Sri. Prithvi Raj D T

DVC 18 of 2022 Date : 21-04-2026 PJCJ-VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT KUKATPALLY

Tuesday, the 21st day of April, 2026

PRESENT: SRI PRITHVI RAJ D. T.,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

DVC.N O . 18 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Ruksana Begum, W/o: Md. Sarvar, D/o: Late: Mohammed Razzak, Aged about: 26 yrs, Occ: Household, R/o: 4-1239, Marthandanagar, New Hafeezpet, Miyapur-84 Phino. 9177203949 …Petitioner/Aggrieved Person

//AND//

Mohammed Sarvar, S/o: Mohd. Rahman, Aged about: 35 yrs, Occ: Vegetable Shop Business, R/o: Street no:12, C/o: Md. Khadeer, Quadeeriya Bakery, Adityanagar, New Hafeezpet, Miyapur …Respondent

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. M. N. Bhavani,Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri. Venkatesh Yadav, Learned Counsel for the Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This case is filed by the petitioner/aggrieved person under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “PWDV Act”) against the respondent, who is her husband, seeking the following reliefs:

1/11

DVC 18 of 2022 Date : 21-04-2026 PJCJ-VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally

i) To direct the Respondent to return a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- given towards dowry at the time of marriage and Rs.60,000/-cash given for purchasing a bike.

ii) To pass residential order directing the Respondent to provide alternate accommodation to the Petitioner or to pay rent of Rs.5000/- for the same under Sec.19 of the Act.

iii) To direct the Respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards interim monthly maintenance under Sec. 23 of the Act.

iv) To direct the Respondent to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-towards compensation under Sec. 22 of D.V. Act for subjecting the Petitioner to cruelty, dowry harassment, physical acts of aggression, hostile behavior, agony and trauma.

v) To direct the Respondent to return the following items given to the

Petitioner at the time of marriage:

a. Gold jewellery ornaments of the Petitioner including Rani haar, ear rings and finger rings -5 tulas.

b. Gold ring presented to the Respondent in marriage.

c. 35 dresses presented to the Petitioner at the time of marriage.

d. Furniture including cots, beds, almirah and e. Kitchen and household articles presented at the time of marriage.

vi) To direct the Respondent to return the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- incurred by the Petitioner's mother at the time of marriage.

2.The case of the Petitioner is as follows:

2.1. The Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 07-03-2019 as per Muslim rites and customs at

S.K. Function Hall, Marthandanagar, New Hafeezpet. It was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, as per the demands of the Respondent 2/11

DVC 18 of 2022 Date : 21-04-2026 PJCJ-VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally and his family members, namely his mother Zubeda Begum, brother Md.

Afsar, and sister Rizwana Begum, the Petitioner’s mother provided dowry consisting of Rs. 1,15,000/- cash, 5 tulas of gold jewellery, 35 dresses, a gold ring to the Respondent, Rs. 60,000/- towards purchase of a bike, furniture worth Rs. 2,00,000/-, and household articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/-. After marriage, the Petitioner joined the Respondent at his residence at

Adityanagar, Hafeezpet. The marriage was consummated, and no children were born out of the wedlock.

2.2. The Petitioner submits that she lived peacefully only for a few days after marriage, after which she was subjected to continuous harassment by the

Respondent and his family members for additional dowry of Rs. 8,00,000/- for construction of a house. The Petitioner, whose mother is a widow with five children, could not meet such unlawful demands. Thereafter, the

Respondent’s mother and sister subjected the Petitioner to constant taunts, insults, humiliation, and degrading treatment, alleging that insufficient dowry was given. The Petitioner was not permitted to wear her own clothes, was denied marital privacy, and was subjected to interference and mental harassment by the Respondent’s family members.

2.3. The Petitioner further submits that she was subjected to severe physical and mental cruelty. On one occasion, the Respondent’s mother physically assaulted her, causing an eye injury for which she was treated at Sarojini

Devi Eye Hospital. In another incident in June 2019, a water heater was placed near the Petitioner while she was asleep, creating a dangerous situation and indicating an attempt to harm her under the guise of negligence. The Respondent and his family also isolated the Petitioner, prevented her from speaking to her husband, and continuously abused her emotionally and verbally.

2.4. Due to the harassment, the Petitioner stayed at her maternal home for medical treatment. The Respondent avoided communication during this 3/11

DVC 18 of 2022 Date : 21-04-2026 PJCJ-VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally period. When the Petitioner returned to the matrimonial home on 05-09- 2019, the Respondent and his family abused her and her family members in filthy language and made false allegations regarding her character. The

Respondent physically assaulted the Petitioner by banging her head against a wall, and the Respondents also assaulted her family members. A false complaint was lodged against the Petitioner’s family, resulting in registration of Crime No. 755/2019. Subsequently, upon the Petitioner’s complaint and intervention by higher authorities, Police registered Crime

No. 910/2019 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act against the Respondents.

2.5. The Petitioner submits that despite efforts for reconciliation, the

Respondent refused to resume marital life and even threatened remarriage for dowry. The Respondent has neglected and deserted the Petitioner and retained all her dowry articles. The Petitioner is unemployed, studied up to 10th class, and is dependent on her family. The Respondent earns approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month. The Petitioner is therefore entitled to maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month, residence or rent of Rs. 5,000/-, return of all dowry articles, reimbursement of Rs. 10,00,000/- marriage expenses, and compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the cruelty and harassment suffered. Having no alternative remedy, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate relief for the cruelty, neglect, and harassment she has suffered at the hands of the

Respondent.

3. Notice was duly served upon the respondent, and a counter affidavit has been filed opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioner.

