Smt. R. Siri Sowjanya

IN THE COURT OF THE XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL

COURT HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 01 stDAY OF JULY, 2024

PRESENT : SMT R. SIRI SOWJANYA

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

O.S.No.2191 of 2024

Between : M/s. THE MATTER OF BATTER, a Partnership firm, bearing Regd. No. 1848/2016 represented by its Managing Partner Ria Girri, having its office at 8-2-618/2/A A-3, Ground Floor, Delta Seacon, Road No. 11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, 500034

...PLAINTIFF

AND

MUKARAM SHARIF, son of Not Known to Plaintiff, aged about 38 years, Occupation: Business, at SKYPARK CAFÉ, at 8-2-68/1/B/B1, Road No. 12, GS Nagar, Nandi Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, 500034.

...DEFENDANT

This Petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant was set exparte, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a Summary suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant under

Order XXXVII of CPC for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,31,248/- together with 2

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

interest of Rs.38,799/- and for future damages from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on the business under the name and style of The Matter of Batter for almost a decade, having established the same in the year 2016. The Plaintiff further submitted that it specializes in baking and has garnered a fair name and reputation in society. The Plaintiff further submitted that on 25.02.2023, the

Defendant had approached the Managing Partner of Plaintiff representing that he is the owner of a Cafe by the name 'Skypark Cafe' located at 8-2- 68/1/B/B1, Road No. 12, GS Nagar, Nandi Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, 500034, in a building named 'Owners Pride'. The Plaintiff further submitted that the Defendant further requested for a tie-up with the Plaintiff with an understanding that the items prepared by the Plaintiff would be given to the

Defendant on a regular basis at a discount/wholesale price which the

Defendant would in turn sell at his cafe.

3.The Plaintiff further submitted that it was specifically agreed between the

Plaintiff and Defendant that the payments for the items that were intended to be picked up by the Defendant would be made immediately and, in any event, not later than the end of the day on which items were supplied to the Defendant.

Further submitted that the Defendant would place about 15 to 20 orders per 3

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

month and would make payments of only a few transactions and upon checking Plaintiff's accounts, it was found that there was a huge disparity in the orders picked up by the Defendant and the payments received for the same from the Defendant.

4.It is the further submission of plaintiff that upon reconciliation of its accounts for the period from 25.02.2023 to 16.01.2024, the Defendant had only made payments to the tune of 36,964/- out of a total amount of 1,94,413/-₹₹ receivable by the Plaintiff from Defendant, thereby leaving a balance of 1,57,449/-. The Plaintiff further submits that the Plaintiff has been repeatedly reminding the Defendant to clear the balance amount of 1,57,449/- due and₹ payable by him, for which the Defendant has been procrastinating the matter without any justifiable cause of reason. That the Managing Partner of the

Plaintiff had contacted the Defendant on 01.02.2024 through Whatsapp in order, to alert the Defendant regarding the unpaid bills so that the Defendant would clear the dues before the end of the financial year. The Plaintiff further submits that it had reminded the Defendant to clear the outstanding amounts on multiple occasions through Whatsapp.

5.It is the further contention of the plaintiff that when the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant again about the payments, the Defendant started evading

Plaintiff's calls and messages. Finally, on 02.03.2024, the Defendant replied to the Plaintiff's message by saying that he would start making the payments 4

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

every week starting from 04.03.2024. The Plaintiff further submits that the

Defendant had failed to mention that in how many installments he would make the payment, and only vaguely mentioned that he will make payment of "weekly 15-25k". The Plaintiff further submits that there have been no efforts made by the Defendant to clear the dues and the aforementioned commitment made by the Defendant was never adhered to. The Plaintiff further submits that thereafter when the Plaintiff continued to follow up, on 24.03.2024, the

Defendant had categorically admitted that the entire amount due and stated that he would start making payments in the coming week.

6.The Plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff being vexed with the acts of the Defendant, the Plaintiff had issued a Legal Notice dated 09.04.2024 through its counsel calling upon the Defendant to immediately pay the amount of 1,57,449/- (together with interest/ penalty at 36% per annum from the date the payment fell due till the date of actual realization together with damages of

Rs.2,00,000/- to the Plaintiff within 7 days from the receipt of notice, failing which the Plaintiff would be constrained to initiate appropriate legal action against the Defendant before an appropriate court of law and for which costs and consequences the Defendant alone shall be responsible. Further the aforesaid legal notice was sent to the Defendant by registered post acknowledgment due, and that the Defendant in order to avoid the service of notice had managed the postal personnel and got returned the said notice.

5

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

7.The Plaintiff further submitted that the said notice was also sent by the

Managing Partner of the Plaintiff to the Defendant through WhatsApp Message on 13.04.2024 to the Defendant. The Plaintiff further submits that upon receipt of the legal notice on whatsapp the Defendant once again admitted his liability.

The Plaintiff submits that, believing the categorical assurance and admission of the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not immediately filed the case and gave the

Defendant sufficient time to honour his commitment. The Plaintiff was aghast to note that said commitment of the Defendant was like all earlier commitments in order to evade/procrastinate the Defendant's lawful liability. The Plaintiff further submitted that a sum of Rs.38,799/- is liable to be payable by the Defendant towards interest which has accrued on the balance due of 1,57,449/- as detailed below:-

CALCULATION

1.PRINCIPAL SUMRS.1,57,449/-

2.INTEREST AS ON 15.05.2024 ON THE PRINCIPAL SUM RS.38,799/-

3.DAMAGES FOR THE HARASSMENT METED OUT TORS.2,00,000/- THE PLAINTIFF’S MANAGING PARTNER

4.NOTICE CHARGESRS.35,000/-

5.TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE BY DEFENDANTRS.4,31,248/-

8.After registering the suit, summons were issued to defendant. Summons were served to the defendant, on 30.05.2024 as per the endorsement made by bailiff. But the defendant who is supposed to be present before the court within 6

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

10 days from date of service of summons as per provisions of order XXXVII

CPC failed to appear before the court.

9.The Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that as per procedure contemplated under order XXXVII of CPC, as defendant failed to appear before the court, judgment be pronounced forthwith.

10.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is:

I) “whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from

the defendant with interest as prayed for?”

II) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- as

damages from defendant as prayed for?”

POINT: The suit is filed to try it summarily. Accordingly summons were served to the defendant and as per the docket the summons were served on 30.05.2024 on the defendant but the defendant failed to appear before the court and also failed to file any petition seeking leave to defend.

11.Hence as per the provisions of Order XXXVII of CPC the contention of the learned counsel for plaintiff is that he is entitled for the judgment forthwithholds substance.

12.Further to substantiate the said contention the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Indian 7

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

Bank Vs Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. In

(1998) 5 SCC 69” wherein it was held at para-9 and para-10 thus:

Para 9.

” The provision contained in Section 10 is a general provision applicable to all categories of cases. The provisions contained in Order 37 apply to certain classes of suits. One provides a bar against proceeding with the trial of a suit, the other provides for granting of quick relief. Both these provisions have to be interpreted harmoniously so that the objects of both are not frustrated. This being the correct approach and as the question that has arisen for consideration in this appeal is whether the bar to proceed with the trial of subsequently instituted suit contained in

Section 10 of the Code is applicable to a summary suit filed under Order 37 of the Code, the words "trial of any suit" will have to be construed in the context of the provisions bof Order 37 of the Code. Rule 2 of Order 37 enables the plaintiff to institute a summary suit in certain cases. On such a suit being filed the defendant is required to be served with a copy of the plaint and summons in the prescribed form. Within 10 days of service the defendant has to enter an appearance. Within the prescribed time the defendant has to apply for leave to defend the suit and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the court or judge to be just. If the defendant has not 8

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

applied for leave to defend, or if such an application has been made and refused, the plaintiff becomes entitled to judgment forthwith. If the conditions on which leave was granted are not complied with by the defendant then also the plaintiff becomes entitled to judgment forthwith.

