heirs late P.

Padma Bai W/o. Late P. Sriramulu, but in the circumstances without costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the court on this the 31st day of December, 2018.

XVI Additional District & Sessions

Judge, R.R. District at Malkajgiri.

MEMO OF COSTS

For Appellant For Respondent

Amt (Rs.) Amt (Rs.)

1. Stamp on Appeal 786-00 --

2. Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 exparte

3. Stamp on process 80-00 -- –------------- ---------- 868-00 0-00 ---------------- ----------

XVI Additional District & Sessions

Judge, R.R. District at Malkajgiri.

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court

AT ,RANGAREDDY

Presided Over by Sri. V.Bala Bhaskar Rao

OS/1578/2014

Exhibit No.:

: M. Ganga Reddy Age: 37 Occupation : Address: Thumukunta Village Shamirpet Mandal RR District.

VERSUS : Chiluvuri Ganamani Age: 48 Occupation : Address: Thumukunta Village Shamirpet Mandal RR District.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : AG. Sunil Reddy Advocate for : Ashutosh B.Joshi appearing for Chiluvuri Ganamani: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 31-12-2018 )

ORDER

Memo filed not pressing the suit. Memo recorded. Suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Date : 31-12-2018 (Sri. V.Bala Bhaskar Rao)

Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-

Family Court

,RANGAREDDY

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Sri. V.Bala Bhaskar Rao) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

,RANGAREDDY

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS