R.Lavanya

1 O.S 53 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- Ms. R. Lavanya, Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First class, Jagtial.

Monday, the 20th day of April, 2026

O.S.NO. 53 OF 2020

Between : Kalaveni Bhagya Laxmi, W/o: Rajaiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Aggimalla village of Gollapalli mandal, now residing at Suddapelli village of Pegadapalli mandal.

...Plaintiff

And

Thadaveni Rajaiah, S/o: Hanmanthu, Age: 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-5/6, Aggimalla village of Gollapalli mandal of Jagtal.

...Defendant

***

Claim:- Suit for Declaration of Title and for cancellation of sale deed

This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. T.

Surender, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri Ch. Mallaiah, Advocate for

Defendant and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff seeking declaration of her title over land in Sy.No.298/A an extent of Ac.0.24 guntas situated at Aggimalla village of Gollapalli Mandal, Jagtial District (hereinafter called as the suit schedule property) and to cancel the registered sale deed vide Document bearing No.2681 of 2018 dt. 07-9-2018 on the file of SRO, Mallial executed 2 O.S.No. 53 of 2020 by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of suit schedule property.

Plaintiffs case in brief:

2.The plaintiff submits that her grandfather, Tadavani Hanumanthu, was the original owner and possessor of agricultural wet land admeasuring

Ac.0.24 guntas in Survey No. 298/A/2 situated at Shivar Aggimalla village and after the death of her grand father/Hanumanthu, the property was partitioned between his two sons, namely, Tadavani Pochiah (father of the plaintiff) and

Tadavani Rajaiah (defendant). In the said partition, the plaintiff’s father is stated to have been allotted Ac.0.12 guntas in Survey No. 267/A/2 and Ac.1.12 guntas in Survey No. 298/A/2, and his name was accordingly mutated in the revenue records.

3.It is the further case of the plaintiff that in the year 2018, his father executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of

Ac.0.24 guntas of land out of Ac.01-12 gunts without her consent. According to the plaintiff, the said property is joint family property, and therefore, her father had no authority to alienate the same solely. The plaintiff also alleges that her father was addicted to consuming alcohol and was mismanaging the joint family properties. It is stated that earlier, the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition in O.S. No. 352 of 2018 on the file of this court, which came to be dismissed for default, and thereafter, her father died on 02.02.2019, leaving the plaintiff as her sole legal heir.

3 O.S.No. 53 of 2020

4.It is further averred that the defendant is now attempting to further alienate the suit property and that the sale deed executed by her father in favour of the defendant is null and void and not binding on her. Hence, she is constrained to file the present suit seeking declaration of her title over suit schedule property and to cancel the registered sale deed vide Document bearing No.2681 of 2018 dt. 07-9-2018 on the file of SRO, Mallial executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of suit schedule property.

The defendants case:

5.The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and contending that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit property. It is his case that the plaintiff’s father validly sold the land in his favour under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 2681 of 2018 for valid consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- to meet his family necessities. Pursuant to the said sale, his name was mutated in the revenue records. The defendant also contends that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed for default in the year 2019 and, therefore, the present suit is not maintainable and therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1. whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of registered sale deed document bearing No.2681 of 2018 dt. 07-9-2018 on the file of SRO,

Mallial as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?

4 O.S.No. 53 of 2020

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of rectification of revenue records?

3. To what relief?

7.During trial, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 besides and got marked Exs. A1 to A16. The defendant examined himself as DW.1 besides examining DW.2 and DW.3 and got marked Ex.B1 and B2.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

Issues No.1 and 2

9. The plaintiff as PW.1 filed her chief affidavit reiterating the contents of plaint in her chief affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A16. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are the certified copies of Pahanies for the years 2013–2014 and 2014–2015, Ex.A3 is the Pahani dated 09.01.2020, reflecting the name of the plaintiff’s father, Thadavani Pochaiah, as pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property. Ex.A4 is the 1-B ROR, which also reflects the name of the plaintiff’s father as pattadar of the suit schedule property. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed bearing Document No.2631 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 executed by the plaintiff’s father, Thadavani Pochaiah, in favour of the defendant. Exs.A6 to A16 are certified copies of Pahanies for the years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, all reflecting the name of the father of the plaintiff, Thadavani Pochaiah, as pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property.

5 O.S.No. 53 of 2020

10.During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she is an illiterate and pleaded ignorance about the suit survey number, while stating that the total extent of the suit land is Ac.0.24 guntas. She further admitted that she had earlier filed a suit against her father, which was dismissed for default. She also admitted that her father sold the suit property to the defendant, who is her paternal uncle, for his personal needs. However, she stated that the sale was executed when her father was in a drunken condition. She denied the suggestion that the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since the date of purchase. She further stated that she owns

Ac.0.38 guntas of land near the suit property, which she has leased out.

11.On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 was examined and he filed his chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the written statement. He got marked

Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. Ex.B1 is the registered sale deed bearing Document

No.2681 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018. Ex.B2 is the mutation proceedings dated 19.02.2019 issued in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property.

12.During cross-examination, DW.1 stated that he purchased the suit property from his brother i.e. father of the plaintiff and that ever since the purchase of suit property, he has been in continuous possession and cultivation of the suit property. He admitted that his brother used to consume alcohol, but denied that he took advantage of the same to obtain the sale deed. He also denied the suggestion that he managed the Sub-Registrar’s office to get the document registered. He stated that the sale consideration of 6 O.S.No. 53 of 2020

Rs.1,20,000/- was paid in cash to his brother. He further deposed that one

Tadavani Bheemaraju and Kollangani Mallaiah were attestors to the sale deed under Ex.B.1.

13.DW.2, one of the attestors to Ex.B1, supported the case of the defendant in his chief examination. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had earlier worked as Sarpanch of Aggimalla village and that he is aware of the dispute between the parties.

14.DW.3, another attesting witness to Ex.B1, also supported the case of the defendant. During cross-examination, he stated that he was present at the Sub-Registrar Office, Mallial, at the time of execution of the sale deed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of defendant about 7½ years ago. He admitted that Thadaveni Pochaiah executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant and that both are brothers. He further stated that the plaintiff was not present at the time of registration and that the sale consideration of

Rs.1,20,000/- was paid in cash to the father of plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that Pochaiah was not in a fit condition at the time of execution of sale deed or that the document was fabricated.

15.The main contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is joint family property and that her father had no right to execute the sale deed document bearing No. 2631 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 in favour of defendant, without her consent. It is also alleged that the sale 7 O.S.No. 53 of 2020 was not for legal necessity and that her father was not in a sound state of mind at the time of execution.

16.Per contra, the defendant contends that the property is the self- acquired property of the father of the plaintiff, who had absolute rights to alienate the same, and that the sale was executed for valid consideration and necessity.

17.At the outset, the plaintiff has not produced any document to establish that the suit property is ancestral or joint family property. On the other hand, Exs.A1 to A4 and Exs.A6 to A16 clearly show the name of the father of the plaintiff as pattadar and possessor, thereby indicating his exclusive possession and enjoyment and mere assertion of the plaintiff without supporting evidence is not sufficient to hold that the property is joint family property.

18.Further, during cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that her father sold the suit property for his personal needs and that herself and her mother did not take care of her father and on that account, he was residing with his brothers. However, this denial does not displace her clear admission regarding the sale for personal necessity and said admission supports the case of the defendant that the sale of suit property was for necessity of the father of plaintiff. It is a settled principle that the karta or head of the family can alienate the property for legal necessity or benefit of estate. Even assuming for a 8 O.S.No. 53 of 2020 moment that the property is joint family property, the plaintiff has failed to prove that there was no legal necessity.

19.Even assuming that the suit schedule property is joint family property, the total extent is Ac.1-12 guntas, whereas the plaintiff’s father sold only Ac.0-24 guntas under Ex.B1. Thus, he has not alienated the entire property and the extent sold is proportianate with his share, and a coparcener is entitled to alienate his undivided share and such alienation is valid to that extent, and the purchaser is entitled to work out his rights in accordance with law.

20.The plea of the plaintiff is that the sale was executed when her father was in a drunken condition, is not supported by any reliable evidence.

No medical or independent evidence is produced. On the contrary, DW.2 and

DW.3, who are attesting witnesses to Ex.B1, have categorically deposed that the sale deed was executed in their presence and that the consideration amount was paid to the father of the plaintiff. Their evidence has remained consistent and nothing material has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony.

21.Ex.B1 being a registered document carries a presumption of validity and the burden lies heavily on the plaintiff to establish fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of capacity, which she has failed to discharge. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit vide OS No. 352 of 2018 on the file of this court against her father, which was dismissed for 9 O.S.No. 53 of 2020 default. Even after said dismissal, no steps were taken by the plaintiff to challenge the sale deed during the lifetime of her father. This conduct of the plaintiff also casts doubt on her claim.

22.The evidence of DW.1, coupled with Ex.B2 mutation proceedings, further establishes that the name of the defendant has been incorporated in the revenue records and that he is in possession of the said property. The plaintiff has not produced any convincing evidence to rebut the same.

23.In the present case, the plaintiff contends that the suit schedule property is joint family property and that her father had no authority to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant. However, as already discussed, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the property is ancestral or joint family property by producing any cogent evidence.

24.Further, the plaintiff herself admitted in her cross-examination that her father sold the property for his personal needs. The plea that the sale was executed while her father was in a drunken condition is not supported by any reliable evidence. On the other hand, the evidence of DWs.2 and 3, who are attesting witnesses to Ex.B1, clearly establishes due execution of the sale deed and payment of consideration. Therefore, even if the property is treated as joint family property, the sale deed under Ex.B1 cannot be held to be null and void. It is valid and binding at least to the extent of the share of the plaintiff’s father, and the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration sought.

10 O.S.No. 53 of 2020

25.From the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the sale deed dated 07.09.2018 exeucted by father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, is null and void and not binding on her.

Consequently, she is not entitled to the relief of rectification of revenue records. Accordingly, Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiff.

26.ISSUE NO.3:-In view of the findings arrived at issue No.1 and 2, this suit is liable to be dismissed.

27.In the result, suit is dismissed.

Prepared by me on my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

PW-1: K. Bhagya Laxmi. Dw.1:T. Rajaiah. Dw.2: K. Mallaiah. Dw.3: T. Beemaraju.

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

For PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2013-14.

Ex.A2is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2014-15.

Ex.A3is Pahani, dt: 09.01.2020, obtained from Mee-seva.

Ex.A4is 1-B Namoona, dt: 09.01.2020, obtained from Mee-seva.

Ex.A5is Certified copy of sale deed doc.No.2631/2018, dt: 07.09.2018.

Ex.A6is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06.

11 O.S.No. 53 of 2020

Ex.A7is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-07.

Ex.A8is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08.

Ex.A9is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-09.

Ex.A10 is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10.

Ex.A11is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11.

Ex.A12 is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-12.

Ex.A13 is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2013-14.

Ex.A14 is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2014-15.

Ex.A15 is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2015-16.

Ex.A16 is Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016-17.

For Defendant :

Ex.B1is Original registered sale deed vide document No.2681/2018,

dt: 07.09.2018.

Ex.B2is Original mutation proceedings No.MUT/18/04/00380/2018,

dt: 19.02.2019.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

1 O.S 39 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : JAGTIAL

PRESENT: MS. R. LAVANYA,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

Monday, the 20th day of April, 2026

O.S. NO.39 OF 2023

Between:

Thodeti Laxmirajam, S/o: Nampelli, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-33, Balvanthapur village of Mallial mandal.

...Plaintiff

And

1. The District Registrar of Assurances, Karimnagar.

2. The Asst. Registrar/A & E/ Sale Officer, KDCC Bank Ltd., Karimnagar.

3. Supervisor/Dev. Executive, KDCC Bank Ltd., Malyal.

4. The Branch Manager, KDCC Bank Ltd., Malyal.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.

G. Prasad, Learned Advocate for plaintiff and that of defendant remained exparte, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration that he is only having land bearing Survey No. 257/E/3 admeasuring Ac. 2.00, situated at Sarvapur Village, Mallial Mandal, and for a consequential direction to the defendants, particularly Defendant No.4, to reschedule the loan availed by the plaintiff.

2.The plaintiff submits that he is the owner and possessor of the suit land bearing Survey No. 257/C/3 admeasuring Ac. 2.00 and Survey 2 O.S.No. 39 of 2023

No. 257/E/2 admeasuring Ac. 2.00, situated at Sarvapur Village, Mallial

Mandal. The said properties were succeeded by the plaintiff from his father, late Nampally. The Tahsildar, Mallial, issued a Pattadar Passbook in favour of the plaintiff under the Government’s regularization/purification programme in respect of the above said survey numbers.

3.The plaintiff further submits that he availed an agricultural loan of

Rs.2,00,000/- on 06.06.2018 and another Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.08.2018, totalling Rs.4,00,000/-, from Defendant No.4 and the Government also extended benefits under the Rythu Bandhu Scheme at the rate applicable per acre, and the plaintiff received an amount of Rs.1,72,534/- upto 19.05.2022. It is further submitted that upon obtaining Form-1B and certified copies of Pahani from Mee Seva on 26.06.2020, the plaintiff came to know that, instead of both the survey numbers, only Survey No. 257/E/2 admeasuring Ac. 2.00 was reflected in his name and Survey No. 257/C/3 admeasuring Ac. 2.00 was deleted from his name by the revenue authorities without issuing any notice, which is illegal and due to such deletion, the plaintiff was deprived of Rythu

Bandhu benefits.

4.It is further submitted that the plaintiff made several representations to the revenue and bank authorities and also issued a legal notice dated 26.10.2021 to the District Collector, Sub-Collector, and Tahsildar,

Mallial, requesting rectification of revenue records and issuance of correct

Pahanis. As there was no proper response, the plaintiff filed CF No.19 of 2022 seeking declaration and rectification of revenue records. Subsequently, the 3 O.S.No. 39 of 2023 plaintiff applied for correction of passbook data through the Dharani Portal.

During the process, the revenue authorities conducted a spot inspection and informed the plaintiff that Survey No. 257/C/3 was allegedly acquired for excavation of Varadha Kaluva during the lifetime of his father and that the earlier inclusion of the said survey number in the passbook was erroneous.

The plaintiff submits that relying on the said passbook, he had availed the loan. Due to the subsequent deletion of one survey number, he was left with only Survey No. 257/E/2 admeasuring Ac. 2.00 and consequently faced financial hardship. It is further submitted that the plaintiff submitted an application dated 13.12.2022 by registered post to the defendants requesting for rescheduling of the loan by reducing the installment amount from

Rs.56,000 to Rs.25,000, to enable him to repay the loan in a feasible manner.

The plaintiff submits that the situation arose due to an error on the part of the revenue authorities and not due to any intentional default. However, the defendants failed to respond. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a statutory notice

dated 01.01.2023 under Section 126 of the Telangana Co-operative Societies

Act but despite receipt of the notice, the defendants neither replied nor considered his request and instead threatened to take coercive steps to sell away is land.

5.The plaintiff further submits that he has right, title, and interest over the suit land, whereas the defendants, with malafide intention, are refusing to reschedule the loan. Hence, the plaintiff prays for a declaration that he is in possession and enjoyment of land bearing Survey No. 257/E/2 4 O.S.No. 39 of 2023 admeasuring Ac. 2.00 situated at Sarvapur Village, Mallial Mandal, and for a direction to Defendant No.4, i.e., Branch Manager, KDCC Bank Limited,

Mallial, to reschedule the loan availed by him.

6.Upon service of summons, Defendant Nos.1 to 4 failed to file written statements and were set ex parte.

7.During enquiry, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and

Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on his behalf.

8.Heard. Perused the material available on record.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled declaration that he is only having land bearing Survey No. 257/E/3 admeasuring Ac. 2.00, situated at Sarvapur Village, Mallial Mandal, and for a consequential direction to the Defendant No.4, to reschedule the loan availed by him?

POINT:

10.During trial, the plaintiff as PW.1 filed chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. Exs.A1 to A5 are pahanies for the years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-13 establish possession of father of plaintiff over the lands in Sy. No. 257/C/3 admeasuring Ac. 2.00 and Survey No. 257/E/2 admeasuring Ac. 2.00, situated at Sarvapur Village, Mallial Mandal, Ex.A6 is Record of Rights (ROR) as of June 2025 showing the name of plaintiff as possessor of land in

Survey No. 257/E/2 admeasuring Ac. 2.00. Exs.A7 and A9 are notices of sale issued by District Registrar, Karimnagar dt. 15-9-2021 and 18-11-2022 for public auction of land in Sy.No.257/E/2, Ex.A8 is the announcement of postponement of public action, dt. 23-11-2021 issued by Sale Manager, 5 O.S.No. 39 of 2023

KDCC, Karimnagar. Ex.A10 and A11 are representation and legal notice issued by plaintiff to defendants for rescheduling of loan installments. Exs.A7 to A9 shows that certain steps were initiated by Defendant No.4 for recovery of loan amounts, including auction proceedings, which were postponed. Exs.A10 and A11 show that the plaintiff made representations and issued legal notice requesting rescheduling of the loan.

11.It is the case of the plaintiff that originally the lands in Survey Nos.

257/C/3 and 257/E/2 were recorded in the name of his father, and after his father’s death, he succeeded to the said properties. It is further stated that, based on such entries, the plaintiff obtained agricultural loans of Rs.2,00,000/- each on both lands from Defendant No.4. He also received benefits under the

Rythu Bandhu Scheme for both survey numbers. According to the plaintiff, later during inspection, the Government authorities deleted his name in respect of land bearing Survey No. 257/C/3. As a result, the plaintiff was left with only Survey No. 257/E/2 admeasuring Ac. 2.00, and thereafter Rythu

Bandhu benefits were continued only for the said land. The grievance of the plaintiff is that due to the deletion of one survey number, his financial position was affected, as he had availed loan considering both lands. Therefore, he requested the defendants to reschedule the loan installments so that he could repay the loan without hardship.

12.With regard to the declaratory relief, the plaintiff himself admits that the deletion of Survey No. 257/C/3 was done by the revenue authorities 6 O.S.No. 39 of 2023 during inspection. If the plaintiff is aggrieved by such deletion, the proper remedy is to approach the competent revenue authorities for correction of records. A civil court cannot grant such a declaration in the present form without proper adjudication of title and validity of the action of revenue authorities.

13.As far as the request for rescheduling of loan is concerned, it is to be noted that modifying loan terms is purely within the discretion of the bank authorities and governed by their rules and policies. This Court, exercising civil jurisdiction, cannot direct a bank to reschedule a loan, as it is not a statutory duty enforceable through a civil suit. The relief sought is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.

14.In the absence of proper adjudication regarding title and in view of the nature of relief sought, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed for and the prayer for rescheduling of loan is not maintainable before this Court and is beyond its jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the point is answered against the plaintiff.

15.In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Prepared by me on my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

7 O.S.No. 39 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

PW-1: T. Laxmirajam -None-

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

For PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1is Certified copy of pahani pertaining 2007-08

Ex.A2is Certified copy of pahani pertaining for the year 2009-10.

Ex.A3is Certified copy of pahani pertaining for the year 2011-12.