Rule (7) of Order 37 provides that save as provided by that order the procedure in summary suits shall be the same as the procedure in suits instituted in the ordinary manner. Thus in classes of suits where adopting summary procedure for deciding them is permissible the defendant has to file an appearance within 10 days of the service of summons and apply for leave to defend the suit. If the defendant does not enter his appearance as required or fails to obtain leave the allegations in the plaint are deemed to be admitted and straightaway a decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The stage of determination of the matter in issue will arise in a summary suit only after the defendant obtains leave. The trial would really begin only after leave is granted to the defendant. This clearly appears to be the scheme of summary procedure as provided by Order 37 of the Code.

Para 10.

“Considering the objects of both the provisions, i.e., Section 10 and

Order 37 wider interpretation of the word "trial" is not called for. We are of 9

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

the opinion that the word "trial" in Section 10, in the context of a summary suit, cannot be interpreted to mean the entire proceedings starting with institution of the suit by lodging a plaint. In a summary suit, the "trial" really begins after the court or the judge grants leave to the defendant to contest the suit. Therefore, the court or the judge dealing with the summary suit can proceed up to the stage of hearing the summons for judgment and passing the judgment in favour of the plaintiff if (a) the defendant has not applied for leave to defend or if such application has been made and refused or if (b) the defendant who is permitted to defend fails to comply with the conditions on which leave to defend is granted.

13.Further he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Wada Arun Asbestos (P) Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage

Board Civil Appeal No.7314 of 2008 dated 16.12.2008” wherein it was categorically held at para 20 thus:

Para 20:

12.”A decree passed in a summary suit where leave to defend the suit has been refused is almost automatic. The consequence of passing a decree cannot be avoided.

14.Further the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that as the defendant failed to appear before the court for taking up any defense, the contents of 10

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

plaint are deemed to be admitted, hence the suit is to be decreed and marking of documents is not at all required.

15.In the instant suit, the plaintiff has sought for recovery of amount of

Rs.1,57,449/- on the ground that the defendant failed to pay the amounts for the orders placed by the defendant which were delivered by the plaintiff. As per the details given by the plaintiff in the plaint, the defendant failed to make payments for the following orders:

S.No. DATE ORDER ORDER DETAILS AMOUNT TOTAL PAID/UNPAID

1.24.03.2023Rs.2,100/-60 BURGER BUNSNO

2.27.03.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

3.01.04.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

4.03.04.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

5.09.04.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

6.10.04.2023Rs.4,200/-120 BURGER BUNSNO

7.13.04.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

8.20.04.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

9.25.04.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

10.30.04.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

11.01.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

12.04.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

13.06.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

14.09.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

15.10.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

16.14.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

17.16.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

18.19.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO 11

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

19.20.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

20.22.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

21.26.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

22.27.05.2023Rs.700/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

23.29.05.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

24.01.06.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

25.02.06.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

26.05.06.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

27.07.06.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

28.09.06.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

29.12.06.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

30.13.06.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

31.16.06.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

32.10.07.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

33.13.07.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

34.15.07.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

35.17.07.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

36.20.07.2023Rs.2,100/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

37.26.07.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

38.01.08.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

39.03.08.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

40.05.08.2023Rs.1,750/-50 BURGER BUNSNO

41.06.08.2023Rs.1,750/-50 BURGER BUNSNO

42.07.08.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

43.08.08.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

44.09.08.2023Rs.500/-50 MINI BURGERNO BUNS

45.10.08.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

46.13.08.2023Rs.2,520/-0 MINI BUNS 47NO

BIG BUN

47.18.08.2023Rs.1,750/-50 BURGER BUNSNO 12

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

48.21.08.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

49.25.08.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

50.26.08.2023Rs.2,690/-40 BUNS 6 PANININO

51.28.08.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

52.29.08.2023Rs.2,499/-60 BUNS 10 PANININO

53.30.08.2023Rs.500/-10 PANININO

54.04.09.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

55.05.09.2023Rs.598/-15 PANININO

56.06.09.2023Rs.1,649/-30 BUNS 15 PANININO

57.08.09.2023Rs.1,649/-30 BUNS 15 PANININO

58.10.09.2023Rs.1,925/-40 BUNS 15 PANININO

59.13.09.2023Rs.1,649/-30 BUNS 15 PANININO

60.15.09.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

61.16.09.2023Rs.2,048/-30 BUNS 25 PANININO

62.19.09.2023Rs.1,649/-30 BUNS 15 PANININO

63.21.09.2023Rs.1,449/-30 BUNS 10 PANININO

64.22.09.2023Rs.1,498/-20 BUNS 20 PANININO

65.24.09.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

66.26.09.2023Rs.1,688/-30 BUNS 16 PANININO

67.29.09.2023Rs.1,499/-30 BUNS 10 PANININO

68.30.09.2023Rs.1,499/-30 BUNS 10 PANININO

69.01.10.2023Rs.1,249/-30 BUNS 5 PANININO

70.03.10.2023Rs.1,449/-30 BUNS 10 PANINIRs.80/ Due/NO

71.04.10.2023Rs.1,449/-30 BUNS 10 PANININO

72.06.10.2023Rs.1,449/-30 BUNS 10 PANININO

73.08.10.2023Rs.1,449/-30 BUNS 10 PANININO

74.09.10.2023Rs.1,449/-30 BUNS 10 PANININO

75.12.10.2023Rs.1,449/-30 BUNS 10 PANININO

76.14.10.2023Rs.2,898/-50 BUNS 20 PANININO

77.15.10.2023Rs.1,449/-30 BUNS 10 PANININO

78.17.10.2023Rs.1,449/-30 BUNS 10 PANININO 13

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

79.19.10.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

80.21.10.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

81.23.10.2023Rs.1,400/-40 BURGER BUNSNO

82.25.10.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

83.27.10.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

84.29.10.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

85.30.10.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

86.02.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

87.04.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

88.05.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

89.07.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

90.09.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

91.11.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

92.12.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

93.14.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

94.18.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

95.19.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

96.20.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

97.22.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

98.24.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

99.25.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

100.27.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

101.29.11.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

102.01.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

103.03.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

104.05.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

105.07.12.2023Rs.1,470/-30 BUNS 40 MININO

106.10.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

107.13.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

108.15.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

109.17.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO 14

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

110.18.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

111.19.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

112.22.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

113.24.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

114.25.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

115.26.12.2023Rs.2,100/-60 BURGER BUNSNO

116.28.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

117.29.12.2023Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

118.31.12.2023Rs.2,599/-75 BURGER BUNSNO

119.02.01.2024Rs.901/-26 BURGER BUNSNO

120.05.01.2024Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

121.06.01.2024Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

122.08.01.2024Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

123.09.01.2024Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

124.11.01.2024Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

125.12.01.2024Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

126.14.01.2024Rs.1,400/-40 BURGER BUNSNO

127.16.01.2024Rs.1,050/-30 BURGER BUNSNO

16.The entire amount as per the plaint averments which is due by the defendant to the plaintiff is Rs.1,57,449/-. Applying the ratio laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of Indian Bank Vs Maharashtra State

Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. In (1998) 5 SCC 69 stated supra, as the defendant did not chose to appear before the court in the suit which was filed to be tried summarily, this court opines that the entire averments of the plaint are deemed to be admitted and hence deems it fit to decree the suit, to 15

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

the extent of the due amount of Rs.1,57,449/- and along with interest of

Rs.38,799/-

17.Though the plaintiff has claimed damages to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, as nothing is placed by plaintiff before this court to show as to the actual damages suffered or to show as to how the plaintiff has arrived at the figure of

Rs.2,00,000/- as damages, this court opines that plaintiff has failed to prove his contention, hence the relief as to damages stands rejected.

18.In the result, the suit is decreed in part, without costs:

(i) Directing the defendant, to pay an amount of Rs.1,96,248/-, to the plaintiff i.e., for the principal sum of Rs.1,57,449/- along with an interest of Rs.38,799/-.

