Smt. S.n. Sreedevi

Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court

Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex · Medchal Malkajgiri · Telangana

SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI, Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, is posted at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana, India. 254 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles F, T, CRLA cases.

254

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

F.C.O.P/837/2025

XXXXX vs XXXXX

17 Dec 2025

Page 1 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-FAMILY

COURT, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, MALKAJGIRI AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI,

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

At Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

MONDAY, THE 08th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

O.S. No. 306 of 2015

Between:

1. P. Ramesh

2. M. Parmesh ...Plaintiffs

AND

Smty. P. Suneetha ...Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. M. Sreedhara Murthy, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Sri B. Ram Mohan, Counsel for the Defendant and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking for Specific Performance of

Contract against the defendant.

1. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:

That the plaintiffs have entered into an Agreement of Sale with the defendant for purchase of part of Plot No.16, admeasuring 111 Sq.Yards situated at Krishna Nagar Colony, Chakripuram, Kapra for a total sale consideration of

Rs.25 Lakhs. The plaintiffs paid Rs.20 Lakhs to the defendant on the date of execution of said Agreement of Sale on 18.08.2013. As per the terms of contract, the balance sale consideration of Rs.5 Lakhs was agreed to be paid within a period of 9 months from the date of Agreement of Sale. The plaintiffs have been ready and willing to perform their part of contract by paying balance sale

Page 2 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

consideration amount within 9 months, but the defendant has revealed the fact for the first time during April 2014 that the original Sale Deed though which the defendant had acquired the property was not available with her and that the property was mortgaged in favour of 3rd parties as against the loan availed by her. So saying, the defendant assured the plaintiffs that the registered Sale

Deed will be executed by receiving balance sale consideration so further the property is re-conveyed on clearing the mortgage debt. As the plaintiffs and the defendant were closely related, the plaintiffs believing the version of the defendant in good faith waited for some more time, while persistently requesting the defendant regarding execution of registered Sale Deed, the defendant dodged the matter on some pretext or the other and consequently the plaintiffs vexed with the evading tactics of the defendant, they got issued a

Legal Notice on 03.03.2015 calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute registered Sale Deed. As the Legal Notice was returned as “Unclaimed” the plaintiffs having no other alternative, filed the present suit praying for a decree of specific performance of contract and consequently for perpetual injunction.

2. Defendant filed written statement disputing the entire case of the plaintiffs and further submitting that infact this defendant availed loan from different persons for her business and during such transaction the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 mediated settlement of payments between her and other persons who lent loans and the plaintiffs being closely related to her, they acted as a mediators and also stood guarantee for the loans obtained by defendant and subsequently when the defendant was unable to pay certain amounts to 3rd

Page 3 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

parties, these plaintiffs under the pretext of settling the issue have obtained her signatures on blank stamp paper worth of rupees twenty, purchased in the name of the husband of the defendant.

It is further submitted by the defendant that these plaintiffs taking advantage of having the custody of a signed blank paper and encashing the helplessness situation of the defendant, created the alleged Agreement of Sale dt.18.08.2013 as if the defendant has agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs. Infact, the plaintiffs have no such capacity to pay Rs.20 Lakhs as alleged in the Agreement of Sale and this defendant never intended nor offered her property for sale at any point of time and the plaintiffs in collusion with each other have filed this false suit only with a view to knock away the property of the defendant in the guise of fabricated

Agreement of Sale dt.18.08.2013. The defendant never received a single pie from the plaintiffs nor she had offered her property for sale to the plaintiffs and therefore, the Agreement of Sale is not at all enforceable against the defendant for the alleged transaction of Rs.25 Lakhs as it is insufficiently stamped and same is inadmissible in evidence and the plaint is liable to be rejected on this count.

It is further submitted by the defendant that the plaintiffs being fully aware of the fact that the defendant was out of station, managed the postal authorities and Legal Notice issued at that point of time and the same is managed to be returned as “Unclaimed”. If the defendant had received the Legal

Notice, defendant would have given a suitable reply to all the issues raised in the

Legal Notice. Infact, there is no cause of action for filing the present suit as the cause of action shown in the plaint is clearly fabricated, created based on and fraudulent Agreement of Sale, dt.18.08.2013 and even on this count the plaint is

Page 4 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. Basing on the above said pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the suit Agreement of Sale is true and genuine?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of suit agreement of sale?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

4.To what relief?

4. During trial, the plaintiff No.1 got himself examined as PW1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to A3. One Jagadeesh, who is attesting witness to the Agreement of Sale is examined as PW2. On the defendant side, Smt. P. Suneetha got herself examined as DW1 and no documents are marked on her behalf. One S. Uma Rani is got examined as DW2 and one Pittala Raju is got examined as DW3.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the case records.

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3 :

Together as three issues revolve around the same set of facts and the same evidence.

6. It is the contention of the plaintiffs and also the evidence of PW1 that the plaintiffs entered into an Agreement of Sale, dt.18.08.2013 marked Ex.A1, with the defendant towards purchase of the suit schedule property admeasuring 111

Sq.Yards situated at Krishna Nagar Colony, Chakripuram, Kapra for a total sale consideration of Rs.25 Lakhs and on the date of execution of Agreement of Sale,

Page 5 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

the earnest money of Rs.20 Lakhs was paid to the defendant and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs.5 Lakhs will be paid within 9 months from the date of Agreement of Sale and obtained registered Sale Deed.