Ex.A4is Certified copy of pahani pertaining for the year 2012-13.

Ex.A5is Certified copy of pahani pertaining for the year 2014-15.

Ex.A6is Certified copy of 1-B namuna, ROR, dt: 26.06.2025.

Ex.A7is Notice issued by defendant No.4 to the plaintiff under form-IX,

dt: 15.09.2021.

Ex.A8is Auction postpone announcement by defendant No.4, dt: 23.11.2021.

Ex.A9is Auction postpone announcement by defendant No.4, dt: 16.01.2023

Ex.A10 is Application made by plaintiff to defendants, dt: 13.12.2022.

Ex.A11is Office copy of legal notice, dt: 01.01.2023, issued by plaintiff.

For Defendant : -NIL- Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

1 O.S 88 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- Ms. R. Lavanya, Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First class, Jagtial.

Monday, the 20th day of April, 2026

O.S.NO. 88 OF 2021

Between:- Shek Abdul Azeez, S/o: Shek Rajjab Ali, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.3-25/1, Yeshwantharaopet village of Buggaram mandal, Jagtial.

...Plaintiff.

And

1.Safiya Sulthana, W/o: Md. Ibrahim, Age: 53 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Ward No.47, Tharakaramanagar, Jagtial.

2.Mohammad, S/o: Mohammad Ibrahim, Age: 35 years, Occ: Driver, R/o: Ward No.47, Tharakaramanagar, Jagtial.

3. Samrina, W/o: Mohammad, Age: 25 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Ward No.47, Tharakaramanagar, Jagtial.

4. Rafiya Sulthana, D/o: Mohammad Ibrahim, Age: 32 years, Occ; Household, R/o: Ward No.47, Tharakaramanagar, Jagtial.

5.The Assistant Engineer, NPDCL, Jagtial rural.

...Defendants.

Claim:- Suit for Eviction

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K.

Bhoomaiah, Learned Advocate for plaintiff and that of defendants remained exparte, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

This suit is filed for Eviction, Arrears of Rent and for Mesne

Profits.

The averments of the plaint in brief are:-

2.The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of the suit schedule property, a tin-roofed house 2 O.S.No. 88 of 2021 constructed in Plot No. 625, situated at Tarakarama Nagar, Jagtial

Municipality and he acquired the said property from its previous owner,

Smt. Kasturi Chandrakala, under a simple sale deed dated 09.10.2017 and subsequently, the plaintiff’s name was mutated in the municipal records, and he has been paying property taxes, including for the year 2020.

3.It is further averred that in the month of March 2019, Defendant

No.1 approached the plaintiff and requested that the suit house be let out to her for residential purposes. Considering her request, the plaintiff agreed and let out the premises to Defendant No.1 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- for a period of 11 months. Accordingly, Defendant No.1 was let into possession of the suit premises on 01.03.2019 and has been residing therein along with

Defendants No.2 to 4 as tenants. As the defendants were known to the plaintiff, no written lease deed was executed.

4.The plaintiff further submits that Defendant No.1 paid rent regularly up to February 2020, but thereafter defaulted in payment of rent from

March 2020 onwards. When the plaintiff demanded payment of arrears of

Rs.3,000/- on 01.06.2020 and requested the defendants to vacate the premises, Defendant No.1 neither paid the arrears nor vacated the premises, and instead threatened the plaintiff. Again, in September 2020, the plaintiff, along with one Akram Khan, approached the defendants and requested them to vacate the premises, but the defendants refused and issued threats.

Subsequently, in the first week of December 2020, the plaintiff convened a 3 O.S.No. 88 of 2021 panchayat at Tarakarama Nagar. The plaintiff further submits that the defendants have illegally obtained electricity connection from an adjacent house without authorization and the plaintiff made a complaint to Defendant

No.5/Electricity Department, requesting disconnection of the illegal supply, but no action was taken. It is further averred that the defendants 1 to 4 are liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease,

Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, in view of their wilful default in payment of rent and their unlawful conduct.

5.Upon service of summons, the defendants failed to appear and file their written statement, hence, they were set ex parte.

6.During enquiry, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and filed his chief affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, reiterating the averments made in the plaint and got marked marked Ex.A1, the original ownership certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Tarakarama Nagar, Jagtial and Ex.A2, the original property tax receipt issued by the Commissioner, Jagtial Municipality in respect of suit schedule property.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property and recovery of arrears of rent?

4 O.S.No. 88 of 2021

POINT:

9.The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 reiterating the averments made in the plaint in his chief affidavit and got marked marked Ex.A1, the original ownership certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Tarakarama

Nagar, Jagtial and Ex.A2, the original property tax receipt issued by the

Commissioner, Jagtial Municipality in respect of suit schedule property.

