R Lavanya

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT: R. LAVANYA, Prl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK.

Dated this the 27 th day of June, 2019

OS. NO. 104 OF 2018

Between:­

Smt. Masula Mallavva, W/o. Late. Venkatesh, aged about 44 Yrs, Occ: House hold, R/o. H.No. 13­49, Akkala Basthi, Ramayampet Village and Mandal, Medak District. …Plaintiff. 

A N D

1. Smt. Masula Bagavva @ Bagamma, W/o. Late. Narayana, Aged about 70 Yrs, Occ: House hold,

2. Sri. Masula Rajaiah, S/o. Late. Narayana, Aged about 55 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Smt. Masula siddavva, W/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 51 Yrs, Occ: House hold,

4. Sri. Masula Swamy, S/o. Late. Narayana, aged about 48 Yrs,

5. Sri. Masula Krishna, S/o. Narayana,aged about 45 Yrs,

All are R/o. H.No. 13­49, Akkala Basthi, Ramayampet Village and Mandal, Medak District.

...Defendants.

This suit coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Rajesh Koppula, Advocate for the plaintiff, while the Defendants remained ex parte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:­ : J U D G M E N T :

1.This is the Suit, filed by the plaintiff, against the defendants, seeking preliminary decree of partition of the Suit Schedule Property, i.e., agricultural land bearing Sy.No.234/A, admeasuring Ac.0­24 guntas, Sy.No.223/A3 admeasuring Ac.0­05 guntas, Sy.No.223/A2 admeasuring Ac.1­01½ guntas, Sy.No.223/AA1 admeasuring Ac.1­01½ guntas and Sy.No.234/AA2 admeasuring Ac.0­05½ guntas totally admeasuring Ac.3­34½ guntas, all situated at Ramayampet Village and 2 Mandal, Medak District, by allotting 1/5th share each, to the plaintiff and defendant no.1, 2, 4 and 5.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief is, as follows:­ 

The plaintiff and defendants NO.1, 2, 4 and 5 constitute undivided Hindu Joint family coparcenary members and one Lachavva is the mother of defendant No.1. and Lachavva died leaving behind her only daughter i.e. defendant No.1 as her legal heir. The defendant No.1 was maried to Narayana and they were blessed with four sons i.e. defendant

No.2, defendant No.4, Venkatesh(died leaving behind the plaintiff herein) and defendant No.5. The said Lachavva was the owner and possessor of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.234/A, admeasuring Ac.0­24 guntas, Sy.No.223/A3 admeasuring Ac.0­05 guntas, Sy.No.223/A2 admeasuring Ac.1­01½ guntas, Sy.No.223/AA1 admeasuring Ac.1­01½ guntas and Sy.No.234/AA2 admeasuring Ac.0­05½ guntas totally admeasuring Ac.3­34½ guntas, all situated at Ramayampet Village and

Mandal, Medak District. After the death of Lachavva, all the above properties were transferred in the name of defendant No.1 being the sole daughter of Lachavva. After the death of the husband of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 to 5 colluded with each other and got transferred the properties without affecting any partition and without allotting any share to the plaintiff being the share of venkatesh, the husband of the plaintiff.

3.The defendant No.1 got mutated her name in the revenue records in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.234/A admeasuring

Ac.0­24 guntas. Defendant No.2got mutated part of the suit land in the name of his wife i.e. defendant No.3 in the revenue records in respect of 3 agricultural land bearing No. S.No234/e admeasuring Ac.0­05 guntas and Sy.No.223/AA3 admeasuring Ac.1­02 guntas. Defendant No.4 got mutated his name in the records in respect of agricultural lands bearing

Sy.No.223/AA2 admeasuring Ac.1­01 ½ guntas Sy.No.234/AA admeasuring Ac.0­05 ½ guntas. Defendant No.5 got mutated his name in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.223/AA1 admeasuring

Ac.1­01 ½ guntas which are all undivided joint family ancestral coparcenary properties in which also the plaintiff is having share and right.