It is further, the contention of the plaintiffs (PW1) that after having dodged the issue for a considerable time on some pretext or the other, even though the plaintiffs were all the time ready and willing to perform their part of contract requesting the defendant to receive balance sale consideration and to execute registered Sale Deed, the defendant failed to do so and the plaintiffs were constrained to file this suit.

7. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendant and also her evidence as DW1 that she never offered the suit schedule property for sale and much less the receiving of earnest money of Rs.20 Lakhs and that there is no privity of contract between her and the plaintiffs. The defendant further contends that mere filing of Agreement of Sale is not sufficient to prove it, to have the contents in consequence of Special Relief Act it should be an enforceable agreement and that plaintiffs being relatives taking advantage of the helplessness of the defendant being lady, created Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale, with a view to knock away the suit schedule property and that the so-called Sale

Agreement is not supported by consideration as the Vendee (Plaintiffs) had no such capacity to pay that amount. In support of the said contention, the defendant takes the support of the version of PW1 in the cross examination that he has not filed his bank account statement to show that he had an amount of

Rs.20 Lakhs in his account. But no suggestion is given to PW1 regarding his financial capacity.

Page 6 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

8. In order to rebut the said contention of the defendant disputing the extent financial capacity of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs got examined one attesting witness to Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale as PW2. It is categorically deposed by PW2 that the defendant is his sister-in-law and the plaintiff No.1 is his brother-in-law and plaintiff No.2 is his own brother, which relationship between the parties and the witness is not disputed. It is further the evidence of PW2 that in his presence the Agreement of Sale was entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant in respect of suit schedule property on 18.08.2013 and that the defendant having received a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs towards advance sale consideration, she subscribed her signature on the document and he signed as a first attesting witness to the document. Though in the course of cross examination, PW2 has stated that he has not seen the payments made by the plaintiffs to the defendant, it is the own evidence of the defendant (DW1) in the course of her cross examination (has volunteered to add) that she has obtained loan from the plaintiff No.1 and from one M. Narsimha and while obtaining such loan she has given Cheque and also signed on Ex.A1 which was blank. On one hand, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have no capacity to pay such huge advance sale consideration amount of Rs.20 Lakhs and on the other hand, she herself volunteers to say that she has obtained loan from the plaintiff No.1 (PW1). It is further observed from the case of the defendant in her written statement itself that plaintiff No.1 being her paternal brother and plaintiff No.2 being brother-in-law by courtesy have acted as a mediators and also stood as guarantor for the loan obtained by her from different persons and when she had personal financial constraints to discharge such loans, the plaintiffs have taken her signatures on a blank stamp paper worth rupees twenty under pretext of

Page 7 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

making some settlements with her creditors. Though the defendant has taken different stands in the pleadings and in her evidence, viewed from any angle

Ex.A1, Agreement of Sale is supported by consideration.

9. It is further observed that the defendant’s own witness Pittala Raju who deposed as DW3 and who is also a close family member of both the parties says that the defendant has obtained loans from Mangali Narsimha, Babu Goud,

Jyothi, Anasuya and others and whenever the creditors pressurized the defendant for discharge of their loans, she along with the plaintiffs used to convince those creditors and send them away and after some time the plaintiff

No.1 (PW1) mediated the loan issue of M. Narsimha in October 2013 and settled the loan @ Rs.2 Lakhs as full and final settlement and at that time PW1 obtained the signatures of the defendant on blank stamp paper worth rupees twenty. The said fact is not at all pleaded in the written statement by the defendant. Even the evidence of DW2 does not supports the case of the defendant herself.

Under the circumstances, the preponderance of probability is drawn in favour of the plaintiffs that Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale is very much supported by consideration and it is an enforceable agreement with all covenant of a valid

Agreement of Sale.

10. Coming to the other defense raised by the defendant that she never offered suit schedule property for sale to the plaintiffs and that it was never her intention to have signed on Ex.A1 which according to her was a blank stamp paper, in connection with the sale of suit schedule property and DW1 goes on to explain the circumstances under which the defendant subscribed her signature on a blank stamp paper. It is her case that the plaintiffs have mediated between

Page 8 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

her and her creditors, for settlement of loans and having stood as guarantors for the loans of the defendant and under the false pretext of settlement, the blank signed stamp paper was obtained and the same is fabricated into an Agreement of Sale and pressed into service by the plaintiffs in collusion with each other with a view to knock away the suit schedule property.

But, in the course of cross examination of the plaintiff No.1 ( PW1) has categorically deposed that the Plot No.16 purchased by him and the defendant is in two parts, his property is situated on the western side and defendant property is on the eastern side and both of their property is 111 Sq.Yards. That PW1 entered into an agreement with the defendant for purchase of her property for a total sale consideration of Rs.25 Lakhs and advance sale consideration of Rs.20

Lakhs was paid in the presence of one Jagadeesh who is a common relative of both the parties. When such is the evidence of PW1 which is deposed in the cross examination done by the defendant, the preponderance of probability again goes in favour of the plaintiffs that Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale is executed towards purchase of the suit schedule property and by virtue of existence of Privity of

Contract, Ex.A1 is a valid and enforceable Agreement and the plaintiffs are entitled to enforce the specific performance of Agreement of Sale dt.18-08-2013.

Hence, issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and issued No.3 is answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO. 4 :

11. In view of the Issues No.1 and 2 held in favour of the plaintiffs, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs.

Page 9 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

12. IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed with costs granting a decree of

Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 18-08-2013, directing the defendant to execute the Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 in respect of the suit schedule property, within one (1) month from the date of this Judgment, failing which the plaintiffs are entitled for execution of registered Sale Deed for the suit schedule property by due process of law.

Rest of the claim with regard to Perpetual Injunction stands dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 08th day of December, 2025.

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: P. Ramesh DW1: P. Suneetha PW2: Jagadeesh DW2: S. Uma Rani DW3: Pittala Raju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 : Original Agreement of Sale and Receipt dt. 18-08-2014 Ex.A2 : Office copy of Legal Notice dt. 03-03-2015 Ex.A3 : Returned Postal Cover

FOR DEFENDANT: - Nil -

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

F.C.O.P/558/2025

XXXXX vs XXXXX

16 Dec 2025

Page 1 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-FAMILY

COURT, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, MALKAJGIRI AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI,

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

At Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

MONDAY, THE 08th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

O.S. No. 306 of 2015

Between:

1. P. Ramesh

2. M. Parmesh ...Plaintiffs

AND

Smty. P. Suneetha ...Defendant

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking for Specific Performance of

Contract against the defendant.

1. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:

Page 2 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

Page 3 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

parties, these plaintiffs under the pretext of settling the issue have obtained her signatures on blank stamp paper worth of rupees twenty, purchased in the name of the husband of the defendant.

Notice, defendant would have given a suitable reply to all the issues raised in the

Page 4 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. Basing on the above said pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the suit Agreement of Sale is true and genuine?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of suit agreement of sale?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

4.To what relief?

4. During trial, the plaintiff No.1 got himself examined as PW1 and got marked

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the case records.

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3 :

Together as three issues revolve around the same set of facts and the same evidence.

Sq.Yards situated at Krishna Nagar Colony, Chakripuram, Kapra for a total sale consideration of Rs.25 Lakhs and on the date of execution of Agreement of Sale,

Page 5 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

Rs.20 Lakhs in his account. But no suggestion is given to PW1 regarding his financial capacity.

Page 6 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

Page 7 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

making some settlements with her creditors. Though the defendant has taken different stands in the pleadings and in her evidence, viewed from any angle

Ex.A1, Agreement of Sale is supported by consideration.

Agreement of Sale.

Page 8 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

Contract, Ex.A1 is a valid and enforceable Agreement and the plaintiffs are entitled to enforce the specific performance of Agreement of Sale dt.18-08-2013.

Hence, issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and issued No.3 is answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO. 4 :

11. In view of the Issues No.1 and 2 held in favour of the plaintiffs, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs.

Page 9 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

12. IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed with costs granting a decree of

Rest of the claim with regard to Perpetual Injunction stands dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 08th day of December, 2025.

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: P. Ramesh DW1: P. Suneetha PW2: Jagadeesh DW2: S. Uma Rani DW3: Pittala Raju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 : Original Agreement of Sale and Receipt dt. 18-08-2014 Ex.A2 : Office copy of Legal Notice dt. 03-03-2015 Ex.A3 : Returned Postal Cover

FOR DEFENDANT: - Nil -

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

F.C.O.P/758/2025

XXXXX vs XXXXX

16 Dec 2025

Page 1 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-FAMILY

COURT, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, MALKAJGIRI AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI,

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

At Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

MONDAY, THE 08th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

O.S. No. 306 of 2015

Between:

1. P. Ramesh

2. M. Parmesh ...Plaintiffs

AND

Smty. P. Suneetha ...Defendant

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking for Specific Performance of

Contract against the defendant.

1. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:

Page 2 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

Page 3 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

parties, these plaintiffs under the pretext of settling the issue have obtained her signatures on blank stamp paper worth of rupees twenty, purchased in the name of the husband of the defendant.

Notice, defendant would have given a suitable reply to all the issues raised in the

Page 4 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. Basing on the above said pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the suit Agreement of Sale is true and genuine?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of suit agreement of sale?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

4.To what relief?

4. During trial, the plaintiff No.1 got himself examined as PW1 and got marked

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the case records.

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3 :

Together as three issues revolve around the same set of facts and the same evidence.

Sq.Yards situated at Krishna Nagar Colony, Chakripuram, Kapra for a total sale consideration of Rs.25 Lakhs and on the date of execution of Agreement of Sale,

Page 5 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

Rs.20 Lakhs in his account. But no suggestion is given to PW1 regarding his financial capacity.

Page 6 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

Page 7 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

making some settlements with her creditors. Though the defendant has taken different stands in the pleadings and in her evidence, viewed from any angle

Ex.A1, Agreement of Sale is supported by consideration.

Agreement of Sale.

Page 8 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

Contract, Ex.A1 is a valid and enforceable Agreement and the plaintiffs are entitled to enforce the specific performance of Agreement of Sale dt.18-08-2013.

Hence, issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and issued No.3 is answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO. 4 :

11. In view of the Issues No.1 and 2 held in favour of the plaintiffs, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs.

Page 9 of 9

O.S.No. 306 of 2015

12. IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed with costs granting a decree of

Rest of the claim with regard to Perpetual Injunction stands dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 08th day of December, 2025.