10.The plaintiff relies upon Ex.A1, the ownership certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Tarakaramanagar but such a document does not confer any title upon plaintiff and is only maintained for fiscal or administrative purposes. It cannot, by itself, establish ownership of plaintiff over immovable property. Though the plaintiff has pleaded that he acquired the suit property under a sale deed dated 09.10.2017, the said sale deed has not been produced before this Court. The said sale deed is the primary and best evidence to prove title. Non-production of such a crucial document gives rise to an adverse inference against the plaintiff.

11.It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendants are his tenants and are liable to be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent. The plaintiff has also invoked the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh

Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. At the outset, it is to be noted that in order to seek eviction under the provisions of the said Act, the plaintiff must first establish the existence of a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the defendants. Unless such relationship is 5 O.S.No. 88 of 2021 proved, the question of granting eviction on any statutory ground does not arise.

12.The present suit is one for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property. In cases relating to lease of immovable property, termination of tenancy in accordance with law is a condition precedent for seeking eviction, unless governed by a special statute. As per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a month-to-month tenancy can be terminated only by issuing a valid quit notice. In the instant case, the plaintiff has not produced any notice issued under Section 106 terminating the tenancy. There is no material on record to show that the tenancy was legally determined prior to filing of the suit. Mere oral demands to vacate, even if taken as true, do not satisfy the statutory requirement. The absence of a valid quit notice goes to the root of the matter and renders the suit for eviction not maintainable.

13.In the present case, except the self-serving testimony of PW.1, no independent or documentary evidence has been placed before the Court to establish that the defendants were inducted as tenants under the plaintiff.

Admittedly, no written lease agreement was executed. More importantly, no rent receipts have been filed to show that the defendants were paying rent to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff has alleged that rent was paid up to February 2020, there is absolutely no documentary proof in support of such payment. In ordinary course, payment of rent would be evidenced by receipts or some form 6 O.S.No. 88 of 2021 of record. The complete absence of such evidence creates a serious doubt regarding the very existence of the tenancy. Further, the plaintiff has not examined any independent witness to prove the alleged tenancy or payment of rent. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is the “landlord” and that the defendants are his tenants within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh

Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. When the basic requirement of landlord tenant relationship itself is not proved, the relief of eviction cannot be granted under the said Act. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the landlord of the suit premises and that the defendants are his tenants.

14. Even though the defendants were set ex parte, it is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. The evidence placed on record is not sufficient to establish the essential ingredients required for granting the reliefs sought.

Accordingly, the point is answered against the plaintiff.

15.In the result, suit is dismissed.

Prepared by me on my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

7 O.S.No. 88 of 2021

For Plaintiffs :- For Defendants :-

PW-1:Sh. Abdul Aziz -None-

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

For Plaintiffs:- Ex.A1:Original ownership certificate, issued by panchayat secretary, GP Tharakaramnagar, Jagtial.

Ex.A2:Original property tax receipt vide NO.014170989, dt: 19.3.2020,issued by Commissioner, Municipality, Jatial.

For Defendants :- – -NIL --- Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

1 of 6 CC No. 806 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- Ms. R. Lavanya, Prl. Junior Civil Judge – cum - Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial. FAC: II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Monday, the 24th day of November, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No. 806 of 202 4

Between:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Kodimial.

.... Complainant.

AND 1:Kadari Veeramallu, S/o: Mallaiah, Age: 60 years, 2:Kadari Karunakar, S/o: Veeramallu, Age: 25 years, 3:Kadari Beeraiah, S/o: Veeramallu, Age: 32 years, 4:Kadari Gangavva, W/o: Veeramallu, Age: 56 years, All are R/o: Ramakistapur village of Kodimial mandal.

...Accused Nos.1 to 4

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri. K. Laxman, Advocate for the accused; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Kodimial has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Sections: 326, 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 14.11.2023 at 14:30 hours, the complainant/Pw.1 lodged a complaint stating that, on the same day 2 of 6 CC No. 806 of 2024 at 07:00 hours, while Lw.6/Dayyala Komuravva, Lw.7/Dayyala Anjaiah and

Lw.2/Dayyala Latha going to their agricultural fiels, meantime A.4 who is adjacent land owner of Pw.1, abused Lw.7 in most filthy language by saying that vegetables in his garden have been cut, further A.4 along with A.1 to A.3 abused them in most filthy language and beat them with stick, due to which

Lw.7 received bleeding injury on his left hand shoulder and right side ribs and back, and his wife received bleeding injuries on her right hand and waist and their son received bleeding injury on his mouth. The incident was witnessed by Dayyala Yellava/LW.4 and Lw.3/M. Padma, and informed to Pw.1, on that he rushed there and found the same. Immediately, they shifted to

Government hospital, Jagtial and further shifted to Dwarakamai hospital,

Karimnagar, for better treatment.