3.1. The Respondent denies all allegations made by the Petitioner as false, baseless, and fabricated, while admitting the marriage and absence of children. The Respondent submits that no dowry was ever demanded or received, and he bore the marriage expenses himself. It is contended that 4/11

DVC 18 of 2022 Date : 21-04-2026 PJCJ-VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally from the beginning, the Petitioner insisted that the Respondent separate from his family and reside at her parental home, which the Respondent refused, advising her instead to adjust with the joint family and discharge her marital responsibilities.

3.2. The Respondent submits that the Petitioner was non-cooperative in marital life, frequently left the matrimonial home without valid reasons, and stayed mostly at her parental house. She allegedly behaved disrespectfully towards the Respondent and his family, neglected household responsibilities, picked quarrels, used abusive language, and involved her family members, who supported her conduct and threatened the

Respondent. The Petitioner is further alleged to have expressed disinterest in the marriage, stating that she was forced into it and intended to leave at any time.

3.3. The Respondent contends that on 05-09-2019, the Petitioner quarreled, left the matrimonial home with her belongings, and later returned with her family members and assaulted the Respondent and his parents, leading to registration of Crime No. 755/2019 against her family. It is further alleged that the Petitioner subsequently filed a false case (Crime No. 910/2019 under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act) to harass the

Respondent and extract money. The Respondent asserts that the present petition is filed with mala fide intention, and as the Petitioner has voluntarily deserted the Respondent, she is not entitled to maintenance or any relief, and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and submitted three documents in support of her case. The Respondent deposed as RW1 and no documents were exhibited. Written arguments were filed by both parties.

5/11

DVC 18 of 2022 Date : 21-04-2026 PJCJ-VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally

5. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides and reviewing the material on record and the judgements relied upon by both the parties, the points for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for return of dowry amount of Rs.

1,15,000/- given at the time of marriage and Rs.60,000/- cash towards purchase of bike?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a residence order U/s. 19 of

PWDV Act directing the Respondent to provide alternate accommodation to the Petitioner or to pay rent of Rs.5000/-?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a monthly maintenance of Rs.

10,000/- to the Petitioner per month towards maintenance from the respondent U/s. 23 of PWDV Act?

4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs under section 22 of PWDV Act from the respondent for the mental agony and hardship allegedly suffered by the Petitioner?

5) Whether the petitioner is entitled for return of gold ornaments, dresses, furniture and household articles and also an amount of Rs.

10,00,000/- spent by her parents for her marriage?

6. Point No. 1 and 5:

6.1. As these two points are interconnected, they are considered together for the sake of brevity. The petitioner contends that at the time of marriage, her parents paid a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the respondent as dowry and an

additional sum of Rs. 60,000/- for the purchase of a motorcycle. It is not in

dispute that the parties are legally wedded spouses and are presently living separately due to matrimonial discord. It is a settled principle of law that the demand or acceptance of dowry is prohibited and constitutes a punishable offence. Any such demand, if established, would amount to unlawful gain and may also fall within the ambit of economic abuse as contemplated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

6/11

DVC 18 of 2022 Date : 21-04-2026 PJCJ-VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally 6.2. The petitioner alleges that the respondent received the aforementioned amounts at the time of marriage. In support of her claim, she examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the allegations on oath. However, she has not produced any documentary evidence or independent material to substantiate the alleged payment of dowry or the sum said to have been given for the purchase of a motorcycle. Likewise, no evidence has been adduced to establish that her parents incurred expenses of Rs. 15 lakhs towards the marriage or that the articles presented to her are presently in the custody of the respondent. Mere oral assertions, in the absence of corroborative evidence, are insufficient to discharge the burden of proof, particularly in matters involving serious allegations of dowry demand.

6.3. It is also significant that the petitioner had previously initiated criminal proceedings against the respondent for offences under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which culminated in acquittal in C.C. No. 4744 of 2019, as admitted by the petitioner herself. Although the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is higher, the acquittal on similar allegations places an additional evidentiary burden on the petitioner in the present proceedings. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, the allegations remain unsubstantiated.

6.4. During cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that the gold ornaments given to her by her parents are presently in her possession.

Therefore, the claim for return of those ornaments does not survive. On the other hand, the respondent, examined as RW1, admitted during cross- examination that he received a gold ring and a silver ring at the time of marriage, and further acknowledged that certain household articles such as an almirah, cot and other items were presented to the petitioner by her family. In view of these admissions and considering that the parties have been living separately for a considerable period, the petitioner is entitled to the return of the said admitted articles, which are in the possession of the respondent.

7/11

DVC 18 of 2022 Date : 21-04-2026 PJCJ-VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally 6.5. Insofar as the claim for return of marriage expenses of Rs. 10 lakhs, the alleged dowry amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- and the sum of Rs. 60,000/- said to have been given for the purchase of a motorcycle are concerned, the petitioner has failed to produce reliable evidence to substantiate these claims. Consequently, these reliefs cannot be granted. The respondent is, however, directed to return the admitted articles, namely the gold ring, silver ring, almirah, cot and other household items, to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

7. Point No. 2 and 3:

7.1. These points are also interrelated and are therefore dealt with together.

The record reveals that this Court had previously granted maintenance to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month, along with Rs. 2,000/- per month towards alternative accommodation, by order dated 21-09-2022 in

Crl.M.P. No. 1772 of 2022. It is evident from the record that the respondent

has only partially complied with the said order and that arrears remain unpaid. There is no material to show that any appeal or modification petition is pending against the said order. During the present proceedings, neither party has brought on record any subsequent change in circumstances warranting modification of the earlier order.