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: P. Ramesh DW1: P. Suneetha PW2: Jagadeesh DW2: S. Uma Rani DW3: Pittala Raju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 : Original Agreement of Sale and Receipt dt. 18-08-2014 Ex.A2 : Office copy of Legal Notice dt. 03-03-2015 Ex.A3 : Returned Postal Cover

FOR DEFENDANT: - Nil -

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

CRLA/938/2018 Acquitted

Sivaratri Suresh and 2 others vs The State of TS through PS Kushaiguda

17 Dec 2025

Page 1 of 8

Crl.A.No. 938/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-cum-FAMILY

COURT, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, MALKAJGIRI AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI,

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

At Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

WEDNESDAY THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

CRL. APPEAL No. 938 of 2018

Between:

1. Shivaratri Suresh, S/o.Late S. Mahankali, Age: 30 years, Occ: Business

2. Varikuppalal Sudhakar, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 31 years, Occ: Pvt. Job,

3. Smt. Shivaratri Yellamma, W/o. Late Mahankali Age: 52 years, Occ: Housewife

All R/o. H.No. 10-1/353, Nehru Nagar,

Mallapur Village, Ranga Reddy District. ...Appellants/Accused No.1 to 3

A N D

The State of Telangana,

through PS Kushaiguda ...Respondent/Complainant

Appeal Against the Judgment passed in C.C.No. 66 of 2017 dated 01-10-2018 by

Special Magistrate - III, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

C.C No. 66 of 2017

Between:

The State rep., by Sub-Inspector of Police,

PS Kushaiguda. ...Complainant

A N D

1. Shivaratri Suresh, S/o.Late S. Mahankali, Age: 30 years, Occ: Business

2. Varikuppalal Sudhakar, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 31 years, Occ: Pvt. Job,

3. Smt. Shivaratri Yellamma, W/o. Late Mahankali Age: 52 years, Occ: Housewife

All R/o. H.No. 10-1/353, Nehru Nagar,

Mallapur Village, Ranga Reddy District. ...Accused No.1 to 3

Page 2 of 8

Crl.A.No. 938/2018

This Appeal having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E. Sreenivas Reddy, Counsel for the Appellants and Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the Judgment passed by the learned Special Magistrate Court-III Cyberabad at Malkajgiri in C.C.No.66 of 2017

dt. 01-10-2018.

2.For the sake of convenience, the Appellants will be hereinafter referred to as “Accused No.1 to 3” and the Respondent will be hereinafter referred to as “Complainant/prosecution” respectively as arrayed before trial Court.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that Sri S. Eswar Rdddy gave a complaint to the Police Kushaiguda, alleging that in the year 2015 he was purchased plots bearing Nos.337, 338 total extent of 382.5 Sq.Yards situated at Cherlapally from one Srinivas and got registered on his name and R. Satyanarayana Reddy vide

Doct. No.4495/2015 and after completion of registration formalities, they went to their plots for construction of compound wall, in the meantime the Accused

No.1 to 3 were illegally trespassed into their plots, Accused No.3 claiming that the above plots are belongs to her husband, when her husband alive he did not sale to anyone and further, illegally imposed a case No.144/2016 in the

Kushaiguda police station on them. The police has collected the original registration documents as well as link documents from them and same sent to

FSL for finger prints examination of her husband and the said case was closed by police due to fake case filed against them. That on 30-08-2016 at about 9:30 hours they went to their plots for construction of compound wall against

Accused No.1 to 3 and another woman illegally entered into the plot and forcibly

Page 3 of 8

Crl.A.No. 938/2018

closed the basement of compound wall through soil and abused them in filthy language and assaulted them with slipper and also threatened them with dire consequences.

The Police Kushaiguda registered a case in Cr.No.556/2016 u/sec. 447, 427, 504, 506 of IPC and investigated the case by LW6-N. Venkataramana,

Inspector of Police, PS Kushaiguda and entrusted the investigation to LW7-S.

Sudheer Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police. During the investigation, LW7 has examined and recorded the statement of complainant and visited scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of two panch witnesses, where he examined and recorded the statements of LW2 and LW3. While the investigation was in progress, the

Accused No.1 to 3 arrested on 30-08-2016 and was remanded to judicial custody.

After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/sec. 447, 504 and 506 of IPC.

4.The case was taken on file by the trial court for the offences punishable u/sec.447, 504 and 506 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 3. On appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

were furnished to them.

5.The Accused No.1 to 3 were examined by the trial court under Section 251

Cr.P.C., and the contents of the complaint were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, examined as many as 4 witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex. P1 to P5. No oral and documentary evidence is put forth by the Appellants/Accused No.1 to 3.

Page 4 of 8

Crl.A.No. 938/2018

Ex.P1, the original complaint, Ex.P2, the certified copy of Agreement of

Sale cum General Power of Attorney, Ex.P3, the certified copy of encumbrance certificate, Ex.P4, the FIR and Ex.P5, the scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused were confronted and explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against them from the prosecution evidence u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 to 3 denied the prosecution evidence and did not choose to lead any defence evidence.

8.Having heard both sides and considering the case facts, the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court passed Judgment holding that the

Accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty of the offences punishable u/sec. 447, 504 and 506 of IPC, with which they were charged and accordingly, they are convicted u/sec. 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., for the said charges, sentenced them to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable u/sec.447 of

IPC and further, sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable u/sec. 504 of IPC and further, sentenced to under Simple

Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/sec. 506 of IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

9.Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, Appellants/

Accused No.1 to 3 have preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

i) The impugned Judgment passed by the trial Court is contrary to law against the probabilities of the case and against the weight of the evidence.

ii) The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of appellants and the trial Court ought to have seen that the appellants have filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed which is alleged to have been executed in favour of PW1 and PW3 and that the conviction passed by the trial Court is not maintainable and deserves to be set aside.

Page 5 of 8

Crl.A.No. 938/2018

Therefore, the appellants pray to set aside the Judgment passed by the trial Court and to allow the appeal.

10.Heard both sides. Perused the material placed on record.