4.After coming to know about the fact of mutation of the properties in favour of defendants, the plaintiff on 31­8­2018 orally demanded the defendants to affect partition of the suit properties into 1/5th share but the defendants blindly refused for the same. The plaintiff has learnt that, defendants are trying to dispose off the suit schedule properties, to third parties for wrongful gain. In the event of the defendants, succeeding in their evil designs, he will be put to irreparable loss and damage. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to approach the Court, by way of the present suit.

5.The defendant no.1 to 5 remained exparte.

6 Heard. Perused the record.

On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and he got marked Exs.A1 to A5.

7. PW1 filed chief­affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and he reiterated the plaint averments in her chief affidavit

8.With the pleadings and evidence as referred above, it is observed that suit properties are originally stated to be belonging to the mother of 4 defendant No.1 by name Lachavva. Even PW1 admit that the suit schedule property belong to the mother of defendant No.1. Therefore, it is admitted fact from record that suit schedule property originally stood in the name of late Lachavva who is the mother of defendant NO.1. As such after death of said Lachavva her properties would devolve upon her legal heirs in accordance with Section 16 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Section 16 of Hindu Succession Act deal with devolution of interest of a female Hindu dying intestate. Admittedly, the legal position is that when

Lachavva died her property devolved on defendant No.1 who was her sole heiress under the Hindu Law. In determining that question the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act have to be applied. Section 15 of the said Act is as follows: 

"15 (1) ­­ The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16 ­ 

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre­deceased son or daughter) and the husband; 

(b) Secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; 

(c) Thirdly, upon the mother and father 

(d) Fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and 

(e) Lastly, upon the heirs of the mother (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub­section (1),­­ 

(a) Any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre­deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in Sub­section (1) in the order specified therein but upon the heirs of the father; and 

(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father­in­law shall devolve in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in Sub­section (1) in the order specified therein but upon the heirs of the husband." 

As a reference to the provisions of Section 16 would also be necessary. I consider it proper to set out the provisions of Section 16 of the said Act here­under: 

"16. The order of succession among the heirs referred to in Section 15 shall be and the distribution of the intestate's property among those heirs shall take place according to the following Rules, namely:­­ 5 Rule 1­­ Among the heirs specified in Sub­section (1) of Section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. 

Rule 2­­ If any son or daughter of the intestate had predeceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestate's deaths the children of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the intestate's death. 

Rule 3­­ The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of Sub­section (1) and Sub­section (2) of Section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father's or the mother's or the husband's, as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate's death." 

11.In the present case, plaintiff happen to be the daughter­in­ law of defendant No.1. The suit schedule properties were inherited by the defendant No.1 after the death of her mother Lachavva and it becomes her self acquired property in which neither her sons nor her daughters­ in­law are entitled for any share, the plaintiffs claim is that her husband being the son of defendant No.1 is entitled for 1/5th share and such claim is unfounded. As such she cannot claim inheritance right over the properties of late Lachavva(mother of defendant No.) in view of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is defendant No.1 who would inherit the properties of late Lachavva being her daughter, but children of defendant No.1 cannot claim property of late Lachavva during the life time of defendant No.1.

12.With the discussion as taken up above, it need to be held that plaintiff failed to show existence of legal right in his favour for claiming decree of partition in respect of suit schedule property in view of

Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As such plaintiff would not be entitled for partition.

6

13.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.

Typed by me on my personal laptop, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of June, 2019. 

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Medak

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFFS

PW1 Masula Mallavva (Plaintiff No.1)

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS

­­None­

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 is Death Certificate of Kasula Venkatesh, Ex.A2 is Pahani for the fasli year 1427, Dt: 08­09­2017 obtained from

Mee­seva of Defendant No.1, Ex. A3 is 1B ROR certificate Dt: 07­09­2017 of defendant No.3 obtained from Mee­Seva, Ex. A4 is 1B ROR certificate Dt: 07­09­2017 of defendant No.4 obtained from Mee­Seva, Ex. A5 is 1B ROR certificate Dt: 07­09­2017 of defendant No.5 obtained from Mee­Seva.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

­­Nil—

Prl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT: R. LAVANYA, Prl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK.

Dated this the 27 th day of June, 2019

OS. NO. 115 OF 2018

Between:­

Mundrathi Rama Chandram, S/o. Mundrathi Narsimulu, Aged about 34 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 4­75, Shankarampet­R Village & Mandal, Medak District. …Plaintiff. 

A N D

1. Mundrathi Narsimulu, S/o. Late. Shivaiah, Aged about 55 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Shankarampet­R Village and Mandal, Medak District.

2. Mundrathi Yadagiri, S/o. Mundrathi Narsimulu, Aged about 36 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Shankarampet­R Village and Mandal, Medak District.

3. Medi Ganesh, S/o. Narsimulu, aged about 38 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 2­83, Shankarampet­R, Village and Mandal, Medak District.

4. Rajesh Kumar Sahu, S/o. Bondi Saho, aged about 31 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 4­78, Shankarampet­R Village & Mandal, Medak District.

...Defendants.

This suit coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P. Rajesh Koppula, Advocate for the plaintiff, while the Defendant remained ex parte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:­ : J U D G M E N T :

1.This is the Suit, filed by the plaintiff, against the defendants, seeking preliminary decree of partition of the Suit Schedule Property, i.e., agricultural land, bearing Sy.No.353/AA, admeasuring Ac.0­22 guntas, and Sy.No.348/A, admeasuring Ac.0­29 guntas, situated at

Shankarampet­R Village and Mandal, Medak District, by allotting 1/3rd share each, to the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2.

2

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief is, as follows:­ 

The plaintiff is that he is the son of defendant No.1and brother of defendant No.2. The plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 constitute a Joint Hindu Family, having succeeded the suit schedule properties, from their ancestor, Shivaiah. Originally Shivaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural lands in bearing

Sy.No.353/AA, admeasuring Ac.0­22 guntas, and Sy.No.348/A, admeasuring Ac.0­29 guntas, situated at Shankarampet­R Village and

Mandal, Medak District. Said Shivaiah died, leaving behind his only adopted son i.e. defendant No.1, to succeed his properties.

3.After demise of late Shivaiah, his son i.e. defendant No.1 succeeded to the suit schedule properties. Thus, the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 are having equal undivided share of interest, over the suit schedule properties. The defendant no.1, without affecting patition of the suit properties sold out the land to an extent of Ac.0­03 guntas out of Ac.0­22 guntas in Sy.No.353/AA and sold out the land to an extent of Ac.0­07 gunats in Sy.No.348/A in favour of defendant No.3 and 4 under registered sale deed bearing document No.1595/2018 dt.

27­4­2018. though, the said property was not partitioned and the plaintiff never parted with his joint possession. The alleged sale transaction, in favour of the defendant no.3 and 4 on dt. 27­4­2018 under registered sale deed No.1595/2018, is a sham transaction which is created to deprive the legitimate rights of the plaintiff and it is not binding on him.

4.After coming to know about the fact of alienation of the part 3 of the suit properties, the plaintiff on 05­10­2018 and 22­10­2018 orally demanded the defendant No.1 to affect partition of the suit proeties into 1/3rd share but the defendant No.1 blindly refused for the same. The plaintiff haslearnt that, defendants are trying to dispose off the suit schedule properties, to third parties for wrongful gain. In the event of the defendants, succeeding in their evil designs, he will be put to irreparable loss and damage. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to approach the Court, by way of the present suit.

5.The defendant no.1 to 4 remained exparte.

6 Heard. Perused the record.

On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and he got marked Exs.A1 to A7.