7.2. The evidence on record indicates that the petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. The respondent, being her husband, is under a legal obligation to provide maintenance. His failure to comply with the maintenance order, despite having knowledge of the same, amounts to economic abuse within the meaning of the law. At the same time, it is noted that the respondent earns his livelihood as a daily wage worker by selling vegetables. Taking into account his financial capacity, the quantum of maintenance previously fixed appears to be reasonable and does not call for interference. Accordingly, the earlier order is confirmed, and the respondent is directed to continue payment of 8/11

DVC 18 of 2022 Date : 21-04-2026 PJCJ-VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally maintenance as ordered. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps for recovery of any arrears in accordance with law.

8. Point No. 4:

8.1. The petitioner has also sought compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs on account of alleged cruelty, dowry harassment, physical abuse, and mental trauma.

However, as already discussed, the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner on similar allegations resulted in acquittal. The present petition has been filed after a considerable lapse of time, and the petitioner has not produced any credible evidence to substantiate the allegations. There is no documentary evidence of dowry demand, no medical records to support claims of physical violence, and no other material to establish sustained harassment or abuse.

8.2. Although the petitioner examined one additional witness, his testimony does not materially support the allegations of domestic violence or cruelty.

The pleadings and evidence on record do not disclose any sufficient basis for quantifying or awarding such a substantial amount as compensation. In the absence of proof of injury, loss, or continued acts of violence, the claim for compensation cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the relief sought under this head is declined. The points are answered in the above terms.

In the result this petition is allowed partly granting the following reliefs:

i) The respondent is directed to return the gold ring, silver ring presented to him at the time of marriage by the petitioner’s family and also the almirah, cot and household articles if any to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order.

ii) The respondent is directed to pay on or before 10th of every calendar month a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner towards her monthly maintenance from the date of filing this petition and a sum of Rs.2000/- towards securing alternative residential accommodation from date of order 9/11

DVC 18 of 2022 Date : 21-04-2026 PJCJ-VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally in Crl.M.P.1772 of 2022 dated 21-09-2022. The arrears accrued shall be paid in six installments within six months from the date of this order and the regular maintenance shall be paid from the coming month directly into the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to furnish the particulars of her bank account to the respondent. The petition is dismissed as far as the other reliefs are concerned.

Note: A copy of this order shall be given to the parties free of cost, a copy shall be forwarded to SHO Miyapur Police Station and the District Protection

Officer,R.R. District U/Sec 24 of Protection of Women from Domestic

ViolenceAct, 2005.

(Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 21 st day of April, 2026).

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

PW1 :Ruksana Begum

FOR RESPONDENT :

RW1 :Mohammed Sarvar 10/11

DVC 18 of 2022 Date : 21-04-2026 PJCJ-VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P1 :Wedding card dated 07.03.2019

Ex.P2 :Marriage photographs

Ex.P3 :FIR in Crime no. 910/2019 dated 19.10.2019

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Nil

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

11/11

OS 995 of 2023

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 21-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

Tuesday, the 21st day of April, 2026

PRESENT: SRI PRITHVI RAJ D.T.,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 995 OF 2023

Between:

Mrs. Jyothi Munglani W/o Mr.Maneesh Munglani Aged 49 years, Occ: Household, R/o G-6, AWHO colony, Sector-C, Secunderabad, T.S. ….Plaintiff AND 1.Mr.Maneesh Munglani, S/o Late Purshotham Munglani, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.5, Jawahar Rail Colony, Sikh Village, Diamond Point, Secunderabad.

2.Mr.Sumeet Munglani, S/o late Purshotham Munglani, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.5, Jawahar Rail Colony, Sikh Village, Diamond Point, Secunderabad

...Defendant

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Dhirendra Singh,Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri. Bhadri Raju, Learned Counsel for the defendant. Thus having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a judgment and decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no.1, his agents, heirs, legal representatives, authorities, assignees and servants, restraining from alienating or transferring the suit property.

1/7

OS 995 of 2023

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 21-04-2026

2.The plaintiff’s case is as follows:

2.1. The Plaintiff submits that Defendant No.1 is her husband and

Defendant No.2 is the elder brother of Defendant no 1. The Defendants jointly purchased the suit schedule property which is a Residential Flat

No.502, admeasuring 2160 sq. ft. super built-up area with two car parking spaces Nos. 18 & 19, situated at My Home Vihanga-2, Gopanpally Village under registered Sale Deed Doc. No. 3373/2017.

2.2.The plaintiff filed DVC No.67/2021 against Defendant No.1 before the

III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, seeking maintenance, wherein in

Crl.M.P. No.89/2021, an interim order was passed restraining Defendant

No.1 from alienating the suit property until payment of dues, with liberty to attach and sell the property upon default. Despite such order, during pendency of proceedings, Defendant No.1 may attempt to alienate or encumber the suit property or other assets to evade payment and defeat her rights, though he or anyone claiming through him has no lawful authority to do so pending litigation. Any such act would cause irreparable loss and injustice to the Plaintiff and no prior suit has been filed by the

Plaintiff against the Defendants in respect of the subject matter, making her to file the present suit.

3. Summons were served on the defendants, who have filed their written statement opposing the claim seeking dismissal of the suit.

3.1. In the written statement it is admitted that the Plaintiff filed DVC

No.67/2021 against Defendant No.1 before the Hon’ble III Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad, seeking maintenance, and that in Crl.M.P.

No.89/2021 an interim order was passed restraining Defendant No.1 from alienating his property until payment of dues, with an observation that any such alienation would amount to evasion and that the Court would be constrained to order attachment and sale upon default. However, it is specifically contended that the said order pertains only to Plot No.43 and 2/7

OS 995 of 2023

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 21-04-2026 not to the present suit property, and that the Plaintiff has deliberately misrepresented the docket order by including the suit flat therein, as no restraint or attachment order was ever passed in respect of the suit property either before or at the time of filing the present suit.