11.Now, the point for consideration is:-

Whether the Judgment dated 01-10-2018 in CC No. 66/2017 passed by the trail Court against the accused is sustainable in law and on facts?

POINT :-

12.To bring home the guilt of the Appellants/Accused No.1 to 3, the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex. P1 to P5.

13. It is the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 that PW1 and PW3 have jointly purchased the plots bearing No.337 and 338 in Sy.No.122/Part admeasuring 382.5 Sq.Yards in the year 2015 under registered Agreement of Sale cum GPA with possession from one Srinivasulu and after purchase of the same, they visit the said plots to erect compound wall and at that time Accused No.1 to 3 illegally trespassed into their plot and claiming their rights over the plots and abused them in filthy language, assaulted them and filled the pit which was dug for compound wall with soil and further, the Accused No.1 to 3 have also threatened

PW1 and PW3 that they will kill them and tried to beat them and further, threatened them if they come again they would implicate them in false cases and that PW1 was lodged complaint with the police marked Ex.P1. The Accused No.3 alleged that during the life time her husband never sold the plots and she gave a complaint to the police and the police registered a case in Cr.No.144/2016 and the police collected the original documents and link documents from the complainant and sent the same to FSL for investigation and the FSL report

Page 6 of 8

Crl.A.No. 938/2018

affirming hat the finger prints appearing in the documents are genuine, as such the police closed the case.

14. It is observed from the above testimonies of PW1 and PW3 that none of the said witnesses whisper about the particulars of the criminal case filed by

Accused No.3 vide Cr.No.144/2016 and no documents are filed regarding the FSL report. Further, there is no evidence placed before the Court that they have either put a compound wall around the plots or the police collected the original documents and link documents from the complainant in the disputed plots and sent the same to FSL for investigation. Even according to PW1, the alleged incident took place in the year 2016 i.e., two years prior and he giving evidence in the court on 17-07-2018 i.e., date of evidence. PW3 is the joint owner of the disputed plots and in the course of cross examination PW3 says that he does not know whether the court has accepted the FSL report and the Accused have not filed any proof to show that Crime No.144/2016 is not closed after receiving the

FSL report. Hence, neither the evidence of PW1 nor the evidence of PW3 establish the element of trespass initially and then the question of mischief.

It is further observed that there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 to PW3. PW1 and PW3 deposed that Accused No.1 to 3 tried to beat them with their footwear, whereas PW2 deposed that Accused persons beat

PW1 and PW3 with footwear. In the instant case, the prosecution did not examine the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama and therefore, non examination of panch witnesses is also not adversely affecting the prosecution case.

15.PW4, the Investigating Officer deposed that on 30-08-2016 at 1100 hours

LW6-N. Venkataramana, Inspector of Police, PS Kushaiguda received a complaint

Page 7 of 8

Crl.A.No. 938/2018

from PW1 and registered the case as Cr.No.556/2016 u/sec. 446, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC and issued Ex.P4 FIR and he entrusted the investigation to him and that during the course of investigation, he examined PW1 to PW3, recorded their statements and later on he visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW4 and LW5 and also drawn rough sketch. PW4 further deposed that he issued notice u/s 41A of Cr.P.C., to the accused persons and after competition of investigation he filed charge sheet. His evidence is not of much consequence.

It is further, observed that even the Investigating Officer has not collected any documents during investigation, either pertaining to the civil suit which is made basis for putting the criminal law into motion in this case or the documents regarding the disputed property, at-least to show to the Court that

PW1 and PW3 are the owners of the disputed plots and they are in prima facie possession of the plots. Even the delay in lodging the complaint has not been explained anywhere in the charge sheet. The prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the Appellants/Accused No.1 to 3.

In the circumstances discussed above, this Court has to necessarily interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

16. It is further seen from the record of the trial Court that the trial Court has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in the proper prospective in the light of the ingredients of sections 447, 504 and 506 of IPC and the Judgment of conviction cannot sustain when viewed from any angle. Point is answered accordingly.

Page 8 of 8

Crl.A.No. 938/2018

17. In the result, appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by Special Magistrate Court-III, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri in CC No. 66 of 2017 dated 01-10-2018 against the Appellants/Accused No.1 to 3 and they are acquitted. Bail bonds of the Appellants shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 17th day of December, 2025.

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.

T.R.O.P/26/2024

M/s.Ring Road warehousing Private Ltd vs Neerudi Vykuntam and others

18 Dec 2025

Page 1 of 6

Tr.O.P.No. 26 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, MALKAJGIRI AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: Smt.S.N.Sreedevi,

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

THURSDAY, THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

Tr.O.P. No. 26 of 202 4

Between:-

M/s. Ring Road Warehousing Private Ltd Having its Regd.Office at Plot No.186, Panchavati Colony, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034. Rep., by its Director B. Suman Reddy, S/o. B. Venkata Papi Reddy, Aged: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 186, Panchavati Colony, Road No.10,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034. ..Petitioner

A N D

1. Neerudi Vykuntam, S/o. Late Neerudi Ramulu, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3-99/1, Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District-501 401.

2. Neerudi Kylasam, S/o. Late Neerudi Ramulu, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3-991/, Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District- 500 055.

3. M. Bharatamma, D/o. Late N. Ramulu, W/o. M. Muthyalu, Aged: Major, R/o. H.No. 2-16, Suraram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District-500055.

4. P. Nagamani, D/o. Late N. Ramulu, W/o. P. Venkatesh, R/o. H.No. 12-3-13, Moosapet Village, Kukatpally Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District – 500 018.