(ii) Further directing Defendant to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the

Principal amount of Rs.1,57,449/- from date of filing of the suit till date of

decree.

(iii) Further directing Defendant to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the

Principal amount of Rs.1,57,449/- from date of decree till date of realization.

(iv). The Defendant shall pay the above said amount within (02) months from the date of this Judgment, failing which the plaintiff shall be at liberty to proceed against the defendant for execution of the decree as per Law.

16

O.S.NO.2191 of 2024

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 01st day of July, 2024.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined -NIL-

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

Page No.1OS.No.4072 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURTS : AT HYDERABAD

DATED THE 30 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. R.SIRI SOWJANYA

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

OS.No.4072 of 2021

Between :

K.M. Sai Swapna, D/o. Kothamakkala Venkatesh, Aged about 33 years,

Occ: Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No.2-4-779/12, Nimboli Adda,

Harrajpenta, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

A N D

S.K. Karanlal, S/o. Not known, Aged about 75 years,

Occ: Business, R/o. 2-4-779/1, Kachiguda, Nimboli Adda,

Harrajpeta, Vaddera Basthi, Hyderabad.

...Defendant

***

This suit coming before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri A.Ram

Mohan Goud, Advocate for the Plaintiff and M/s P. Sumitra, Advocate for

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

::JUDGMENT::

1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant to evict the suit premises.

Page No.2OS.No.4072 of 2021

The averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff in nut shell are:

2.The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of house bearing No.2-4-779/1 admeasuring 40 Sq yards at vaddera basti, harangpet,

Kachiguda which is the suit schedule property having acquired the same under a registered gift deed dt. 12.04.2017 bearing document No.1222/2017 registered on the S.R.O, Hyderabad from her mother K.M.Anuradha who actually has acquired the same. Further it is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has obtained the suit schedule premises from the plaintiff on rent on 01.05.2017 for a initial monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-, the tenancy is oral, at the time of obtaining the premises the defendant has deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards defendant security, the rent was Rs.6,000/- exclusive of water and electricity charges and as per the terms of the oral tenancy the rent has to be enhanced by 5 % every year. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has paid rents upto August, 2019 @ Rs.6,600/- per month and later failed to pay the rent from September, 2019 and of January, 2020 for a period of 5 months thereby an arrears of Rs.33,000/-has accrued on the same. Further it is a case of the plaintiff that despite repeated reminders by the plaintiff herein to

Page No.3OS.No.4072 of 2021 repay the arrears of rent and to pay rents regularly, the defendant paid deaf ear to the same as such vexed with the attitude of the defendant the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.03.03.2020 to the defendant terminating the tenancy by the end of February, 2020 and demanding to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff herein. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that despite receiving the said notice, the defendant has neither replied to the same nor repaid the arrears of rent nor made any payments towards monthly rents nor has vacated the suit schedule property hence, left with no other alternative the plaintiff has filed the present suit for eviction.

The brief avermnets of the written statement filed by the defendant in

nut shell are :

3.The defendant who denied all the adverse allegations levelled by the plaintiff upon the defendant, further has categorically stated that the defendant is not the tenant of the suit schedule property and in turn put up a counter claim that the defendant herein is the owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant has categorically submitted that the defendant is the owner of the house bearing No.2-2-779/A admeasuring 46.50 Sq yards situated at Vaddera

Page No.4OS.No.4072 of 2021 basti having acquired the same by virtue of inheritance, was in occupation and possession, enjoyment of the suit schedule property has been paying Municipal property Tax, electricity charges to the concerned departments, further the defendant stated that out of love and affection he has gifted the subject property to his wife namely Sabunekar Yadamma Bhai vide gift deed document

No.2547/2019, dt.04.06.2019 registered at S.R.O Chikadpally.

4.Further it is the submission of the defendant that the defendant’s wife has become the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of the above said gift deed, the defendants are in possession of the same and in enjoyment of the same, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is the tenant is completely false and fabricated and is only invented only for the purpose of the case, there is no jural relationship between the defendant and plaintiff, defendant was never the tenant was not paying any rents as he is the owner of the schedule property as such, the suit has to be dismissed in limini.

5.Heard. Perused.

6.Based on the contentions raised by the both the counsel, the following issues were settled for trial on 08.06.2022.

Page No.5OS.No.4072 of 2021

Issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of evicting the

defendant from the suit schedule property as prayed for?

3. To what relief ?

7.To substantiate the contentions raised in the plaint, the plaintiff got herself examined as PW1. As PW1 the plaintiff filed the Chief affidavit reiterating the contents of plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A7.

To substantiate the contentions raised in the written statement, the defendant got examined as DW1, Defendant filed the chief reiterating the contentions in the written statement, the defendant got Ex.B1 marked through

PW1 on confrontation.

8.It is pertinent to mention here that PW1 after part of cross examination is completed, has not submitted herself for further cross examination as such the cross examination recorded so far was taken on record and the evidence of PW1 was closed as well as the evidence of plaintiff was closed. Thereafter no petitions to set aside or reopen or recall PW1 to reopen the evidence of plaintiff filed.

Page No.6OS.No.4072 of 2021

Further it is also pertinent to mention that though the defendant has filed chief as DW1, the plaintiff has not choosen to cross DW1. Despite opportunity, hence the right to cross DW1 by plaintiff was forfeited and later the evidence of defendant was closed. Further it is pertinent to mention that despite opportunity the plaintiff has not come forward to advance the arguments. Hence arguments of plaintiff was treated heard and closed.

9.Heard.

10.The counsel for defendants filed written arguments. Perused.

ISSUE No.1:

Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ?

11.At this juncture it is pertinent to mention that though this court has framed the issue with regard to determining the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as the defendant has disputed the same, the counsel for the defendant in course of arguments admitted that in a suit for eviction the title need not be looked into nor can be decided. Moreover this court opines that if at all the issue of the ownership is being disputed by defendant he ought to have filed suit for declaration and cannot in this suit agitate regarding the ownership of plaintiff for it

Page No.7OS.No.4072 of 2021 is settled law that the tenant cannot dispute the ownership of the landlord over the suit schedule property.

Issue No. 2 :-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of evicting defendant from

the suit schedule property as prayed for ?

13.At this juncture it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff to prove the suit claim has examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A7. To prove the ownership over the suit schedule property the plaintiff relied on Ex.A5 and Ex.A4.

But it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff has categorically claimed that vide

Ex.A4 her mother has derived the title and as per Ex.A5 there is an agreement of sale by her mother with one Rama Rao. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention that Ex.A1 is the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff made by her mother i.e., Smt

K.M.Anuradha, but on page 2 of the gift deed it is said that K.M Anuradha had acquired the property from her ancestors, whereas as per Ex.A6 it is by way of an agreement of sale executed by one G.Padma Rao in favour of Smt Anuradha, these

Ex.A1 and E.A6 are contrary to each other in establishing the flow of title as to how

Page No.8OS.No.4072 of 2021 the plaintiff has acquired the suit schedule property as rightly argued by the counsel for defendant.

14.Further it is also pertinent to mention that as per plaintiff she has acquired the suit schedule property by way vide gift deed dt.12.04.2017 from her mother Smt

K.M. Anuradha which was not marked, and that her mother acquired it by way of agreement of sale from one Mr G. Padma Rao vide Ex.A6. But at this juncture as rightly contended by the counsel for the defendant it is pertinent to mention that it is settled law and has been time and again reiterated the Hon’ble courts that a mere agreement of sale does not confer any right title on any person unless and until there is a registered sale deed in that favour.