3.2. The Defendants deny all allegations of the Plaintiff in toto and contend that the present suit has been filed with a malafide intention to harass

Defendant No.1, who is suffering from serious medical conditions including diabetic retinopathy, kidney ailments, nocturia-related leg swelling, and chronic lung disease. It is further asserted that the subject matter is already pending before the Hon’ble III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, that the

Plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands, and that the

Defendant was instead promised a share in the Plaintiff’s property in return for his services for which he was underpaid. Hence, he requested the Court to dismiss the suit.

4. Based on these pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

i) Whether an order passed in favour of the plaintiff in Crl.M.P 89 of 2021 in DVC 67 of 2021 needs to be enforced by this court by way of perpetual injunction against the defendants?

ii) Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

iii) Whether a perpetual injunction can be granted in favour of the defendant no.1 as prayed for?

iv) To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and seven documents were exhibited to establish her claim. The defendant was examined as DW1 and four documents were exhibited to establish his claim.

6. Heard the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant. Perused the record and the written submissions.

3/7

OS 995 of 2023

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 21-04-2026

7. Issues no 1 to 3:

7.1.All the issues being interconnected are decided together for brevity.

The present suit is filed by the wife against the husband and his brother in the nature of perpetual injunction restraining him from alienating the suit schedule property. The relief is governed by the provisions Specific Relief

Act, 1963. It is a settled principle that an injunction can be granted only to protect an existing legal or equitable right of the plaintiff and the existence of such a right is a sine qua non for the grant of the relief.

7.2.In the present case, it is not in dispute that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of the defendants. The plaintiff has not claimed any title, ownership, co-ownership or any other proprietary interest in the said property. She has also not pleaded that she is in possession of the suit schedule property or that she has been dispossessed therefrom. The suit is one for bare injunction without any prayer for declaration of right or for recovery of possession.

7.3.The entire claim of the plaintiff is founded upon the interim order passed in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005. According to the plaintiff the Court of III Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad vide orders in Crl.M.P. 89 of 2021 dated 22-07-2021

granted a relief in her favour restraining the Defendant no 1 from alienating the suit schedule property. The certified copy of the order is Ex.A1. A perusal of this order goes to show that the court has restrained the Defendant no 1 herein who is the Respondent no 1 therein from alienating the shared household till the disposal of the main DVC.

7.4.In para number 8.2 of the said order the concerned court has categorically observed that as per section 19(1)(d) of PWDV Act the court can restrain the respondent only from alienating the shared household but no other properties. This goes to show that the Ex.A1 order is only with regard to the shared household and not other properties mentioned in the 4/7

OS 995 of 2023

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 21-04-2026 petition. It is further evident from para number 1.1 of the same order that the property which is plot bearing number 5, Jawahar Rail colony, Sikh

Village, Diamond Point, Secunderabad - 50009 is actually the “shared household” and not the suit schedule flat. The very document relied upon by the plaintiff clearly shows that the order passed by the Concerned court dealing with the Domestic Violence Case does not specifically relate to the suit schedule property and is stated to pertain to another property, which is not within the jurisdiction of this court.

7.5.Even assuming for a moment that such an order exists and is implied against the suit schedule property, it is clear that the same is an order passed by a Magistrate in proceedings under a special enactment and is intended to operate within the framework of that statute. The enforcement of such an order is also provided under the said enactment itself. A civil court, while exercising jurisdiction in a suit for injunction, cannot convert or extend an order passed in separate proceedings into a decree affecting immovable property, particularly when the property in question is not clearly covered by such order. The jurisdiction of this Court is not barred, but the relief sought must be justified independently on the basis of a legally enforceable right recognized in civil law.

7.6.The plaintiff has not established any such right. A mere apprehension that the defendant may alienate his property, in the absence of a corresponding legal right in favour of the plaintiff, cannot be a ground to grant an injunction. The relief of injunction cannot be used to impose a restriction on the lawful exercise of ownership rights by a person over his self-acquired property, unless the plaintiff demonstrates a legally protectable interest in the same.

7.7.Though the plaintiff may have certain remedies available to her under the proceedings pending before the Magistrate, including enforcement of any interim orders passed therein, such remedies cannot be transposed into 5/7

OS 995 of 2023

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 21-04-2026 a civil suit of this nature so as to create a restraint on alienation of property in which she has no established legal interest. The attempt of the plaintiff is, in effect, to derive a restriction on the defendant’s proprietary rights solely on the basis of an order which is neither shown to be applicable to the suit property nor enforceable through the present proceedings. In the absence of any pleading or proof of possession, title, or any other legally recognized right in respect of the suit schedule property, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. The plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie right, the balance of convenience, or the likelihood of irreparable injury in the manner required for grant of such relief. For all the aforesaid reasons, the issues are answered against the plaintiff.

8. Issues no 4:

8.1.Since issues 1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiff, she is not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for. Consequently the suit is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the suit is dismissed.

(Typed by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on 21 st day of April, 2026)

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW1 : Jyothi Munglani 6/7

OS 995 of 2023

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 21-04-2026

FOR DEFENDANT:

DW1 : Maneesh Munglani

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 :Common order copy of Crl.M.P.No. 82 and Crl.M.P.No. 89 of 2024 in DVC.No. 67 of 2021 dated 22-07-2021

Ex.A2 :Appeal order copy of DVC court.