5. K. Saraswathi, D/o. Late N. Ramulu, W/o. K. Narsimulu, R/o. H.No. 2-106, Kolthur Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medhcal-Malkajgiri District – 500078.

Page 2 of 6 Tr.O.P.No. 26 of 2024

6. Sundeep Kumar Gaddam, S/o. Satyanarayana Gaddam, Age: 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 11-1/5, Shailaja Nilayam, Balaji Residency, Peerzadiguda Village, and Municipality, Medipally Mandal, Medhcal-Malkajgiri District-500098.

7. Bathula Nagaraju, S/o. Bathula Kistaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.403, 4th Floor, Balajinagar, Peerzadiguda Village and Municipality, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District – 500 098.

8. Adavelly Raghuvardhan Reddy, S/o. A. Indra Reddy, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 17-57, Vishnupuri Colony, Peerzadiguda Village and Municipality, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District – 500 098.

9. Chenna Venkataiah, S/o. Chenna Kunnanna, Age: 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-121, Peerla Samidi Jammapur, Mahabubnagar District.

10. Bejjanki Shankar Rao, S/o. Late B. Linga Rao, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-4-881/3/1, SHB Colony, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad-500080.

11. Galli Amarender Mudiraj, S/o. G. Momuraiah, Age: 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-68/3, Devarayamjal, Near Jeedigutta, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal District-500 078.

12. Punjari Brijesh Narayana, S/o. P.Mahesh Narayana, Age: 24 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.112-11-1330, Boudhanagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad-500 061.

13. Bathula Bala Shankar, S/o. B. Ramaswamy, Age: 29 years, Occ; Business, R/o. H.No. 5-9/2, Gandhinagar, Parvathapur Village, Peerzadiguda Village and Municipality, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri

District – 500 098. ...Respondents

This petition came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J. Venu Gopal, Counsel for the Petitioner ; Sri T. Murali Krishna, Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5; No counter filed by Respondents No.6 to 11 and 13 and hence, their right to file counter is forfeited; Respondent No.12 remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :-

Page 3 of 6 Tr.O.P.No. 26 of 2024

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed u/sec. 24 CPC, for Transfer of OS No. 74/2020 pending on the file of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal to the

Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Medchal to be tried together and disposed together with O.S.No. 777/2022.

2It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed suit in OS No.

74/2020 on the file of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, at Medchal against the respondents herein seeking for declaration of title and consequently for Perpetual Injunction and to declare the Sale Deed and Partition Deed vide Doct.No.5304/2019 and 4275/2018 as null and void. In the said suit the schedule property pertinent to

Sy.No.47 to an extent of Ac.5-08 gts situated at Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit have filed written statement and the said suit is pending adjudication.

It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondents No.6 to 13 herein have filed suit vide OS No.777/2022 for declaration to declare them as owners of the very same property as sought in OS No. 74/2020 and also to declare the registered Sale Deeds Doct.No.65/1996, 4222/2004, 3697/2008, 5118/2004 and 4009/2008 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and also seeking consequential relief of injunction. The above two suits are filed in respect of the same property of land admeasuring Ac. 5-08 gts, in Sy.No.47 of

Pudur Village.

It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner herein also filed a suit for perpetual injunction vide OS No. 260/2019 on the file of II Addl.District and Sessions Judge and the said suit was filed for 17 acres in Sy.No.14, 21 (Part),

Page 4 of 6 Tr.O.P.No. 26 of 2024 47 (part), 49 (part), 50 (part), 51 (part), 58 (part), 59 (Part) and 60 (part), situated at Pudur Village. Similarly, the respondents No.6 yo 13 have also filed suit for perpetual injunction vide OS No. 515/2012 before the same court. In both the suits the parties and the suit schedule property are one and the same and trial has not yet commenced in both the suits. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by all the parties in both the suits will be useful in deciding the both suits at once by passing a common judgment in order to avoid conflicting judgments by two different courts. Therefore, it is just and proper to heard the matters together to avoid miscarriage of justice.

3.No counter filed by respondents No.6 to 11 and 13 and no representation made on their behalf, hence right to file counter by respondents No.6 to 11 and 13 is forfeited. Respondent No.12 remained set exparte.

4.Counter is filed by respondents No.1 to 5 denying the averments of the petition and that the claims sought in both the suits are different and involving different sets of defendants and that the suit in OS No.74/2020 is coming up for plaintiffs evidence the respondents No.6 to 13 herein filed suit vide OS No.

777/2022 is coming up for filing of written statement and the plea for transfer appears to delay the proceedings in both the suits and hence petition be dismissed.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the case records.

6. Now the point for consideration is:- “Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed? ”

Page 5 of 6 Tr.O.P.No. 26 of 2024

POINT :

7.Having regard to both the said contentions and as seen from the record, the suit vide OS No. 74/2020 filed by the petitioner herein is for declaration of title and consequently for Perpetual Injunction and the suit filed by the respondents No.6 to 13 herein vide OS No.777/2022 is for declaration and injunction.

8. There is no tenable objection in the counter. In both the suits, the parties are the same and the suit schedule property is one and the same. The parties and the subject matter involved in both the suits are likely to revolve around same facts. The suit schedule property as shown in both the plaint schedule is one and the same. Full fledged trial has not yet completed in either of the suits. The reliefs sought are interrelated in both the suits revolve around same set of facts.