3.Basing on the said report, police registered a case in No.202/2023 and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited scene of offence, conducted panchanama, drawn a rough sketch and incorporated in crime detail form in the presence of mediators, collected the medical certificate of injured and as per the medical certificate police altered the section of law from Sec.324 of IPC to 326, 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC. Thereafter, police apprehended A.1 & A.2, and on interrogation, they voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and they further confessed that, they have thrown away the stick that was used in 3 of 6 CC No. 806 of 2024 the commission of offence. As such they could not recover the crime weapon, later police sent them to judicial custody. Later, police issued notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the accused Nos.3 & 4 and on interrogation accused confessed to have committed this offense after collecting the wound certificates of Pw.1, police file charge sheet against accused.

4.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections:

326, 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC against accused.

5.On appearance of accused, the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to the them u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. the accused are examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charges under Secs. 326, 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC against

A.1 & A.2 and for the offence u/sec. 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC against A.3 & A.4 were framed, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution cited (11) witnesses but could able to examine only (6) witnesses. Pw.1 is the defacto- complainant, Pws.2 & 3 are eye witnesses to the incident, Pws.4 & 5 are injured persons and Pw.6 is the investigating officer.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating material found against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused 4 of 6 CC No. 806 of 2024 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections. 326, 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC against A.1 & A.2 and for the offence u/sec. 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC against A.3 & A.4 beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10. The simple case of prosecution is that, due to petty issues, A.1 to A.4 abused Pws.4 & 5 in most filthy language and beat them with stick, resulting which they received bleeding injuries. The plea of accused is one of total denial and false implication.

11.In order to substantiate the said charge, prosecution examined Pws. 1 to 6, and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 on behalf of the prosecution. Among them, Pw.1 is the defacto- complainant, Pws.2 & 3 are eye witnesses to the incident, Pws.4 & 5 are injured persons and Pw.6 is the investigating officer.

Pw.1 is the complainant is did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. He deposed that, about one year ago, on one day due to petty issues between him and accused, he went to the police station, where police obtained his signature/Ex.P.1 on complaint, but he do not know contents of it.

He further deposed that, he never lodged any complaint against accused.

Pws.2 & 3 are eye witnesses to the incident, Pws.4 & 5 are injured persons are also did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Pw.6 is 5 of 6 CC No. 806 of 2024 the investigating officer deposed that, he received complaint, and registered the case, visited the scene of offence and conducted crime detail form, served

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the accused and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet. His evidence is not useful to connect the accused with the present crime, since there is no corroborating evidence. From the hostile evidence of Pws.1 to 5, it seems that the matter was compromised between the parties, subsequent to filing of charge sheet. In view of hostility of Pws.1 to 5, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/secs. 326, 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC against A.1 & A.2 and for the offence u/sec. 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC against A.3 & A.4, beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitle for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12.In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/secs. 326, 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC against A.1 & A.2 and for the offence u/sec. 447, 290 r/w 34 of IPC against A.3 & A.4, and accordingly, they are acquitted u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled subject to sec.437(A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the, 24 th day of November, 2025.

Prl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Jagtial. FAC: II-Addl. JMFC, Jagtial.

6 of 6 CC No. 806 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:- P.W.1: D. Lingaiah/ complainant. P.W.2: M. Padma / Eye witness to the incident. P.W.3: D. Yellavva/ Eye witness to the incident. P.W.4: D. Komuravva/ Injured P.W.5: D. Anjaiah /Injured P.W.6: K. Venkatrao / Investigating Officer.

FOR THE DEFENCE:- ---None--- :: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

FOR THE PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1: Signature on Report. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.1. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.2. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.3. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.4. Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.5. Ex.P.7: FIR EX.P.8: Complaint.

FOR THE DEFENCE:- ---Nil---

MATERIAL OBJECTS:- ---Nil---

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Jagtial. FAC: II-Addl. JMFC, Jagtial.

1 of 6 OS No. 9 4 o f 2025

// Fair Copy //

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : JAGTIAL

PRESENT: MS. R. LAVANYA,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

FAC: II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, Jagtial.

Friday, the 14th day of November, 2025

O.S. NO.94 OF 2025

Between: Pandiri Arun Kumar, S/o: Late Narsaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Government Employee, R/o: H.No.7-5-164, Vidyanagar, Jagtial.

...Plaintiff

And

Armulla Laxmi, W/o: Late Rajaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household, R/o: H.No.7-5-164, Vidyanagar, Jagtial.

...Defendant

Claim:- Suit for Declaration of Title and Perpetual Injunction

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Prathap, Learned Advocate for plaintiff and that of defendant remained exparte, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for Declaration of Title and,

Perpetual Injunction, to declare the plaintiff as the owner and possessor of suit schedule property and to restrain the defendant from causing illegal interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land admeasuring 360 sq. yards in Sy.No.453/ఈ and house bearing

NO. 2-69/1/A/A/1, situated at Thippannapet shivar of Jagtial.

(Herein after called as suit schedule land).

2 of 6 OS No. 9 4 o f 2025

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff submits that, he is the exclusive owner and possessor of land admeasuring 360 sq. yards in

Sy.No.453/ఈ and house bearing No. 2-69/1/A/A/1, situated at

Thippannapet shivar of Jagtial. It is further submitted that, originally the paternal grandfather of plaintiff by name Pandiri

Bheemaiah was the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 602 sq.yards in Sy.NO.453/ఈ, after his death the said land was devolved on the name of mother of the plaintiff being the daughter-in-law of the said Pandiri Bheemaiah and the revenue authorities are granted Virasat and incorporated her name in revenue records. It is further submitted that, the mother of plaintiff conveyed the said land to plaintiff through

Registered Gift Deed, ever since the plaintiff is in exclusive possession over the land admeasuring 602 sq.yards, thereafter, the plaintiff conveyed the land to an extent of 242 sq.yards out of 602 sq.yards to his sister by name Jumbarthi Vanitha through

Registered Gift Deed vide document No. 6536 of 2016, dt:

19.12.2016 and delivered the possession, and remaining land to an extent of 360 sq. yards is in the possession of the plaintiff, wherein he erected a small shed and the Municipality allotted

House Number.2-69/A/A/1. It is further submitted that,

3 of 6 OS No. 9 4 o f 2025

defendant who is paternal aunt of plaintiff, without having any right or possession over the plaint schedule land, tried to interfere over the suit schedule land, and on 26.02.2025, the defendant tried to remove the boundary stones, with the help of unsocial elements, thereby, plaintiff has no efficacious remedy than to approach the Court to seek relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

3.No representation on behalf of defendant, hence defendant was set-exparte.

4.During the course of enquiry, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1, and one S. Bheemaraju examined as Pw.2, and got marked Exs.A1 to A.8 documents.

5.Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

Perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and

grant of perpetual injunction and against defendant as prayed for?”

7. POINT:- Plaintiff, in support of his case, examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.8 documents. Ex.A.1 is the attested copy of register gift deed vide document No.3155 of 2015, dt: 14.09.2015, which reflects the name of plaintiff, in respect of suit schedule land as owner and possessor. Exs.A.2 to A.4 are true copies of pahanies for the years 1999-2000, 2005-06, 2015-16 respectively, Ex.A.5 is the certified copy of

4 of 6 OS No. 9 4 o f 2025

pahani for the year 1423fasli, dt: 30.01.2014, Ex.A.6 is the online copy of information of plaintiff in municipal records,

Ex.A.7 are property tax payment receipts for plaint schedule property from 01.04.2025 to 31.03.2026 and from 1.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 respectively.

8.Pw.1 testifies that, the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring 360 sq. yards in Sy.No.453/ఈ and house bearing No. 2-69/1/A/A/1, situated at Thippannapet shivar of

Jagtial, which is gifted by his mother by name Pandiri Rajamma through registered gift settlement deed under Ex.A.1 and that the defendant is making illegal interference with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and trying to occupy the same.

9.It is evident from Exs.A1 to A.8 documents that the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule land as on the date of filing of suit. Perusal of documents, Exs.A1 to A.8 shows that, the mother of plaintiff by name Pandiri Rajamma, gifted the suit schedule land towards love and affection through registered gift settlement deed under Ex.A.1. Ex.A.2 to A.8 shows that, the plaintiff as the owner and possessor of the suit schedule land.

10.Pw.1 by his oral and documentary evidence proved that the defendant without having any right, title or possession over the

5 of 6 OS No. 9 4 o f 2025

suit properties is interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaintiff. In the absence of any rebuttable evidence from the defendants, it is proved that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land.

11.From the above unchallenged and unrebutted evidence of

Pw.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A.8, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff could successfully establish his ownership possession, enjoyment over the schedule land and also there is apprehension of danger to his possession and enjoyment in the hands of defendant and, as such possession needs to be protected by way of granting perpetual injunction. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

12.In the result , the suit is decreed without costs and the plaintiff is declared as owner of the suit schedule land. The plaintiff is further entitled for the relief of Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant and her agents, servants and followers from causing interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule land.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 14th day of November, 2025.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Jagtial FAC: II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial

6 of 6 OS No. 9 4 o f 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

PW-1: P. Arun Kumar. -None- PW-2: S. Bheemaraju.

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

For PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1is Attested copy of register gift deed vide document No. 3155/2015, dt: 14.09.2015, executed by Pandiri Rajamma in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2is True copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000.

Ex.A3is True copy of pahani for the year 2005-06.

Ex.A4is True copy of pahani for the year 2015-16.

Ex.A5is Certified copy of pahani for the year 1423fasli, dt: 30.01.2014.

Ex.A6is Online copy of information of plaintiff in Municipal Records.

Ex.A7is Property tax payment receipt for plaint schedule property obtained from online website of Munipal Administration from 1.04.2025 to 31.03.2026.

Ex.A8is Property tax payment receipt for plaint schedule property obtained from online website of Munipal Administration from 1.04.2024 to 31.03.2025.

For Defendant : -NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Jagtial FAC: II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Jagtial