Ex.A3 :Order copy in IA 211 of 2020 in FCOP 173 of 2018 dated 27-03-2020

Ex.A4 :High Court Stay Order of FCOP No. 173 of 2018

Ex.A5 :Docket order of DVC 67 of 2021 dated 15-09-2023

Ex.A6 :Aadhar of plaintiff vide no. 375933355403

Ex.A7 :Registered sale deed vide Doc.No. 3373/2017 in the name of defendants

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1 :Docket order in Crl.M.P 309 of 2024 dated 02-04-2024

Ex.B2 :Docket order in IA No. 90 of 2024 dated 26-07-2024

Ex.B3 :Docket order in IA No. 368 of 2024 dated 22-04-2025

Ex.B4 :Certified copy of memo dated 08-07-2025

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

7/7

OS 579 of 2024

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 06-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

Monday, the 6th day of April, 2026

PRESENT: SRI PRITHVI RAJ D.T.,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 579 OF 2024

Between:

Mr. Ashish Parik S/o Mr. Mahesh Kantilal Parikh Age: 47 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee R/o 1-11-250-6, Near Shopper's Stop, Begumpet, Hyderabad Rep. By his SPA Holder Mr. Radhesham Totwala S/o Late Shamdas, Age: 72 years, R/o H.no. 3-6-226/A, Panchvati, StreetNo.15. Old MLA quarters, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500080 …Plaintiff

AND

Mr. Anjaneya Verma S/o Y. Ramalinga Raju. R/o Flat No. 1002, Block- K (Cristallo) Phase-1, Kondapur Village, Serlingampally Mandal, R.R. District.

...Defendant

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B. Vamshidhar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri. Y. Anantha Raman, Learned Counsel for the defendant. Thus having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The suit is filed for eviction, recovery of rental arrears, future rents along with interest of 18% per annum and mesne profits of Rs. 60,000/- per month from the date of filing the suit till delivery of possession.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

2.1.The Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property which is a Flat bearing No. 1002 in SMR Vinay Iconia, Kondapur by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 12.07.2018. The Defendant was inducted as a 1/7

OS 579 of 2024

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 06-04-2026 tenant under Rental Agreement dated 12.01.2021 for 11 months commencing from 22.01.2021, agreeing to pay rent of Rs37,000/- per month and maintenance, subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and then Rs.43,000/- as per agreed terms. After expiry of lease on 21.12.2021, the tenancy continued on a monthly basis with mutually agreed enhanced rents of Rs. 40,000/- till December 2022 and Rs. 43,000/- thereafter from

January 2023.

2.2. The Defendant paid rents only up to April 2022 and thereafter defaulted, citing financial difficulties and seeking deferment till January 2023, which the Plaintiff allowed on humanitarian grounds. However, the

Defendant continued irregular and deficient payments, failed to clear dues, and remained in unauthorized occupation despite repeated personal and

WhatsApp requests. As of August 2024, total arrears amount to

Rs.6,77,000/- with interest @18% amounting to Rs.97,215/-, totaling

Rs.7,74,215/-. The Defendant has deliberately avoided payment while continuing possession, causing financial and mental hardship to the Plaintiff.

2.3. Due to persistent default and refusal to vacate, the Plaintiff issued an eviction notice dated 17.07.2024 demanding vacation within 15 days and payment of Rs.7,74,215/-. The Defendant received the notice on 20.07.2024 and issued a reply dated 01.08.2024 denying the claims. Prior thereto, the

Plaintiff lodged a police complaint on 29.04.2024 at Gachibowli Police

Station due to the Defendant’s conduct, including threats. Despite this, the

Defendant continues in possession without payment. The Plaintiff has no alternative remedy and has not filed any other proceedings, hence the present suit for eviction.

3.Summons served upon the defendant and he filed a written statement.

2/7

OS 579 of 2024

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 06-04-2026

The brief facts of the written statement are as follows:

3.1. The Defendant claims that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts, being based on false, fabricated, and frivolous allegations filed with mala fide intent to harass and unlawfully enrich the Plaintiff, and is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs. The Defendant disputes the alleged SPA authorization and submits that the burden of proving ownership of the suit schedule property lies on the Plaintiff.

3.2.The Defendant admits tenancy commencing January 2021 at

Rs.37,000/- per month for a period of two years 22.01.2021 to 22.01.2023.

He claims that the enhancement to Rs.40,000/- was accepted under coercion and compulsion due to Plaintiff’s pressure. The Defendant further submits that the lease was mutually extended from January 2023 till January 2025, which material fact has been deliberately suppressed by the Plaintiff. The

Plaintiff’s version of monthly tenancy and further enhancements to

Rs.43,000/- is false and denied.

3.3. The Defendant has regularly paid rent and maintenance up to July 2024 through online transfers and cash without receipts due to trust, and denies all alleged defaults, including specific months cited. The alleged arrears of

Rs.7,74,215/- are false and invented. The Plaintiff has misrepresented cash payments as unpaid and failed to remit maintenance to the association, causing hardship. Allegations regarding default, eviction demands, threats, and police complaints are false and defamatory, with no crime registered.

The legal notice was issued with ulterior motives after refusal of unlawful rent increase. The suit lacks cause of action and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4.During the enquiry, the plaintiff filed a petition under order XVA of

C.P.C which was allowed and the defendant was directed to pay rental 3/7

OS 579 of 2024

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 06-04-2026 arrears from May, 2022. However, the defendant did not comply with the order as such the defence was struck off on the petition filed by the plaintiffs. As there is no defence, no issues had to be framed. The SPA

Holder of the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and fourteen documents were exhibited through him. The plaintiff was examined as PW2.

5. Heard and perused the material on record.

6. Now the points of determination are:

i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to seek eviction of the Defendant from the suit schedule property?

ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the rental arrears along

with mesne profits from the defendant?

7. Point No 1 :

7.1. In support of the plaintiff's case, the SPA holder of Plaintiff deposed as

PW1 and exhibited fourteen documents. The plaintiff himself was also examined as PW2 affirms the pleadings on oath. ExA1 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed vide Doc No. 11601 of 2018 dated 12.07.2018. ExA2 is the

Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.A3 is the office copy of the legal notice and

ExA4 and A5 are proof of its service. The notice speaks about the lease agreement between the parties to the suit and even the Defendant does not dispute the fact that there was an agreement between the owner of the property and the defendant wherein he has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.

37,000/- as monthly rent initially. The affidavits filed by the PW1 and PW2 are in consonance with the plaint averments and they remained unchallenged as the defence of the defendants was struck off for non compliance of the orders of this court. The assertions made by the PW1 and PW2 are not in dispute and even the defendant had no rival claim against the suit schedule property. The defendant has not replied to the eviction notice given under 4/7

OS 579 of 2024

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 06-04-2026 section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and there is no evidence which would suggest that the lease is still in force. When there is no such lease as on date, the defendant being the tenant in suit schedule property is obligated to vacate the same on receipt of such notice. However the defendant chose not to do so. The contention of the plaintiffs is also unchallenged and the oral testimony supported by the above documents is sufficient to prove their claim. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the suit schedule premises.

8. Point No 2:

8.1.As stated before, the court has already directed the defendant to pay the arrears of rent, by allowing the petition filed by the plaintiff under order

XVA of C.P.C. However the defendant did not comply with the directions of this court as such the defence was struck off. Subsequently, in due course of enquiry, no material was placed before this court showing that the order passed to pay the rental arrears was set aside or otherwise complied.

Nothing was elicited disputing the admitted rent. Therefore the court is of the view that the order passed to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs. 43,000/- per month from the month of May, 2022 till the date of decree holds good. But the interest claimed by the plaintiff is exorbitant and therefore the court views that interest @12% on the rental arrears from the month of May, 2022 till the date of decree should be just and reasonable.

8.2.So far as mesne profits is concerned, the plaintiffs are claiming a sum of Rs. 60,000/- addition to the rent. However, in due course of enquiry they have not put forth any material justifying their claim. As the rental arrears are already granted in favour of the plaintiff along with interest till the date of decree, the court views that the mesne profits shall be computed based on previous rent of Rs. 43,000/- with an enhancement of Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of decree till the date of delivery of possession. The defendant is therefore directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month from 5/7

OS 579 of 2024

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 06-04-2026 the date of decree until he delivers possession of the property to the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed partly with costs directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property within one month from the date of this Judgement failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed under due process of law. The defendant is directed to pay the rental arrears @ Rs. 43,000/- per month for the suit schedule property from May, 2022 till the date of decree along with interest @12% on the rental arrears from the month of May, 2022 till the date of decree and further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the date of decree till the date he vacates the suit schedule premises towards mesne profits.

(Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on the 6 th day of April, 2026).

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII AJMFC, KUKATPALLY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW1 : Radhesham Totwala PW2 : Ashish Parik

FOR DEFENDANT:

- None - 6/7

OS 579 of 2024

PJCJ - VIII AJMFC, Kukatpally. Date: 06-04-2026

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 :Certified copy of Sale Deed vide Doc No. 11601 of 2018 dated 12.07.2018. Ex.A2 :Encumbrance Certificate vide statement no.165009157 issued by SRO Ranga Reddy for the period of 29 years from 01.01.1995 to 11.08.2024 dated 12.08.2024. Ex.A3 :Office copy of the legal notice dated 17.07.2024

Ex.A4 :Original postal receipt vide tracking no. RN090600650IN dated 18.07.2024. Ex.A5 :Tracking report of the consignment.

Ex.A6 :Copy of the reply notice issued by defendant dated 01.08.2024.

Ex.A7 :Market value certificate dated 09.08.2024

Ex.A8 :Special power of attorney.

Ex.A9 :Bank statement for the period from 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021 along with certificate U/Sec 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.A10 :Bank statement for the period from 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022 along with certificate U/Sec 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.A11 :Bank statement for the period from 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2023 along with certificate U/Sec 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.A12 :Bank statement for the period from 01.01.2024 to 30.06.2024 along with certificate U/Sec 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.A13 :Original rental agreement dated 12.01.2021

Ex.A14 :Police complaint along with acknowledgements vide acknowledgment no. CYB/GCHBL_CYB/290424/01804 issued by PS Gachibowli dated 29.04.2024

FOR DEFENDANT:

- Nil -

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VIII AJMFC KUKATPALLY

7/7

CC No. 834 of 2017Page No. 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF II AJCJ –CUM- X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

Present: Smt. Racharla Shalini II AJCJ-cum-X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

R.R. District. at Kukatpally

Dated this the 09th day of February, 2026

CC. No. 834 of 2017

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Gachibowli.

...Complainant

A N D

1. Mohd. Katal Ahmed S/o. Md. Ibrahim, Age: 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat # 8, 1st floor, Divya apartments SBH building, Moosapet, Kukatpally.

2. Shaik Mujeeb S/o. Hussain, Age: 28 years, Occ: Realtor, R/o. H # 8-3-228/678/158, Sriram nagar, Yusufguda, Hyderabad.

3. G. Anjaneyulu S/o. Yadagiri, Age: 30 years Occ: Electrician, R/o. H# 8-45/1, Isnapur cross roads, Patancheru.

4. Lanka Narsimlu S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H#8-45/1, Isnapur cross roads, Patancheru.

5. Smt. Shaik Gousiya W/o. Late Shaik Abdul Rahaman Age: 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Water line galli, Aditya Nagar new Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Hyderabad.

6. Shaik Raheena Begum W/o. Late Shaik Abdul Rahaman Age: 33 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Water line galli, Aditya Nagar new Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Hyderabad city.

7. Smt. Syed Shaheen Begum W/o. Syed Chand Pasha Age: 32 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Subash Chandra Bose Nagar, New Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Hyderabad city.

8. Smt. Nadagasu Mariyamma W/o. Late Ashirvadam Age: 45 years, R/o. Water line galli, Aditya Nagar New Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Hyderabad.

9. Syed Masthan S/o. Late Peer Sahab, Age: 35 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. Water line galli, Aditya Nagar, New Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Hyderabad city.

CC No. 834 of 2017Page No. 2 of 7

10.Smt. Nammireddy Sushelamma @ Susheela W/o. Late Prathap Reddy, Age: 70 years, Occ: Sr. citizen, R/o. Gokul plots, Kukatpally Hyderabad city. ….Accused No. 1 to 10 (The case against the accused No. 1, 3 to 6, 8 to 10 is split up as per the docket order,

dated 03.04.2024)

This case is coming on 03-02-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and E. Eswar Chander, Counsel for accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Gachibowli filed charge sheet in Cr. No. 103 of 2017 for the offence punishable U/sec. 448, 427, 506, 109 r/w 34 IPC against accused

No. 1 to 10.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

On 02.03.2017 at about 09.30 hours, the Lw1/Smt. Shaheen Begum lodged a complaint stating that on 02.03.2017 at 07.00 hours, 25 unknown male persons and 5 unknown female persons went in four auto rickshaws, damaged the walls of her house with hammers, broken the electricity meter and took it away. They have also broken the cameras and threatened her to vacate the plot. When she refused to move away, they had broken the walls of the house. Hence, she requested to take action.

3.Basing on the contents of the complaint, the Lw5/Ch. Ramaiah registered a case in Cr. No. 103/2017 U/s. 448, 427, 506 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Lw1 & 2/Smt.

Shaheen Begum, Wajeed Khan and visited scene of offence and inspected scene minutely in the presence of Lw3 & 4/M. Thitupathi, P. Srisailam and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch. Later, he issued notice U/s.

CC No. 834 of 2017Page No. 3 of 7

41a-(1) Cr.P.C. to the accused No. 1 to 10 and directed them to attend this court on receipt of summons. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before this court.

4.After considering the material papers on record, this Court taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC and issued summons to accused No. 1 to 10. The case against the accused No. 1, 3 to 6, 8 to 10 is split up as per the docket order, dated 03.04.2024.

5.On receipt of summons, the accused No. 2, 7 appeared before this court, copies of case documents are furnished to them as contemplated under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., the accused No. 2, 7 engaged the counsel to defend their case.

6.Later, the accused No. 2, 7 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/sec. 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC and explained the substance of accusation to accused No. 2, 7 for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, issued summons to the witnesses.

7.In order to prove the guilt of the accused No. 2, 7, the prosecution has chosen to examine the PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and has not chosen to examine Lw3/M. Thitupathi.

8.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused No. 2 & 3 were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating substances appearing against them for which they denied and reported no defense evidence.

CC No. 834 of 2017Page No. 4 of 7

9.Heard arguments on both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused No. 2 & 7 for the offence punishable U/sec. 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC against accused No. 2 & 7 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

11.The learned Asst. Public prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, in order to establish the case of the prosecution and the said witnesses clearly deposed that the accused has committed the alleged offence for which he is charged, as such he is liable for conviction for the same.

12. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that there are several contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the

Investigation Officer failed to establish that the accused persons have criminally trespassed and threatened the PW1 with dire consequences and also submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are having enemical terms and also there are civil disputes with regard to the said property as such they have purposefully deposed against the accused persons and moreover, the PW3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, nothing was elicited from his evidence, as such their testimony cannot be looked into to believe the case of the prosecution, finally requested to acquit the accused for the alleged offences.

13.Now this court will scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution whether it is sufficient to believe version of the prosecution against the accused.

14.PW1 deposed that on 02.03.2017 at about 07.00 AM, around 25 people went in

CC No. 834 of 2017Page No. 5 of 7

four autos and attacked them, among them 5 persons are women who tried to attack them and threatened them to come out of the house i.e., Plot Br. No. 89-90, situated at

Gopanpally village, Gachibowli and they have also damaged the walls of the house with hammers and also broken the electricity meter and took it away. Once they went out of the house, they have damaged the entire house walls as such, suspecting the person by name Namireddy Sushelamma, they went to PS Gachibowli and lodged a complaint against the accused persons.

15.During her cross-examination, she admitted that as on the date of alleged offence, there is a civil suit pending over the plot No. 89 to 90 and prior to the alleged offence, she has no acquaintance with the accused persons and she came to know the names of the accused persons through police officials.

16.PW2 deposed same as in the lines of PW1.

17.PW3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and got marked Ex.P2 i.e., his signature on the scene of offence panchanama, nothing was elicited in the favour of the prosecution.

18.PW4 deposed that on 02.03.2017 at about 09.30 hours, he received a complaint from PW1, based on its contents, he registered the FIRvide Cr. No. 103/2017 for the offence punishable U/s. 448, 427, 506, 109 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 &

PW2 and then visited the alleged scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama by securing the presence of PW3 & Lw3/M. Tirupathi and also drawn the rough sketch.Later, he issued Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused No. 1 to 9, since

CC No. 834 of 2017Page No. 6 of 7

the accused No. 10 is absconding, he could not serve Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 10 with a request to issue NBW against accused No. 10.

19.During his cross-examination, he admitted that the plot numbers of PW1 and the accused No. 10 are different but both of them are claiming same property and the plot numbers given by the PW1 are not tallying physically and further admitted that there are no neighbouring houses over the alleged scene of offence.

20.Upon perusal of the evidence of the PW1 to PW4, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons had attacked the PW1 & PW2, threatened them and also damaged the walls of the house of PW1, broke the electricity meter. After knowing the same, the PW1 & PW2 had lodged the complaint. It is the contention of the accused persons is that the property is the disputed property and there is a civil suit pending. From the evidence, it is clear that there are civil disputes pertaining to the subject land between the PW1 & PW2 and the accused persons. As such, at this stage, it cannot be termed as criminal trespass and accused persons have caused mischief over the subject land. In the instant case, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties, there is a cloud regarding the title and possession of the subject land. PW4, who is the Investigation Officer in the present case, categorically admitted that he knows about the civil disputes pending in between the parties during his investigation. Hence, in view of the above said discussions, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged offences against the accused No. 2 & 7 beyond reasonable doubts for which the accused No. 2 & 7 are entitled for acquittal.

CC No. 834 of 2017Page No. 7 of 7

21.In the result, the Accused No. 2 & 7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused No. 2 & 7 shall be in force for a period of six months from today as per Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. The investigation officer has not seized any property as such no orders passed in that regard.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 09th day of February, 2026)

sd/-

II AJCJ-cum-X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1 : Shaheen Begum- NONE - PW2 : Abdul Wajid Khan PW3 : P. Srisailam PW4 : Ch. Ramaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

1. Ex.P1 : Report - NIL -

2. Ex.P2 : PW3 signature on scene of offence panchanama

3. Ex.P3 : FIR

3. Ex.P4 : Scene of offence panchanama

4. Ex.P5 : Rough sketch

sd/-

II AJCJ-cum-X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally

OS No. 209 of 2024Page No. 1 of 4

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

X ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: Sri. Prithvi Raj D.T.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

VIII Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

R.R. District at Kukatpally

(FAC) II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

R.R. District at Kukatpally

DATED, THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 209 OF 2024

Between: Bhaskar Agrochemicals Limited Gowra Fountain Head, Office Unit # 608, 6th Floor, Survey No. 83(P) & 84 (P), Patrika Nagar, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081. Rep by its Authorised Representative, Alapati Nageswara Rao, Aged about 60 years, Empowered under Board Resolution, dated 12.12.2023. …Plaintiff

AND

1. M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers Pesticides and Seeds Address at #5-55, main road, Elkathurthy, Elkathurthy Mandal, Warangal Urban, Telangana – 505476. Rep by its Proprietor Kotha Sampath Reddy

2. Kotha Sampath Reddy S/o. Kotha Ramreddy, Age: 47 years, Partner of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers Pesticides and Seeds, address at #2-47, Bavandla Palli, Koppur, Bhemadevarapally, Warangal (Urban), Telangana – 505497.

3. Smt. Kotha Prabha W/o. Kotha Sampath Reddy Age: 43 years, Partner of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers Pesticides and Seeds, address at #2-47, Bavandla Palli, Koppur, Bhemadevarapally, Warangal (Urban), Telangana – 505497

...Defendants

OS No. 209 of 2024Page No. 2 of 4

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S.V.S. Chowdary, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff, whereas the defendants remained ex-parte. Thus having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,58,476/- (Rupees One Lakh fifty eight thousand four hundred and seventy six only) with interest 18% per annum on the suit amount from the date of filing the suit to till the date of recovery and realization.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

2.1.It is submitted that the plaintiff is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and into the business of manufacture of

Agrochemicals Formulations and its distribution and sale through dealers. The defendant was appointed as a dealer at Elkathurthy, Telangana for sale of the said agrochemicals products and a ledger account would be maintained by the plaintiff for the agrochemicals goods supplied to the defendants, the amount payable by the defendants to the plaintiff is Rs.1,03,974/-, in addition to interest amount of Rs.54,502/- totaling to Rs.1,58,476/-. The defendants have defaulted in making payment, as such, the plaintiff issued a legal notice, dated 09.02.2024 to the defendants, however the defendants failed to comply with the same.

Hence, the Plaintiff filed this suit.

3.Summons were served upon the defendants. However, none appeared hence, they were set ex parte.

4.During the enquiry, the Authorized representative of the plaintiff company was examined as PW1 and twelve documents were exhibited.

5.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point of determination is: “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount with interest as prayed for?”

OS No. 209 of 2024Page No. 3 of 4

7.POINT:

7.1.To establish the claim against the defendants, the authorised representative of the plaintiff company examined as PW1 by filing an affidavit wherein the pleadings were reiterated on oath. The evidence has remained unchallenged and undisputed as the defendants remained ex parte to the proceedings. Further, documentary evidence exhibited before this court is also in consonance with the oral evidence. The documents listed in the appendix to this judgment are reviewed and they categorically establish the fact that the defendants are liable to pay the suit claim to the plaintiff. As there is no proof of payment after filing this suit. The plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for. But, so far as the future interest is concerned, the Court is of the view that an interest rate of 6% from the date of decree till realization on the suit claim would be just and reasonable.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.1,58,476/- (Rupees One Lakh fifty eight thousand four hundred and seventy six only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants along with interest @ 6% on the cheque amount from the date of dishonour till realization.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of March, 2026)

sd/-

(FAC) II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate R.R. Dist. at Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1: Alapati Nageswara Rao-Nil-

OS No. 209 of 2024Page No. 4 of 4

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

1. Ex.A1 is the statement of ledger account from 01.04.2021 to 09.02.2024

2. Ex.A2 is the Tax invoice, dated 19.07.2021

3. Ex.A3 is the Tax invoice, dated 30.07.2021

4. Ex.A4 is the Tax invoice, dated 23.08.2021

5. Ex.A5 is the Tax invoice, dated 30.09.2021

6. Ex.A6 is the Tax invoice, dated 08.10.2021

7. Ex.A7 is the receipts issued by Hyderabad Medically Transport (5 in No.)

8. Ex.A8 is the office copy of legal notice (3 in No.), dated 09.02.2024

9. Ex.A9 is the original postal receipt (3 in No.), dated 09.02.2024 10.Ex.A10 is the postal return covers (3 in No.) 11.Ex.A11 is the original Incorporation certificate.

12.Ex.A12 is the original authorization letter

For Defendants: -None-

sd/-

(FAC) II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

R.R. Dist. at Kukatpally