15.Further it is also pertinent to note that as per the documents vide Ex.A1 to

Ex.A7, the municipal property bearing No.2-4-779/1 at Vadderbasti whereas the defendant is claiming to be in the possession of the property bearing No.2-4-779/A admeasuring 46.50 Sq yards as against the 40 Sq. yards mentioned in the suit schedule property herein. As it has been already highlighted in the above pages that a question of to title cannot be looked into in the suit for eviction and the question of jural relationship is the first and foremost question to be decided upon, it is pertinent

Page No.9OS.No.4072 of 2021 to mention here that the plaintiff states that the defendant has entered as tenant into the suit schedule premises on oral lease for monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-, but in the cross examination of plaintiff, PW1 has categorically stated that she has filed a documentary proof to show that he has let out the property to the defendant and the suit schedule property has been let out by her father to her defendant, but immediately she turned turtle and stated that she is not aware whether she has filed any documentary or proof to show that quantum of rent or that she does not have any documentary proof to show that she has given the suit schedule premises on rent to the defendant herein.

16.Further it is also pertinent to note that PW1 in the cross examination admitted that she has not filed any proof to show that the rent was paid by the defendant till

August, 2019 and later from September, 2019 the rent was not been paid. Further it is also pertinent to note that PW1 in the cross examination stated that she does not know whether any legal notice for eviction was given prior to the filing of this case either by her father or by her. Further she has also stated she has does not know why

Ex.A7 was filed by her. It is pertinent to mention here that Ex.A7 is the communication received by the plaintiff/PW1 herein from Greater Hyderabad

Page No.10OS.No.4072 of 2021

Municipal Corporation wherein her application dt.20.03.2019 was not considered for assessment of property tax for the reason that there exists disputes among the families who were residing in the premises bearing municipal No.2-4-779/1. At this juncture it is also pertinent to mention that PW1 has admitted Ex.B1 which is the gift settlement deed document by the defendant in favour of the wife of the defendant with regard to the suit schedule property bearing No.2-4-779/A admeasuring 46.50 Sq. Yards at Vadderabasti, Nimboli Adda.

17.More over it is also pertinent to note here that PW1 has submitted herself to cross examination initially and later as rightly argued by the counsel for defendant when she was called for further cross examination she has not choosen to appear

before the court to conclude the cross examination nor has choosen to cross

examine the defendant to negate the contentions of the defendant and negate the submissions made by the defendant with regard to ownership of the suit schedule property and with regard to non existence of any jural relationship of land lord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant.

18.It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of

Payal Vision Ltd vs Radhika Choudhary (2012) 11 SCC 405 the Hon’ble “ ”

Page No.11OS.No.4072 of 2021

Apex Court has issued guidelines and also the principles on the touch stone of which a suit for eviction has to be deceided which goes thus:-

In a suit for Ejectment the plaintiff is required to establish:- “

(a) Relationship of Landlord and tenant,

(b) Tenancy is not protected under Rent Control Act,

(c) There is no subsisting lease Agreement

(d) Tenancy has been terminated by duly serving the notice to quit.

Applying the ratio laid down in case of Payal Vision Ltd vs Radhika

Choudhary as stated supra to the case before hand; In a suit for eviction the “ following points has to be looked into:-

(i) the existence of jural relationship of land lord and tenant between the plaintiff, and the defendant.

(ii) that the rent is not protected under the Rent Control Act.

(iii) that there is no subsisting lease agreement and

(iv) that the notice to quit has been duly served.

Page No.12OS.No.4072 of 2021

20.In the instant case the plaintiff states that she is the owner of suit schedule property and defendant is the tenant of the suit schedule property, whereas right from the beginning the defendant is disputing that he is not the tenant of the suit schedule property and he is the owner of the suit schedule property. Though the question of ownership cannot be decided herein, it is pertinent to mention the jural relationship has to be established by the plaintiff in order to get the relief of eviction. But in the instant suit as detailed above contradictory versions were given by the plaintiff in her chief affidavit, in her cross examination with regards to entry of tenancy by the defendant, with regard to payment of rent, with regard to the delivery of possession, with regard to issuance of legal notice. Further though PW1 has filed one exhibit showing issuance of legal notice that itself will not be of any vail to her nor would dispense her from proving the existence of jural relation ship between herself and the defendant.

22.Further it is pertinent to mention that as rightly argued by the counsel for defendant there is nothing on record either oral or any document to prove defendant is the tenant of plaintiff, there are no documents evidencing payments of rents.

Further as plaintiff has not got any one on record to substantiate her contention that

Page No.13OS.No.4072 of 2021 the defendant is the tenant of the suit schedule premises, nor has got examined any neighbours of the suit schedule premises; to substantiate her contention and prove that there exists jural relationship of landlord and tenant between herself and the defendant.

23.Moreover as rightly argued by the counsel for defendant she herself is not certain with regard to the documents she has filed and also is not clear about as to how she acquired the owner ship of the suit schedule premises, on what basis, when the defendant has entered as ‘tenant’ into the suit schedule property.

24.As the plaintiff miserably failed to show that there exists the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between herself and defendant as claimed by her, as there are lot of discrepancies in her statement with regard to the tenancy of the defendant over the suit schedule property, be it in her chief, be it in her plaint and in her cross examination, as there is nothing filed before the court to show that defendant is the tenant of the suit schedule property, as there is no cogent evidence to substantiate the version of the plaintiff, as PW1 failed to submit herself to cross examination completely and also failed to cross examine the defendant despite there being ample opportunity, this court opines that the plaintiff has miserably failed in proving the

Page No.14OS.No.4072 of 2021 existence of jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and so deems fit to dismiss the suit.

25.In the result, the suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dictated to the stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30th day of September 2024.

X Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court,Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

For plaintiff: For defendant:

PW1 : K.M.Sai Swapna D.W.1: Sabunekar Nagoji

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : is the gift deed, dt.12.04.2017.

Ex.A2 : is the office copy of legal notice dt.03.03.2020.

Ex.A3 : is the original postal receipt, dt.03.03.2020.

Ex.A4 : is the memorandum of gift, dt.05.02.2003.

Ex.A5 : is the agreement of sale, dt.02.09.2003.

Ex.A6 : is the agreement of sale, dt.14.11.2014.

Ex.A7 : is the original GHMC notice, dt.13.06.2019.

Documents marked for defendant:

Ex.B1: is the CC of Gift Deed bearing documents No.2547 of 2019, dt.04.06.2019.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

Page No.15OS.No.4072 of 2021

DECREE IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT: HYDERABAD.

DATED THE 30 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024.

PRESENT: SMT. R.SIRI SOWJANYA

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

OS.No.4072 of 2021

Between :

K.M. Sai Swapna, D/o. Kothamakkala Venkatesh, Aged about 33 years,

Occ: Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No.2-4-779/12, Nimboli Adda,

Harrajpenta, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

A N D

S.K. Karanlal, S/o. Not known, Aged about 75 years,

Occ: Business, R/o. 2-4-779/1, Kachiguda, Nimboli Adda,

Harrajpeta, Vaddera Basthi, Hyderabad.

...Defendant

***

Claim:- This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant to evict the suit premises.

Valuation and Court Fee :-

That the plaintiff value the suit for ejectment on early rent of at @ Rs.6,600/- per month which comes to Rs.79,200/- for which the plaintiffs pays a court of

Rs.3030/- Under Section 40 of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, and the same is sufficient.

Plaint presented on :- 01.10.2024 Plaint numbered on :- 30.11.2024

Page No.16OS.No.4072 of 2021

This suit coming before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri A.Ram

Mohan Goud, Advocate for the Plaintiff and M/s P.Sumitra, Advocate for

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

1.That the suit of the plaintiff be and is hereby dismissed

2.That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this 30th day of September, 2024.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

MEMO OF COSTS

FOR Plaintiffs FOR DEFENDANTS 1.Stamp on plaint Rs. Rs.

2.Stamp on vakalat Rs. Rs.

3.Advocate fee Rs.Rs.

4.Process fee Rs. Rs.

5.Misc. Fee Rs. Rs.

6.Publication charges Rs. Rs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Rs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

Page No.17OS.No.4072 of 2021

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that the houses bearing Municipal No.2-4-779/1, admeasuring 40 Sq.

yards situated at Vadder Basthi, harrajpenta, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, T.S and bounded as:-

NORTH : Neighbours House

SOUTH : Neighbours House

EAST : Neighbours House

WEST : 6 Feet Galli

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

NOTE:-''The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date .”

Page No.18OS.No.4072 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT: HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 01 st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

PRESENT: Smt. R. SIRI SOWJANYA

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

O.S. No. 3271 of 2024

Between:

1.Smt. Madgula Nagamani, W/o. Late Madgula Phani Bhushan, aged about 68 years, Occupation:Housewife, resident of flat

No.105, Magadha Towers, H.No.1-9-3, Ram Nagar, Hyderabad now residing at 3019, MONTBRETIA SAN RAMON,CA- 94582, U.S.A.

2.Madgula Sunil Kumar, S/o. Late Madgula Phani Bhushan, aged about 44 years, Occupation: employee, resident of flat

No.105, Magadha Towers, H.No.1-9-3, Ram Nagar, Hyderabad now residing at 19002, DENALI CIR NORTH VILLE, MI- 48168, U.S.A.

3.Smt. Madgula Mounika, D/o. Late Madgula Phani Bhushan,

W/o.Mr.Duvvuri Sreenivas Krishna Murthy, aged about 41 years, Occupation: employee, resident of flat No.105, Magadha

Towers, H.No.1-9-3, Ram Nagar, Hyderabad now residing at 3019, MONTBRETIA WAY SAN RAMON,CA-94582, U.S.A.

Through their GPA holder,

Sri Madugula Krishna Ramesh, S/o.late Madugula Krishna

Murthy, aged about 65 years, Occupation: employee, residing of

Plot No.4, Manju Enclave, Ayodhya Nagar,Kapra,

ECIL,Secunderabad-62.

... Plaintiffs

A N D

1. The Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad.

2. All concerned.

... Defendants

This suit coming on or before me for final hearing, in the presence of

Sri M.Keshava Rao, Counselfor the plaintiffsand that of defendants were set Ex-parte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit is filed for declaration by the plaintiffs praying this Court to declare the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Late Madgula

Phani Bhushan, for the purpose of legal status only.

The averments made in the plaint, in nut shell are:-

2.The plaintiffs No.1 is the wife, plaintiff No.2 & 3 are the children of the Late Madgula Phani Bhushan, who has expired on 09-11-2020 at

Hyderabad.

3.The plaintiffs further submitted that deceased Late Madgula Phani

Bhushan, having two children and legally weeded wife Smt.M.Nagamani, died intestate on 09-11-2020 leaving behind him the plaintiff No.1 to 3 herein as her legal heirs. Thus, the plaintiffs are the only surviving legal heirs of Late Madgula Phani Bhushan. Sri.Madugula Krishna Ramesh,

S/o.late Madugula Krishna is the GPA holder of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3.

4.The plaintiffs further submitted that they are approached the

Defendant No.1 through GPA holder for obtaining the legal heir certificate but the Defendant No.1 refused to provide the same to the plaintiffs stating that they have no powers to issue legal heir certificate, and directed the plaintiffs to approach appropriate court for obtaining the legal heir certificate. In the above circumstances the plaintiffs have no other alternative except to approach this Hon’ble court by way of filing the present suit for declaration to declare the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of deceased

Late Madgula Phani Bhushan, for legal status only. Hence the suit.

5.Summons were served on defendant no.2, Publication filed for defendant no.1, but they did not appear and there is no representation from any one. Defendants did not turn up for appearance and did not choose to contest the suit. Hence, the Defendants no.1 and 2 set Ex-parte. Thereafter no petition was filed to set aside the Ex-parte order.

6. To prove the suit claim, on behalf of Plaintiffs, Sri Madugula Krishna

Ramesh, GPA holder got examined himself as PW1. In his chief in examination, he reiterated the contents of the plaint. PW1 got marked Exs.

A1 to A4.

Ex.A1:is the original Death certificate dt.15-12-2020 of M.Phani

Bhushan issued by GHMC.

Ex.A2:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A3:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A4:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.3.

11. Now the point for determination is :

(Q1): ‘ Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal

heirs of the deceased Late Madgula Phani Bhushan, for the purpose of

legal status only? ” (Q2): To what relief ?

P O I N T 1:- (Q1): ‘ Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared

as legal heirs of the deceased Late Madgula Phani Bhushan for the

purpose of legal status only?’

(a). In order to substantiate their averments in the plaint, the GPA holder got examined as PW-1, and got marked exhibits Exs.A1 to A4 documents.

PW.1 filed his affidavit-in-chief which is nothing but repetition of the entire contents of the plaint. According to PW1, the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of Late Madgula Phani Bhushan,

(b).In order to prove the deaths of Late Madgula Phani Bhushan,, the plaintiffs produced Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the Death certificates of Late Madgula

Phani Bhushan,, issued by GHMC, which discloses that Late Madgula Phani

Bhushan,died at Hyderabad, on 09-11-2020.

c.In order to prove their relationship with Late Madgula Phani Bhushan, the plaintiffs got marked Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 documents shows

Plaintiff No.1 is wife of Late Madgula Phani Bhushan, and plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the children of Late Madgula Phani Bhushan,. Hence it can be concluded that Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are legal heirs of deceased Late Madgula

Phani Bhushan, d.As there is no contrary evidence on this point, as the evidence of

PW1 coupled with exhibits A2 to A4 remained unrebutted, this court is of the considered opinion that it is just, fair, reasonable to declare the plaintiffs no.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of deceased Late Madgula Phani

Bhushan, for the purpose of legal status only. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

POINT 2: (Q2): To what relief ?

2.1. In the result, the suit is decreed in part without costs by declaring that the Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased Late Madgula

Phani Bhushan,for the purpose of legal status only.

Typed by the Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 01 st day of October, 2024.

X Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

For plaintiffs For defendants:

PW1 : Madugula Krishna Ramesh Nil

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1:is the original Death certificate dt.15-12-2020 of M.Phani

Bhushan issued by GHMC.

Ex.A2:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A3:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A4:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.3.

Documents marked for defendants: Nil.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYD.

DECREE IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT: HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 18 th DAY OF MARCH, 2024

PRESENT: Smt. R. SIRI SOWJANYA

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

OS. No. 6105 of 2023

Between:

1. Munnangi Lakshmi, W/o. Late Munnangi Vidyadhar,

Aged 66 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.1-10-122/8/3,

Ashok Nagar, St.No.8, Hyderabad-500020.

Rep.by her GPA Holder,

Munnangi Vijnana Bhikshu, S/o. Late Munnangi Vidyadhar,

Aged 36 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o.H.No.1-10-122/8/3,

Ashok Nagar, St.No.8, Hyderabad-500020.

2. Maddali Urmali, W/o. M.Vijay Kumar,

D/o. Late Munnangi Vidyadhar, Aged 39 years,

Occ: Household, R/o. 2394, MIG OLD BHEL, Lingampally,

Ranga Reddy District 500019.

Rep.by her GPA Holder,

Munnangi Vijnana Bhikshu, S/o. Late Munnangi Vidyadhar,

Aged 36 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o.H.No.1-10-122/8/3,

Ashok Nagar, St.No.8, Hyderabad-500020.

3. Munnangi Vijnana Bhikshu, S/o. Late Munnangi Vidyadhar,

Aged 36 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o.H.No.1-10-122/8/3,

Ashok Nagar, St.No.8, Hyderabad-500020.

... Plaintiffs

A N D 1.The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Officer,

Musheerabad, 2-91/87,St.No.7, Musheerabad,

Hyderabad -500020.

2. All concerned.

... Defendants.

Claim:- This is a suit is filed for declaration by the plaintiffs praying this Court to declare the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Late Sri Munnangi Vidyadhar, for the purpose of legal status only.

Valuation and Court Fee :- The suit is filed for the purpose of declaration to declare the plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased Late Sri Munnangi Vidyadhar,and the suit is valued of Rs.10,000/- and a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under Section 24(d) as the Telangana Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.

Plaint presented on :12-07-2023. Plaint numbered on :21-12-2023.

This suit coming on or before me for final hearing, in the presence of

Sri A.Ravi Teja, Counselfor the plaintiffsand that of defendants were set

Ex-parte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

1. That the suit of the plaintiffs be and hereby is decreed by declaring that thePlaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased Late Sri Munnangi Vidyadhar. for the purpose of legal status only.

2.That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this 18th day of

March, 2024.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

MEMO OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1.Stamp on plaint Rs. Rs. 2.Stamp on vakalat Rs. Rs. 3.Advocate fee Rs. Rs. 4.Process fee Rs. Rs. 5.Misc. Fee Rs. Rs. 6.Publication charges Rs. Rs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Rs. -----------------------------------------------------------------------

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

NOTE:-''The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date .”

DECREE IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT: HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 10 th DAY OF JUNE, 2024

PRESENT: Smt. R. SIRI SOWJANYA

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

OS. No. 242 of 2024

Between:

1. Smt. G.Radhika Alias Pokala Radhika,

W/o. Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes, Aged about 36 years,

Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No. 1-7-1026/11/A, Ramnagar,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad.T.S.(Aadhar No.641783754995).

2. Pokala Karen Ruth, D/o. Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes,

Aged about 12 years, Occ: Student, (Aadhar No.268840375991)

3. Pokala Stephen Mathewes, S/o.Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes,

Aged about 11 years, Occ: Student, (Aadhar No.268840375991)

Plaintiff No.2 &3 are being a Minors, rep by their mother and guardian namely: Smt. G. Radhika Alias Pokala Radhika,

R/o.H.No.1-7-1026/11/A, Ramnagar,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad. T.S.

... Plaintiffs

A N D

1. The Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad.

2. All concerned.

... Defendants

Claim:- This is a suit is filed for declaration by the plaintiffs praying this Court to declare the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes, for the purpose of legal status only.

Valuation and Court Fee :- The suit is filed for the purpose of declaration to declare the plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes, and the suit is valued of Rs.25,000/-and a court fee of Rs.1586/- is paid under Section 24(d) as the Telangana Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.

Plaint presented on :10-01-2024. Plaint numbered on :15-03-2024.

This suit coming on or before me for final hearing, in the presence of

Sri SK.Subhan Javeed, Counselfor the plaintiffsand that of defendants were set Ex-parte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

1. That the suit of the plaintiffs be and hereby is decreed by declaring that the Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes, for the purpose of legal status only.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this 10th day of June, 2024.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

MEMO OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1.Stamp on plaint Rs. Rs. 2.Stamp on vakalat Rs. Rs. 3.Advocate fee Rs.Rs. 4.Process fee Rs. Rs. 5.Misc. Fee Rs. Rs. 6.Publication charges Rs. Rs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Rs. -----------------------------------------------------------------------

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

NOTE:-''The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date .”

IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT: HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 25 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

PRESENT: Smt. R. SIRI SOWJANYA

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

O.S. No. 3251 of 2024

Between:

1. Mr.M.C.Agarwal, S/o. Late Sri Sarooajmal Agarwal, aged about 78 years,Occupation: Business, Residing at H.No.3-6- 416/3, Ashish Residency Flat No.103, Street No.4, “” Himayathnagar,Hyderabad-500029,Aadhar No.293819950742.

2. Mr.Nitin Kumar Agarwal, son of M.C.Agarwal, aged about 49 years,Occupation:Private Service, Residing at H.No.3-6-416/3,

Ashish Residency Flat No.103, Street No.4, “” Himayathnagar,Hyderabad-500029,Aadhar No.644791169989.

3. Mr.Navin Kumar Agarwal, son of M.C.Agarwal, aged about 47 years,Occupation:Private Service,Residing at Flat No.519,

Block-4, Manasaravar Hasmetpet, Tirmulagiri, Hyderabad- 500009,Aadhar No.201377888466.

4. Mrs.Smita Agarwal, D/o.Sri M.C.Agarwal, W/o.Manoj

Kumar Agarwal, aged about 46 years,Occupation:Housewife, residing at Flat No.604, Building-A-3, Vighnahar CHS Ltd.,

Near MTNL Sector-21, Nerual east, Navi Mumbai, Thane- 400706, Aadhar No.699210568466.

... Plaintiffs

A N D

1. All concerned.

2. Road Transport Authority (RTA) Central Zone,

Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

... Defendants

This suit coming on or before me for final hearing, in the presence of

Sri M.Nageshwararao, Counselfor the plaintiffsand that of defendants were set Ex-parte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit is filed for declaration by the plaintiffs praying this Court to declare the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Smt.Lalitha

Agarwal wife of M.C.Agarwal, who died on 14-05-2024, for the purpose of legal status only.

The averments made in the plaint, in nut shell are:-

2.The plaintiffs No.1 is the husband, plaintiff No.2 to 4 are the children of the Late Smt.Lalitha Agarwal, who has expired on 14-05-2024 at

Hyderabad.

3.The plaintiffs further submitted that deceased Smt.Lalitha Agarwal having three children and legally weeded husband Sri M.C. Agarwal, died intestate on 14-05-2024 leaving behind him the plaintiff No.1 to 4 herein as her legal heirs. Thus, the plaintiffs are the only surviving legal heirs of Late

Smt.Lalitha Agarwal.

4.The plaintiffs further submitted that the Plaintiff No.1 on his behalf as well as on behalf of plaintiff No.2 to 4 are approached the Defendant No.2 for obtaining the legal heir certificate but the Defendant No.2 refused to provide the same to the plaintiffs stating that they have no powers to issue legal heir certificate, and directed the plaintiffs to approach appropriate court for obtaining the legal heir certificate. In the above circumstances the plaintiffs have no other alternative except to approach this Hon’ble court by way of filing the present suit for declaration to declare the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of deceased Smt.Lalitha Agarwal, for legal status only. Hence the suit.

5.Summons were served on defendant no.2, Publication filed for defendant no.1, but they did not appear and there is no representation from any one. Defendants did not turn up for appearance and did not choose to contest the suit. Hence, the Defendants no.1 and 2 set Ex-parte. Thereafter no petition was filed to set aside the Ex-parte order.

6. To prove the suit claim, on behalf of Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1, got examined himself as PW1. In his chief in examination, he reiterated the contents of the plaint. PW1 got marked Exs. A1 to A5.

Ex.A1:is the original Death certificate of the deceased issued by GHMC.

Ex.A2:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A3:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A4:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A5:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.4.

11. Now the point for determination is :

(Q1): ‘ Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal

heirs of the deceased Smt.Lalitha Agarwal, W/o. Sri.M.C.Agarwal, for

the purpose of legal status only? ” (Q2): To what relief ?

P O I N T 1:- (Q1): ‘ Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared

as legal heirs of the deceased Smt.Lalitha Agarwal,W/o.Sri

M.C.Agarwal for the purpose of legal status only?’

(a). In order to substantiate their averments in the plaint, the plaintiff no.1 got examined as PW-1, and got marked exhibits Exs.A1 to A5 documents.

PW.1 filed his affidavit-in-chief which is nothing but repetition of the entire contents of the plaint. According to PW1, the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of Late Smt.Lalitha Agarwal, W/o.Sri M.C.Agarwal.

(b).In order to prove the deaths of Late Smt. Lalitha Agarwal, the plaintiffs produced Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the Death certificates of Late Smt.

Lalitha Agarwal, issued by GHMC, which discloses that Late Smt. Lalitha

Agarwal,died at Medicover Hospital, Hyderabad, on 14-05-2024.

c.In order to prove their relationship with Late Smt. Lalitha Agarwal,the plaintiffs got marked Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 documents shows

Plaintiff No.1 is Husband of Late Smt.Lalitha Agarwal, and plaintiff No.2 and 4 are the children of Late Smt. Lalitha Agarwal. Hence it can be concluded that Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are legal heirs of deceased Smt. Lalitha

Agarwal, W/o.Sri.M.C.Agarwal.

d.As there is no contrary evidence on this point, as the evidence of

PW1 coupled with exhibits A2 to A5 remained unrebutted, this court is of the considered opinion that it is just, fair, reasonable to declare the plaintiffs no.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Lalitha Agarwal, for the purpose of legal status only. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

POINT 2: (Q2): To what relief ?

2.1. In the result, the suit is decreed in part without costs by declaring that the Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Lalitha

Agarwal, W/o.Sri.J.C.Agarwal, for the purpose of legal status only.

Typed by the Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 25 th day of September, 2024.

X Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

For plaintiffs For defendants:

PW1 : Sri.M.C.Agarwal Nil

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1:is the original Death certificate of the deceased issued by GHMC.

Ex.A2:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A3:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A4:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A5:is the original Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.4.

Documents marked for defendants: Nil.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYD.

DECREE IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT: HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 25 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

PRESENT: Smt. R. SIRI SOWJANYA

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

OS. No. 3251 of 2024

Between:

1. Mr.M.C.Agarwal, S/o. Late Sri Sarooajmal Agarwal, aged about 78 years,Occupation: Business, Residing at H.No.3-6- 416/3, Ashish Residency Flat No.103, Street No.4, “” Himayathnagar,Hyderabad-500029,Aadhar No.293819950742.

2. Mr.Nitin Kumar Agarwal, son of M.C.Agarwal, aged about 49 years,Occupation:Private Service, Residing at H.No.3-6-416/3,

Ashish Residency Flat No.103, Street No.4, “” Himayathnagar,Hyderabad-500029,Aadhar No.644791169989.

3. Mr.Navin Kumar Agarwal, son of M.C.Agarwal, aged about 47 years,Occupation:Private Service,Residing at Flat No.519,

Block-4, Manasaravar Hasmetpet, Tirmulagiri, Hyderabad- 500009,Aadhar No.201377888466.

4. Mrs.Smita Agarwal, D/o.Sri M.C.Agarwal, W/o.Manoj

Kumar Agarwal, aged about 46 years,Occupation:Housewife, residing at Flat No.604, Building-A-3, Vighnahar CHS Ltd.,

Near MTNL Sector-21, Nerual east, Navi Mumbai, Thane- 400706, Aadhar No.699210568466.

... Plaintiffs

A N D

1. All concerned.

2. Road Transport Authority (RTA) Central Zone,

Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

... Defendants

Claim:- This is a suit is filed for declaration by the plaintiffs praying this Court to declare the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Late Lalitha Agarwal wife of M.C.Agarwal, who died on 14-05-2024, for the purpose of legal status only.

Valuation and Court Fee :- The suit is filed for the purpose of declaration to declare the plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased Late Lalitha Agarwal wife of M.C.Agarwal,and the suit is valued of Rs.25,000/- and a court fee of Rs.1,586/- is paid under Section 24(d) as the Telangana Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.

Plaint presented on:25-06-2024. Plaint numbered on:12-07-2024.

This suit coming on or before me for final hearing, in the presence of

Sri M.Nageshwararao, Counselfor the plaintiffsand that of defendants were set Ex-parte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

1. That the suit of the plaintiffs be and hereby is decreed by declaring that thePlaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Smt.Lalitha Agarwal, W/o.Sri M.C.Agarwal, for the purpose of legal status only.

2.That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this 25th day of

September, 2024.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

MEMO OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1.Stamp on plaint Rs. Rs. 2.Stamp on vakalat Rs. Rs. 3.Advocate fee Rs. Rs. 4.Process fee Rs. Rs. 5.Misc. Fee Rs. Rs. 6.Publication charges Rs. Rs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Rs. -----------------------------------------------------------------------

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

NOTE:-''The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date .”

DECREE IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT: HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 10 th DAY OF JUNE, 2024

PRESENT: Smt. R. SIRI SOWJANYA

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

OS. No. 242 of 2024

Between:

1. Smt. G.Radhika Alias Pokala Radhika,

W/o. Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes, Aged about 36 years,

Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No. 1-7-1026/11/A, Ramnagar,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad.T.S.(Aadhar No.641783754995).

2. Pokala Karen Ruth, D/o. Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes,

Aged about 12 years, Occ: Student, (Aadhar No.268840375991)

3. Pokala Stephen Mathewes, S/o.Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes,

Aged about 11 years, Occ: Student, (Aadhar No.268840375991)

Plaintiff No.2 &3 are being a Minors, rep by their mother and guardian namely: Smt. G. Radhika Alias Pokala Radhika,

R/o.H.No.1-7-1026/11/A, Ramnagar,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad. T.S.

... Plaintiffs

A N D

1. The Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad.

2. All concerned.

... Defendants

Claim:- This is a suit is filed for declaration by the plaintiffs praying this Court to declare the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes, for the purpose of legal status only.

Valuation and Court Fee :- The suit is filed for the purpose of declaration to declare the plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes, and the suit is valued of Rs.25,000/-and a court fee of Rs.1586/- is paid under Section 24(d) as the Telangana Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.

Plaint presented on :10-01-2024. Plaint numbered on :15-03-2024.

This suit coming on or before me for final hearing, in the presence of

Sri SK.Subhan Javeed, Counselfor the plaintiffsand that of defendants were set Ex-parte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

1. That the suit of the plaintiffs be and hereby is decreed by declaring that the Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased Late Pokala Emmanuel Mathewes, for the purpose of legal status only.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this 10th day of June, 2024.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

MEMO OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1.Stamp on plaint Rs. Rs. 2.Stamp on vakalat Rs. Rs. 3.Advocate fee Rs.Rs. 4.Process fee Rs. Rs. 5.Misc. Fee Rs. Rs. 6.Publication charges Rs. Rs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Rs. -----------------------------------------------------------------------

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

NOTE:-''The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date .”

IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 30 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

PRESENT: Smt. R. SIRI SOWJANYA

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

O.S.No. 1897 of 2024

Between: 1.Mrs.Malan Bee, W/o.Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, Age 64 years,Occ:House hold, R/o.H.No.1-5-3/11, Krishna Colony, Bakaram, Musheerabad.

2.Mrs.Rasheeda Begum, W/o.Mohammed Qadeer Quareshi, D/o.Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, Age 48 years,Occ:House hold, R/o.H.No.19-3-308/7/1, Jahanuma, Pension Office, Madina Colony, Hyderabad.

3.Mr.Mohd.Younus Qureshi, S/o.Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, Age 43 years,Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-5-3/11, Krishna Colony, Bakaram, Musheerabad.

4.Mrs.Shakera Begum, W/o.Mohammed Aslamuddin, D/o.Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, Age 43 years,Occ:House hold, R/o.H.No.17-8-529,Bagh E Jahanara, Yakutpura, Charminar, Hyderabad.

5.Mr.Mohd.Arshad Qureshi, S/o.Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, Age 41years,Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-5-3/11, Krishna Colony, Bakaram, Musheerabad.

6.Mr.Mohd.Ishaq Qureshi, S/o.Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, Age 40years,Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-5-3/11, Krishna Colony, Bakaram, Musheerabad.

7.Mr.Mohd.Jaffer Qureshi, S/o.Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, Age 41years,Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-5-3/11, Krishna Colony, Bakaram, Musheerabad.

8.Mr.Mohd.Arsharf Qureshi, S/o.Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, Age 38 years,Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-5-3/11, Krishna Colony, Bakaram, Musheerabad.

X JCJ, CCC, Hyd

( OS 1897/2024 )

9.Mr.Mohd.Azhar Qureshi, S/o.Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, Age 37years,Occ:House hold, R/o.H.No.1-5-3/11, Krishna Colony, Bakaram, Musheerabad.

10.Miss.Hajara Begum, D/o.Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, Age 31years,Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-5-3/11, Krishna Colony, Bakaram, Musheerabad.

... Plaintiffs

A N D

1. The Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad.

2. All others Concerned.

... Defendants

This suit coming on or before me for final hearing, in the presence of Sri. M/s.Thomas Lloyd, Counselfor the plaintiffsand that of defendants were set Ex-parte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit is filed for declaration by the plaintiffs praying this Court to declare the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Late

Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi who died on 03-02-2016 for legal status.

The averments made in the plaint, in nut shell are :-

2.The plaintiff No.1 is wife, plaintiffs No.2,4,10 are the daughters and

Plaintiffs No.3,5 to 9 are the sons of the deceased. The deceased was expired on 03.02.2016 leaving behind the plaintiffs as their legal heirs to

X JCJ, CCC, Hyd

( OS 1897/2024 )

succeed the suit schedule property. To obtain the legal heir certificate to avoid future legal complications for fulfilling legal formalities. The plaintiffs have approached the defendant No.1 for obtaining the legal heir certificate but the defendant no.1 refused to provide the same to the plaintiffs stating that they have no powers to issue legal heirs certificate, and directed the plaintiffs to approach appropriate court for obtaining the legal heirs certificate. In the above circumstances the plaintiffs have no other alternative except to approach this court by way of filing the present suit for declaration to declare the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of deceased Late

Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi.

3.Publication filed for defendant No.2, Summons were served on defendant No.1, but they did not appear and there is no representation from any one. Defendants did not turn up for appearance and did not choose to contest the suit. Hence, the Defendants No.1 and 2 were set ex-parte.

Thereafter no petition was filed to set aside the ex-parte order.

4.To prove the suit claim, on behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.6, got examined himself as PW1. In his chief in examination, PW1 reiterated the contents of the plaint. PW1 got marked Exs.A1 to A12.

Ex.A1:Is the Death certificate of Late Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi.

X JCJ, CCC, Hyd

( OS 1897/2024 )

Ex.A2:Is the representation to Tahsildar. Ex.A3:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.1

Ex.A4:Is the Pan Card of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A5:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A6:Is the marriage Book and Translation copy of Plaintiff No.4. Ex.A7:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.5.

Ex.A8:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.6. Ex.A9:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.7.

Ex.A10: Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.8. Ex.A11: Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.9.

Ex.A12: Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.10.

5. Now the point for determination is :

(Q1): ‘ Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heirs

of the deceased Late Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, for the purpose of legal

status only?” (Q2): To what relief ?

P O I N T 1:- (Q1): ‘Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared

as legal heirs of the deceased Late Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi, for the

purpose of legal status only?”

(a).In order to substantiate their averments in the plaint, the plaintiff No.6 got examined himself as PW-1, and got marked exhibits Exs.A1 to A12 documents. PW-1 filed her affidavit-in-chief which is nothing but repetition of

X JCJ, CCC, Hyd

( OS 1897/2024 )

the entire contents of the plaint. According to PW1, the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of Late Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi.

(b).In order to prove the death of Late Late Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi the plaintiffs produced Ex.A1 document. Ex.A1 is the Death certificate of Late

Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi issued by GHMC, which discloses that Late

Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi died at Hyderabad on 03.02.2016.

(c).In order to prove their relationship with Late Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi , the plaintiffs got marked Ex.A2 to A12 documents, wherein the Aadhar Card of plaintiffs No.1,3 to 10, Pan card of Plaintiff No.4 are filed respectively.

(d).The Exhibits A3, clearly reflects the plaintiff No.1 is wife of the deceased name i.e., Late Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi , Ex.A2,A4 to A12 discloses that plaintiffs No.2,4,10 are daughter’s and plaintiffs No.3, 5 to 9 are son’s of the deceased Late Late Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi.

(e).As there is no contrary evidence on this point, as the evidence of

PW1 coupled with exhibits A1 to A12 remained unrebutted, this court is of the considered opinion that it is just, fair, reasonable to declare the plaintiff

No.1 is wife, plaintiffs no.2 to 10 are children's of the deceased LLate

Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi are the legal heirs of deceased Late Mohd.Ghouse

X JCJ, CCC, Hyd

( OS 1897/2024 )

Qureshi , for the purpose of legal status only. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

POINT 2: (Q2): To what relief ?

2.1. In the result, the suit is decreed, without costs by declaring that the

Plaintiffs No.1 to 10 are the legal heirs of the deceased Late

Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi for the purpose of legal status only.

Typed by the Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30 th day of September,

2024.

X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

For plaintiffs For defendants: PW1 : Mr.Mohd.Ishaq Qureshi Nil

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Is the Death certificate of Late Mohd.Ghouse Qureshi.

Ex.A2:Is the representation to Tahsildar. Ex.A3:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.1

Ex.A4:Is the Pan Card of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A5:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A6:Is the marriage Book and Translation copy of Plaintiff No.4.

X JCJ, CCC, Hyd

( OS 1897/2024 )

Ex.A7:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.5. Ex.A8:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.6.

Ex.A9:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.7. Ex.A10:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.8.

Ex.A11:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.9. Ex.A12:Is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.10.

Documents marked for defendants: Nil.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYD.

X JCJ, CCC, Hyd

( OS 1897/2024 )

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 12 th DAY OF JULY, 2024

PRESENT: Smt. R. SIRI SOWJANYA

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

O.S. No. 1469 of 2024

Between:

1. Tulasi Patri, W/o. Patri Anantha Seshasayan Rao @ A S Rao Patri, Age: 82 years, Occ. House Maker, R/o. 3-4- 144/1A, Flat No.302, Royal Meadows, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

2. Patri Kodanda Ram, S/o. Patri Anantha Seshasayana Rao @ P.A.S. Rao, Age: 64 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. 12B, Dda Flats, Sarai Jullena, New Delhi.

3. Lakshmi Ramakrishna, D/o. Patri Anantha Sesahsayana Rao @ A S R Patri, Age: 63 years, Occ. Free Lance Journalist, R/o. 3-4-144/1A, Flat No.102, Royal Meadowsn, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

4. Padmini Rao, D/o. Patri Anantha Seshasayana Rao, Age: 56 years, Occ. Busienss, R/o. New No.41, Old No.18/1, 4th main road, Dr. Ramchandra Adityan Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai, Tamilnadu – 600020.

... Plaintiffs

A N D

1. The Tahsildar (MRO), Himayathnagar Mandal, Hyderabad.

2. All others Concerned.

... Defendants

Claim :-This suit is filed to declare the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of late Sri Patri Anantha Seshasayan Rao (hereinafter ‘the deceased’). Cause of The cause of action to file the present suit arose on 16.02.2024, when Late Action:-Patri Anantha Seshasayan Rao died intestate and in March, 2024, when the

X JCJ, CCC, Hyd

( OS 1897/2024 )

plaintiff approached the authorities for issuing legal heir certificate and the authorities advised to approach the Hon’ble Civil Court for declaration as Legal heirs of the deceased and on all such date and incidents as mentioned supra. Valuation :- Suit is valued at Rs.25,000/- and the Court fee of Rs.1,586/- is paid under Section 24 (d) of TSCF and SV Act.

Plaint presented on:04.04.2024 Plaint numbered on:04.04.2024

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Thulluri Seshagiri, learned advocate for the plaintiffs, and defendants having remained exparte and this Court doth judgment and decree, delivered the following;

1. That the suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is hereby decreed, declaring that the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of Late Patri Anantha Seshasayan Rao for legal status only.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on the 12th day of July, 2024.

X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

MEMO OF COSTS

Plaintiff Defendant

1. Stamp on plaint Rs.

2. Stamp on power Rs.

3. Advocate fee Rs.

4. Service of process Rs.

5. Publication charges Rs.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Total: -----------------------------------------------------------------

X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

X JCJ, CCC, Hyd