However, no prejudice is caused to either of the parties if both the suits are tried by the same court. On the other hand, the task of putting-forth the case facts and the task of cross examination which again revolve around similar set of facts, becomes easier for both the parties to proceed with the case as it saves time.

Further, the possibility of conflicting judgments by two different courts can be avoided. In the above said circumstances, point is answered accordingly.

9. In the result, petition is allowed by ordering transfer of OS No. 74/2020 on the file of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal to the

Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at

Medchal to be tried simultaneously along with OS No. 777/2022. The Prl.Senior

Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal is requested to transmit the

Page 6 of 6 Tr.O.P.No. 26 of 2024 record in the suit, duly indexed to the Court of II Addl. District Judge, at Medchal within 10 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of December, 2025.

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Medchal- Malkajgiri District, At Kushaiguda.

Copy to:

1. The Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Medchal

2. II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Medchal.

Order Record 251 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
T.R.O.P/26/2024	M/s.Ring Road warehousing Private Ltd vs Neerudi Vykuntam and others	18 Dec 2025	order	—
CRLA/938/2018	Sivaratri Suresh and 2 others vs The State of TS through PS Kushaiguda	17 Dec 2025	judgement	Acquitted
F.C.O.P/837/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	17 Dec 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/558/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	16 Dec 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/758/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	16 Dec 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/80/2023	XXXXX vs XXXXX	11 Dec 2025	order	—
OS/306/2015	P Ramesh vs P Suneetha	08 Dec 2025	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/361/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	06 Dec 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/417/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	06 Dec 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/425/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	06 Dec 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/844/2024	B SURESH GOUD vs B SHALINI	06 Dec 2025	order	—
G.W.O.P/63/2024	M KALPANA vs TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN	06 Dec 2025	order	—
SC/649/2016	P.S. MALKAJGIRI vs N. SATISH KUMAR AND 3 OTHERS	05 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/19/2025	Avadhanam Ramesh and 2 others vs Vs1) District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District 2) Tahsildar Kapra Mandal 3) All concerned	04 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CRLA/1159/2017	Vundi Lalitha Sai vs G. Raghuramuloo	04 Dec 2025	judgement	—
AS/15/2018	T Padma Rao vs Thori Tirumala Rao	02 Dec 2025	judgement	—
EP/1/2024	Solleti Pratap Reddy vs Kuthadi Srinivas	02 Dec 2025	order	—
CRLRP/51/2021	THE STATE OF TELANGANA P.S.KUSHAIGUDA REP. BY PP vs M. SRINIVAS YADAV	02 Dec 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/716/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	02 Dec 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/933/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	02 Dec 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/703/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	28 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/357/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	27 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/916/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	27 Nov 2025	order	—
G.W.O.P/27/2025	K Kanaka Durga and 2 others vs To whomsoever it may concerned	26 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/398/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	25 Nov 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/9/2024	B.Anitha and another vs T.Srikanth and 4 others	25 Nov 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/37/2025	Chandrakala vs B. Swarooparani	25 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/438/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	24 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/454/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	20 Nov 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/29/2023	Veereshewar Swamy Gurupadayya Salimath vs K.Sucharitha and 7 others	20 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/34/2019	XXXXX vs XXXXX	19 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/147/2022	XXXXX vs XXXXX	18 Nov 2025	order	—
G.W.O.P/14/2025	T Srilatha and another vs All Concerned	18 Nov 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/9/2025	P.V.L.N. Raju and another vs N.Sagar and another	18 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/316/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	14 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/323/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	14 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/623/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	14 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/369/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	13 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/673/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	13 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/269/2023	R SAI KIRAN vs SHRUTHI AINDALA VASANTH	11 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/487/2021	NARAYANA RATHOD vs MALAVATH RAMYASREE	06 Nov 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/13/2025	K. Amarnath and another vs N. Sharada and another	06 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/159/2021	XXXXX vs XXXXX	04 Nov 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/30/2024	P.Lakshmi vs L.Nageswara Rao and another	04 Nov 2025	order	—
MVOP/237/2022	Nomula Krishna and 2 others vs Karnolla Srinivas and 2 others	03 Nov 2025	order	—
MVOP/246/2022	Nomula Krishna and 2 others vs Karnolla Srinivas and 2 others	03 Nov 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/311/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	31 Oct 2025	order	—
CRLA/569/2018	The State of telanagana,through,Si Of police,P.S.Neredmet,Cyberabad vs Rama @ Jarrat	28 Oct 2025	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/250/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	25 Oct 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/500/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	25 Oct 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/548/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	24 Oct 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/693/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	24 Oct 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/791/2024	P PAULIN SARAH LUKAS vs J P PRAVEEN KUMAR	24 Oct 2025	order	—
MVOP/31/2018	Shivagalla Balaiah vs Dusari Mahesh and 2 others	23 Oct 2025	order	—
CRLA/171/2021	B. KISHORE vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA THROUGH PS NEREDMET	23 Oct 2025	judgement	—
G.W.O.P/65/2024	Bazar Shravanthi Goud and 2 others vs Danthuri Bharath Kumar Goud	23 Oct 2025	order	—
MC/17/2021	B. SUJATHA vs B. RAJA SHEKHAR	22 Oct 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/952/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	22 Oct 2025	order	—
OS/176/2022	R.L. AGARWAL vs T. RAMCHANDRA SAI	16 Oct 2025	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/662/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	16 Oct 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/34/2024	V.V. SUBBA RAO vs P RAMACHANDRUDU	16 Oct 2025	order	—
AS/63/2024	M.ChandraSekhar Rao vs G.Aruna Padma and 4 others	15 Oct 2025	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/1674/2022	Thotapalli HItavani alias Mungara vs Thotalpalli Gautham sharma	15 Oct 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/49/2024	Pakhir Malla Reddy vs Pakhir Anji Reddy and 05 others	14 Oct 2025	order	—
SC/1019/2021	THE STATE THROUGH PS KEESARA vs LAVUDYA SAROJA	13 Oct 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/26/2023	Dr.Challa Sri Rama Reddy and11 others vs A.K. George and 10 others	13 Oct 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/27/2023	Challa Gayatri Devi and 8 others vs Katukuri Koteshwar Goud and 5 others	13 Oct 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/28/2023	Challa Gayatri Devi vs Katukuri Koteshwar Goud and 2 others	13 Oct 2025	order	—
MC/221/2018	Kavadi Jaya vs Kavadi Narsing Rao	12 Oct 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/34/2019	XXXXX vs XXXXX	12 Oct 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/35/2019	XXXXX vs XXXXX	12 Oct 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/430/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	11 Oct 2025	order	—
AS/35/2022	mohammad Kaleemullah shareef vs Gajula vishal Bhaskar rao	10 Oct 2025	judgement	—
MVOP/7/2020	BANDI CHANDRA SHEKAR RAO AND ANOTHER vs C. SATYANARAYANA RAJU AND 2 OTHERS	09 Oct 2025	order	—
MVOP/408/2015	G Rajender Reddy vs Bhushanam Krishna	09 Oct 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/231/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	09 Oct 2025	order	—
OS/116/2024	1) G. Swapna 2) Gone Srinivas Reddy vs The Tahsildar, Medipally and all concerned	08 Oct 2025	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/211/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	08 Oct 2025	order	—
CRLA/1297/2017	Cheera Beerappa vs P.S. KEESARA	07 Oct 2025	judgement	—
CRLA/411/2016	Vatte Vijay Reddy vs The State of Telangana	27 Sep 2025	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/601/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	27 Sep 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/791/2021	J.H. AMBIKA vs Y. SHANKARAIAH	27 Sep 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/189/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	26 Sep 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/1045/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	26 Sep 2025	order	—
G.W.O.P/8/2025	Baby Jaashmita and 2 others vs All concerned	26 Sep 2025	order	—
CRLA/903/2019	K. GIRIBABU vs K. SHANTAMMA	25 Sep 2025	judgement	—
CRLA/931/2019	D.B. SRINIVASA RAO vs PANTAGADA PUNNAMANDA AND 4 OTHERS	25 Sep 2025	judgement	—
MVOP/19/2022	K. Madhav REddy vs Vsch. srinivas.	24 Sep 2025	order	—
OS/162/2024	Mrs. Surao Sunitha and 2 others vs Vs1) Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal 2) All Concerned	24 Sep 2025	order	—
CMA/35/2024	Lake View Enclave Residents R.Satish kumar vs Kiranmai Kavali	23 Sep 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/191/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	23 Sep 2025	order	—
G.W.O.P/22/2019	J SREEVALLI AND 2 OTHERS vs UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICALS REP. BY ITS MP.J. VASUDEVA REDDY AND 3 OTHERS	23 Sep 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/641/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	22 Sep 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/598/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	19 Sep 2025	order	—
SC/58/2018	THE STATE OF TELANAGANA THROUGH SI OF POLICE MALKAJGIRI vs S. CHANDRA SHEKAR	18 Sep 2025	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/174/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	18 Sep 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/520/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	18 Sep 2025	order	—
T.R.O.P/53/2024	M Lalitha vs K Venkata Satyanarayana	18 Sep 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/170/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	17 Sep 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/1004/2022	XXXXX vs XXXXX	17 Sep 2025	order	—