7.It is the case of the plaintiff that, one Mundathi Rajaiah was the father of defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 was given in adoption to

Shivaiah, during his childhood who is issue­less and said Shiviah is none other than the own brother of Mundrathi Rajaiah. As such the defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Shivaiah. Plaintiff and defendant

No.2 are the sons of defendant No.1. Said Shivaiah is the common ancestor to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2. Shivaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land, bearing

Sy.No.353/AA, admeasuring Ac.0­22 guntas and Sy.No.348/A, admeasuring Ac.0­29 guntas, situated at Shankarampet­R Village and

Mandal, Medak District and that after his death, the defendant No.1 succeeded the suit properties and that defendant No.1 without the knowledge of the plaintiff sold out part of the suit schedule properties to defendant No.3 and 4 and recently the plaintiff came to know that the 4 defendant no.1, without having exclusive right over the suit schedule properties, alienated, the suit schedule property, in favour of the defendant no.2 and 4, through registered sale deed, to deprive the share of the plaintiff in it and that the suit schedule properties, have to be partitioned among the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2, by allotting each 1/3rd share.

8.With the pleadings and evidence as referred above, it is observed that suit properties are originally stated to be belonging to father of defendant No.1 by name Shivaiah. Even PW1 admit that the suit schedule property belong to his grandfather Shivaiah. Therefore, it is admitted fact from record that suit schedule property originally stood in the name of late Shivaiah who is father of defendant No.1. As such after death of said Shivaiah his properties would be devolve upon his legal heirs in accordance with Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act deal with devolution of interest of a male Hindu dying intestate. As per Section 8 legal heirs under class­I mentioned in the schedule to the Act would inherit the properties of a male Hindu dying intestate. Under the class­I heir mentioned in the schedule to the Act son is included and son of predeceased son is included so also daughter predeceased son included, but son's son or son's daughter are not included under the clause 1 heir. Therefore, as per Section 8 it is only son or daughter of a male dying intestate would be entitled for inheritance, but grand children of male dying intestate cannot claim inheritance in view of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

5

9.In this regard, it is pertinent to cite the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1753 between Commissioner of Wealth­tax, Kanpur, etc., etc., and Chander Sen etc., wherein, it was held that:­ 

The son inherited the property as an individual and not as

Kartha of his own family, hence it could not be included in concluding the assesse's wealth. “It would be difficult to hold today the property which devolved on a Hindu under Sec.8 of the Hindu Succession Act, would be HUF property in his hand vis­a­vis his own son; that would amount to creating two classes among the heirs mentioned in Class I, the male heirs in whose hands it will be joint Hindu family property and vis­a­vis son and female heirs with respect to whom no such concept could be applied or contemplated.

10.In another Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 558 between Yudhishtan and Ashok

Kumar, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:­ 

As per Sec.8 of the Hindu Succession Act, when the son inherited the property, in the situation contemplated by Sec.8, he does not take it as Kartha of his own undivided family but takes it in his individual capacity.

11.In the present case, plaintiff happen to be grand son of late

Shivaiah. As such he cannot claim inheritance right over the properties of late Shivaiah in view of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is defendants No.1 who would inherit the properties of late Shivaiah being his son, but children of defendants No.1 cannot claim property of late

Shivaiah during the life time of defendants No.1.

6

12.With the discussion as taken up above, it need to be held that plaintiff failed to show existence of legal right in his favour for claiming decree of partition in respect of suit schedule property in view of

Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As such plaintiff would not be entitled for partition.

13.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.

Typed by me on my personal laptop, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of June, 2019. 

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medak

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFFS

PW1 Mundrathi Rama Chandram (Plaintiff No.1)

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS

­­None­

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1 is CC of Kasra pahani for the year 1954­55, Ex.A2 is CC of ROR for the year 1979­80, Ex.A3 is CC of ROR for the year 1989­90, Ex. A4 is CC of pahani for the year 2013­14, Ex.A5 is 1B ROR certificate Dt: 13­06­2018, Ex.A6 is Copy of pahani patrik for the fasli year 1427 2 in Nos. Ex. A7 is True copy of sale deed Doc. Bearing No. 1595/2018, Dt: 27­04­ 2018.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

­­Nil—

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MEDAK.

PRC/20/2021PS Havelighanpur

P.S. Haveli Ghanapur Vs konda srinivas

COMMITTAL ORDER

( If the accused is in jail)

The accused is produced before the Court by the jail Authorities. He is charged with the offence punishable 304 (ii) IPC which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The copies of police report and other documents as specified in section 207 (or section 208) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been supplied to the accused. The accused is not represented by any Lawyer. I explained him the provisions of the free legal aid available to the unrepresented accused persons. I asked him whether he desires to avail of free legal assistance.* He states that he has made his own arrangement for his defence before the Sessions Court by engaging a Lawyer. ( OR *- He states that arrangement may be made for appointment of a Lawyer on his behalf by the Sessions Court under Legal Aid Scheme. The Sessions Court will have to be intimated accordingly.) The case will have to be committed to the Court of Session. Hence the order:-

1. Accused present and his committal bond furnished. Heard and perused the record. The record prima-facie shows a case against accused for the offence under section 304 (ii) IPC which is exclusively triable by Hon\''ble Sessions

Court. Hence the case is committed to the Hon\''ble Sessions Court vide separate committal order under section 209 Cr.P.C. Accused is directed to appear before the Hon\''ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Court on 10-11-2021. The entire case record and properties, if any shall be submitted to the Hon\''ble

Court, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. The accused is remanded to Magisterial Custody until commitment of the case and also during and until the conclusion of trial before the Court of Session vide section 209 (a) and (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The accused may be provided with a Lawyer for his defence before the Sessions Court under the Free Legal Aid Scheme.

4. The Jail Authorities are directed to produce the accused before the Court of Session on receiving production warrant from that Court in Form No. IV, Chapter XXXIII of the Criminal Manual.

5. The record of the case, the documents and articles, which are to be produced in evidence, shall be sent to the Court of Session.

6. The police Station Officer, PS Havelighanpur be directed to produce muddemal property in the Court of Session on or

before ........................................................... positively.

7. The Public Prosecutor shall be notified of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Medak

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak

AT MEDAK ,MEDAK

CC/226/2015

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Chegunta Through Police Station Officer Chegunta 135, Chegunta

MEDAK MEDAK

Chegunta VERSUS : A1. Madige ramu Age: 0 Occupation : Chegunta 2:A2. T. KanakaRaju Age: 0 Occupation : Chegunt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for A1. Madige ramu Advocate appearing for , 2 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 457,380 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 26-06-2019)

A1 Produced from Jail A2 Present. Judgment Pronouced in the open court vide separate Judgment In the result, A1 and A2 are foundguilty for the offence U/sec 411 IPC and they are convicted U/sec 248 (2) Cr.P.C and sentence to suffer a simple impriosonment for the a period of 4 month (Four month) the remand period of A1 and A2 from 11.3.2015 to 27.3.2015 and the remand period of A2 from 14-08-2018 to 18-09-2018 shall be given set of U/sec 428 Cr.P.C the Mo1 already returned to pw1 vide oreders dated 28-04-2015 and the the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak

MEDAK MEDAK

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

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile)

Court, Medak

CC/168/2020

State of Telangana Nizampet Vs Ramesh maddela

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 12-12-2020)

Heard. Since, the accused voluntarily admitted his guilt, the admission of the accused is accepted for the offence under section 269 and 270 IPC and thus he is found guilty for the said offence and is convicted under section 252 Cr.P.C. Taking into consideration of the circumstances stated by the accused if he is sentenced to any period of imprisonment, his family will be driven to streets and if heavy fine is imposed, he may not be able to pay the same and forced to undergo default sentence. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view by imposing a nominal amount of fine of Rs.1000/- (One thousand only) IDSI to undergo SI for a period of 30 days for the offence u/Sec.269 IPC and an amount of Rs.1000/-(Rs. One thousand only)

IDSI to undergo SI for a period of 30 days for the offence u/Sec.270 IPC. Total fine amount is Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand only).

Sd/-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Special

Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile) Court, Medak