Showing 100 of 251 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2025		20
Nov 2025		26
Oct 2025		33
Sep 2025		40
Aug 2025		27
Jul 2025		26
Jun 2025		44
May 2025		28
Apr 2025		10

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI handled?

SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI has handled 254 court orders since 2025 at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 31 orders per month.

What types of cases does SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI hear?

Based on available records, SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, Criminal Cases) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI currently posted?

SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI is posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana.

Are judgments by SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI dispose cases?

SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI disposes approximately 31 cases per month, based on 254 orders handled over their tenure at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI serving?

SMT. S.N. SREEDEVI has been serving at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex since 2025.

Case Types

F 64%

T 9%

CRLA 9%

MC 4%

MVOP 4%

G 4%

OS 4%

SC 2%

Posting History

Apr 2025 — Dec 2025

Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court · 254 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. G.harika

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistra...

244 orders

Sri L.Raju

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl Judicial Magi...

54 orders

Smt. J.prasanthi

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl Judicial Ma...

350 orders

Smt. Potedar Sarala Rekha

III Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Addl Judicial...

27 orders

Sri. V.Bala Bhaskar Rao

Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family C...

17 orders

Smt. Chittibomma Ashalatha

Fast Track Special Judge for expeditious trial and...

145 orders

Sri. B.Tirupathi

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge-cum-Addl.Family...

853 orders

Sri. D.kiran Kumar

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge

956 orders

Ms. N. Amaravathi

II ADJ-Cum- I Addl MSJ -cum- II Spl Sessions Judge...

140 orders

Smt Rachapudi Sreedevi

Principal Family Court

0 orders

Smt. K. Uma Devi

Additional Family Court

0 orders

Sri. Sattu Ravinder

I Addl.Senior Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial...

43 orders

← View all judges at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex